Infield fly AND intereference on same play?

You can have one or the other outs but not both unless:

Under pro rules if you have INTENTIONAL interference for the purposes of breaking up a double play then you have two outs. You must have INTENTIOnAL interference to get two outs.

Under FED rules, a force play slide interference can result in two outs or any play where the umpire judged that a double play was likely absent the interference can also result in two outs.

In your situation, the ball was immediately dead as soon as you called interference on R2. The infield fly has nothing to do with it. That was an invalid call after the play was ruled dead.

The umpires only decision is whether or not a double play was likely to occur had the interference not occurred. From what you described, R2 would have been doubled off at second had the interference not occurred so:

1 out in pro rules because the interference was not intentional. If intentional then 2 outs.

2 outs in FED rules because a double play was likely.

Thank you. They were playing under MLB rules (PONY Baseball) and the interference was not intentional. I thought they probably got it right, although awkwardly so, but I guess not.

BTW, it took about a 5 minute conference in the field for them to make the ruling. They looked confused.

justbaseball,

Just so I can understand, please put these three parts of the play in the order that they occurred:

a) Plate umpire verbally declares "infield fly".
b) Base umpire calls interferrence on runner for colliding with SS.
c) Ball falls to ground.

a then b then c.

It seems to me that the call would be correct. The batter is out once the "infield fly if fair" call is made. Runners may advance at their own risk. If a runner advances and interfers with a player making a play on the ball, the runner is out. The fielder has the opportunity to make a play on the ball whether it is an infield fly or not. An infield fly is not a dead ball.

I agree with hsbaseballcoach on this. That is why I asked for the order in which things happened.

When the infield fly was invoked by the plate umpire the ball was still live and the batter is out at that time. A subsequent interference call on the runner would not negate the infield fly call. The fielder (SS) is entitled to an unimpeded attempt to field the batted ball. Intent by the runner is not considered. The runner must avoid contact with the fielder.

It would appear that the problem the umpires were having revolved around whether they should have called the infield fly. It was stated that the ball was "marginally catchable". An infield fly must be one that can be caught with ordinary effort. However, since the infield fly was invoked, they decided to go with it and assign the outs where they fell.

pilsner - I was inclined to believe that was right too, but after reading the various responses (on this board and another one too), I just don't know.

Is it covered in any of the case books? I'm really quite curious to know.

In all honesty, I thought it was a botched call on several fronts:
1) I didn't think the popup was catchable by anyone...so why the INF Fly call? Judgement so I really can't argue that one too hard other than as a fan.

2) I never heard (nor anyone around me) the plate umpire call INF Fly...only learned that he called that AFTER the fact which is why I think the runner on 2nd was confused.

3) The two umpires huddled for a long time and seemed pretty confused (I'm basing that on body language and the fact that they seemed to be disagreeing a little between themselves)...I think they were sort of making it up as they went...trying to do their best, but I don't think they really knew at the time either.

This call did not ultimately affect the outcome of the game, but at the time it sure looked like it would.

quote:

Posted July 23, 2005 09:03 PM


Just

quote:

Just so I can understand, please put these three parts of the play in the order that they occurred:

a) Plate umpire verbally declares "infield fly".
b) Base umpire calls interferrence on runner for colliding with SS.
c) Ball falls to ground.

Sorry, when I answered the question, I assumed that the order was b then a then c. I based this assumption on the fact that R2 took off for third. If the infield fly had been called first, proper base running procedure is for R2 to go back to second.

This sounds like a case of bad umpire judgment compounded by bad umpire administration after the fact.

In any event, pro rules do not allow for two outs on an interference call unless the interference is intentional. If the order was a then b then c, this is a good question to take up with MLB.

To get out of a protest and cover their backsides if one is filed, the quick thinking umpire would rule this interference intentional.

You know what...given that no one heard the plate umpire call INF Fly and only found out he did after the 5 minute huddle, the order could have been ANY of the above including c then b then a or b then c then a.

Thats how messed-up it all appeared.

The order matters a lot and might be critical if a protest was filed. If the interference occurred prior to the IFF call, then the IFF call was an illegal call. The ball is immediately dead on the interference call. No IFF call can take place. This was my operating assumption when I first read this situation. OTOH, if the IFF took place first, this is a good question to take to a protest committee.

This would not happen in MLB so it would be impossible to get a valid ruling from them. Proper umpiring, coaching, and baserunning would prevent this from happening at that level.

TallUmp - I talked to a pretty high level umpire in our area today and asked about it and he said the same thing as you inititally...unless intentional interference, no double play.

Bottom line is this, he said. Infield fly causes batter to be out and you therefore cannot interfere with trying to get the same guy out a 2nd time (there was no other play other than on the batter...the runners were frozen and not attempting to advance). If on the other hand intentional, then you would be interfering with the intent of advancing your runner at 3rd for example.

He also said that since the ball was not in the vicinity of the baseline, that there probably should not have been interference anyways.

Kind of interesting to hear all the different opinions (I posted this on another website too and got differing opinions)...not sure I feel any closer to the answer.

Doing a little more research and got the following answer from yet another source:

Rule 7.08 (f) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball has touched or passed an infielder. The ball is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance, except runners forced to advance. EXCEPTION: If a runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out; If two runners are touched by the same fair ball, only the first one is out because the ball is instantly dead. If runner is touched by an Infield Fly when he is not touching his base, both runner and batter are out.

The runner is out even though the batter is already out on the infield fly call. Normally a runner is out when getting hit by a batted ball if he has prevented the fielder from making a play on the ball (i.e. the runner is not out if the ball has passed an infielder and there is no other infielder who can make a play on it). The fact that the batter is declared out does not change the fact that the runner is out if he is hit by the ball when an infield fly is invoked. I would apply the same argument to the case of interfering with the fielder, in which case both the runner and the batter are out.

Interference can't go un-called in this instance.
Batter out because of the in-field-fly, runner out for interference. As an umpire assumptions are not a part of the deal, if they were are jobs would be a whole lot easier, one can't assume there was no other play as stated above anymore than one can assume, ah, he must have tagged the sliding runner even though I couldn't see the tag. There must have been at least a possible play on the runner that interfered, he obviously was in a bit of a confused state and a viable victim to be put out or he'd have been on the bag. The SS was going to allow the ball to drop in hopes of getting the runners to panic and try to advance. Bottom line the Runner interfered with a protected fielder. You are not calling this a "double play" for Intentional Interference, simply ringing up the runner for interfering with a protected fielder.

justbaseball,

After reading more info from you in these posts I want to ask if this would have made more sense had it been called:

.Pop-up hit behind pitchers mound which no infielder had a resonable chance of catching. .Infield fly not called.
.SS moving in direction of ball, even though he has no chance to catch it, collides with runner advancing to 3b.
.Obstruction called on SS for impeding runner.(delayed dead ball)
.Ball falls to ground and shortly thereafter is picked up by one of the infielders or pitcher.
.By the time the ball is picked up runners and batter have all advanced a base and have stopped.
.No further action possible.
.Ump calls time out and now must award impeded runner base he believes he would have reached without obstruction. (probably only 3b anyway since the ball was just behind the mound).
.End of play.

This is the picture of the play I'm getting in my head. Of course, I live in Northeastern NY and the play happened in Northern Calif. so I didn't see it. (my eyes aren't that good)

Yeah, I suppose it could have just as easily happened that way and I'd probably still be asking if THAT was right or not?

From MY eyes, I don't think IFF should have been called. That was my problem with the call as it unfolded.

As I saw it the incidental contact between the SS and runner...my gut told me interference when I saw that in which case I suppose the runner on 2nd should have been called out, the runner on 3rd returned (held back) to that base, the runner on 1st advanced to 2nd and the batter advanced to 1st.

As my local umpire friends have said, its probably only a play you will see in kids baseball.

One final question for justbaseball,

Has anyone talked to the umpires involved or are they currently hiding somewhere in Oregon?

pilsner - Maybe? One of my umpire friends knows the plate umpire and was going to talk to him to get his take on it all.

It ended up being no big deal as the team that was on the short end of the call came back to win anyways. So hopefully the guy won't mind explaining his rationale.

Thanks for your patience.

No patience necessary. I love this stuff.

Lets remember that an infield fly situation determines the out, not the declaration....

If a pop up in the infield is an infield fly but the umpires fail to call it, the batter is out anyway since both teams have the responsibility to know when conditions exist for an infield fly. The batter is still out on an infield fly even if the umpires initially neglect to make the call.

Unless this ball was some sort of hump backed liner I can not see from the original post how this could not be an infield fly.... the rest of this mess will be made clearer with some additional information.

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
Unless this ball was some sort of hump backed liner I can not see from the original post how this could not be an infield fly.... the rest of this mess will be made clearer with some additional information.

Thats about what it was. Maybe a little more hump than liner, but just not catchable at all (IMO). In fact, the field umpire who was standing very near to where it landed did NOT call IFF, but the plate umpire with a much worse view did. Now maybe the mechanics of umpiring dictate that it be called that way, I don't know, but in this case the IFF call was what caused the whole mess as I don't think it looked like one to anyone but the guy who called it.

ahh.....now that explains a great deal of the confusion....not sure we will ever get a satisfactory resolution of this situation, but it probably falls under the HTBT (had to be there) for me to get this right.........