Help me understand

[Crabby_Bob]

June 2019 USA plays and clarifications:

Play: R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B with one out. B4 hits a fly ball to F6. With F6 under the fly ball to make the catch R1 runs into F6 prior to F6 contacting the fly ball.

Ruling: The ball is dead and R1 is out for interference. When R1 contacted F6 the ball status was fair therefor the ball is a fair ball and B4 is also out on the infield fly. Rule 1 Definition Infield Fly, Rule 1 Definition of a fair ball (D), Rule 8, Section 2I, and Rule 8, Section 7J [1].

ETA: NFHS Casebook 8.6.10 Situation C:
With R1 on second base, R2 on first base and one out, B4 hits an infield fly. The ball strikes R1 who is (a) near second base in front of F4 or [...]
Ruling: In (a) [...] B4 is out because of the infield fly rule. In (a), R1 is out and the ball becomes dead. [...] 8-2-9, 8-6-10a.

 

[EdLovrich]

That is not exactly what the rule says...

8.7.1 says:


In this situation, the interference did not prevent the fielder from catching the ball. Thus, 8.7.1(f) doesn't apply.

So, under the USA rules:

The ball is dead, the runner is out, the batter is placed at 1B.

Sluggers Using your own logic, that the ball is dead immediately at the time of the INT, then the fielder IS prevented from catching the fly ball. Whether she physically does so or not has no bearing, the ball is dead and she cannot catch it for the out. So yes 8.7.1(f) DOES apply, as is evident from the casebook language.

 

[eddieq]

That is not exactly what the rule says...

8.7.1 says:


In this situation, the interference did not prevent the fielder from catching the ball. Thus, 8.7.1(f) doesn't apply.

So, under the USA rules:

The ball is dead, the runner is out, the batter is placed at 1B.

Not to argue semantics but the interference did prevent the catch. It straight up didn't happen. Dead ball at the time of the interference so nothing that happens after that matters. The fielder could have manifested Jedi powers and guided the fly ball to be caught by another fielder and it wouldn't matter because it didn't happen.

USA Softball (ASA at the time) rules and clarifications from April 2009 specifically states that both the batter is out on the IFF and the runner is out on the interference.

We have received a question about an act of interference by a runner after an infield fly has been declared. The following occurs:

1. An infield fly is declared on a fly ball which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second or first, second, and third occupied and less than two outs.
2. The ball must be fair for the out to be recorded on an infield fly.
3. If an act of interference happens by a runner in fair territory the ball becomes fair and then declared dead due to the interference.
4. The batter would be out because of the infield fly and the runner would be out on interference.

https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Softball/News/2009/April/30/April-2009-Plays-and-Clarifications

 

[ang2bmd]

Ok so obviously this is a very tricky rule. It just didn’t seem right to me that the offense could gain an advantage from interference which they did since the fielder completed a double play which would have ended the inning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EdLovrich]

Ok so obviously this is a very tricky rule. It just didn’t seem right to me that the offense could gain an advantage from interference which they did since the fielder completed a double play which would have ended the inning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you are saying here. The proper ruling is R is out, B is out, end of inning. And, if there had been no outs, the other runner returns to 1B

 

[eddieq]

It's not tricky or complicated at all, actually. Just because some folks (umpires included apparently) fail to understand it doesn't complicate it.