Originally Posted by teebob21 (Post 961945)

Since I do not yet have any assignments for HS playoffs here, and Juco is all wrapped up, I'm assuming the meat and potatoes of this year is over for me. Not a bad spring: I worked 70 games or so. Here are three situations that came up that I am interested in hearing fellow umpire's opinions about. What would you have done?

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?

Originally Posted by KJUmp (Post 961946)

Part in Red= Ejection.
Why are you cutting the AC who made that comment any slack???

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 961948)

I'll bite.

1) BR has no right to interfere with F3, whether already retired or not. Does it or should it matter if BR knew she was out on IFF; she interfered, period. No jeopardy attached to BR if call is changed or delayed. If the IFF is the correct call, and is made retroactively, anything that isn't caused by jeopardy due to the changed or delayed call is appropriate.

2. My opinion, do the best you can. And you did what the manual tells you to do. If the teams want you to know what play they are calling or who is covering, they need to tell you, because they are intentionally making it as obscure as possible to fool the offense. Or, they can pay for three umpires that can adequately cover their intended obfuscation.

3. Someone needs to be ejected at that point. (As KJ suggests, possibly before the warning, but you chose that manner of handling.) But, your dilemma is who to eject, because you don't actually know who said it. The good news is NCAA 4.4 covers your situation, because the Head Coach is accountable for (among other things) the team's conduct and ALL communication with the umpire no matter what team personnel actually says (or initiates) it. So, my handling would be to 1) call time, 2) go directly to that team's head coach and tell him/her in as calm a manner as possible that he/she is either a) giving up the guilty party, who will be ejected, or b) he/she is ejected as the one person accountable no matter who actually said it. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by teebob21 (Post 961945)

Since I do not yet have any assignments for HS playoffs here, and Juco is all wrapped up, I'm assuming the meat and potatoes of this year is over for me. Not a bad spring: I worked 70 games or so. Here are three situations that came up that I am interested in hearing fellow umpire's opinions about. What would you have done?

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??

I think you did the only thing that you could do on that play. Since the IFF only applies to a fair ball, and the status of the ball has not been determined to be a fair ball, it is a foul ball. Since the BR interfered with the opportunity to catch the foul fly, she is out for interference. You did the right thing in post gaming this situation. There is a reason we are taught status first on flies near the line. A play like this the status means everything (as well as making the call, which goes to knowing the situation and communicating with your partner(s).

As for when you can call it, I think the note at the bottom of 8-2-9 says it all (from the 2013 book). When an infield fly is not initially called, the batter-runner is declared out if brought to the umpires attention before the next pitch. Since it would not have been declared until after the interference, the retired runner interference would not apply (in my opinion). You would have some explaining to do to the coach DC, who likely would be correct in that it were handled properly by the PU, it would be multiple outs.


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?


Honestly, I agree with the other comments, you do the best you can. If you are were you are supposed to be on the play, and this happens, you have the umpire manual to fall back on. You were in the proper position and circumstances lead you to being blocked out.
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.



I generally will not listen to much to the bench, unless it is so loud it can be heard by all parties in the general vicinity. Maybe this is the basketball official coming out. I tend to take more than some others will in terms of behavior. I used to be rabbit ears and it got me in trouble. I have yet to eject a coach or player from a FP game. (Tossed one SP guy for multiple F-bombs at me). With all of that said, I will ignore for awhile then warn. That generally goes the trick and I normally don't hear anything else. In this case, once you warned through, and the comment came, you needed to eject someone. I personally would have gone to the head coach and told the HC that you need to find out who said it, or it will be you exiting the game. Ultimately, even if it is not specified in the rule book, the HC is responsible for the conduct of his/her team.

Originally Posted by teebob21 (Post 961945)

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??

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 961962)

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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 961962)

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.

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962047)

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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 962058)

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" :)

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962080)

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 961962)

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

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 962088)

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.

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 962098)

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?

Originally Posted by teebob21 (Post 962107)

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.

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962126)

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).

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962126)

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.

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962126)

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.

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962126)

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.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 962177)

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.

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962200)

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.

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 962241)

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?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 962301)

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

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 962202)

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.)

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 962308)

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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 962317)

Then the runner closest to home should be ruled out.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 962309)

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.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 962363)

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.

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 962367)

Live ball appeal would be another out.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 962368)

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.