The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 10:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 647
Infield Fly

Bases loaded, no out, pop up directly over 1B line. "Infield Fly if fair"... BR interferes with F3's catch attempt as the ball hits BR over fair territory.

We now have 2 outs and R1 is removed from 3B, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 10:23am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
Bases loaded, no out, pop up directly over 1B line. "Infield Fly if fair"... BR interferes with F3's catch attempt as the ball hits BR over fair territory.

We now have 2 outs and R1 is removed from 3B, correct?
Definitely not, and ... not enough information.

I'll let you find the appropriate rule, but 2 things - a DP is contingent on the umpire's judgement, which you don't supply... and if BR interfered, the ball never hit BR - the play ended at the moment of interference.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 10:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 647
Is the (no longer) BR not now a retired runner interfering with a play?

OK, let's look at it this way...

a) Runners stick to their bases as ball lands on the ground (after BR & F3 collide) or

b) Ball skips off F3's glove (after BR & F3 collide) & rolls further infield, chaos ensues, R1 is able to score.

Just wanna see a new thread here

Last edited by jmkupka; Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 11:12am.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 11:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
Is the (no longer) BR not now a retired runner interfering with a play?

OK, let's look at it this way...

a) Runners stick to their bases as ball lands on the ground (after BR & F3 collide) or

b) Ball skips off F3's glove (after BR & F3 collide) & rolls further infield, chaos ensues, R1 is able to score.

Just wanna see a new thread here
If you want to go to the trouble of reasoning it out, the BR is not retired until the ball becomes fair. So no he's not a retired runner interfering with the play.
But you don't have to go to that trouble. It's 8-2-I.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 12:05pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
If you want to go to the trouble of reasoning it out, the BR is not retired until the ball becomes fair. So no he's not a retired runner interfering with the play.
Correct.
Quote:
But you don't have to go to that trouble. It's 8-2-I.
Actually, it's 8-2-F. The ball is dead at that instant. The events that would lead you to 8-2-I happened after the ball was dead - and thus didn't happen at all.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 12:06pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
Is the (no longer) BR not now a retired runner interfering with a play?

OK, let's look at it this way...

a) Runners stick to their bases as ball lands on the ground (after BR & F3 collide) or

b) Ball skips off F3's glove (after BR & F3 collide) & rolls further infield, chaos ensues, R1 is able to score.

Just wanna see a new thread here
NOTHING that happens after BR and F3 collide matters. The ball's already dead.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 01:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
I see the scenario has already changed a couple times, so nevermind
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 02:01pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
I see the scenario has already changed a couple times, so nevermind
It's not changed at all.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 02:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
It's not changed at all.
Nothing in OP about a collision. Nothing in OP about ball hitting ground or glove.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 02:17pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Nothing in OP about a collision.
"BR interferes with F3's catch attempt" Yes, "interferes" could mean runs up and yells in her ear ... but I think the most likely meaning of the OP here is that she ran into F3... clarifying afterward that it is a collision we're talking about is not a change. In any case, clarifying that it's a collision doesn't change the answer either.

Quote:
Nothing in OP about ball hitting ground or glove.
Because it didn't hit ground or glove ... it hit BR. And who it hits after the collision is completely immaterial - plays already dead.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 02:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
"BR interferes with F3's catch attempt" Yes, "interferes" could mean runs up and yells in her ear ... but I think the most likely meaning of the OP here is that she ran into F3... clarifying afterward that it is a collision we're talking about is not a change. In any case, clarifying that it's a collision doesn't change the answer either.

Because it didn't hit ground or glove ... it hit BR. And who it hits after the collision is completely immaterial - plays already dead.
AFAIK, the original INT in the OP WAS the BR being hit with a fair batted ball.

Also, with the runners "stuck" to their respective base at the time the ball becomes dead eliminates a 2nd out since there is no possible play. However, if for some ridiculous reason any of the runners attempted to advance and there was a possible play had the retired BR not interfered, the 8.7.P may come into effect.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 18, 2013, 02:54pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
AFAIK, the original INT in the OP WAS the BR being hit with a fair batted ball.

Also, with the runners "stuck" to their respective base at the time the ball becomes dead eliminates a 2nd out since there is no possible play. However, if for some ridiculous reason any of the runners attempted to advance and there was a possible play had the retired BR not interfered, the 8.7.P may come into effect.
I agree with that ruling.

I guess I read the OP differently, with "BR interferes with F3's catch attempt" meaning contact between fielder and BR, and then BR getting hit by the ball.

I do see, upon re-reading, how you took it that it was the BR getting hit by the ball that WAS the interference. (Same ruling though, right?)
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 19, 2013, 11:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
and if BR interfered, the ball never hit BR - the play ended at the moment of interference.
Mike,

Let's go from here based on the INT occurring prior to the ball hitting the BR, or actually the retired BR.

Based on the assumption that the ball was over fair territory at the time of the INT, that player is retired.

IMO, the IF is in effect as soon as the umpire declares to be so since there is not an "oops, nevermind" option. I believe the assumption that when called, the ball is fair unless it is determined to be foul at a later point in time. The ball becoming foul after the declaration is basically the exception as opposed to the rule. Regardless, in the OP even if the ball is foul, the BR is out, there is no other option with an INT call.

That being a possible case on point, would not the only question be is whether the defense was deprived of the opportunity to retire another runner because of the INT.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 21, 2013, 06:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
Bases loaded, no out, pop up directly over 1B line. "Infield Fly if fair"... BR interferes with F3's catch attempt as the ball hits BR over fair territory.

We now have 2 outs and R1 is removed from 3B, correct?
The BR is out as soon as the umpire declares the infield fly. At the point, the BR's right to run cease. The BR is now a retired runner. The only remaining question is whether her actions after being declared out hindered the defense from continuing to field the ball and execute another play. If the offense was able to advance solely as a result of the ball hitting the retired BR and ricochetting away, then the answer would most likely be yes.

In that the IFF was declared, you are saying that it was a ball that could have been caught with ordinary effort. Base runners simply do not tag up on an IFF, especially when the defender is less than 60 feet from home plate.
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 21, 2013, 08:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 647
Irish, sorry for clouding the issue with the ball possibly going foul... it didn't.
I only described it as directly over the line in order to put the BR's running path, the ball, and F3 all on a collision path.
And it is probably the only ball location in which the BR could get in the way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Infield Fly Illini_Ref Baseball 34 Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:02am
Infield Fly to DBT cmcramer Baseball 22 Mon May 25, 2009 11:50pm
Infield Fly??? mrm21711 Baseball 28 Mon Jul 24, 2006 06:14pm
infield fly Bunky Baseball 5 Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:21pm
Infield Fly sir_eldren Baseball 10 Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:47am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1