rule cite - IFR
 

Probably just me being confused, but where in the ASA book is the rule that says the batter is out for an infield fly. :confused:

It doesn't. ASA 8.2.I says the batter-runner is out when an infield fly is declared.

What year rulebook are you referencing?

Don't have my 2013 rulebook with me but the 2012 rule book states:

Section 2. BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.
I. When an infield fly is declared and the fair batted ball hits the batter- runner before reaching first base.

Bolding mine. Hope they corrected it for 2013.

Yes, I was being generic instead of rule specific.

The 2013 is the same and that is part of my question.

Mea Culpa. I picked up the 2010 book. There is a period immediately after "When an infield fly is declared". Same for 2011. Changed in 2012.

Didn't we go round and round about this before, somewhere?

Yes, but I could not find it, "infield" and IFR are too common in our forum.

@IrishMafia,
Shouldn't the "and" be "or"? Has this been corrected in an interpretation or correction?

No. They (ASA) changed the rule for 2012 and apparently, still hasn't caught it yet.

The rule should read (as it did in 2011):

I. 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.

Thank you

How does the "infield fly is invoked" apply if the BR is already out from being hit?

The BR isn't out for being hit, they are out because you invoked the IF. The result of the now non-participant is the ball is dead and not runners may advance.

So, what it is really saying is the invoking of the IFR still applies, but now the ball is dead.

Why does it specify the BR, as opposed to any runner off base being hit by an uncaught infield fly? (Before passing a fielder of course).
If it is not just the BR that would cause a dead ball, why mention it at all, any batted ball hitting a runner or batter-runner is dead, isn't it?

The result would be the same if it were the runner, except you would then have a 2nd out. This was added in 2002, so I wasn't in the room for this one :) I can only assume (yeah, I know) that there were umpires confused between the difference of the IF and BR hit by batted ball and was trying to call two outs on a single player or, would ignore the IF and rule only on the hit BR.

Possibility
 

How would this situation play out with the IFR rule that is being discussed?

R1 on 2b, R2 on 1b. 0 out. R1 and R2 are stealing on the pitch and B3 hits a pop fly on the infield. The plate umpire invokes the IFR and F3 lets the ball drop, which rolls and hits B3 in fair territory. In this case B3 is out on the IFR. Even though R1 and R2 had advanced and had attained the next base when B3 was contacted by the ball, would R1 and R2 be sent back to 2b and 1b? The interference rule would allow them to stay at the base attained at the time of the interference which would be the ones they were stealing on the play 3b and 2b.