Infield Fly & Interference
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 май 2019
- This was a game-changing event that changed the outcome of the semi-final matchup between Bear River and Spanish Fork in the 2019 Utah State playoffs. The infield fly rule was called on this pop-up to the first baseman. The retired batter-runner then hindered the first baseman's ability to catch the ball, resulting in an interference call by the first base umpire. What appeared to be the winning run sliding into home, turned out to be the called out, by rule (when there is interference by the retired batter-runner, then the runner closest to home is called out), for the third out of the inning.
This is the full version of the play, including the ruling by the tournament UIC. Make it a great game! Michael Leavitt - Orem, Utah 
Развлечения
Very simple ruling made complicated. Since the infield fly rule is called the batter-runner is considered a "retired". Since the retired runner commits interference then the runner closest to home is also called out. Remember interference is not simply contacting the fielder but also an act of hinderance physical or verbal.
BR here is not retired at time of interference with the 1B; she is only retired IF the ball if fair, which doesn't happen until after the interference is called and after the 1B touches the ball in fair territory. Lets runback this play and watch the 1B- she spent half the ball-travel in foul territory; lets say she stays in foul territory, no interference is made, and she misses the catch in foul territory; Even though Infield Fly is signaled, we don't have an Out, we have a Foul and the BR has another pitch. If in that same scenario, the BR were to have interfered with the 1B making a catch in Foul territory, we would also have Interference, dead ball, BR Out for interference. So, batter is OUT here on Interference, not Infield Fly, and the interference is also a Dead Ball call, so no subsequent play can be made. We can't give 2 outs on 1 interference call because the BR is not actually retired yet.
@@lanem4304 Just so im clear here the umpires got it right... what should have happened is after the ball was hit you see the home plate umpire raise his right hand making the non-verbal sign for infield fly... i know most people do not say it but you are supposed to say in this situation infield fly if fair... this is a lot more difficult than you think, but umpires can still make the ruling with out saying it too, this is where it gets complicated and confusing... now the batter runner may or may not know they are actually retired and now a retired runner is interfering with the fielder trying to make a play on the ball and this is where the interference comes in and makes the 3rd base runner out... you can look this up in almost any rule but including baseball... since USSSA provides their rule book for free, look at rule 8 sec 17H and rule 8 sec 18.
usssa.com/docs/Fastpitch/Fastpitch_Rules.pdf
i hope this helps you enjoy the game of softball and baseball and hopefully this inspires you to become an umpire.
Cheers!
@@argus5323 not quite; the BR is not out on an Infield Fly until the ball is ruled fair; since the interference occurs before the ball is actually a fair ball, then this is only interference by the BR; which is a Dead Ball immediately, and all runners return to base occupied at time of pitch.
If the pop-up lands fair, is not touched by an infielder and then spins foul and is then touched, we do NOT have an Infield Fly then, BR returns and we have a foul ball (if no interference was called). Infield Fly is ALWAYS an out IF fair, the umpire doesn't verbalize that, it is inherent in the rule itself.
You would be correct if a retired runner after being retired interferes with a play (like a ground ball to 2B, throws to 1B, gets the out, then on the throw home the retired BR reaches their hand/arm out to purposefully block the throw from getting home). But, no matter the ruleset, here we do not have a retired BR, we have a signaled Infield Fly and interference BEFORE the Infield Fly can be validated, so we have Interference by the BR, dead-ball, BR is out, all runners return.
and Yes, I do enjoy umpiring a bunch. 3rd HS game of the year tomorrow!
If infield fly was called, then this is correct. I can't tell if it was called in the video. But either way it's interference.
@@lanem4304 You are incorrect. You are basing a good part of your explanation on the positioning of the player - as if that is where the ball is. A proper call by an umpire if he/she knows the ball is fair is "Infield fly rule, the batter is out." If there is some doubt as to whether the ball will ultimately drop in fair territory, the umpire adds "if fair" at the end. You have no way of knowing which one the umpire called. Either way, the batter runner is considered retired immediately and it de facto "unretired only if the umpired did say "if fair" and the ball lands on the ground in foul territory. And by virtue of what happened with the runner going home and ultimately being called out, it appears that the batter-runner was considered out immediately. One thing that IS certain is that the batter-runner runner committed interference (according to the umpire(s) )and in this case, even before interference is called, the batter-runner is out was already called out, and by rule, the runner closest to home is also out
Hats off to the Players and Fans.
Everyone kept there cool. Acted like Professionals and Adults. 2👍👍
I found it funny how the Bear River girls seemed to think they could run the bases and score while the umpires were conferring.
i thought it was odd too none of the umpires are even watching it anyways... therefore it was pointless one coachs likely told her to run it.
It’s female sports. Meh.
That happens a lot more than you think.
@@critter2 the umpires called time out so what they did was pointless lmao
@@critter2 exactly but it’s still dumb for the coach to say go do it lmao it’s a clear timeout
This would make an awesome training video. The emotions of what's at stake make this call look harder than it is. Great discipline by 1B ump. I forgot to add that was a super gutsy slide by the runner at the plate!
This would be an awesome training video under the heading of "terrible things that happen when U1 screws up an interference call, and then the crew doesn't know what to do"
@Black Bear no whisky is needed for me to say the quiet thing out loud, and as much as I agree that a long-sleeve undershirt under a short-sleeve umpire shirt is, well... icky... there's more than enough wrong here that a fashion faux paus is the least of our concerns
@Black Bear and football is a joke to me, guess we all have shitty opinions lmfao
@Black Bear k? you repeating yourself now because you have no other argument?
@@mochiyeosang1908 softball is a joke.
great stuff here. Thanks Michael
Batter is out on infield fly. Now she is a retired player who interferes with 1st base. great call..
which thing was the great call? the highly questionable interference call on retired BR, who appeared not to hinder F3 in any way? or was it U1 waiting until after R3 advanced and appeared to score before walking in slowly calling time? or, maybe it was the umpires botching the penalty for interference by a retired runner and calling out a runner who was standing on her ToP base at the time of the interference? which of those was the great call?
It actually has not been determined if the batter is out on infield fly when interference occurred.
@@charliegarnett9757 that is not the accepted interpretation in any code. the batter is out the moment the infield fly is declared (if the ball ends up foul, the out is nullified). if your interpretation was correct, then when a runner (not batter-runner) interferes with a fielder fielding an infield fly only the runner would be out and the batter would get 1B; instead as we all well know, in that situation both are out: the runner would be out for interference AND the batter-runner was already out for the infield fly
@@davej3781 I called rules people in the association and this is the interpretation on the rule they gave and like most State High School associations they use the NFHS rule book. So...maybe our whole state has it wrong? I believe the phrase is “infield fly, batter is out if fair.” So don’t know if the batter is out or not. We do know the batter is out the second she interferes.
@@charliegarnett9757 when the batter-runner becomes out on an IFF is a hot topic of debate in this video comment section. the way I've been taught, in NFHS Baseball the batter-runner is effectively out immediately upon hitting the ball if the ball does indeed meet the rule conditions of an infield fly (NFHS 8-4-1j). whether it actually IS an infield fly isn't known until later, and it may even be declared to be an infield fly and then turn out not to be one, but regardless, if it is an infield fly then the batter-runner was out the entire time. to say it another way, the TIME of the out is established by rule, the FACT of the out is established on the field at some later time;
the NFHS softball rule is slightly different in wording, it says the batter-runner is when an infield fly is declared. this really doesn't change anything; by the time interference can occur, the batter-runner is already out. if the ball becomes foul, or the umpire declared an infield fly incorrectly by rule, then it was never an infield fly in the first place, so the out didn't happen... but if it happened, it happened when the infield fly was declared.
as to fair/foul when interference occurs, in softball the interpretation or caseplay I've read says fair/foul is established by the position of the ball the time of interference. in baseball, fair/foul status is determined in the normal way, as if there had been no interference (i.e. if it's touched fair or foul, or if it lands untouched and rolls fair or foul), however the ball is still dead at the time of interference (very rarely are these two times more than a split-second apart, but could be in the case where the interfering runner prevents the fielder from even touching the ball, and the ball lands and then rolls).
in any case, on this play I don't think it matters to the outcome, there should be only one out. either the batter-runner is out on the IFF, the retired batter-runner then interferes and the ball is immediately dead with all runners standing on their ToP bases, OR the batter-runner is out for the interference, and the ball is immediately dead with all runners standing on their ToP bases. In neither case did the defense have any possible play on another runner, so no one else should be out.
regarding the proper phrasing of the call if the ball is near the line, aside from you and one other commenter on this video I have never heard anyone even suggest the proper call is anything other than "Infield fly if fair!". that's what has been taught at every clinic I've ever been to, this is what is printed in every mechanics manual I've ever seen; even in the WCUC virtual clinic this past weekend, the MLB umpire and MiLB instructor doing the presentation said the call is "Infield fly if fair!". I've got a PBUC 2-man mechanics manual in front of me right now, and it says in Section 6.6 Infield Fly Situations: 'If the fly ball is near the foul line, the plate umpire will initiate the call by exclaiming loudly and clearly "Infield fly if fair!".'
Very Good Call And Explanation On The Rules Steve, That's Exactly What I Would've Called !
👍😎👌
This is a great video! I love it!!
It took me awhile to figure it all out too. But that would be the correct call. Infield fly which is the second out. After that the retired runner interferes with the catch so that makes the runner going home out has well. It was nice to see them discuss until they got it correct.
Yeah, I agree too. If the infield fly rule wasn't called then it'd be different...if the runner on third didn't try to advance it would have been different...but after looking at it several times and thinking about it the call of batter out on infield fly rule and runner advancing from third is out due to interference by the retired batter. That's a shame but it was correct.
Batter is out on the infield fly and then committed interference.
Since she is already out when committing interference, the runner closest to home is out.
The ball is ruled dead when the interference occurred and all other runners return to where they were at the time of the pitch unless the inning is over.
Can you cite a rule to support calling R3 out?
@@davej3781 you have the rule book available to you. Look up the electronic version and use control f.
And he is right interference of a retired runner is the runner is out along with the runner closest to home. Interference of a runner is a dead ball all runner return.
In this case the question becomes when is a runner out on an infield fly if fair call. Is it immediately or is when we know the ball is fair. As that distinction is the difference between a double play and a single out with the inning continuing with a runner on third.
This is also a good game to protest as it was pretty clear the umpires weren’t 100% on it and as we have seen this comment section is disagreeing like crazy
@@jackjon7763 I'm not asking him to cite a rule because I don't have any rulebooks in front of me, but because I don't believe his ruling is supported by the actual rules. Too many people just say whatever they think the rule is without actually looking it up much less citing it. Going and finding that rule cite is the path to learning. Same goes for you: you haven't cited any rules either.
Ahh ok interference was at first not home, makes more sense
Wrong. The batter is never out unless the ball ends up being fair. You can't call infield fly, batter out, then have interference on the batter against the first baseman, then have the ball drop untouched and roll into foul territory, because then infield fly wouldn't have applied because the ball was not fair. The correct call is interference on the batter, batter is out, all runners return to their base.
Great video and classic example of players, announcers, and coaches thinking they know rules better than umpires.....and being wrong.
Did she technically hinder the fielder?? She ran around the fielder in order to avoid interference.
That's what I noticed too, John. Although I must commend the Umpires for getting together and conferring after the play to make sure they had all the pertinent information for the correct implementation of the wording o the rule.
You don't have to make contact, and she was a retired runner LONG before the interference.
Ok so after all that. Who won the game and went to the state championship?
This announcer needs to stop talking. He has no clue what he is talking about.
the annoucer is blind as hell the umpire at plate is already pointing up for infield fly
They usually don't, at all levels of play.
Fr, he was saying they don’t want to reverse it because he already called her safe lmao, but he’s literally the hp umpire he is supposed to call what happened at the plate and not what happened on the field
Does anyone know who won
Infield fly if fair batter is out. Once the ball is ruled to be fair the batter was out at the time he hit the ball. He’s a retired runner the runner closest to home is then out on the interference.
This is a very interesting case and one that (obviously) has many factors. I have read (most) of the comments and many have valid arguments looking at just the letter of the rules. I suggest we also look at the intent of the various rules involved.
First the IFF: The rationale for the IFF rule is to protect the baserunners from being put into jeopardy due to not knowing if a fair fly ball will be caught or not. As soon as a member of the umpire crew determines that a ball can be caught with normal effort by an infielder, the BR will be out if the ball is adjudged fair and the runners know that the force out will be removed. The BR is not out until the batted ball can be ruled fair or foul, but in either of those cases the runners will not HAVE to advance.
Second, interference by a retired runner: Some have argued this is a rare call, but looking at the most frequent use of the rule, it is not all that uncommon. R1 is called out on the front end of a double play, interferes with the relay to retire the BR. BR is called out on the interference. (I know that is not the case in this play, but we are talking about the rationale behind the rule).
Now, onto the play in question: The umpire crew determines that the batted ball can be caught with normal effort by an infielder. IFF is called to protect the other runners. (At this point it is the ONLY thing that is being accomplished, the BR is not out until the batted ball becomes fair.) F3 drifts towards the batted ball in flight and her opportunity to field the ball is protected by rule. The BR causes, in the judgment of the umpire, F3 to misplay the ball. Interference is the correct call at this point. Since BR has not yet been retired (the batted ball cannot yet be ruled fair), BR is out for interference. Ball is dead, no runners may advance.
Ruling: BR out due to interference, all other runners return to base occupied at ToP.
I'm in agreement with your final ruling, however your reasoning is flawed. In softball, when interference occurs on a declared infield fly, the fair/foul status of the ball is established when the interference occurs, while in baseball the ball is kept live until the fair/foul status of the ball is determined; in neither ruleset does the interference supersede the out on BR due to the infield fly. You also state that "BR is not out until the batted ball can be ruled fair or foul"; this is also not true in either ruleset. BR is out when the infield fly is declared; if the ball ends up being declared foul, the out is undone (or perhaps never happened is the better way to say it). The "Infield Fly if Fair!" call is _informative,_ an acknowledgement that the ball is threatening the foul line and may not ultimately be an infield fly, but it doesn't change _when_ BR is out. (to put it another way, the _fact_ of the out on BR is pending based on the fair/foul status of the ball, but the _time_ of the out is set when the infield fly is declared)
The correct call is BR is out on the declared infield fly; the subsequent interference by BR is interference by a retired runner, and the ball is now dead. Because all other runners were standing on their bases at the time of the interference, there was no possible play on any runner so there is no out declared on the interference. The attempted advance by R3 is nullified, all runners return to base occupied at ToP.
@@milwaukeejt This is interference by a retired runner, because the batter-runner has already been put out on the infield fly.
NFHS Baseball Rule 8-4-2g: (last 2 sentences) "If a retired runner interferes, *and* in the judgment of the umpire *another runner could have been put out* , the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out" (emphasis added)
The analogous NFHS Softball rule is 8-6-16c I believe, and has similar wording.
Likewise in OBR, we have 6.01(a)(5):
"Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any
runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following
play being made on a runner. Such runner shall
be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see
Rule 6.01(j));"
All versions of this rule specify in varying terms that there has to be a play to be made on some other runner which the retired runner interfered with in order to call such a runner out for the interference of his teammate. If there is no possible play at the moment of the interference, for example as in this play where all the runners are standing on their bases, the ball simply becomes dead and no runners may advance; in some discussions this is called "soft interference" because no out results, similar to OBR backswing interference.
@UCbBAySIvw1PjGCUfAYr4dsg the rule you are thinking of is 3-2-3, which covers interference by the coaches, and by any member of the team at bat (on-deck hitter for example) who fails to vacate any area needed by a
fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner.
milwaukeejt I wish you wouldn't have deleted your comment, now my responses make less sense. there's no shame in having a good discussion on the rules, all can learn from it
@@davej3781 Sorry about that. I shouldn't be typing or deleting at this time of night. I am much more clear-headed in the morning.
what if you interfere, theres no infield fly, and you make contact just after the fielder catches it, do they send runners back or is it two outs?
Interference by a batter/runner is a dead ball.
Interference occurred after the infield fly. The infield fly was the second out the batter causing the interference also caused the third out.
Thomas, everyone says that interference is a dead ball , it is not always a dead ball. A balk is not always a dead ball. So much of what you're asking is up in the air ,, I call it situational baseball.. But with interference somebody is going to be out !
@@hutch3703 , Interference is actually a delayed dead ball, but someone is going to be out!
@@hutch3703 ,nope ,most MOST interference plays are delayed dead ball. Just like a balk is a delayed dead ball !!! And dont try and argue with me until you research it a little more!
Wow...even though I'm a Registered softball Umpire for a few organized Leagues, this is one of the few occasions where the implementation of the actual Rule really affected the outcome of the game. My one concern is that at least one of the Umpires (probably the Plate Ump) should have stepped up and verbally taken control of the situation and explained exactly what their ruling entailed. And it's great to see one of the UIC's in charge come out and discuss what occurred and how the Umpires perceived it. Personally, I didn't think the Batter/Runner interfered with first base as she attempted to catch the fly ball, because she actually avoided any contact with the defender...but I guess you had to be there.
I noted the path taken by the batter runner, She left the baseline into fair territory . It is my understanding the batter runner must be in the lane in foul territory . That is where I would have ruled interference.
The Batter/Runner was INITIALLY CALLED OUT per the Infield Fly Rule, therefor she becomes a RETIRED RUNNER- and per the Rules anytime a RETIRED RUNNER commits INTERFERENCE THE RUNNER CLOSEST TO HOME IS RULED OUT.@@Chifan35
You're a "Registered softball Umpire" that doesn't understand contact doesn't have to be made for interference to be called, just an act of hindrance, either physical or verbal?
@@Subangelis No, no, I do understand the difference, it's just an interpretation of what happened at the moment, and it didn't look to me as though the batter/runner did anything mental, verbal or whatever that could be ruled an act of hindrance...but that's hard to tell from watching a video, which is why you had to be there.
@@patersonplankrd The batter-runner is never required to run in the running lane in high school softball. The running lane simply protects the batter-runner from interfering with F3 attempting to receive a thrown ball if she established herself in the lane while running to 1B. This was a retired batter interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
The infield fly rule says less than 2 out runners on 1st and 2nd or bases loaded. No bunt or line drive. The infielder can catch the ball with normal effort. In this paly, if threre was a runner at 2nd then the rule applies. If only a runner at first, then NO it does NOT apply.
Bases are loaded 1 out the rule applies.
Is the batter/runner out if the ball is still in the air at the time of the interference?
In IFF the B-R is not out until the ball touches the ground or a player in fair territory.
@@wlmeister My point exactly.
@@wlmeister That is totally wrong. The batter is out the instant the infield fly is called.
Good question.
@@alanhess9306 Please show me this in the rules. Batter is not automatically out on the IFF call. The correct announcement should have been "IFF if fair" to which the umps would wait and see if the ball is fair or foul, then proceed ruling. There is a reason that IFF is not on the "Dead Ball Rules Table": www.nfhs.org/media/1017910/dead_ball_delayed_dead_ball_chart.pdf
I love how the bear river cowch tells her girls to run the bases and run back home like the run would count
Clearly she is trying to confuse the umps to get a call
ORB 7.09 (e) says anyone runner who is retired that hinders or impedes a play on another runner then that runner is also out. The IFF rule retires the batter runner as soon as the ball is touched fair, the obstruction hindered the play on the runner going home. Ruling is Batter runner is out and the runner going home.
I wonder, if the runner had been thrown out at the plate, without an interference call; would they would have called the catcher for obstruction because she was clearly on the plate without the ball . I saw that called in a 3A tournament game and it was a game changer even though on the replay you could see it was a bad call.
By rule, everything should have been dead at the time of the interference by the batter/runner.
yep........major problem I have is that the homeplate umpire(who has the best look at the interference) signaled nothing. Looks like the base umpire behind the 2nd baseman made the call. Hes gotta come in loud and waving his hands "dead ball", but he strolls in like a walk in the park........not a good look
@@mptr1783 EXCELLENT observation. i cannot remember how many times at any clinic they keep saying hurry into position (hustle) and when making calls be assertive (especially if potential for confusion). umps are there to HELP not what happened here
I just wanna know who won this game
Spanish Fork 8-6 (8 innings)
Not sure why it took so long for them to make this call. Pretty obvious .... Batter/ runner out on infield fly then interferes with 1st baseman(woman) runner closest to home is out on interference. No major conference needed. At this level of play these umps and coaches should know the situation and rules covering this. Glad they finally got it right.
Should the runner on first be out? The batter and that runner where both on in contact with first base at the same time?
the batter-runner was already out, so them both being on 1B at the same time is irrelevant, and neither was tagged in any case... even if both were live, they can stand there all day until there's a tag.
There is never an automatic out when two runners occupy the same base. The one who has no right to the base is not protected, but she still must be tagged to be out. If it is a force situation, the lead runner is not protected. If it is not a force situation, the trailing runner is not protected.
My take on the play is this... The plate umpire points up so must have called "infield fly batter out if fair" did he say it loud enough, we dont know..we also dont know if his crew repeated the call so it could be heard....its a judgement call i guess
At this point the BR is out unless its a foul ball.
The BR continued to 1st base, thus interfering with the defensive player, once all play stops ....make a call of " batter out on the IF and also runner closest to home is also out for the interference) other runners remain at 2nd and 1st unless the last out is the 3rd out to end the innings..
Batter out with the infield fly. Runner closes to home is out because batter moved into fair territory, interfering with the first basemen trying to make a catch.
was that Mr. Miagi 2:17?
Who won the ball game
Spanish Fork, the team in white, scored 2 in the top of the 8th and then held Bear River in the bottom half to win 8-6
www.maxpreps.com/games/5-18-2019/softball-spring-19/bear-river-vs-spanish-fork.htm?c=Orjvjdr8H0W9wjarRbqkEw#tab=box-score&schoolid=
Rules according to MLB: IFF Batters out (runners may advance at their own risk), interference at 1st base, however it must be determined if the interference impeded the throw. Based on the video the throw was made (and in time) however the missed ball by the catcher would mean runner coming home scores. Also throw was not impeded by interference, only the catch. I do not know the rules in Softball so I could not comment if this is how it is ruled here as well.
if there was interference which impeded the catch, how could a run score? the ball becomes immediately dead at the time of interference
This is not MLB. Interference on a retired runner results in the runner closest to home being out.
@@rj2k14 no one has yet cited any softball rule in any code that would properly result in R3 being called out.
@@davej3781 I will supply the exact rule but NCAA, federation on down with that rule should be the same.
If I'm not mistaken this was a federation contest?
I'm going to be honest.. I never saw interference. Runner makes attempt to and does avoid the fielder.
but on the wrong side of the baseline. that's what the runner's lane is for. 99% of baserunners have no clue (probably because they have not been properly coached on this rule) as to why the runner's lane is there. a great deal of angst and turmoil could be avoided if this topic were properly coached and executed. run in the runner's lane and the rule book is on YOUR side. don't, and it ain't.
@@cloudwatcher724 I wholeheartedly disagree with your explanation and application of the 3ft 1st base line.
Fact: The batter runner can avoid contact with the defender in the act of making an initial play on a batted ball on either side of the fielder.
yeah but the issue is that with the infield fly rule being called the batter was already out, she didn't need to go to first base therefore it was interference with at first base.
@@TheBear1322 Yup. This. If it wasn't infield fly rule, then the batter wouldn't be called for interference as she did best she could to avoid. But under infield fly, she was already out. Thus even the attempt to avoid is interference.
@@jnam23 yep the infield fly call is the lynch pin to it all.
Announcer kept saying infield fly and interference with runner at third… the out on IF is a given, the interference is the batter runner interference with first baseman attempt at catch if she makes the catch runner at third would have had to tag up and never made it home
The ball is dead immediately at the time of interference. All runners return to the last base occupied at the time of interference.
What about the catcher blocking the plate without the ball
That too.. I thought they changed the blocking the plate rule to minimize injuries?
At that point the interference by the base runner already happend and the play is considered dead at that point so anything after that doesn't matter
The correct call was made for the "infield fly rule" (1st & 2nd or bases loaded all with less than 2 outs) but the runners can advance. Batter was called out on infield fly rule, runner on 3rd tagged and scored. There is no interference at the plate. The runner scored on a bad throw. The run should have counted. Poor call by ALL of the umpires.
The batter/runner left the base line and ran inside interfering with the fielder who was coming back into the field of play. That’s the interference.
Batter stepped in with 1 out.
IFF was out 2.
Interference was out 3.
Also, Interference is called on the offense. Obstruction is called on the defense.
Also, the fly ball was not caught so there was no need for the runners to tag.
Those two points are moot, though, in this scenario because the 3rd out of the inning was recorded as soon as Interference occurred. Anything that happened after the 3rd out was recorded should be ignored.
@@hutch3703 That's a judgement call. In my judgement, the BR's actions had no bearing on F3. She dropped the ball because she misplayed it.
When a runner AFTER they have been called out, The Penalty is the closest runner to home is OUT.
Batter/Runner was called OUT when Infield Fly is Called...Then Batter/Runner Interfered with 1st Baseman.
Runner on 3rd is Closest to Home and therefore is Called Out.
Proper Call!
Took WAY Too Long to Sort Out, though.
@@ericjohannsen there does NOT have to be contact to have Runner Interference. Legit Call
I agree with the IFF as that is the correct call but there is no interference (in my opinion) by the runner. It appears (again my opinion) that the first baseman just miss played the ball.
Sir I agree with you 100% that was my first thought and I still feel that way. I keep looking at the baserunner and all she did was try to avoid contact which she does on this play. The only issue of course is that the runners lane is not the key part to this play at first base. She took maybe 1 step inside the proper running lane, if she stays where she should have been this video is probably never even posted.
Judgment call on the umpire. Interference is given a wide berth when a batter runner is called out by Infield Fly. Technically, she shouldn't even be there so the umpire is justified in saying there is interference. The batter runner ran inside of the fielder, and the fielder missed the play a split second after the batter runner passed her. I think the judgment is sound that the fielder could have caught the ball had the batter runner ran on the outside of the fielder.
@@anthonystone8270 And I would agree with the umpire. At 1:11, the fielder seems to hesitate, wait for the batter-runner to pass, before continuing to make a play on the ball.
So in the end they got the call wrong? The called the runner on 3rd out due to retired runner interference? That is incorrect. The batter/runner is out on interference and the ball is dead and runner's return to their bases. Bases loaded, 2 outs. The batter/runner is not out on infield fly YET. So when she is called for interference, that occurs PRIOR to the Infield Fly "official" out call and the ball is then dead. Too bad. Not too easy though.
So if the batter just ran straight down the first base line and through the first basemen they would have won because no interference could be called because she stayed inside the runner's lane?
No because she was called out just after hitting the ball so she did not need to be running down the line
Even if she was not already out because of the infield fly, she has to avoid the fielder making a play on the ball.
Runner's lane is only relevant for a throw to first base. There's no throw in this play and it's the batter-runner's responsibility to avoid the fielder making a play on a batted ball.
I dont think the batter interfered with the fielder. The ball was in foul territory and the runner was on the inside of the line. The ball then carried back into fair territory and she ran into the runner. Since the home plate umpire called infield fly the batter had no clue it was a infield fly.
The responsibility to avoid interfering in 100 percent on runner. Does not matter if on purpose or not.
The ball is clearly in Fair territory. You can see her back foot 2+ feet inside the foul line and she still has to fully extend in the direction of the pitcher. Also they made contact with each other with their feet.
1) if the umpire called infield fly, then she had a clue. 2) It doesn't matter if she's aware of it or not, the rule is still in affect. Even if the umpire was late calling it or if no one heard him call it. It still gets applied. 3) The batter runner saw the infielder in foul territory. That's the only information she had to make her intimal attempt to get out of the way as she was running. She's not looking up at a pop up ball while she's running.. She shouldn't be. Unfortunately, the ball came back into fair territory and the infielder had to follow it. Bad luck timing for the batter runner, but she still holds the responsibility to avoid the defender making a play on a batted ball and not interfere. It doesn't matter what the batter runner's intent was and it doesn't matter if there was contact or not. The batter runner impeded the defenders ability to make a play. The batter runner was called out or is out, for a fair ball infield fly rule (out #2). With that rule in affect, she instantly became a retired runner on the field of play. Since she interfered with the play as a retired runner, the closest runner to home is called out (out number 3). This rule is so that there is no advantaged gained by the offensive team for interfering with a defender making a play on a batted ball.
Damn I’m still trying to figure out how they got the third out ??? Can’t be at the Plate because
the Catcher doesn’t have the ball umpire called the runner safe so where is the third out ????
And the batter runner never even “touched” to interfere with the first baseman so wth ???
Infield fly the batter shouldn't have even ran down the line and the batter should've avoided in the runners lane not on the fair side of the foul line so that's the interference call.
There was already one out at the start of play, second out on infield fly, third out is the runner closest to home on the interference by the batter on firstbasemans catch
Contact is not required for interference to be called.
If the catcher doesn’t have the ball when the person goes to home then they have the full right away at the baseline in baseball at least. I would think that it would be the same in that sense. I would think that the runner is able to run right through the catcher if they don’t have the position of the ball. But they can’t lower their shoulder when they run into the catcher. This is what the rule is in baseball
Nope. The runner from third was out as soon as the retired batter-runner interfered with the first baseman. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything the runner at third or the catcher did or did not do. The interference by the runner (who had already been called out) causes the lead runner to be out by rule.
But to answer your question. No. I even for baseball can you purposely cause contact. If the catcher is blocking the plate or basepath. without the ball ...it’s obstruction and the runner is awarded home. But if he/she can avoid contact and doesn’t...she is out via collision rule. If it’s malicious, they’re ejected as well.
Interference in this case occurs before obstruction
@@jackjon7763 this is correct.
Double play. Infield fly batters out if fair,
Interference was made down first, which at the time of the interference, the ball statUs was fair.
So dead ball interference, out from infield fly is kept, and runner closest to home is out due to interference by a retired runner.
(I say this because if this isn’t true, and just the batter runner is out, I’m telling my runner to accidentally interfere every time in this situation)
The batter runner never touched the infielder so therefore no interference is committed. Runners may advance at their own peril. The only thing that would make the player out at home, is if this particular association does not allow headfirst slides. According to TSSAA rules the runner would be out at home.
Interference can be called on a runner if no contact is made with a fielder. If the runner, as judged by the umpire, impedes the fielder from making a play on the ball then she is called out, for interference, and runners return to occupied base at time of pitch.
@@anthonystone8270 Come on. The fielder simply dropped it. It had nothing to do with the runner.
@@mylesmarkson1686 that's certainly a possible judgement to make and you're free to make it as you see it.
However, the first comment stated the runner didn't make contact so there was no interference. My comment was to clarify that a runner does not have to make contact with a fielder to be called out for interference.
So, no...I won't "come on" with you because I'm not judging the runner in this video, I'm correcting an error in the commenter's opinion that a runner must contact a fielder to be called out for interference.
I'm OK with the ruling but playing devils advocate the BR did do her best to avoid the first baseman so idk if the interference is as black and white as everyone makes it sound.
They should change that rule because it doesn't make sense that the batter is clearly trying to avoid her by getting out of her way but the defender veers into her path.. that should be out because the infield fly rule but not an interference if the player is trying to get out of your way
Not sure about softball. Yet. In baseball interference negates infield fly. Batter runner is out for interference runners return to base they were at pitch.
Batter was already out on the infield fly. Then she interfered as a retired batter-runner. The retired runner rule penalty declares the runner closest to home to be out. It is the same in baseball.
interference NEVER negates the infield fly, not in any ruleset
Batter out once infield fly was called and ball was touched In fair territory. The umpire will point directly to the air with right arm and extended index finger and state out loud “Infield fly rule, the batter is out if fair.” If for some reason the ball goes foul and is not caught it’s simply a foul ball and runners return to their previously occupied bases. If it were a foul ball (there would not be an infield fly rule in effect) and caught, the batter would again be out however the runners could have advanced at their own peril. The ball in this case was touched fair. Typically as stated previously, runners could have advanced at their own peril, however, in this case it was a pretty simple call. Once interface was called, batter was out, the ball is ruled dead and runners return to their bases. ( Insert applause here )Thank you...thank you very much.
That's the baseball rule, this is the softball rule infield fly she's out, she interferes with a catch runner closest to home is out.
8:55 I'll never get back. Batters out on Infield fly rule. Interference by the batter runner going to 1st. That makes the runner out at home.
Justify calling out a runner who was standing on 3rd base at the time of interference by the batter-runner Cite a rule.
@@davej3781 no that was the one going home that was called out
@@critter2 the one going home after the ball was dead due to interference? by rule, runners can't advance nor be put out by action of the defense when the ball is dead
The girl at home is not called out at home. Shes called out at 3b. Infield fly batters out, batter runner causes interference dead ball. Runner closest to home is out.
IF is determined by catching a routine fly ball (no degree of difficulty). We all know this, I hope. The runner ran inside the field while 1st base is drifting. The routine catch became a little difficult as 1st base delayed a split second from shifting quicker. Had the runner ran in foul territory as she should have, then no interference call, just an out. Once the interference call is made, it’s umpires judgement to determine if the play is close at home. This part is hard to comprehend for some since the ruling specifically says it’s a judgement call. What I do not understand is the announcer saying interference at the plate. Unless they made a mistake and is out on the interference from the runner who was out.
Interference can be called in foul territory. To give an exaggerated example, if were legal to interfere with a fielder attempting to catch a fly ball in foul territory, then coaches would teach their runners to form tackle a fielder so she cannot make the play.
The piece that gets overlooked is once Infield Fly is called, in the Rule Book's eyes, the batter runner "vanishes" and is no longer involved in the play. So a gratuitous amount of latitude is given to the fielder if the batter runner impedes the fielder at any point after being called out.
Anthony Stone what I meant was simply this... if the fly ball is in fair territory, the runner should run on the foul side of 1st. If the foul ball is being caught in foul territory, then runner should have been on the fair side of first, to avoid interference.
@@billyp179
You assume the runner is responsible for judging a fly ball. That's unreasonable.
The most often coached technique (if taught at all) is for all runners to get clear of the fielder making a play on the ball. Fair or foul territory is of no consequence. Just get out of the way.
Yes, the fielder started out in foul territory and then drifted into fair. But asking a runner, who is already out, to then continue running out the play, while judging a fly ball and judging a fielder's twice altered positioning, is unreasonable.
Simple method: if you hear the umpire call you out for IFF, take a hard direction away from the play as far into foul territory as you can get. Then read and react to ensure you do not interfere if the ball finds its way near you.
I get what you're saying but there's no reason to teach someone to "run out an out". It's a moot point. There is only one thing that can happen for the offense in that situation when a retired runner remains within live play... interference. And that's bad.
So teaching kids to react to the IFF is more efficient and lessens the opportunity for a play like this to occur.
Now, considering the very real possibility that the batter runner did not hear the IFF called, then yes, do whatever you can to avoid interfering with the player. But it still will not matter to the umpire if the runner heard it or not.
So it falls on the coach to ensure the runner is aware of the IFF rule and knows what to do if called out for it. Not hearing the umpire is not going change the call.
@@anthonystone8270 All batter-runners need to learn from this. Since it was close to the foul line, the umpires should call “infield fly, if fair”.
Then there are 3 things that can happen to the batter.
1. The ball is fair and they are out.
2. The ball is caught foul and they are out.
3. The ball drops foul, and their at-bat continues.
Nothing good can happen by running to first. But bad things can.
In 1. Like this case, they could cause another runner to be called out because of interference.
In 2. They could also cause interference if a runner tags up and the fielder is unable to make a play.
In 3. I don’t think a runner could be called out, because it is just a foul ball and no runners are entitled to advance.
@@bobh6728 Um...yes. I agree with everything you say. That's why I said that if a runner hears the umpire call "infield fly, if fair", batter runner needs to get out of the way and into foul territory as far as possible to avoid interfering with a player attempting to field the ball.
If this were baseball, we've got interference on the batter-runner, and the umpire kills the play. Runners return. This is not a a delayed dead situation. There is no following play because there was no play in the works when interference was called (i.e. runners were holding). Maybe softball is different?
In this play, the batter is called out on infield fly rule( making it 2 outs) then batter continues to first creating interference with first baseman trying to make catch therefore creating the 3rd out with declaring runner closes to home out for the interference by the batter-runner already declared out by infield fly. Double play end of inning.
@@harveystarr5682 , get your shot together, one out, bases loaded , infield fly rule called, batter is out! Batter runner interfered with throw to home ,runner at home is out! According to all these want to be umps out there at the time of interference the play is dead , not true, if the throw home was good and runner was tagged out then play continues, let's say runner from second tries for third ,,,, and is called safe or out ,the call at third stands ! Therefore interference is NOT a dead ball !! Just so you know!!
I don't think 1BU gave a DDB. He wasn't on camera. In all likelihood he made the interference call immediately but because of the shouting and HPU focusing on the play at the plate could not get the ball dead. So at that point you just let everything play out for a moment then get your other umpires' attention (as was done here, it looked like 1BU had to call HPU back on to the field).
@@stevehamman4465 Interference is not a dead ball, but the infield fly call does not make the ball dead?
@@dgib1694 , Correct,, interference is a ,,delayed dead ball,, so is obstruction.. Games have been won with plays that had obstruction!! Infield fly should be called when the ball is at the top of its arch. Remember " if fair ". If it's dropped in foul territory than its just a foul ball. Regardless of this batters intent she interfered with the throw to the plate. Therefore the punishment for the interference is ,,, out at home!! I don't type so fast so this is simple explanation. Any questions hit me back up ,I'll get more details! Good day
They got it right. Interference On the 1st baseman runer closest to home is out.
I did not see where the runner interfered with the 1st baseman. The runner ran around the 1st bm and did not interfer with her trying to get to the ball. She just over played it
If the interference occurred prior to the ball being called fair, would it not be a dead ball? Then the batter/runner is out but I could see sending the runner back to 3rd base.
Ball was called infield fly then interference on retired batter which means runner closest to third is out. 3 outs total now.
if there is interference on an infield fly, the ball remains live until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. despite what certain people in this video comment section have said, infield fly takes precedence over interference
@@davej3781 the ball does not remain live. It’s dead upon interference. If the ball is in fair territory upon interference, it is then a fair ball, batter runner is out via infield fly ball. Runner closest to home is out via interference.
@@TrendingNews4You OBR Definition of Terms, _(Infield Fly) Comment:_
"If interference is called during an Infield Fly, the ball remains
alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If
fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter
are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter
returns to bat."
While this is a baseball rule, I've found no indication that the softball rule is any different; if it were it would create other problems. Because the ball was ultimately fair, the batter was out on the infield fly, and the interference becomes interference by a retired runner; under both baseball (NFHS 8-4-2g) and softball (NFHS 8-6-16c) rules, interference by a retired runner only results in another out if the retired runner interfered with a play on another runner; as all runners were standing on their legally acquired bases at the time of interference, and can't advance with the ball dead by rule, there was no potential play. Therefore batter-runner out on IFF, ball dead on interference by a retired runner, all other runners remain at the bases occupied at the time of interference. Play ball.
@@TrendingNews4You ok, I stand partially corrected; it does appear that softball uses different wording, at least at the NCAA level (but again, the caseplay at hand is NFHS):
NCAA SB 11.16 Infield Fly Rule
"Note 7. If interference occurs during the flight of a potential infield fly, the ball is
immediately dead and the plate umpire shall judge if the ball is in fair or foul
territory. If fair, the batter shall be declared out and if foul, infield fly would not
have applied so the batter is returned to the batter’s box and a foul ball assessed to
her count. In any case, the violator is out and runners return to the bases occupied
at the time of the pitch."
This does illustrate the danger of baseball guys commenting on softball plays, though I did my best to do my homework on any possible differences for softball. I can't find any similar wording in the NFHS Baseball OR Softball rulebooks. That said, I do not think this changes the correct ruling on this caseplay. Regardless of exactly when the ball becomes dead, the batter-runner can't be called out twice and at the time of interference the other runners are standing on their bases so it's not possible to get two outs on this play.
You should also note that Michael Elkins in another comment here found a specific caseplay and approved ruling for USA Softball that also says only the batter-runner is out and all other runners return to the bases occupied at time of pitch regardless of whether the defense might have had a double-play opportunity on one of those runners. They arrive at this interpretation through a different path (which I would not attempt to apply to baseball), but the net result is the same.
Final score: Spanish Fork- 8, Bear River- 6 (8 innings). Game details can be found on Max Preps. Rules in question: NFHS 5-1-1e and 8-6-16c. The umpires got it right and showed professionalism by not allowing the game to proceed until they were sure about their ruling!
I completely disagree. How is running directly to the base that you're supposed to be running to considered interference? Had she looked at the ball as she was running and adjusted her direction accordingly, then you'd have a case for interference. And even if you claim that the fielder would have caught the ball cleanly had the runner not been in the way, then the runner WOULDN'T have gone home and this whole scenario would never have happened. So the correct call would be that Bear River wins as the catcher dropped a ball that would have easily gotten the runner out. Or (if you insist on interference), send the runner back to third and let the next batter decide the outcome. There was clearly no direct intent of the hitter to interfere with the play. Basically, you're giving the hitter 2 outs for hitting a pop-up and then (Heaven forbid) running it out to first.
@@mylesmarkson1686 in baseball and softball you can definitely be called for interference even when running directly to the next base. Imagine a runner on 2nd and a slow ground ball to the shortstop. It is always the runner's responsibility to get out of the way of a fielder making a play on a batted ball. The runner from 2nd is not allowed to just run over the shortstop in that scenario. The runner must deviate from their straight line and run around the fielder making the play on the batted ball. In this video it is the responsibility of the batter to get out of the way of the first baseman who is trying to catch the batted pop-up. And interference does not have to be intentional at all. Remember it is the runner's responsibility to get out of the way of the fielder making a play on a batted ball. Another layer to this play is that the batter was called out from the infield fly rule. So because of the infield fly rule the batter is out before she is even half way to first base. Even if the ball drops to the ground she is already out. So you have a case where a runner that has already been put out then interferes with the play on the batted ball. According to the rules in that case then the runner who is closest to home (on 3rd base) is also out. To avoid all of this the batter should have paid attention to the first baseman and run way in to foul territory to give the first baseman plenty of space to catch the ball. If the first baseman still dropped the ball then there would have been no interference and the runner from 3rd could try and score. Remember - interference does not require intent. The umpires are not out there trying to guess at what the intent of the players are. She interfered - whether she meant to or not.
@@theburnetts Thanks Corey, and I'm sure you're right, but common sense tells me that's a stupid rule. Runners are supposed to run to their bases as quickly as they can get there. Yes, umpires can easily tell if the runner intentionally went out of their way to mess up the fielder, and in this case, she clearly did not. They don't need to "try to guess". If it's obvious, then they can call it. If it's not, then they don't. It's as simple as that. And that pop-up wasn't even on the base-path, so there's no way the fielder can blame missing it on the runner. This whole play is a perfect example of what's wrong with baseball/softball... Get rid of the stupid Infield Fly rule. Don't call runner-interference if they're just trying to make it to their base. And DEFINITELY don't call runner-interference if the ball wasn't even headed where the runner was going. It's no wonder these sports are losing popularity, and you and I know they'll never make the slightest attempt to fix any of this nonsense.
@@theburnetts Good assessment! Retired runner interference is a rare occurrence that can occur during chaotic playing action. These circumstances can easily stump the umps. These guys are commended for taking the time to make sure they called it correctly!
@@dogpatch75 So an error on the 1st-baseman and an error on the catcher results in a double-play, and you think it was correct? Un-be-lievable!
You absolutely want to change the call if you got it wrong. What are you even talking about?
I disagree with the call if you call interference on the batter Interfering with the first space making the play the batters out & being that the runner a third stood on third and did not advance until the ball was on the floor the interference call rules and the runner must go back to the previous base therefore if there was one out becomes two outs runner returns to third if you deem it was infield fly then the batters out first base dropped the ball & the runner on third could advance on their own risk therefore run should have scored run !
You're trying to interpret baseball rules in softball. In baseball an field fly is the second out. After the interference the ball is dead runners return to their bases. Softball rule and field fly occurs batter runner is out. Out number 2 she interferes on a fielder trying to make a catch, runner closest to home is out. Out number 3
shouldnt it be 1st and third with two outs..?? i mean if he called infield fly, which it looks like the HP umpire did... then the play is dead... even if she did interfere you cant call the same person out twice...
The play is not dead while the infield fly is in play. The runners can then advance at their own risk.
@@zacharynix2691 the play is dead because of the interference, not the infield fly. it should be bases loaded with 2 outs (there was a runner at 2B as well)
@@davej3781 I'm well aware that the play is dead because of the interference. Jammin6796 appeared to ask if the play was dead because of the infield fly and I said "no." Michael Leavitt's description of the play is correct. The 3rd out is legit since a retired baserunner(R1) interfered with the 1st baseman which means the player closet to home(R3) is out.
That runner avoided contact /attempted to move . A good no call was the path to choose.
I am not getting interference at the plate? Con someone explain that?
the interference call was against retired batter-runner; U1 ruled that she interfered with F3 attempting to catch the declared infield fly. the announcer was puzzled trying to figure out how R3 could be called out, he was just guessing. U1 was horribly late, slow and/or quiet in making the interference call, adding to the confusion on the play, and probably contributed to the misapplication of the rules, since he didn't kill it until after R3 advanced and appeared to score.
You have interference on a retired batter/runner from the girl running to first who interfered with the 1st baseman who was in the act of fielding the fly ball. NCAA rule 11.20.3 states "The batter after being declared out, may not interfere with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner." Effect - Delayed dead ball is signaled. The defensive team shall choose either the result of the play or the base runner closet to home plate at the time of of the interference shall be declared out.
This rule should be the same in federation.
@@rj2k14 interesting rule from NCAA softball, I haven't seen a rule like that in any other code. I'm going to have to read up on that one, the idea that this kind of interference is a delayed dead and we're going to use let the interference create another play where none existed, and then call that runner out who would've never advanced in the first place is, well... it's just weird.
That said, this game is NFHS, and unless there's something like that in an NFHS softball casebook, the rule isn't the same. As to exact rule wording I much prefer the very clear NFHS baseball wording in 8-4-2g which goes something like "if a retired runner interferes, and in the umpire's judgment another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall call that runner out for the interference of his teammate. if the umpire is unsure which runner would have been played on, then the runner closest to home is out" (quoting from memory)
It makes clear that there are two distinct determinations: 1 - did the retired runner interfere with play? 2 - did the interference prevent an out? if the defense had no likely play anywhere, then it's just a dead ball, no one is out
@@davej3781 you have to remember that infield fly rule is not a dead ball. Runners have the opportunity to advance at their own risk so interfering with the first baseman while in the act of fielding the ball is a big deal.
I just can't believe these umpires are wearing a long sleeve shirt under those short sleeved shirts
Correct call. The batter also has to know the situation and realize this is going to be an infield fly rule and just get out of the way. She could not have known that the ball was going to drift and pull 1B into the infield but she ran with her head down and unaware of what was going on.
Realize that she had he baseline established and the fielder is interfering with her line
No...The Umpires implement and enforce the rules. Umpire MUST announce ( INFILELD FLY! BATTER IS OUT!) Otherwise it is a live ball proceed as normal. Players should NEVER assume or presume a ruling is forthcoming. That's why there are umpires to officiate the game.
No interference so incorrect call
@@Ojibs She has no line on an Infield Fly Rule. She's already out, a retired runner.
It "should be"...infield fly, batter is out (2nd out) , interference by the batter/runner who was already out, ball is dead, runners cannot advance. 3rd out. no one advances or scores. .
There is a specific penalty for retired runner interference, and what you state is not the penalty. The umpire crew in the video got both the call and penalty right.
I appreciate all the replies. However, if this was a ruling of the batter runner interfering with the fielder catching the the fly ball...I think the ball is immediately dead and runners cannot advance.
You are correct however by rule the interference broke up a potential double play thus, by rule, the runner closest to home would be out. In this case the cloest runner was on third. This constitutes the third out and the inning is over. The blue crew got it right.
@@bonkcil53154 where is the potential double play here?
@@bonkcil53154 hey where is the potential double play?
This was not batter-runner interference, it was retired batter-runner interference... Different rule, different penalty.
If she had scored wouldn’t they have put her back at 3rd, and if you can’t score on an infield fly how can you get out, I would think the play is stopped as soon as ball is dropped so just out at first
yes, they should've put her back on 3B, not because you can't score on an infield fly (of course you can), but because the ball became dead at the time of the interference and no runners may advance.
@@davej3781 They called interference at home, not at first.
@@GoatyHerps ah, no. that would be beyond absurd. the call was interference by BR with F3 attempting to field the batted ball.
@@GoatyHerps oh, I see, at the very end, the announcer did say that was the call so I see where you got that idea. However the announcer is just befuddled trying to figure out how there could possibly be 2 outs on this play, he's just guessing, trying to come up with a call that fits the outcome. However, interference on R3 at home simply isn't possible here, and even if it was, PU would've been the one to call it, not U1.
Don't you just love announcers!! From MLB all the way down to HS, local tournaments. This guy guessed about 8 different scenarios, all of which were wrong! If he actually knew the rules of the game he was announcing, he would've explained the 1 or 2 possible outcomes. IFF was clearly called and from there, what could possibly occur? The winning run scored is one. With U1 coming in calling time, hands up, what could possibly be happening? Interference is the most likely answer but even without knowing - since U1 was killing the play, one has to know the winning run did not actually score. Great to see them get together and review what they all had and even bringing out the interpreter or whomever he was. But why did it take all that time to come to a conclusion?
Overall, the calls were correct, the coaches of both teams were excellent in behavior, during the discussion among umpires as well as the explanation to both of them. The fans - from what little we saw - were great as well. The only thing I didn't appreciate was the Bear River HC waving both arms at the initial explanation towards the umpires. That is usually an ejection but he was walking away and I'm appreciative that the umpires let it go - as it went on, that HC showed he is a class act and that was only a minor reaction at the moment
Infield fly, yes. Got that out. And then I’m pretty sure we have “obstruction” at the plate. Not “interference.”
I think people are thinking infield fly and batter runner interference but isn’t the commentator dude saying “interference at the plate”????
Obstruction is on defense, interference is on offense... and the announcer guy has no idea what he's talking about. He's merely guessing. Infield Fly, so the batter is out. The batter-runner then interferes with the catch (retired baserunner interfering with the play), so the closest person to home is out as well (this is the runner who was on 3rd that eventually scored). Play started with 1 out, thus we now have 3 outs, no run, play ball.
Never rely on commentators to correctly explain rules!
Great call
This was called incorrectly. The interference rule references making a play on another runner. 1B was making a play on the batter's fly ball, not another runner. The runner did not leave third until after the ball dropped. The batter is not ruled out until fair-foul status is determined. The ball was on the line and in front of the bag; if the ball had dropped untouched (with no interference) and ended up in foul territory, the batter would not have been out.
For the USA Softball rule clarification:
"Play: R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B with one out. B4 hits a fly ball to F3. The umpire declares infield fly if fair. B4 runs into F3 before F3 is able to catch the fair fly ball.
Ruling: The ball is dead and B4 is out on the infield fly. Runners return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. Rule 1 Definition Infield Fly, Rule 1 (D) Definition of a fair ball, Rule 8, Section 2J Rule 8, Section 2I.
The rule reference Rule 8, Section 2J states: When an infield fly is declared, and the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner before reaching first base.
Effect:
1 The ball is dead.
2 The infield fly is invoked.
Even though the ball does not hit B4 the intent of our rule is if the batter-runner interferes with and infield fly before it legally becomes a fair ball, the ball should become dead and the batter-runner should be declared out on the infield fly. This allows for the runners to be put back on the base they started from versus the last base touched if we called interference." www.teamusa.org/usa-softball/umpires/~/link.aspx?_id=B40BCFEE5CF64CD29DFC61734F77D1AD&_z=z
They aren't playing under USA sanction however.
@@TheJesseMoody I know. Someone brought up the USA softball case in the comments, so i wanted to link it, and the result should be the same in both.
Nowhere in the rule book does it state that "the batter is not ruled out until fair-foul status is determined". If I am wrong, please cite it. However, NFHS 8-2-9 does state that the "batter-runner shall be called out WHEN she hits an infield fly". She "hit the infield fly" when her bat contacted the pitch, not when the ball landed or was touched.
@@dogpatch75 It is not an infield fly, and the batter is not out, unless the ball IS fair. That's why the call on the foul line is "infield fly, the batter is out if fair." And if the ball drops foul, it's just another foul ball.
Yes since both are true. runner to first out by infield fly rule and caused interference then 2 outs appropriate.
based on what rule?
Wrong. Interference on batter, batter is out, immediate dead ball, runners return to original base. I'll prove it to you - imagine you call infield fly, then the batter interferes with 1st baseman while attempting to catch the ball. Now imagine the ball is never touched by a fielder and hits the ground and goes foul. Infield fly no longer applies because it wasn't a fair ball. So, you can't have infield fly AND interference. It's interference, immediate dead ball, batter out, runners return to their original bases.
@@jarmaxpro that's why the call when the ball is potentially threatening the line is "Infield fly if fair". you still determine fair/foul status of the ball even when there's interference. otherwise how do you know what happens to the batter? in this play, had the ball been foul after interference, BR would simply be out for interference; with the ball fair after interference, BR was already out on the infield fly, thus the interference is interference by a retired runner. that said, because the defense had no play on any other runner when the ball became dead, no other out should have been awarded. so the outcome should've been the same either way: bases loaded with 2 outs, next batter.
Where it would make a difference is let's say R3 was trying to score BEFORE the interference occurred (either forgot the outs, forgot about IFF and thought she was forced, or simply gambled that F3 would miss the popup like she did). then the proper judgment would be that the defense DID have a play on R3 at the time of interference by the retired runner, and R3 would be declared out for interference by her teammate. but that didn't happen in this play, all runners were standing on their bases at the time of interference.
@@davej3781 you can't say that "BR was already out on the infield fly" because you couldn't determine whether infield fly was applicable to the situation until AFTER the interference happened. When the interference happens, ball becomes dead, BR is out, no runners advance. This exact play happened to me where the BR interfered with the 1st baseman, 1st baseman dropped the ball (without touching it), ball went foul before passing 1st base. Even though we initially called infield fly, the batter wasn't out due to the infield fly because the ball ended up being foul, therefore, the BR is not technically automatically out when infield fly is called.
@@jarmaxpro you obviously didn't read what I wrote very carefully, but yes, I absolutely can say the batter was already out because that's what the rules say. it's not a simple linear sequence: the batter is out if it's an infield fly. period. if the ball ends up foul, then it wasn't an infield fly in the first place so the batter isn't out... but if it is fair, then it was always an infield fly and the batter-runner was already out. The TIMING of the out does not depend on waiting for fair/foul status of the ball, only the FACT of the out.
If you read the rules about when a batter-runner becomes out, you'll find NFHS Baseball says it's when he "hits an infield fly" (NFHS 8-4-1j), meaning the batter is out the moment he hits the ball, while NFHS Softball says it's when the infield fly is declared. OBR also says the batter-runner is out "when an infield fly is declared" (OBR 5.09(a)(5)). All rulesets are approximately the same in this regard (the distinction between "hits and infield fly" and "infield fly is declared" in the various rulesets is largely immaterial
This is why it doesn't make any difference at all whether the umpire calls "Infield Fly, Batter is out" or "Infield Fly if Fair". It's good practice and good mechanics for the umpire to use the "if fair" call when the ball is obviously threatening the line, but ANY batted ball can end up foul even if it lands in the middle of the infield. Thus the umpire may quite properly have called "Infield Fly, Batter is out", but the ball ends up foul unexpectedly so the batter isn't out because it was never an infield fly. Baseball is full of situations where the TIME of some event or ruling is defined by rule, but it may later be nullified by another event (usually the ball being declared foul, but there are other ways it can happen).
If runner interfered with fielder,batter runners out,evryone else returns to the base they occupied
They blew this shit that's not interference. An infield fly rule should not have been called
Correct call, not sure why it took 5 minutes.
Coach who wouldn't leave the umpire conference needs to be in the parking lot
More than the IFR, there are a number of problems with this play. The 3rd base player was in the base path without possession of the ball. The batter ran around the player to avoid running INTO her but the fielder moved to the same direction causing obstruction. The catcher was in the base path without possession of the ball and obstructed the runner coming into home. I find the coaches guilty of not teaching proper softball rules to the team.
Dennis, the first baseman or the defensive player has the right of way to make a play at a batted ball without being interfered with. Yes anywhere on the field. The batter - runner interfered with her ability to make a catch and a throw.. Even though she tried to get out of the way she still interfered. This interference is actually,,, " I'll start a rule debate here" a delayed, Yes DELAYED dead ball. So the runner at home was ruled out because of the interference!!! Let's say she was thrown out then there was no interference!! Therefore play continues . Let's keep this play going,,, runner from second tries for third gets thrown out ! Triple play!!
Dennis, if you watch the catcher ,her legs are apart allowing a lane for a slide!!
@@stevehamman4465 Using stop and go on the video, I saw the catcher holding the ball between her legs. With her feet on both sides of the plate she was effectively blocking it. This play is NOT black and white as some would comment. There were multiple base running and fielding "violations" to go around. The ump looked as though he called the infield fly rule on the batter. As such, she's out and should NOT have continued to run to first base. However, doing so, the 1st baseman moved into the runners path(on the foul side of the path) to catch the ball, forcing the runner to move to the infield side of it. The 1st baseman drifted in the same direction forcing the runner to move around her so she could catch the ball. Again using the stop and go method of moving the vid, I could see that the batter was actually AT THE BAG with the 1st baseman a good 4-5 feet down the base line STILL drifting over to make the catch then stop moving her feet and reaching for the fly, dropping it. The 3rd base runner heading for home and the throw home, the catcher was squatting, straddling the platy with the gloved ball between them, effectively BLOCKING the plate. IMO, this entire play was a cluster f&*%k with errors on both sides. I would have called batter out on the IFR, runner from 3rd safe at home.
this is a toughie. the infield fly rule was called and the batter did every thing she could to avoid the first basemen. that is all moot. the ONLY time a fielder has the right of way in the baseline is when they are fielding a hit ball off the bat. that is moot also! the infield fly being called negates all action except the runner on base can advance at their own jeopardy. no interference and runner at home scored. ump takes wrong call to next level. ump definitely blew the call even if the batter trucks the first basemen nothing is called because infield fly rule trumps everything. everything is dead EXCEPT runner on base can advance at his OWN jeopardy.
The rules are applied correctly, but I think the interference call itself is wrong because there was no impact on the play. The fielder read the ball wrong, didn't predict the rotation correctly and therefore she was unable to reach it. There is no contact and no interupton of her movement either. I would say she didn't even noticed the passing batter-runner, as she was looking up all the time...
The runner doesn’t have to make contact with the fielder for it to be interference. The runners close position right in front of fielder is enough to make the csllc
The crew actually didn't get it right unfortunately. The infield fly is called, but not complete until the ball hits the ground or a player. So the interference supersedes the IFF because the interference occurred first. The correct ruling should have been interference, call time, B-R is out. No runners can advance because of time being called.
Correct. BR is out, all other runners return to base occupied ToP. Well done sir.
@Don McKay If the ball hits in fair territory and bounces foul untouched in front of first or third base...it is a foul ball. The batter is not out, the batter returns to the plate to finish the at bat. The reverse is the same with an IFF call where the ball hits in foul territory and bounces fair in front of first or third base and is touched fair...it is an IFF and the B/R is out. So the B/R is not out automatically on announcement of the IFF.
@Don McKay I still see no interference at all The fielder drifted into the path of the runner the runner avoided the fielder and never touched her.
2A Forever contact is not required for interference. Just hindering the play is enough. The fielder has right-of-way.
Yea....unless they thought the interference was intentional. That’s the only thought process.
In all honesty, I do not have interference here. In my opinion the BR did not impede the 1st baseman from fielding the ball. I saw no contact and I saw no hesitation by the fielder as the ball drifted towards the circle and I saw the BR move out of the fielder's way.
she was already out, as called by the home plate ump before she even left the box...by her continuing in the play and disrupting the normal fielding of the ball she created an out by interference. and the runner closest to home plate is out.
@@cheswick617 Wrong. She was not already out. The IFR only applies if the ball is FAIR. The 1st baseman was positioned in foul ground initially because that's where the ball took her initially. The BR is not out on the IFR until the ball is ruled to be a fair ball. The ball was not ruled to be fair UNTIL it hit the 1st baseman's glove in FAIR territory which was AFTER the BR had passed her. Quit letting your brain convince your eyes what your brain wants to see. Watch the video again. No batted ball can be declared fair or foul before 1B or 3B until it is touched by something other than the ground or comes to a rest.
IF on batter runner, than interference on batter runner so the runner closest to home is out.
When the announcer is clueless. You can advance on infield fly, so sending the runner back to third was not an option
What was the interference? The batter did not make contact with the first baseman. She went around her so not to make contact. The batter is out on the IFF and the girl is safe at home on the dropped ball.
You do not have to have contact to have interference.
@Mike V Batter is not automatically out on the IFF call. The correct announcement should have been "IFF if fair" to which the umps would wait and see if the ball is fair or foul, then proceeding with the call. There is a reason that IFF is not on the "Dead Ball Rules Table": www.nfhs.org/media/1017910/dead_ball_delayed_dead_ball_chart.pdf
So I found the answer at least specific to the USA softball code. It's USA softball rules clarification and plays and goes in to detail the difference between a batter runner interference on a infeild fly and a runner interference on a batter runner interference. This is June of 2019 and this can be found on USA softball website. It states Play: R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B with one out. B4 hits a fly ball to F3. The umpire declares infield fly if fair. B4 runs into F3 before F3 is able to catch the fair fly ball.
Ruling: The ball is dead and B4 is out on the infield fly. Runners return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. Rule 1 Definition Infield Fly, Rule 1 (D) Definition of a fair ball, Rule 8, Section 2J Rule 8, Section 2I.
The rule reference Rule 8, Section 2J states; When an infield fly is declared, and the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner before reaching first base.
Effect:
1 The ball is dead.
2 The infield fly is invoked.
Even though the ball does not hit B4 the intent of our rule is if the batter-runner interferes with and infield fly before it legally becomes a fair ball, the ball should become dead and the batter-runner should be declared out on the infield fly. This allows for the runners to be put back on the base they started from versus the last base touched if we called interference.
This is a tough rule to call. In fairness to everyone the dead ball and return to bases seems appropriate. I do know in some interference calls the play on next runner is called out also.
This is actually the USA Case Book, not the code.
@@roymurrayanderson7573 i'm not certain why usa chooses to interpret the rule this way. Usually if a runner is already out, the rule requires the runner closest to home to be called out. But the case book is the authority for plays that are covered.
@@MaydayAggro the interference by a retired runner rule, in any code, only requires another runner to be called out if there was in fact a potential play on such runner at the time of the interference. on this play, when the ball became dead due to interference by the retired runner, all live runners were standing on their ToP bases. how can the defense make a play on a runner in contact with their legally entitled base?
I do agree though that the USA casebook interpretation is a little odd in that it seems to allow for the possibility that runners were already advancing (in which case the defense likely had a play on one of them), yet still says they should be returned to their ToP bases with none ruled out.
@@davej3781 nope. Not true. In USA softball if a retired runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner, the runner closest to home is always the one called out. It does not require a play to be in process. It's applied if the fielder had an opportunity to make a play, on anyone. Doesn't matter in this case though because the rule is applied differently.
Did anybody else see Mr Miyagi coaching.
Too much umpire pointing and arm waving--you explain the situation with words. The on-field three man crew should have consulted close together before anything was disseminated to either coach. ALL umpires should have remained in together during the consult, not leave the huddle and go and address players as the one hobbling umpire did.
funny, I only see a 3-man crew. But, when the UIC off field ump came on the field, they did get together by themselves
This is good umpiring. I'm glad they called the UIC to ensure they were making the right call. I don't criticize the coaches for stating their argument but ultimately, as soon as interference is called, that's the 3rd out of the inning and anything that occurs after that is moot.
No, that was terrible umpiring, by U1 at least. If he was calling interference, he should've been into the infield immediately, calling it big, not waiting until a run appeared to score to walk in slowly calling time trying to undo the action he never should've allowed to happen in the first place.
@@davej3781
You can't possibly discern what he did or said outside of the camera's view. You're assuming too much.
How do you know he wasn't jumping up and down hollering but went unnoticed because of the action of the runner at 3rd?
It appears he could've been more demonstrative in his call but you don't know for sure that he wasn't. Nobody does except for those who were at the game focusing on the U1 while continuing action took place across the diamond.
I do not accept your opinion that this is bad umpiring ESPECIALLY since they gathered with the UIC to get it right.
Terrible umpiring would've been making the call and then refusing the coach's request to get his partner's opinion, and further, the UIC's.
@@anthonystone8270 ok, fair enough. I still think U1 should've been charging in harder & sooner, but you're right, I don't know what U1 did until we could see him on camera. I'm quite sure they got the final ruling wrong, R3 should've been returned to 3B, but they certainly did their best to get it right.
@@davej3781
Ok, now, I agree with you on that 100%. I didn't like the "stroll" on in. As you pointed out, had he charged in, with a more emphatic movement or action, I think he catches the necessary attention of SOMEONE and "Dead Ball" is repeated until everyone stops. THEN...discuss.
Seriously, Dave. Well said good sir.
I'll tell you, and has always been a pet peeves of mine, an umpire who is too timid and lacks confidence in their calls is difficult for me to accept. As you pointed out, this, in and of itself, makes a HUGE difference.
No, there is no call to go Dutch Rennert on the field but this guy came in Joe West...and I think you nailed it saying this lack of emphasis on a Dead Ball call could've wound up worse than it did.
As in (my opinion only) the runner on 3rd, already retired via the IFF Rule and the Interference call, was put at risk of injury directly from the U1's slow roll.
Again, well said good sir. 👍
@@anthonystone8270 good discussion Anthony, I think we both got some good thoughts on this.
Interference, not so sure! But with an interference by the batter runner called along with an infield fly rule inacted, the play is dead immediately. Per the interference, batter is out and runners return to their last base at the time of the interference........
you and I don't always agree, but on this one you are indeed Great
I disagree completely with the batter being called for interference, she should run on contact no matter what and not stop until she gets to first base. Regardless, if interference was called, then how is it even possible for the runner to be out at the plate?, on a dead ball...
Should be bases loaded, two outs. IMO, no interference should have been called and the runner scores...game over.
The batter wasn't called out for interference, she was called out because of the infield fly. When she ran down first base line she caused interference on the first baseman trying to catch a ball. That's a dead ball runner closest to home is now out.
@@mariocanales4735 first, i didnt say she was called out for interference, i said she didn't interfere with the 1st baseman. Second, if they call interference, they should have just sent the runners back
The batter is out, but how was she supposed to know that until the play is over?, she is looking at the base not the ball or the official and she could not possibly hear them even if they did say something. The batter did her job. The batter, IMO, did not interfere with the catch at all. All that said, what doea that have to do with the runner at 3rd...
@@floriduhman9520 once interference is called the ball is dead. But in this instance there was an infield fly and then interference. That's why the runner closest to home is called out also. Because she is a retired runner who interfered, the player hitting the infield fly. If you disagree with the umpire calling interference that's fine. But it's solely based on what he judges as interference.
In feild fly call it
The batter/runner clearly makes an attempt to avoid interference with the first baseman. The first baseman was initially in foul territory calling for the pop up so the batter/runner had to take a path to the base in fair territory. How would she know that she is a 'retired' runner? With a 3 man crew, there is no umpire in her line of vision. Personally, this is a bogus interpretation of this rule. It's a live ball, third base runner advances at her own risk, she's safe at the plate, game over.
Jumper guy...so what was WRONG about what I said?
When the runner commits interference on 1B attempting to catch the ball, the BR is NOT out yet; the BR on an infield fly is only out if the ball ends up FAIR. If the ball were to land 1 ft in fair territory in front of first base, then spin and kick foul before being touched, it is a FOUL and the BR would return to see another pitch. Since the BR is not out when the interference is made here, as soon as the ball is deemed FAIR (touched by the 1B in fair territory when she missed the catch) the ball is now dead - and the BR is out for interference, all baserunners are returned to the base they occupied at time of pitch. R3 would only be out if the interference was on a play when a play is being made on another runner (Lets say R3 tags up, 1B does catch the ball, R3 is running home and the now retired BR reaches her hand out to block the throw home etc). Here, since the ball is dead as soon as touched in fair territory due to an interference, there can be no subsequent play on R3, so no further out can be deemed as part of the penalty for interference.
As the comments continue to grow, it appears too many folks think that for some reason the batter is not out immediately when an infield fly is declared. NFHS 8-2-9 clearly states that the batter-runner shall be called out WHEN she hits an infield fly. The Infield Fly Rule definition (NFHS 2-30) states a fly ball becomes an infield fly when it it is declared and then will be treated as a foul ball if it becomes foul. There is nothing in the wording of the rule that implies that the batter is not out immediately. Since all batted balls are fair until declared foul, there is no logical reason for the actual time of the out to be delayed beyond the declaration of the Infield Fly.
The sad thing is, many of the folks who would incorrectly delay the timing of the out are uninformed umpires!
@dogpatch75 you have it backwards. The batter is out when the play meets the definition of an infield fly, which in rule 2 is "A fail ball . . ." The batter is not out until the ball has fair or foul status, and a ball in flight does not have fair or foul status. Your statement of "all batted balls are fair until declared foul . . " is completely false per the definitions of fair and foul ball (NFHS rule 2).
@@TheBsonak Curious! Nowhere does rule rule 2-29 in the 2024 rule book say "the batter is not out until the ball has fair or foul status". Also, rule 8-2-9 clearly states "the batter-runner shall be called out WHEN the batter-runner hits an infield fly". If your creative language regarding fair or foul status exists somewhere in the rule book, please cite it. Otherwise the batter-runner must be out immediately unless it is a foul ball. 😀
@@dogpatch75 the look at definition of infield fly "a fail ball . . ." and the definition of a fair ball "touched in fair territory prior to reaching 1/3 or fair territory past 1/3 . . "
A ball in the air has no status.
@@TheBsonak Nowhere does it say "A ball in the air has no status". If I'm wrong, please cite where such a statement occurs in the rule book. A fly ball in the infield has status as an infield fly as soon as the circumstances stated in the infield fly definition (2-29) are recognized. That is why the infield fly is declared as soon as it is recognized after the bat contacts the pitch. We don't wait until the ball lands (or is touched) somewhere to declare an infield fly.
@@dogpatch75 Please see 2-20 FAIR Ball:
a. settles or touched
b. touches or bounds
c. touches
d. touches
e. passes over the home run fence
f. Falls / touched
Notice how all of these cannot happen when the ball is in flight (2-28: A ball that has not touched the ground . ."
Even with the additional 2-20G (in 2023), a ball in flight will have status when an offensive team member commits interference, but the ball is dead.
What make a foul ball (2-25):
a. settles or touched
b. bounds
c. first falls / touched
d. touches
e. (similar to 2-20 G) offensive member commits interference
f. touches
g. touches the catcher
Ergo, a ball in flight does not have status. Of course the rule book doesn't specially use that language, but can be inferred from 2-20 and 2-25.
2-30 Infield fly rule (btw, infield fly is 2-30, not 2-29 like you keep quoting): " . . a fly . . ." and now we have to reference when a ball becomes fair. That's why we say: "infield fly, batter is out IF FAIR" (technically it should be "when fair" but I digress".
I'm not 100% sure the crew got this play right. I think we have interference on the batter runner before the ball becomes a fair ball.
I think this should be an immediate dead ball at the time of the interference. Batter Runner is out and the runners return to their time of pitch base. I don't think we can get two outs on this play. A fly ball over fair territory is neither fair nor foul so until the ball becomes fair by rule, the batter runner is not yet out for an IFF. If the batter runner is already out and is dead before the ball becomes fair, we can not possibly have an infield fly.
In this play, everything that occurs after the interference by the batter runner is moot. Thanks for posting the play and for the opportunity to comment. Have a nice day.
You are absolutely right, the ball is live until the interference, whatever happens after the interference is moot.
jpg901c, I disagree. The batter-runner was out when the infield fly was called. She then interfered with the fielder trying to make the play on the batted ball. That is interference by a retired runner. Since the batter-runner was already out, the runner from third is also called out. The umpires were 100% correct.
jpg901c Interference is a delayed dead ball call. The umpire will make an arm motion and yell out “interference” but play will not stop unless it’s malicious. Also, when the fielder is attempting to field the ball, any runner must avoid. The batter/runner didnt in this case. Infield fly is called (batter/runner is out) and another out is called for the interference. In this case, the lead runner is called out.
@@jasonmcleod6001 Interference is NEVER a delayed dead ball...NEVER. Who told you this?
@@alanhess9306 Alan I agree with you right up until you say the runner from third is also called out. Why? The visible runners were standing on their ToP pitch bases at the time of the interference, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that R2 was on her base as well. How do we call out a runner standing on her legally occupied base when the ball became dead?
I always laugh when coaches in softball suddenly start screaming at the base runners to start running the bases after time was called like 5 minutes earlier. Do they have any concept of how calling time works in softball?
The batter is out and should have not continued to first. So the batter now choosing to be an illegal runner interferes with the first base persons attempt to catch and throw the runner out at home. Now is that runner out ... no but should return to her previous base.
Why are their so many players in that team
This was a playoff game in high school softball. Some of those players were probably JV players who were invited to dress for the playoff games.
What interference? The batter was tryng to avoid a collision with the first baseman. These umpires suck!
Best thing to do is call interference in this case.
No interference. The runner made an effort to avoid contact while the first baseman occupied the 45’ running lane.
Where do you get the idea that "effort" is relevant to an interference call? To quote the great umpire master Yoda: "Do, or do not, there is no try."
The runner ran inside the baseline and cutoff the fielder who was coming back into the field of play. Had the runner stayed in the running lane, there would have been no interference.
Intent and effort has no bearing on interference.
@@hutch3703 Running lane only protects a runner from a throw from the plate area. Only. Never any other time.
The most egregious part of this is the fact that the crew did not come together to discuss what happened and how they would proceed. Whether it was interference is certainly up for debate.
What video did you watch? The 1b umpire and home plate umpire did come together, and then they called the UIC in to confirm. Absolutely the right call. The interference call is a judgement call by 1b umpire on whether the retired batter in any way prevented the fielder from being able to field the ball.
The BR hit what if fair would be an IFF an she would be out on the hit.
The play was killed on the interference when the ball was over fair territory making the hit a fair ball which in turn makes the batter retroactively out for hitting an IFF. We know this because we can make the call all the way up until the next pitch and it would negate any force outs that we called. There are case plays on that.
So at the time of interference she was a retired runner interfering with F3's opportunity to field a batted ball.
The interference ends the play, the IFF is not in effect until the ball is touched fair. Since the interference is called ending the live ball part of the play, the ball is not able to be touched fair.
@@wlmeister there are case plays and interpretations that tell us when the play becomes dead while the ball is in flight the batter ball is judged to be fair or foul based on its position at the time the play is ruled dead.
The rule that confirms this is that 'a ball in flight is neither fair nor foul while in flight'. At the point of the interference the ball is still in flight, and the ball becomes dead before it hits the ground. Because it was the B/R that interfered, there is no chance for a double play on the interference because the B/R being out ends any force play opportunity to turn two. Had it been R1, R2, or R3 that had interfered, then the second out could be grabbed due to the runner other than the B/R interfering with an IFF under that rule. As a runner advancing beyond their occupied base, and interfering with a IFF, could be construed as intentional to prevent a double play from being turned. But still, the interference better be absolutely intentional on the fielder...as in the runner veered out of the established baseline to purposely contact the fielder attempting the catch.
In this case, the B/R did try to avoid contact even though she still interfered by rule. I have interference, time, B/R is out, 2 outs, bases still loaded because R3 can't advance on a dead ball.
@@wlmeister NCAA softball rule book 11.16 note 7
@@wlmeister There is an equivalent case interpretation in NFHS softball as well, I remember seeing it I just can't find it right now. But in NCAA 11.16 note 7 confirms what I said about the ball in flight. It also says the violator of the interference shall be called out. But in this video the violator was the one already out because of the IFR so it is interference by a retired runner and the runner closest to home is called out.