Three scenarios from this season

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I agree that seems to be the question.

Let's take the "I dunno" out of it and say it was a fair ball.

BR out by rule, so she is retired at the time of the interference (even if the IF is called late).

If the umpire judges that the fielder had a chance for a live ball appeal on one of the other runners, is the runner closest to home out?

I agree with your logic above, if it had been clearly fair. The batter is out when the fair ball reaches its apex, which it did before the INT, making it an easy INT by retired batter.

To me (as OP) the "I dunno" was the key part of the fustercluck. My partner's brain fell out, and when we conferenced, he DID NOT KNOW if the ball was fair or foul. It was like we had Schrödinger's Infield Fly. Before the INT, the runner was either out or still safe, but no one was certain of the state of the ball, and thus the state of the runner.

I did not judge that there was another play to be made on a runner, everyone was tagged up on the popup. Thank goodness: that would have made it even worse.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I agree with your logic above, if it had been clearly fair. The batter is out when the fair ball reaches its apex, which it did before the INT, making it an easy INT by retired batter.

I have a number of problems with this.

First, you've created a strange category of balls that are clearly fair as opposed to possibly fair. I can't imagine that anyone writing the rulebook imagined they were creating a situation where an IF if fair had different interference penalties than a regularly IF. Can one retroactively determine that the if fair part applied?
But principally, the problem with this is that you can't know if a ball will end up fair or foul by where it is in the air (unless we have interference while it's in the air). So you might call IF on a ball hit right above the pitching circle which hits the corner of the rubber and kicks out into foul ground. The batter was never out in that scenario.
Now consider the case of a ball that is also not played near the line and starts bounding in and out of fair territory. Since in your definition it wasn't clearly foul, the batter wasn't out at the apex, but when are they out. Suppose it lands foul, bounces fair and is in the air in foul territory when the BR runs into the 1st basemen. What do you have and how can you possibly square that with what you said above.

Second, calling an infield fly at the apex is a mechanical point. The rule contemplates the hit, the declaration and the ball gaining status so I think you'd have to go with one of those as the moment the batter is out.

Third, if this were the right interpretation then what of the rule which very clearly states that a BR who interferes with the ball is out and the ball is dead with no one else out.

[teebob21]

I'm not picking apart your response, just engaging in constructive discussion here.

Originally Posted by youngump

I have a number of problems with this.

First, you've created a strange category of balls that are clearly fair as opposed to possibly fair. I can't imagine that anyone writing the rulebook imagined they were creating a situation where an IF if fair had different interference penalties than a regularly IF. Can one retroactively determine that the if fair part applied?
But principally, the problem with this is that you can't know if a ball will end up fair or foul by where it is in the air (unless we have interference while it's in the air).

We had INT while the ball was in air, and its fair/foul status was never determined. Had the ball been "clearly fair", i.e. not in question, we would have been able to rule on the infield fly out. Also, note that in the comment I am indulging Dakota's request to take "I dunno" out of it, and assume a fair ball.

Originally Posted by youngump

So you might call IF on a ball hit right above the pitching circle which hits the corner of the rubber and kicks out into foul ground. The batter was never out in that scenario.

I get that. I've also never seen it happen that way. Doesn't mean it can't, though. Seems like a poor mechanic then, calling it before we know with certainty whether or not it will be fair. Maybe we should shout "if fair" on every IFF? (<--- this is sarcasm)

Originally Posted by youngump

Now consider the case of a ball that is also not played near the line and starts bounding in and out of fair territory. Since in your definition it wasn't clearly foul, the batter wasn't out at the apex, but when are they out. Suppose it lands foul, bounces fair and is in the air in foul territory when the BR runs into the 1st basemen. What do you have and how can you possibly square that with what you said above.

This would be a foul ball, unless somehow a fielder had an opportunity to make an out on a batted ball that had already hit the ground, and was over foul territory.

Originally Posted by youngump

Second, calling an infield fly at the apex is a mechanical point. The rule contemplates the hit, the declaration and the ball gaining status so I think you'd have to go with one of those as the moment the batter is out.

Third, if this were the right interpretation then what of the rule which very clearly states that a BR who interferes with the ball is out and the ball is dead with no one else out.

Your second point also captures the crux of my OP: when is a BR retired on a infield fly? My partner never called infield fly, and the fair/foul status was "I dunno". Was the BR a retired runner at the time of INT or not?

We deemed that she was not, thus the defense was not awarded a second out for INT by a retired runner.

[MD Longhorn]

The enormous point the last two posts are missing...

Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball.

The only question in a situation like the OP is... where IS the ball (not where will it be) at the moment it play is dead. If over fair territory, it's fair. If over foul territory, it's foul. Everything that happens after the moment the interference occurred is irrelevant.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The enormous point the last two posts are missing...

Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball.

The only question in a situation like the OP is... where IS the ball (not where will it be) at the moment it play is dead. If over fair territory, it's fair. If over foul territory, it's foul. Everything that happens after the moment the interference occurred is irrelevant.

I'm certainly not missing that point. I just don't think it's super relevant to the discussion. If the ball is foul at the time of the interference then I think everybody agrees that we just have a foul ball (possibly with an out if it is still in the air).
The key question here is when is the BR out. I say they are out at the moment the ball gains status. Irish says the BR is out when they hit the ball. If he's right, then when the BR interferes with a fielder (while the ball is fair), we have interference by a retired runner and a double play.
If I'm right, then when the BR interferes, she is not yet retired and we only get a single out.
If the interference had been with the ball, there is a rule that implies only take one out. But it's silent for a fielder. But it seems to me the rules should treat those two situations the same.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm certainly not missing that point. I just don't think it's super relevant to the discussion. If the ball is foul at the time of the interference then I think everybody agrees that we just have a foul ball (possibly with an out if it is still in the air).
The key question here is when is the BR out. I say they are out at the moment the ball gains status. Irish says the BR is out when they hit the ball. If he's right, then when the BR interferes with a fielder (while the ball is fair), we have interference by a retired runner and a double play.
If I'm right, then when the BR interferes, she is not yet retired and we only get a single out.
If the interference had been with the ball, there is a rule that implies only take one out. But it's silent for a fielder. But it seems to me the rules should treat those two situations the same.

The BR is out the moment it is declared fair. The ball (assuming it's over fair territory) is fair the moment of the interference. She is not a retired runner at the moment of interference.

(PS --- if she IS retired, then the out she supposedly prevented by interfering with the fielder catching the fly ball has already been recorded - you can't call the same person out twice.)

[jmkupka]

Irish, is it your point that, when BR interferes, and renders the ball fair, she is retroactively out (and is a retired runner) from the moment she hit the ball?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Irish, is it your point that, when BR interferes, and renders the ball fair, she is retroactively out (and is a retired runner) from the moment she hit the ball?

My position is the player is out as soon as she hits the ball that qualifies as an IF.

The ball was put into play and cannot be ignored

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My position is the player is out as soon as she hits the ball that qualifies as an IF.

The ball was put into play and cannot be ignored

And just to be clear, if she then runs into a fielder who is trying to catch that ball?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The BR is out the moment it is declared fair. The ball (assuming it's over fair territory) is fair the moment of the interference. She is not a retired runner at the moment of interference.

(PS --- if she IS retired, then the out she supposedly prevented by interfering with the fielder catching the fly ball has already been recorded - you can't call the same person out twice.)

So, I disagree with that initial premise; the batter is NOT out when it is declared fair, the batter is out when she hits a ball that can be judged an IFF in an IFF situation. The ball is assumed fair until it is not; and THEN, if determined not fair, the batter is not out. That is why we declare the IFF even if unsure it will be fair; we can always reverse that status after the fact with less jeopardy. And, thus, the batter is out, even if not declared initially; because she hit a ball that can be (and should be, and therefore IS) an IFF.

This is similar to our instruction that every pitch is potentially a strike; and we should consider it a strike, until it isn't.

These basic premises allow us to see "border line" situations as possible strikes and outs; it helps us maintain the edge to see the outs (and strikes), wherever and when ever they occur. It may be easy to see balls and safes whenever there is a close play; but that isn't why we are there.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

And just to be clear, if she then runs into a fielder who is trying to catch that ball?

Then the runner closest to home should be ruled out.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then the runner closest to home should be ruled out.

Fair enough. Any insight on why running into the fielder is different from running into the ball?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, I disagree with that initial premise; the batter is NOT out when it is declared fair, the batter is out when she hits a ball that can be judged an IFF in an IFF situation. The ball is assumed fair until it is not; and THEN, if determined not fair, the batter is not out. That is why we declare the IFF even if unsure it will be fair; we can always reverse that status after the fact with less jeopardy. And, thus, the batter is out, even if not declared initially; because she hit a ball that can be (and should be, and therefore IS) an IFF.

This is similar to our instruction that every pitch is potentially a strike; and we should consider it a strike, until it isn't.

These basic premises allow us to see "border line" situations as possible strikes and outs; it helps us maintain the edge to see the outs (and strikes), wherever and when ever they occur. It may be easy to see balls and safes whenever there is a close play; but that isn't why we are there.

OK. So in your mind the batter is out prior to the interference... what play did that batter interfere with then? The catching of the ball would not have produced another out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

OK. So in your mind the batter is out prior to the interference... what play did that batter interfere with then? The catching of the ball would not have produced another out.

Live ball appeal would be another out.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Live ball appeal would be another out.

Fair enough - if runners are off their bases I could see that, although that is NOT the play that was interfered with, you could use the "interference with a possible double play" part to justify the 2nd out.

Given this was called IFF, though - most often the runners immediately return. If you have runners standing on their bases, there is really no possible other out.