Infield Fly & Interference

sprtfan

Addicted to Softballfans
Saw this today and thought it was interesting. If I understand it right, IFF was called but the runner interfered with the 1B before the ball was determined to be fair or foul. I was not sure about this part but the closest runner home is called out because of the interference. After the interference, the ball was fair so the batter runner was called out. If you watch the video, bases are loaded with one out since it is hard to tell from the video.


 

longball101

Part Time Player
I actually don't see interference there, she made a clear attempt to avoid the first baseman, who was initially in the running lane, and made a last minute move. Plus I do not see contact with the fielder, runner advances at their own peril, safe at home, batter out...
 

sprtfan

Addicted to Softballfans
I thought the interference call was a little questionable also but I don't think contact is needed to be called for interference. That said, I don't think the 1B altered her path or appeared to be distracted either. Not exactly sure what the runner should have done there.
 

EAJuggalo

Addicted to Softballfans
It is absolutely interference, I think they screwed up the call a couple other ways. This appears to be UT HS softball, I have no idea what their rules say. I am making this ruling based on both USA and USSSA Slow Pitch rules, it is entirely possible that FP rules are different, but I don't think so.

I have interference on the B-R. That call is entirely judgement by the umpire. It is the responsibility of every offensive player and coach to not interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. There is no requirement for the runner to be in the running lane unless there is a throw coming. My call would be everything stops right there, runners return to bases held at the time of the pitch, we have two outs.
If you do not call interference, the B-R would still be out on the IFF as soon as the ball touches the ground after being touched by the fielder over fair territory. The only ways you would be able to call out R3, is if the B-R interfered after being called out, the interference was an "obvious attempt to prevent a double play," or R3 somehow interfered. The biggest problem I have is if they are calling interference, the play is DRT, and the runner who interfered is out.
 

Sully

Wanna buy jerseys/rings?
I have a hard time with this. I know the runner has to give the fielder a chance to field the ball without interfering but it looks like the 1B misplayed the ball. She started in foul territory, the runner was on the line. As the ball drifted, the 1B starts drifting two steps into fair territory at the last minute. The runner is already trying to avoid the 1B and because of the late movement by the 1B has nowhere to go. Some might say the runner should have ran into foul territory but the problem is the fielder started there. If she drifts further to her left the runner is still in the way. It looks to me like the fielder made every effort to avoid the fielder and short of disappearing, I'm not sure what she was supposed to do.
 

Sully

Wanna buy jerseys/rings?
I get that by the rule it is interference, I'm just not sure what the runner could have done differently.
 

baseman

in your face nancy grace
It was IF so the Batter was already out if fair. No need to run. If it went foul then the continue to bat.
 

DeputyUICHousto

Addicted to Softballfans
It was IF so the Batter was already out if fair. No need to run. If it went foul then the continue to bat.

The B/R is not out on the IFF until fair or foul is determined. If this was interference (and it was ruled interference by the umpires) then the B/R should be out, the ball is dead, and all runners return to the base they were on at the time of the pitch.
 

baseman

in your face nancy grace
The B/R is not out on the IFF until fair or foul is determined. If this was interference (and it was ruled interference by the umpires) then the B/R should be out, the ball is dead, and all runners return to the base they were on at the time of the pitch.

My thought is if it is fair they don't need to run as it would be an out and if it is foul then it is a foul so why run.
 

EAJuggalo

Addicted to Softballfans
I have a hard time with this. I know the runner has to give the fielder a chance to field the ball without interfering but it looks like the 1B misplayed the ball. She started in foul territory, the runner was on the line. As the ball drifted, the 1B starts drifting two steps into fair territory at the last minute. The runner is already trying to avoid the 1B and because of the late movement by the 1B has nowhere to go. Some might say the runner should have ran into foul territory but the problem is the fielder started there. If she drifts further to her left the runner is still in the way. It looks to me like the fielder made every effort to avoid the fielder and short of disappearing, I'm not sure what she was supposed to do.
If she takes two more steps into foul territory she would have been fine. She runs directly at F3 then moves into fair territory at the exact same time the F3 is moving into fair territory. At no point was she running anywhere except right at the fielder. And interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball does not have to be intentional.
 

DeputyUICHousto

Addicted to Softballfans
My thought is if it is fair they don't need to run as it would be an out and if it is foul then it is a foul so why run.
I watched the video again. The interference occurs before the ball becomes fair or foul. If you deem this to be interference then the ball is dead, b/r is out, and runners return to base occupied at the time of the pitch.

If you do not deem this to be interference, then once the ball becomes fair when it hits F3's glove over fair territory then you have an infield fly, b/r is out and runners can advance at their own risk.
 

Sully

Wanna buy jerseys/rings?
My point was if you look at the first picture the fielder is clearly in foul territory so to me the runner veering fair makes sense to avoid. Notice the umpire has just pointed. The second picture not even a second has elapsed and now the fielder is straddling the line. It's been one whole second by the third picture and the fielder is a good two steps into fair territory. She played it really badly. Based of the first picture I would say the runner is trying to avoid the fielder in fair territory. In less than a second the fielder goes from both feet in foul territory to two steps into fair territory crossing in front of the runner. I get the interference but if she's running full speed and sees the fielder in foul territory, then the fielder plays the ball horribly and ends up crossing four steps from right to left in front of the runner, even if she's called out if she's running full speed where is she supposed to go?

I understand the rule says it's interference, especially if the umpire has called IFF which it appears he has. If there is no IFF, I just don't like the idea the fielder misplaying a ball turns into interference.
 

EAJuggalo

Addicted to Softballfans
My point was if you look at the first picture the fielder is clearly in foul territory so to me the runner veering fair makes sense to avoid. Notice the umpire has just pointed. The second picture not even a second has elapsed and now the fielder is straddling the line. It's been one whole second by the third picture and the fielder is a good two steps into fair territory. She played it really badly. Based of the first picture I would say the runner is trying to avoid the fielder in fair territory. In less than a second the fielder goes from both feet in foul territory to two steps into fair territory crossing in front of the runner. I get the interference but if she's running full speed and sees the fielder in foul territory, then the fielder plays the ball horribly and ends up crossing four steps from right to left in front of the runner, even if she's called out if she's running full speed where is she supposed to go?

I just don't like the idea the fielder misplaying a ball turns into interference.
The runner could have done a few things to lessen the chance she gets called for interference. Back up four steps from the first screenshot you took, she started in fair territory, then proceeds to run directly at where F3 is standing, she makes no effort to go around the fielder until she is within arms reach. I would have had the interference there. Had the BR been running towards a point say three feet to the foul side of the fielder she doesn't get called for interference. She could have stayed in fair territory, although there is no reason whatsoever she should be in fair territory, she could have stopped running. She could have started moving to go around the fielder long before she gets within arms reach. Again, I'm calling the interference for her running directly at the fielder before the fielder moves back into fair territory.

What were weather conditions that day? Any idea how hard the wind was blowing? What ball were they using? Does that ball have a reputation of being more affected by wind than others? How much spin was on the ball, there are an awful lot of variables that we don't have the answer for, what we have is the actions of both the runner and the fielder.

The fielder is "clearly in foul territory" by how much? 18 inches? She took one step between the first and second pictures. And one more between the second and third. She tried to take another but couldn't because the BR was in the way.
 

Sully

Wanna buy jerseys/rings?
The runner could have done a few things to lessen the chance she gets called for interference. Back up four steps from the first screenshot you took, she started in fair territory, then proceeds to run directly at where F3 is standing, she makes no effort to go around the fielder until she is within arms reach. I would have had the interference there. Had the BR been running towards a point say three feet to the foul side of the fielder she doesn't get called for interference. She could have stayed in fair territory, although there is no reason whatsoever she should be in fair territory, she could have stopped running. She could have started moving to go around the fielder long before she gets within arms reach. Again, I'm calling the interference for her running directly at the fielder before the fielder moves back into fair territory.

What were weather conditions that day? Any idea how hard the wind was blowing? What ball were they using? Does that ball have a reputation of being more affected by wind than others? How much spin was on the ball, there are an awful lot of variables that we don't have the answer for, what we have is the actions of both the runner and the fielder.

The fielder is "clearly in foul territory" by how much? 18 inches? She took one step between the first and second pictures. And one more between the second and third. She tried to take another but couldn't because the BR was in the way.

That was my point, in the matter of one second she went from both feet in foul territory and her left foot on the 3 foot line to her left foot in front of her right foot two steps into fair territory. Maybe the wind is blowing that way. How is the runner supposed to know the ball doesn't tail into foul territory instead of fair and then she still interferes. Since she can't see the ball, all she can do is react to where the fielder is and go the other way and that's what it looks like she did. She was in foul territory so the runner starts going away in fair territory, less than a second later she's two steps in fair territory and the ball is still fading away from her body. It looks like she misjudged the ball to me.

I will leave it alone, I just don't think without being able to see the ball the runner can do anything other than veer from where she sees the fielder. The fielder is clearly on the 3 foot line , so her left foot is 3 feet in foul territory. If that ball drifts foul and the fielder is starting with her left foot 3 feet foul, how far is the runner expected to go to avoid contact? Six feet? Seven feet? Keep in mind she's not even a second away from potential contact. The fielder didn't start in foul territory which means she moved there while the ball was in the air. If I'm running and see the fielder move into foul territory, I probably move into fair territory to avoid interfering with her. She moved to my right as I'm looking at her, so I stay left to avoid her. If she is moving right, I'm not going to go further to the right where she's moving to avoid her. That doesn't make sense.

End of rant. I know. She's out.
 

MaverickAH

Well-Known Member
I couldn't possibly disagree with you more than I do! You're attempt to rationalize the play is dead wrong in every single aspect.

A defensive player attempting to field a batted ball takes absolute precedence. The rule book tells you this explicitly. Under no circumstances can an offensive player interfere. Interference can take multiple forms. It can be verbal or involve contact or not involve actual contact. I don't care if that runner had to stop completely to avoid the defensive player. They cannot interfere!

As others have said....... Immediate dead ball with the B/R being called out & all runners returned to their previous base.
 

Sully

Wanna buy jerseys/rings?
I couldn't possibly disagree with you more than I do! You're attempt to rationalize the play is dead wrong in every single aspect.

A defensive player attempting to field a batted ball takes absolute precedence. The rule book tells you this explicitly. Under no circumstances can an offensive player interfere. Interference can take multiple forms. It can be verbal or involve contact or not involve actual contact. I don't care if that runner had to stop completely to avoid the defensive player. They cannot interfere!

As others have said....... Immediate dead ball with the B/R being called out & all runners returned to their previous base.

Not arguing the call or the result. I understand the rule and why the ruling was correct. More of a discussion about the rule. The same way the rule used to say a fielder could be in the runners way while waiting to receive the ball and they realized that the fielder should have the ball before they are allowed to obstruct the path (literal obstruction not the rule). The issue is this fielder misplayed the ball and happened to draw them where the runner was headed. Expecting them to go from full speed to a complete stop in less than a second when they might be a step or two away to me is like asking the runner to disappear once they are out. They have to be somewhere. We can expect them to be where they have the least chance of interfering.

I will let it be because no one else seems interested in discussing whether the rule in this exact scenario was fair to the runner, instead of whether the rule was properly applied. No argument on proper application as written. Got it. Duly noted. There are rules that are rules but still penalize the runner in what I feel is an unfair way, like USSSA only allowing one additional base instead of two if the runner is running back to touch because in their ruleset the retouch counts as one of the bases. It doesn't mean I wouldn't apply the rule properly, it just means I don't feel it is fair to the runner. I think most people have rules they don't like. Irish was famous for saying he would never apply a rule that restricted cursing, regardless of what the rule said or the situation (church league for example).
 

Sully

Wanna buy jerseys/rings?
I'm just covid bored and looking to discuss softball. It's not a personal assault on the rulebook. :)
 
Top