INT and IFF in one play

[Dutch Alex]

Hi Guys,

I just got back from a small week vacation so I wasn't able to post this question before. The following happened last Saturday to me as BU in a top league Dutch competition game. R1 on 2nd and R2 on 1st, one out. A high, really high batted fly ball goes towards F6. R1 heading towards 3th base interferes F6, who has to go forwards to catch the ball.
On the highest point of batted ball PU calls out the IFF, a fraction later I call the INT and kill the play.
Not important anymore is the fact that the ball off course is dropped. However we agreed to have the 2 outs in this play, since the IFF was called before the INT.

Did we handle this one correct? Rule set is ISF, but ASA will do as well (is more or less similair)

thnx in advance!

[jmkupka]

my guess is 8.7L (exception): If a runner interferes with an ordinary-effort catch, the runner is out and the batter-runner is out. This entire citation is a paraphrase, because it's from memory. My guess is that IFF is irrelevant.

Can't wait to see the official interp

[AtlUmpSteve]

Yes. Pretty sure there is an ASA case play on this, or a similar situation, but the concept is sound. The interference actually kept F6 from doubling off that runner; batter is already out by the infield fly rule.

I don't think it matters that the IFF was called first. Just like we can (and must) assert that rule if it was misapplied by not calling it in live time when it obviously applies, so would the application call for that decision after the interference.

I always try to remind people when discussing the infield fly rule that it is half judgment and half a rule application; we do not change the live judgment that it wasn't an infield fly (not catchable by an infielder with ordinary effort, or a line drive vs fly), we do change the misapplication of the rule (forgot how many outs, forgot where runners were, forgot pitcher and catcher are infielders, etc.). That would still apply here, if the ball was made dead before it was called.

[jmkupka]

Steve, I've always heard it's never too late to declare the IFF, but never heard how (to declare the delayed IFF).

Say we both miss the fact that it's in effect, the batter pops up, ordinary catch is dropped, and (a) multiple outs are made because runners didn't run, or (b) no outs are made due to runners off on the pitch.

In (a) when OC complains about the no-IFF call, do we protect the runners back to 1st & 2nd and call batter out?

In (b) when DC complains about the no-IFF call, do we send the runners back to 1st & 2nd and call batter out?

This assumes that we agree that IFF should have been called, we just missed it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Steve, I've always heard it's never too late to declare the IFF, but never heard how (to declare the delayed IFF).

Say we both miss the fact that it's in effect, the batter pops up, ordinary catch is dropped, and (a) multiple outs are made because runners didn't run, or (b) no outs are made due to runners off on the pitch.

In (a) when OC complains about the no-IFF call, do we protect the runners back to 1st & 2nd and call batter out?

In (b) when DC complains about the no-IFF call, do we send the runners back to 1st & 2nd and call batter out?

This assumes that we agree that IFF should have been called, we just missed it.

In both A and B, you're better off if YOU decide you made a mistake and fix it rather than wait for coach to complain and then fix it.

That said, in A, you would put the runners back on 1st and 2nd and rule the batter out.
In B, you would not send the runners back - they were allowed to run at their own risk, did so, and were safe. You would rule the batter out. However - if the runners were off on the pitch, why were they? It seems possible if not probable that this was not an IFF after all - if they were both running, one might presume the reason they were running was that it was not obviously easily catchable. It seems odd to me that both runners would break and advance (and not frantically return) during a fly ball that is later ruled to be easily catchable.

Keep in mind that IFF is not designed to give the defense an easy out, it's designed to prevent the defense from getting an unearned double play - protecting the OFFENSE.

[jmkupka]

True, Mike, A is the much more likely scenario, and easily fixable albeit with some grumbling from the defense (which we brought on ourselves). But in the case of a double-steal, wouldn't be the first time runners just stood on their new bases, wide-eyed, trying to sort out the multiple instructions they hear from all directions at once. Again, caused by us.

But, in either case, it seems like an easily remedied situation.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Steve, I've always heard it's never too late to declare the IFF, but never heard how (to declare the delayed IFF).

Say we both miss the fact that it's in effect, the batter pops up, ordinary catch is dropped, and (a) multiple outs are made because runners didn't run, or (b) no outs are made due to runners off on the pitch.

In (a) when OC complains about the no-IFF call, do we protect the runners back to 1st & 2nd and call batter out?

In (b) when DC complains about the no-IFF call, do we send the runners back to 1st & 2nd and call batter out?

This assumes that we agree that IFF should have been called, we just missed it.

Your (a) is the exact reason the rule exists; to protect runners that shouldn't be forced to advance when the rule applies. So, yes, absolutely what you said.

In (b), the defense deserves the IFF out; only. They do not get any other protection for failing to catch the ball and allowing runners to advance safely, at risk.

You missed the worst scenario. In (c), no call is made, ball is dropped, runners are out while attempting to advance thinking they have to, defense made "force plays" without tagging any runners thinking they don't have to. Now you realize it was an infield fly, batter is out; but there were no forces. Oh, happy day. DC wants the force outs, OC wants runners to have safely advanced since not forced, so not out.

(c) Batter is out, put runners back on 1st and second in THIS scenario; delayed/reversed call disadvantaged both teams.