Softball Trivia
 

I'm finding very little agreement with me (just Dave, really) with what I am POSITIVE is the correct ruling... so I thought I'd post here. Even my LY supervisor disagrees with me. I'm changing the play slightly to clarify part of the original question that was not clear...

Bases loaded, 1 out. The batter pops up, and the ump calls "infield fly!" No one makes an attempt to field it, and the ball lands near the 1B line, where it hits the batter in fair territory as she is jogging out the hit. After the ball richochets off the batter, R1 on third comes off the bag; the 1B picks up the ball and fires to 3rd, where they tag the runner there, who was still off base. What's the call?

All right, I'll give this a shot without checking a rules book. (Good to get the softball rules blood flowing.)

The IFF penalty is enforced as soon as the ball is fair. (In this case, when it hit B1.) Since B1 was retired the moment the ball became fair, I'm gonna say the ball hitting B1 is interference by a retired runner which causes the ball to become dead. B1 is out and the runner closest to home (R1) is out. The subsequent play on R1 is of no consequence.

Am I close?

You are close if all those people I insist are wrong are instead right! :) (Yours is the crux of the argument I disagree with).

I'll ask just one follow up question to you specifically... if the ball becomes fair the instant it hits the BR (making BR - was BR out BEFORE the ball hit him?) IOW - he wasn't "retired" until the exact same instant that the (supposed) interference occurred.

However, I will also say this is NOT the crux of the argument, to me.

Looks like in ASA you only have 1 out. 8.2.i says:
I. When an infield fly is declared and the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner
before reaching first base.
EFFECT: The ball is dead and the infield fly is invoked.

As far as I know, in the IFR the batter is out at the moment the ball is struck; as long as it turns out to be an IF and that includes being fair.

The batter running toward 1st was retired because the above happened.
That seems like a dead ball to me.

I am going to answer this with some words of wisdom from MD Longhorn himself when I found myself in his situation last week...cause after all I feel his frustration.

"In my experience, if 99% of the people are saying one thing, and one person is saying something different, it's the one that's wrong 99% of the time. If you find yourself thinking you're the only one on this board that knows something, I guarantee you that you're wrong" MD Longhorn

"But sure, you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Everyone. OK. Nice ego there" MD Longhorn

Serious though MD...I feel your frustration.

B1 is out upon contact with a fair batted ball. Dead ball. INT only if there is INT. Runners not called out for INT, are on the base last touched at the time of the INT.

And, regardless what happens AFTER the ball ricochets off, I am going to have a hard time seeing an interference at the time of contact when your OP states "no one makes an attempt to field it".

BR is not out until it's an IFF which requires the ball to be fair. Since the question of fair/foul cannot be answered until, in this case, it hits the BR, then yes, it is instantaneously both of the following: a fair ball and an IFF.

Steve, this is a valid point IMO. In fact, as stated in the OP this alleged interference may have actually been of great assistance to the defense. :eek:

Mike, what are you saying would the proper ruling IYO?

Hmmmm. Is the batter-runner really a viable batter-runner for rules purposes after she's been declared out do to the IFF? Or is she no longer a viable batter-runner once that declaration has been made?

I don't see anything that would lead us to keep her as a batter-runner while the ball's disposition of fair or foul is still up in the air (no pun intended). Suppose the batter hits a very high fly that is declared an IFF. Before it reaches the ground, the batter-runner passes the runner at first base. Do you then call her out for passing the runner and score it that way in the book? Or do you still have her out for the IFF?

I'm not sure if that's what Mike is hung up on, nor am I sure it has any bearing on this particular play. I guess the question boils down to this: Is this considered a fair batted ball hitting a batter-runner, or a fair batted ball blocked by an offensive team member?

If we are talking ASA,
I don't understand what else needs to be said.

The answer I have is that IF it is a fair batted ball, then that is a retired offensive team member that blocked the ball, not a batter-runner; but if it ends up foul, it is simply a foul ball. Nothing inherently wrong with a batter running to first instinctively when hitting the ball, even if she can't ever actually be a batter-runner in this case.

Despite being blocked (and thus immediately dead) by the retired batter, there must be a "play" for there to be interference.

What he said.

Mr. MD Longhorn
 

Mr. MD Longhorn,
OK, what was (is) it that you want the call to be?

Maybe
 

I'm reading too much into this or not thinking it through but...if a runner going from 1st to 2nd is hit with a fair batted ball do we get the runner closest to home out also?

Well played sir. A minor difference though... the board where this was originally taken is mostly fans, coaches, parents, etc --- the actual umpires posting there were split about 60/40 (still against me, but not 99.9%). And what you quoted is EXACTLY the reason I posted it here... if everyone but me on THIS board said I was wrong, I would most likely be wrong.

Without delving into the rule books that I don't have handy, the only out recorded here is on the runner who was hit with the batted ball, unless you judge she did something to prevent a double play.

Outs on runners closest to home typically occur when a player who has already been put out interferes with a play.

Here's the thing ... I'm not hung up. I AGREE with the posts from Mike, Dave, Steve, you... The majority of that other board, including my own supervisor/scheduler from last year, insisted that there was 2 outs on this play.

I can slice this about 3 different ways, but always end up with 1 out.

1) BR is out when the ball gains "fair" status - which is exactly when it contacts him. So he's out on the IFF at the same moment he's struck by a batted ball, and out for that too. No logic requires a 2nd out here.
2) 8-2-I: I. When an infield fly is declared and the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner before reaching first base. EFFECT: The ball is dead and the infield fly is invoked.
3) If you (for whatever reason) insist that BR is out the instant IFF is called - then we have an offensive team member (retired runner) being struck by a batted ball - so all the plays about a runner being struck by a batted ball do not apply - this player is no longer a runner, and you can only use 8-7-P, which would only be an out if a play was available at the moment the ball struck the retired runner... which it's not.

The non-umpire peanut gallery where this was initially posted were nearly unanimous in their support of 2 outs... as were a slight majority of the umpires.

I feel better now that I (and Dave, who also posted there) are not insane. Or if we are, it's not because of this.

Apples and oranges, man. Think through the basic rules about interference in softball (with one NCAA exception that tries to follow smallball logic) and who is out.

1) The person who interferes is always the person that is out. (Here is the NCAA exception that would only cloud this point).
2) If the person that interferes cannot be called out on interference, it is always (again, except one exception for the traditional "turning two in the middle" doubleplay) the runner closest to home that is out.

#2 exists to cover 1) offensive players that are already out (like on an IFF:D), 2) runners that have already scored, 3) offensive coaches, 4) on-deck batters, and 5) whatever idiot on the offensive team that left loose equipment on the field. There may be a type 6, but I can't think of one.

So, you are asking about a #1 interference penalty, when this thread is dealing with one form of #2 (NO, there isn't any such designation, just referring within this post for clarity.)

In this case, near the line, the proper call is Infield Fly If Fair. Therefore she wouldn't been declared Out yet.

As far as I know, in the IFR the batter is out at the moment the ball is struck; as long as it turns out to be an IF and that includes being fair.
NFHS 8.2.9, NCAA 12.4.7 say "when she hits"

That would mean the out actually occurs before the "call" and before the fair/foul determination; so the B is already out before anything else happens.

What does ASA Rule 8-2-I say?

That the batter is out if struck by an infield fly.

I have not found "the batter is out" on an infield fly. :confused:

You don't need to. The batter is out. Ball is dead. There is NO other opportunity for an out. 1 out. Next batter.

The question of when the batter is out when she hits a ball that could be called an IF is when the status of the ball has been determined (fair or foul).

As mentioned in other posts, a ball could be hit in the infield where no one makes a play on it. It lands between 2B and the pitcher's plate and then spins foul between home and either 1B or 3B. At that point, the ball is foul, the batter is not out. So clearly, the batter is not out when the ball is struck or even when the umpire delcares an IF.

If a ball close to the 1B line hits the BR in fair territory, it's a dead ball and the BR is out.

If it was a super high fly ball and the runner from 3B was running on the pitch and touched home before the ball hit the BR, I think you score that run. Dissenters?

I hope the dissenters would be everybody. I'll ask again ... what does Rule 8-2-I say?

:confused:That's what I have been wondering, myself.... especially since Dave the exact rule a week ago! :confused::rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, when and why did 8-2-I change its wording? I have a PDF version of the 2008 rule book, and here's how 8-2-I was written back then:

"[Batter-runner is out] When an infield fly is declared. If the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner before reaching first base, the ball is dead and the infield fly is invoked."

The latest version of the rule runs both sentences together so that it reads,

"When an infield fly is declared and the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner before reaching first base."

Why the change? Heck, you could almost read it as saying that the ball HAS to hit the batter-runner to invoke the IFR! :p

I see no quantitative difference between the first and the second, so I'm not seeing the issue. The latter is clearer, at least, and covers exactly the situation it's supposed to cover.

Regarding your last sentence, that's true. the ball HAS to hit the batter runner to invoke THIS rule. Luckily for all of us, there are many other parts to this rule to describe the other ways IFR might come into play.

Exactly, which is why I don't understand the rationale behind the change.

The older version is just as clear to me, if not more so.

That is how the rule is written. I'm sure that is not the intent.

I write for a living. I cringe each year as I read rule books, because often the rules are not worded well and do not impart the intent of the rule.

"When an infield fly is declared and the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner before reaching first base."
Worded this way, the batter-runner would NOT be out unless both pieces were true - infield fly must be declared, AND the fair batted ball must hit the batter-runner before reaching first base. A coach who has a grasp of English could argue this well (but would still lose, as we all understand the intent of the rule). But that is an argument we, as umpires, should never have to face. IMO, the rule was much clearer in previous editions.

Except that by rule, the IFF is in effect, even if it was not signaled/verbalized at the normal peak of the fly ball.

This argument is asinine. Take your logic to any other rule...

8-7-B: "The runner is out when the ball is live and while the runner is not in contact with the base, the runner is legally touched with the ball in the hands of the fielder."

Therefore, by your way of reading the book, if a fielder catches the ball and steps on a base the runner is forced to, the runner is not out ... because all the pieces of 8-7-B have not been fulfilled.

Is this stupid? Of course it is ... because there are 24 other letters in rule 8-7.

It's just as absurd as the way you're parsing this rule. You're intentionally omitting the first (and most important) sentence and reading the 2nd sentence alone and out of context. The second sentence is merely a clarification of what happens in one specific instance, just as 8-7-b is one specific instance.

.

The argument may be asinine and stupid, but what else is there to talk about? ;)

The conumdrum is that nowhere does it definitively state that a batter-runner is out if he/she hits an infield fly, period. It doesn't say that in the Rule 1 Definitions. That only defines what constitutes an Infield Fly.

8-2-I used to under the old rule, but now it reads as if it requires the batter-runner to be hit with the ball. Yes, that may cover one specific instance. But the "routine" infield fly declaration was removed when the two sentences were combined into one.

8-2-J only says an Infield Fly has precedence over an intentionally dropped ball. But again, what do you go back to to find that precedence?

8-4-L mentions the Infield Fly, but only in the context of when other runners may advance.

9-1-A provides guidance on an Infield Fly as it relates to protests.

The NCAA rule book definitively states a batter is out if she hits an infield fly under Defintion 1.68 and Rule 11.18. The NFHS rule book also clearly states that in Definition 2-30 and in Rule 8-2-9. The ASA book? Not anymore.

I know, I know. Asinine and stupid. But to me, equally mysterious. :p

I'm soooooo glad my season is under way.:cool:

Lucky. My first scrimmage is March 5. And I'm sure I'll be wearing four layers... :(

:D...I knew we could get along

Huh?

The very rule you keep referring to. Under 8-2 (The batter is out...), Rule I: "When an Infield Fly is called."

I can't see that as being any clearer.

Oops, you went too far on that one. The NCAA rule ONLY applies if the infield fly is declared; unlike other levels of softball which acknowledge that misapplying the infield fly (failing to declare an obvious infield fly when the rule does apply) is correctable.

This is one rule in NCAA which, if misapplied (not talking judgment, saying umpires just didn't declare it) cannot be corrected. Guess what that leads to? The coach that claims he didn't hear it, so it must not have been declared!!:eek::eek:

My ASA rule book doesn't have a period after "called" under that rule. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Hmmm... that's incredibly odd. Mine does. Is the "I" capitalized in yours?

What Manny writes in post #28 is true. The wording changed between 2011 and 2012. We now have two clauses joined by "and".

Stranger and stranger. For both years, I have a Participants Manual and an Umpire's Manual. The UM stays with my gear at all times. The PM is the one I keep here at work. The 2012 PM has a period, not an 'and'. Very Very odd.

I now completely get your point, Manny. My apologies.

No worries, Mike. I've never seen a Participants Manual before, and I would have assumed that the Umpire's Manual is verbatim what is written in the PM, with the added umpire-only material in the back.

It appears that the change that was made in the UM did not get reflected in the PM. I still don't understand why that change was made in the UM.