Three scenarios from this season

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

As stated above, I'm unconvinced, but laying that aside. Is this really relevant? We don't look to see if there was an out to be had if the runner going from second to third keeps F5 from cleanly fielding a slow roller near the bag. It's just interference to keep the fielder from cleanly fielding the play.

From another angle, if there's nothing to interfere with than it's not interference. Therefore the ball is not dead. If the ball is not dead it may go foul. If it goes foul than they prevent an out. Then it's interference. But since it was interference the ball is dead. So it was fair. So it is an infield fly. So there was nothing to interfere with. Lather rinse repeat.