tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post6429288435451817282..comments2024-01-18T06:49:55.117-08:00Comments on Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League: Case Plays: Infield Interference, Foul Fly or Complete ChaosLindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-6951940627393550662012-09-06T18:14:41.226-07:002012-09-06T18:14:41.226-07:00brett- really? wendlestat lied to you about your s...brett- really? wendlestat lied to you about your score to make you feel better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-51006337682718253002012-09-02T11:29:28.653-07:002012-09-02T11:29:28.653-07:00To make it a bit more interesting and avoid the &q...To make it a bit more interesting and avoid the "interference takes precedence and makes it immediately a dead ball" argument - scratch that aspect for now. Just say Carlos Lee lost it in the sun and it wasl left to F1 and F2 to attempt to catch the called IFF.<br /><br />ANON = LMS1953Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-35084806295665942012012-09-02T11:20:33.025-07:002012-09-02T11:20:33.025-07:00The director of umpires is wrong. Look, you have R...The director of umpires is wrong. Look, you have R1 and R2 and one out. The batter hits an IFF. The end state should be R1 and R2 with two outs. The offense commits an infraction of interference. There is no "end state" penalty the way the MLB genius interprets the rule. That makes no sense at all. J/R agrees as well, so I am not just pulling this out of my butt.<br /><br />Try this amalgamation of plays that have happened within the past month or two. R1 and R2 with one out. F1 does not come to a complete stop at the set and a balk is called. Batter hits an IFF pop-up as it this case except there is catcher's interference as the bat tips the mitt. R1 interferes with F3 attempting to catch the IFF. F2 races out to catch the pop-up down the first base line. Instead the ball smacks off his shin guard and is deflected to the opponents dugout and rolls into dead ball territory - the contact was in fair territory. So, what is your ruling?<br /><br />ANON = LMS1953Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-39544806415677676782012-09-01T08:27:13.441-07:002012-09-01T08:27:13.441-07:00...the link for the ruling from MLB is: http://mlb......the link for the ruling from MLB is: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/feature.jsp?feature=call3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-1154342400278772152012-09-01T08:26:13.692-07:002012-09-01T08:26:13.692-07:00correction - the ump director is Tom Lepperd... he...correction - the ump director is Tom Lepperd... here's the link that applies enough credential to govern the call at the dodger game - RULING would be - R1 OUT for interference - BALL DEAD - BR awarded 1B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-43682664561620965112012-09-01T08:16:23.841-07:002012-09-01T08:16:23.841-07:00Two rules are never applied-that is in contraventi...Two rules are never applied-that is in contravention to the rules. As indicated in the rules....interference has precedence and all other action is ignored. This is irrefutable as scully stated "forget the play, forget the play". So how could the play be forgotten yet still apply a foul ball to that hit? Answer is it doesn't, the runner is out, batter awarded first base. Case in point, if the catcher would have fought the ball...... The umps would NOT have ruled a double play- this is verified by Ted Lepperd- MLB umpire director. Case closed, the ruling was incorrect for allowing br to bat again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-10550402897884013192012-08-31T18:48:15.794-07:002012-08-31T18:48:15.794-07:00The batter returned to bat because the ball was ru...The batter returned to bat because the ball was ruled foul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-52264406158090573262012-08-31T18:45:21.839-07:002012-08-31T18:45:21.839-07:00The Rulebook does cover it. The problem is too ma...The Rulebook does cover it. The problem is too many plumbers come on here not knowing the rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-21182138466332755342012-08-31T18:41:38.874-07:002012-08-31T18:41:38.874-07:00Except when the infield fly is in effect. The BR ...Except when the infield fly is in effect. The BR is not because of the INT, he's out because of the IFF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-40131634187604156312012-08-31T18:28:03.092-07:002012-08-31T18:28:03.092-07:00Batter can't be out on foul ball.Batter can't be out on foul ball.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-81470154761855282402012-08-30T16:19:12.007-07:002012-08-30T16:19:12.007-07:00@Anon 8:37
OBR is also very clear that the BATTER ...@Anon 8:37<br />OBR is also very clear that the BATTER is OUT if an IFF is called. The rules don't say "Infield Fly if fair AND there is no runner's interference". The more I think about the play, the batter should have been out on the IFF and R1 should have been out for interference.. The interference prevented F3 from fielding the ball to make it fair. Interference needs to be called on R1 as a penalty against R1 and R2 taking advantage of the ball dropping in and allowing them to advance "at their own risk".<br />ANON = LMS1953Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-21519552975699927022012-08-30T16:06:03.238-07:002012-08-30T16:06:03.238-07:00RichMSN, I agree 100%. I was trying to show that i...RichMSN, I agree 100%. I was trying to show that if the ball is "dead" at the time of interference, there is still the need to act on the IFF. The batter is out BEFORE to interference if the ball is fair.<br /><br />ANON = LMS1953Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-15424725237537001902012-08-30T08:37:04.382-07:002012-08-30T08:37:04.382-07:00@August 30, 2012 5:52 AM comment - MLB rules are ...@August 30, 2012 5:52 AM comment - MLB rules are very clear that on interference - TWO outs (the runner and the batter) are only out when the interference was intended as adjudged by the umpire to have prevented a double-play. In the dodger game there would be absolutely no reason to believe a double play was possible - thus two outs would NOT be the ruling - thus the BR would be awarded first. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-78751942770817808422012-08-30T08:19:36.036-07:002012-08-30T08:19:36.036-07:00I'm amazed at all the posts on this thread tha...I'm amazed at all the posts on this thread that think that a fair/foul decision on this is made at the TOI. It's not. By *definition*, the ball is neither fair nor foul until it touches the ground beyond the diamond, touches the defender, or comes to a stop. A ball suspended in the air can never be fair or foul until something happens that defines it as a fair or foul ball.<br /><br />The J/R reference is posted above. While I'm not always enamored by J/R, in this case they merely spell out which is the only possible result that can come about, BY RULE.<br /><br />BTW, if the interference happened while the ball was suspended over foul ground, landed foul, and rolled into fair ground and stopped in the infield, it would be treated as an infield fly. Where the ball is suspended is completely irrelevant.RichMSNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384563269998106611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-86659146046029918852012-08-30T05:52:27.958-07:002012-08-30T05:52:27.958-07:00If the interference call indeed made the ball imme...If the interference call indeed made the ball immediately dead (as the rule reads, then it seems the proper call would have been a double play. The batter hit an IFF by which he is out "if fair". The interference call was made when the ball was in/suspended over fair territory. Hence that could have been the rationale to award two outs. But the whole purpose of the IFF is to prevent "easy" DPs.<br /><br />Let's say the batter hit a high pop up with R1 and R2 on base down the first baseline. "IFF if Fair" is yelled out. The ball obviously twists foul. The first baseman tracks the pop-up toward the coaches box. Case 1- he gets tangled up with the coach and the ball drops. Ruling- the batter is out for coach's interference. Case 2- he gets tangled up with the runner who is obligated to get out of the way. The ball drops foul in the coach's box. Ruling- R1 is out for interference and batter returns to bat as if he hit a foul ball. Combining these cases, which are rather obvious rulings, show that the crew made the proper ruling - sprinkled with a bit of 9.02 discretion (to be applied when there is no exact rule. Personally, I think MLB ought to address the issue of runner's interference on an IFF. Runner should be out for the interference and batter should be out if the ball initially lands fair- where it will be ruled "dead"- with no regard for where it subsequently bounces off to.<br />Anon = LMS1953Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-69474318066338139892012-08-29T21:12:55.829-07:002012-08-29T21:12:55.829-07:00Great analysis of this play on OP. Answer makes a ...Great analysis of this play on OP. Answer makes a heck of a lot of sense, given that the ball had no fair or foul status at the time it went dead. This isn't basketball or football, folks. The play doesn't stay alive when it's killed (hence, "DEAD BALL"), we don't get to see how it will play out except where provided by the rules, a la catcher's or umpire's interference, but NOT offensive interference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-11653376829973094522012-08-29T13:30:15.292-07:002012-08-29T13:30:15.292-07:00**correction - @Aug29-1125a comment: the batter no...**correction - @Aug29-1125a comment: the batter not being OUT does not constitute a return to the plate. Otherwise a runner who gets hit with a ground ball while running - before the ball passes a fielder - would ALSO constitute sending the BR back to the plate - which does not occur - the BR is awarded 1B (unless the umpire feels a DP was possible - in which case the BR is ALSO OUT). The rules of baseball are created to keep the FLOW of the game from being altered. Sending a BR back to the plate - does not NULLIFY interference - because the "interfered" batted ball would have cause an OUT - had the interence not occured (or at least that is what is ASSUMED by the interference rule); thus, the batter's turn - or "at bat" is concluded. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-53358462765112476672012-08-29T13:26:26.561-07:002012-08-29T13:26:26.561-07:00@Aug29-1125a comment: the batter not being OUT doe...@Aug29-1125a comment: the batter not being OUT does not constitute a return to the plate. Otherwise a runner who gets hit with a ground ball while running - before the ball passes a field - would constitute ALSO sending the BR back to the plate - which does not occur. The rules are created to keep the FLOW of the game from being altered. By sending a BR back to the plate - that does not NULLIFY the interference - because a batted ball would have OUT - had the interence not occured (or at least that is what is ASSUMED by the interference rule); thus, the batter has completed his at bat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-70860389814916972612012-08-29T11:25:50.693-07:002012-08-29T11:25:50.693-07:00It's not the batter who caused an out, it'...It's not the batter who caused an out, it's the runner who caused the out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-47671293203265028912012-08-29T10:00:10.880-07:002012-08-29T10:00:10.880-07:00@northstarumpire#2 - the rule 2.00 as you apply it...@northstarumpire#2 - the rule 2.00 as you apply it would mean that on a FAIR or FOUL ball the batter would return..had he not reached 1B. By way of your interpretation - if BR hits ground ball and the ball R1 collides with SS - you are suggesting R1 out - and BR returns to the plate?? Also - since the rule 2 comment infers to the RUNNERS returning to base - the presumption would be more rational that "the batter-runner has not reached" could infer to the umpires having declared the batter ALSO out. Think of this as the flow of the game ---- The batter MUST be on a base IF the batter is NOT put out on a batted ball - Called out for another reason - or the ball goes foul (remember - on interference a FOUL ball cannot exist); therefore, there is no scenario in which interference could be ruled on a batted ball and the runner is retruned to the plate. In the days to come - I gaurantee you will see a write up by MLB pro-umpires declaring the call was incorrect.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07154028761934795908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-67364607767633071092012-08-28T23:12:09.157-07:002012-08-28T23:12:09.157-07:00Hard to believe that if the interference is recogn...Hard to believe that if the interference is recognized, that the batter is not given first base. <br /><br />A ball caught in foul territory is not a foul ball. I still don't even think this ball became a foul ball. The ball was dead at the moment of interference. The interference changed whether this ball would have been foul or fair, because the first baseman was not able to catch it over fair territory. <br /><br />Referencing rule 2.00 is not relevant. This pertains to other runners, not the BR, because we know for a fact that a ground ball interference play in fair territory that happens before the BR reaches first base results in the BR being awarded first base, unless their is willful and deliberate intent to break up a double play by the offender.<br /><br />I am not sure where everyone is getting the "let it play out" reference. That's like having a "fan interference" call, killing it, but letting it play out to see what happens to make your decision. This can't be done. Once the call is made the play is dead, and the call has essentially changed what may happen next.<br /><br />The play at hand is a perfect example. The interference definitely had an impact on this ball rolling untouched into foul territory. Had the offense not occurred, the ball likely would have been caught in fair territory by F3. <br /><br />I actually can't find a rule reference that specifically awards the BR first base if this happens over fair territory. The only BR award of first base I see in the rulebook is when a runner is actually stuck by the ball. <br /><br />It's just hard for me to fathom returning the batter to bat (like he gets a redo) when we don't ever have those in OBR. His at bat created action, causing an out. Seems like his at bat has ended. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-37859227060195369142012-08-28T21:48:15.527-07:002012-08-28T21:48:15.527-07:00If im a tigers fan, im going to bed so fast and pr...If im a tigers fan, im going to bed so fast and praying for tomorrow game to start quickly so that they can put this behind them.. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-21782132827705244522012-08-28T21:46:23.863-07:002012-08-28T21:46:23.863-07:00Agree 100%. Could not be more right Russ ^^^^Agree 100%. Could not be more right Russ ^^^^Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-53577202806903207402012-08-28T21:44:26.093-07:002012-08-28T21:44:26.093-07:00I was watching the KC feed live and it looked foul...I was watching the KC feed live and it looked foul to me. They showed the camera to the left of the foul pole directly looking at the pole. You can see the ball and then it disapears for a little bit only to be seen again over the wall. I think it disapeared because it was to the right of the foul pole and thus blocked out. This was a tough call and even if it may have been fair, I think Barrett made the right decision in keeping it foul because I am not seeing anything definitive as to whether it was foul or fair and if that is the case you have to stay with the call on the field.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077541258320019256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-42354329906674014492012-08-28T21:43:28.423-07:002012-08-28T21:43:28.423-07:00After seeing it again, i think it the correct call...After seeing it again, i think it the correct call now, at worst inconclusive. I think Ted Barrett got it right wow. HAHAHA 50/50 chance and he got it right, but good call none the less. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com