White Sox Lose on Interference DURING Infield Fly as Umpires Call Game-Ending Double Play, By Rule

The issue is that (since 2013) interference during an infield fly is a double play. It is not exactly the rule, but it is clarified that way in a comment. There is not a good reason for it to be an automatic double play. It probably should not be 2 outs unless it is intentional interference. The rule for interference says the ball is dead and batter-runner is awarded first. This is just one example of the many times the rule book contradicts itself. The language in the rule book forced the umpires to make this call (correctly). Then the commissioner’s office undermines the umpire by suggesting that there is “room for judgement” in this call. This does not mean that the umpires or CCS got it wrong. It means that MLB doesn’t like their own rule book.

Ok so I have an honest question here. Based on where the ball lands Henderson never had to even go towards the runner on 2nd in the first place. Why wouldn’t infielders just start running into runners in this situation? Seems like a really bad loophole here.

And I thought the White Sox only got in their own way

Generally I see the logic of the rules but this rule has always seemed a bit strange to me. Yes, it's interference by rule and should be immediately out, but generally for unintentional acts the penalties are generally given to nullify the interference. For example, if it was just R1 and the R1 interfered, he'd be out and the umpires would kill the play with only 1 out and BR would be put on first. In this case, the defense is being given 2 outs when the actual play would have at most resulted in 1 out. It just seems the punishment is out of proportion to the crime, and remember, the purpose of the infield fly is to protect the offense, give the defense a free out.

If the letter of the law does not make allowance for the path a fielder makes in fielding the ball, the next similar situation would have the fielder immediately run into the base-runner to get the automatic double-play. Seems the need for a rule modification.

My thoughts... The call is correct by the letter of the law. But, it was so minor, would anyone have noticed if he DIDN'T call it? I kind of have a "let 'em play" mindset so I wouldn't have called it and if Baltimore asked for a review, handle it that way. So, yes, call is correct, but I probably wouldn't have made it myself. Which may be why I'm behind a keyboard and not on an MLB field...😆😆😆

What's to stop an infielder from meandering a bit on a popup just to make it look like the runner interfered?

How can you call interference on an infield fly rule? By definition, the runner is out automatically and the ball does not need to be caught. If the ball doesn't need to be caught, how can you interfere?

My question is why didn't the second base umpire call this?

Lindsay, you're amazing. I was catching up after a long day, finally watching Orioles highlights (I live in LV so gotta settle for highlights sometimes) and saw the last out(s) called. My first though was "Well, I home CCS covers this..." and bang, first video I see on my suggested videos...this one. Love it as always, keep up the amazing work!

The first time I saw this (on replay), I knew it was textbook definition of interference. Is it fair? Ehhhhhhhhhhhh probably not. Is it the rule? Most definitely so. Was it called correctly and properly? Absolutely.

So during a fly ball all the fielder has to do is run at the runner in the base path and make contact, then go to the ball for a double play

MLB came out and said it was a bad call today.

Whether or not it’s within the rules, shit like this is stupid and makes baseball look ridiculous. It shouldn’t be.

I wonder if runners are taught to locate the fielder first and then do everything possible to get out of the way.

1:35 The third base ump called interference when Gunnar begins to step on the infield grass and BEFORE the infield fly was called AFTER Gunnar 0:55 is now 4 feet on the grass. On this play, the ball / play is dead before the infield fly was called. The ball / play was also dead before Gunnar caught the ball. Therefore there are only 2 out in the inning. An infield fly is only an infield fly when the umps call it an infield fly. 1:09 The pop up must not only be fair, but it must also be in the infield and not the outfield. There can be interference called before an infield fly is called, (like here) or after the infield fly is called. The rule states both batter and runner are out if interference occurs DURING (after) an infield fly. The interference here was not DURING an infield fly, it was BEFORE the infield fly was called. Therefore only the runner is out, the play is dead, and the rule states all other runners return to the last base occupied. Home plate is a base so the batter returns to the batters box because the play / ball is immediately dead once the interference was called and because it was called before the batter reached first base. The batter was now a runner after he hit the ball. Since the play was dead once the interference occurred, or was called, the ump's subsequent infield fly call cannot be made at all; it cannot be made retroactive to the third base ump's interference call; and an ump cannot make a call after the play / ball is already dead. The Pontiff

This gets an "I'm not a fan of this call here" (emotion) but simultaneously "this is 100% the correct call" (fact). As tmac always says, "do what's right, not what's easy" and as difficult as it is...interference + infield fly double play is correct by rule...even if no one wants to see it.

This is the problem when you have a sport with too many rules and sub sections to the rules, but that said as a British person i still like watching baseball

It's a ridiculous, nonsensical rule. There should at least be a discretionary component. The umpire should be required to call interference, especially under circumstances like these.

Here's how I saw this play. Gunnar did NOT appear to be tracking the ball when he went toward the runner. Yes, I know the wind can change the path of the ball and the fielder can have to make adjustments, but that is not how I see it here. If you just follow his movements from start to finish, it is not consistent with having to adjust to the wind. It looks like he went right toward the runner on purpose and then immediately afterwards, went straight to where the ball was coming down as if he knew all along where it was going, and he was trying to draw the interference on purpose. Someone here asked if we really think this is what Gunnar was thinking when he did this. YES, I DO. I think it was a very heads up play by a young ball player, and he is never going to admit in public that's what he did. In situations like this, interference is always at the discretion of the umpire. They could look at this and say because the fielder tried to draw the interference, it isn't interference. However, I do admit that this looks more obvious in hindsight on replay than it probably did in real time, and this isn't something that can be challenged. I wish the lady that was the commentator here would have addressed this possibility.