Three scenarios from this season

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Situation 1 (Rules): BR interferes with F3 (NFHS)

(I was base umpire) Bases loaded, IFF situation. BR hits a pop-up to F3 near the bag over the baseline. I have my signal up, no verbal, and I did not hear a call from PU. BR interferes with F3's attempt to catch the ball, and is declared out by PU. Defense wants R1 on 3B out as well for interference by a retired player.

I got together with my partner on his request (not sure why, it was 115% his call and I was in no position to help judge the batted ball) and no, he had not yet declared IFF and "I dunno" if the ball was fair or foul at the time of INT. We stayed with the original call of BR out, runners return.

I know we can rectify an uncalled IFF, but we can't apply the retired-runner INT penalty to a player we haven't declared out yet, can we??

If it was an IF (and the "I dunno" may indicate there isn't), the BR is out, by rule. Now the question is of any attached jeopardy created by the delayed call? Since this is a punitive effect and that runner would have been ruled out even if the IF was called in a timely fashion, I see no jeopardy to R1 caused by the umpire's delayed ruling. R2 & R3 returned to 2B & 1B, respectively

Situation 2 (Field Mechanics): Runners on corners; stealing 2B (NFHS/NCAA)

Runners on 1B and 3B, I am base umpire. R2 on 1B steals, and F2 throws to 2B. F6 takes the throw, attempts a tag....and all I can see is F6's backside. I had stepped in from C position in a line between 2B and 3B to see a 90-degree angle of R2 coming into the base. I got blocked out like this at least twice this season. This isn't a problem when F4 takes the throw. Should I be moving somewhere else when I read a throw? Should I pay more attention to which fielder is covering?

Knowing who is taking the throw always helps. Assuming it is always going to be F4 is not a good idea. You listen to the chatter. If it is a team that will change up things every now and then, I might even ask the nearest fielder (yes, I know that is frowned upon in some cases). You do the best you can to cover the play. If you need to adjust your approach to the base, don't hesitate to grab a different angle.

Situation 3 (Game Management): Who do you eject? (NCAA)

Close ball game, I'm on the plate, 4th or 5th inning. Visiting team (on defense) crosses the line by saying a magic word regarding a ball/strike call (Assistant coach: "This guy is horrible!" among the rest of the comments). I warned the dugout that the zone was not up for discussion, and I'd heard all I was going to hear. Assistant coach wants clarification and I walk down to the bench and tell the hitting coach, assistant, and junior assistant coach to knock it off. Next pitch: swinging strike on a rise ball. Someone on the near end of the visiting bench, while I am signalling, with my eyes on the pitcher: "Blue, you sure?"

I know someone needs to leave, but I don't know exactly who that is
because I wasn't looking that way. Who do you think needs ejected?

Edit (forgot to include in OP): Unfortunately, I made a knee-jerk reaction: called time, and emphatically ejected.....someone. I knew I needed to decide quickly, so I walked the 25 feet to the end of the bench and told the AC whoever said "you sure" was done, and if no one said it, he was done. The junior assistant coach got nominated by the AC.

Well, if the manager (HC) cannot manage and control his/her team, guess there is no real reason for he/she/it to be there

Edited to satisfy Dakota's propensity for correct grammar

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...Well, if the manager (HC) cannot manage and control his/her team, guess there is no real reason for them to be there

THEM???? Teams now have a plurality of managers?

[CajunNewBlue]

you could always "get" the current pitcher...that's always a popular choice.

btw. you should have issued an official warning.

btw #2 .... the term "rabbit ears" is concerning the fans.... we as umpires are responsible for everything said and done ... inside the fences. "and sometimes outside them" in certain scenarios... warmup areas..etc.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

R3 is out for INT regardless of IF. If it was an IF (and the "I dunno" may indicate there isn't), the BR is out, by rule. Now the question is of any attached jeopardy created by the delayed call? Since this is a punitive effect and that runner would have been ruled out even if the IF was called in a timely fashion, I see no jeopardy caused by the umpire's delayed ruling.

I'm thinking that calling R3 out here is just misreading the OP? BR interfered not any of the runners.

As to the OP itself, we have this argument every so often and I thought we had settled a few times on: interference before the IF conditions are met nullifies the IF. (That is the ball was not fair yet so it wasn't an infield fly.) I have a vague memory of a rule or caseplay that says this but I'll have to look tomorrow unless someone else remembers the details.
Regardless of that, I'm sure that it cannot be correct that the determining factor in this call is when you call the batter-runner out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm thinking that calling R3 out here is just misreading the OP? BR interfered not any of the runners.

You are absolutely correct

As to the OP itself, we have this argument every so often and I thought we had settled a few times on: interference before the IF conditions are met nullifies the IF. (That is the ball was not fair yet so it wasn't an infield fly.) I have a vague memory of a rule or caseplay that says this but I'll have to look tomorrow unless someone else remembers the details.
Regardless of that, I'm sure that it cannot be correct that the determining factor in this call is when you call the batter-runner out.

I disagree. The IF is an IF. There is no method of circumventing the rule. You argue that if you cannot determine fair, it cannot be an IF. I argue that unless you can show it is foul, the IF is in effect. The status of a ball in flight when the play becomes dead is determined by its position at that time. A batted ball must be fair or foul, it cannot be an "I dunno"

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I disagree. The IF is an IF. There is no method of circumventing the rule. You argue that if you cannot determine fair, it cannot be an IF. I argue that unless you can show it is foul, the IF is in effect. The status of a ball in flight when the play becomes dead is determined by its position at that time. A batted ball must be fair or foul, it cannot be an "I dunno"

I'm not saying it's an "I dunno". I'm saying that there's no double jeopardy here. The IF is not invoked until the ball becomes fair or foul so the BR is not out until the interference occurs so the BR is not a retired runner interfering with the play. I couldn't find anything exactly on point, but if instead of interfering with a fielder the BR had interfered with the ball then the rule explicitly says one out and dead ball and I don't think the lack of saying that for the fielder changes anything. He may be out twice but he's certainly not two outs.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm not saying it's an "I dunno". I'm saying that there's no double jeopardy here. The IF is not invoked until the ball becomes fair or foul so the BR is not out until the interference occurs so the BR is not a retired runner interfering with the play. I couldn't find anything exactly on point, but if instead of interfering with a fielder the BR had interfered with the ball then the rule explicitly says one out and dead ball and I don't think the lack of saying that for the fielder changes anything. He may be out twice but he's certainly not two outs.

Again, I'm going to disagree. The BR is out when s/he hits the ball which becomes an IF. And as previously noted, I agree there is no jeopardy attached, so I don't think we can double it

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If it was an IF (and the "I dunno" may indicate there isn't), the BR is out, by rule. Now the question is of any attached jeopardy created by the delayed call? Since this is a punitive effect and that runner would have been ruled out even if the IF was called in a timely fashion, I see no jeopardy to R1 caused by the umpire's delayed ruling. R2 & R3 returned to 2B & 1B, respectively

I don't think that was his original question. If the batter is out on the declared IFF call, she is now considered a retired batter. Then, she runs into F3 and prevents her from catching the fly ball. Since we now have a retired batter interfering with the fielder's opportunity to field a batted ball, do we invoke FED 8-6-16c and rule the runner closest to home out as well? Unless I missed it, I'm not sure I saw an answer here.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't think that was his original question. If the batter is out on the declared IFF call, she is now considered a retired batter. Then, she runs into F3 and prevents her from catching the fly ball. Since we now have a retired batter interfering with the fielder's opportunity to field a batted ball, do we invoke FED 8-6-16c and rule the runner closest to home out as well? Unless I missed it, I'm not sure I saw an answer here.

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?

[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.