Delayed infield fly rule call

[EdLovrich]

By definition, all runners would have to be in a forced situation without the IFF called. So rectifying the delayed call would be the same for all outs. Or did I miss something?

If they runners are tagged out and they left PRIOR to the touch of the fly ball or it's landing uncaught, they have left early IFF or no IFF and are subject to being called out on appeal (In this case the act of tagging the runner suffices as the appeal). If they left AFTER the ball is touched or landed uncaught, they are NOT forced to advance but may at their own risk. Either way, if the runner is tagged, they are subject to being called out regardless of the IFF.

EDIT DUE TO BRAIN CRAMPS. The runners are not subject to being appealed for leaving early on an uncaught fly ball. They ARE subject to being tagged out for advancing at their own risk, no force is on because the BR is out the moment she hits the IFF. see post below.

 

[Lemond]

I agree with this @The Man In Blue n Blue the way I stated the problem. Now, let's make it stickier. Same set up, same 3B drops the fly, this timethe runner's are advancing (at their own risk per the rule) 3B recovers the ball TAGS the runner from 2b, throw to 2B who TAGS the runner advancing from first (at her own risk per the rule). BR is safe at first. NOW defensive coach comes out and asks about the IFF. BR out, end of inning and you have a shirt show that you really can't justify changing.

I think @flash277 just covered this in one of his USSSA rules posts the other day. I think the gist of the citation was that regardless of the method of the put out (tag the base vs tag the bag), a force is still a force.

 

[flash277]

I think @flash277 just covered this in one of his USSSA rules posts the other day. I think the gist of the citation was that regardless of the method of the put out (tag the base vs tag the bag), a force is still a force.

Nice to see somebody reads these scenarios:

USSSA RULES:

312. R1, R2 and R3 are on third, second and first bases, respectively, with one out. B5 hits a fly ball high above the infield which should be declared an infield fly, but the umpires erroneously fail to make the call. F4 settles under the pop fly, but misplays it and it falls out of her glove. F4 picks up the ball and throws to F2, who tags out R1 sliding into home. After the play is over, both coaches approach the umpire: the defensive coach argues the infield fly should have been called, and the offensive coach notifies the umpire that F4 is using an illegal glove.

Ruling - B5 is declared OUT on the INFIELD FLY; R1, R2 and R3 are all AWARDED THREE BASES and score. When an infield fly is not initially called, the batter-runner may be declared out if brought to the umpire's attention before the next pitch. Each runner (other than the batter-runner in this case, who is out on the IFFR) is awarded three bases when a fair-batted ball is touched by an illegal glove or mitt. The award is based on runner position at the time of the infraction (8.14.B.1, p 47; 8.15.B.1, p 48; 8.17.H NOTE, p 50)

Not sure what an illegal glove is though, anyone have any insight on that?

 

[EdLovrich]

I think @flash277 just covered this in one of his USSSA rules posts the other day. I think the gist of the citation was that regardless of the method of the put out (tag the base vs tag the bag), a force is still a force.

This is true as far as it goes, but the rule states (NFHS) 8.2.9 The Batter-runner is out when; she hits an infield fly. The timing is important, the batter is retired the moment she hits the IFF, since the BR has been retired all force plays are off.

 

[EdLovrich]

Not sure what an illegal glove is though, anyone have any insight on that?

It is a glove/mitt that does not comply with the rules under rule 1 Playing equipment. Most likely will be 1) more than two colors or 2) over-sized

 

[EdLovrich]

312. R1, R2 and R3 are on third, second and first bases, respectively, with one out. B5 hits a fly ball high above the infield which should be declared an infield fly, but the umpires erroneously fail to make the call. F4 settles under the pop fly, but misplays it and it falls out of her glove. F4 picks up the ball and throws to F2, who tags out R1 sliding into home. After the play is over, both coaches approach the umpire: the defensive coach argues the infield fly should have been called, and the offensive coach notifies the umpire that F4 is using an illegal glove.

Ruling - B5 is declared OUT on the INFIELD FLY; R1, R2 and R3 are all AWARDED THREE BASES and score. When an infield fly is not initially called, the batter-runner may be declared out if brought to the umpire's attention before the next pitch. Each runner (other than the batter-runner in this case, who is out on the IFFR) is awarded three bases when a fair-batted ball is touched by an illegal glove or mitt. The award is based on runner position at the time of the infraction (8.14.B.1, p 47; 8.15.B.1, p 48; 8.17.H NOTE, p 50)

Unfortunately, this situation does not take into account of what you do with the runners after an undeclared IFF. The runners are all awarded the bases without liability to be put out due to the illegal glove/mitt. If the glove/mitt had been legal, the runner from third would still have been advancing at her own risk and subject to being tagged out.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Not sure what an illegal glove is though, anyone have any insight on that?

Typically in the definitions or Rule 2. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Typically it is going to be a size violation.

I know I had a USA tournament a few years ago where a coach questioned F5 wearing a first baseman's mitt. We looked it up to make sure, so I know USA does NOT restrict fielders (although now that I say that, there may be a restriction that the pitcher cannot wear a catcher/1B mitt -- I forget on that one). I am not sure if some codes still prevent fielders from wearing any glove they want, I would have to look it up.

 

[Lemond]

Nice to see somebody reads these scenarios:

Every single post, so please keep ‘em coming! The only thing I wonder from time to time is how different some of these are from USA or NFHS, which are the only two we see around here.

 

[EdLovrich]

NFHS any fielder may wear any glove/mitt as long as they conform to the other restrictions (color, adornments, size)(I can post the entire section if there is interest). Catchers shall wear a glove/mitt of any size.

 

[mmeece]

And actually, this is the 'out' for the umpires. If the SS did not catch the ball, and the IFF was not called, the umpires simply say, "In my judgment, the SS was not able to catch the ball with ordinary effort." This is obviously true, because she DID NOT catch the ball with ANY amount of effort. Comes down to the DEFENSE has no standing in coming out and questioning why IFF was NOT called.

The fielder not making the catch should not be the only evidence that it required more than ordinary effort. The question is whether or not that fly ball in that spot SHOULD have been caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.