Questionable IF fly.

[The Man In Blue]

How long would that be? One second, five seconds? One step, two steps, ten steps? I'm sure you know there is nothing in the book setting any restrictions other than that the umpire believes there was possession or a voluntary release. Please note in "B.1" of your quote that is notes "while gaining control" Since the umpire made the out call, I have to assume s/he determined possession prior to the fall. Not being able to see it, we cannot render judgment.

What if the SS got the ball in the glove and immediately flipped it in the direction, but not in flight all the way, of another fielder while tripping? Even though the SS didn't clearly show possession, that would be a voluntary release and by rule must be ruled a catch though it may not have even been close.

IMO, many of today's younger umpires carry some of the written rules to the extreme trying to force a rule onto a play.

You cannot have a voluntary release unless you first have control. Swatting a ball (the way I interpret your description) back into the air is not a catch and voluntary release. Sounds like a set in volleyball to me.

But I will agree 110% that you have to see it and that it is the umpire’s judgment so we could all be wrong.

The advice I would offer is advice we have all heard a thousand times ... do NOT make that call too quickly. There is no rush. Make sure it is a catch in your judgment before you call it a catch.

 

[djcarter1966]

The key on these things is that we did/can not see the play. I’m not sure why we get all worked up when somebody renders a judgment different than ours. I think most of us are fairly good about putting the caveats into our explanations. I know I try to explain the circumstance I am understanding and any “what if”. I try not to say an umpire was wrong (though sometimes you just have to) but try explain why/how the umpire may have seen that play that way.
Fact is, the catch/no catch doesn’t matter. The batter was out on the Infield Fly, even if it wasn’t called. The runners then advance at their own peril. They did not leave early and were not doubled up, so the catch/no catch is irrelevant.

Where I’m not understanding you MTR is in putting all the runners back. Infield Fly does not have to be called; all participants are expected to know the situation. I guess I am disagreeing that the chaos that ensues during an infield fly is a “correctable umpire error” that needs correcting by rewarding the defense and penalizing the offense. In my opinion, it should just stand.

YES this very much depend on the umpire getting this right at the moment!! The fielders CANNOT assume an infield fly that would be silly.

Given the information on hand the umpire now has to unravel the situation. In the first instance IF or not the runner at third saw the drop ball reacted after the catch then drop and sounds like she then went home, never address was the question if she was on the bag I am assuming she was. Under either the normal play or IF it seems very reasonable that this girl would score so it seems...batter is out and one run socres is the easy part. The problem now is what about the other runners, under normal rules they are out under IF rules they are safe because of lack of tag...to be the most fair to both parties I would put the girls back on first and second. So we end up with one out, one run runner at first and second. Again these situations are the worst because all the players reacted correctly given the information they had at the time and the umpire has to go back in time and assume what would have happened if he had not made the mistake.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I’ll say it again: Infield fly is not a “correctable umpire error.” You should not be moving any runners anywhere in this case or any other case because of an infield fly.

Yes, the fielders and runners are expected to know infield fly. That is not silly.

I will have to look up verbiage to support this when I get home tonight.

 

[djcarter1966]

So let's ask this question if you are the infielder and you do not hear the infield fly rule called what are you going to do?

What if in his judgement the ball didn't have sufficient arc or he thought it was not ordinary effort those are umpire judgement calls that CANNOT be argued later to get an IF rule called retroactively, actually her having to backpedal and ultimately dropping the ball could enhance his view the it was not ordinary effort. I'm going to stand by my runner should NOT assume an IF call if it is not made properly at the time. Now I could be 100% wrong but common sense does not always apply these rules and that's fine.

To take your don't move runner back rule to the absurd, you could have a ball in the air not called IF, ball is not caught, runner goes to third and team throws to third assuming force is in play that runner is called out by the umpire runner continues to run home and touches the plate, defense throws the ball to second for what they assume is another force on a dropped ball the umpire calls her out, runner continues to third then home. In your book since I can't move any runners and they were all free to advance at their own risk... I can get the IF rule to ball called retroactively and you have three runs scored?

 

[CoachJD]

Yes, the fielders and runners are expected to know infield fly. That is not silly.

Expecting players to know the rule and expecting a fielder to know if a particular ball in the air meets that particular umpire's subjective definition of infield fly are not the same thing.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Hmmm ... we may all be a little right and a little wrong ... USA Softball Rule Clarifications and Plays, May 2010 ...

Rule 8, Section 2I Batter-Runner is out

Play: R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B and R3 on 1B and one out. B5 hits, what appears to be, an infield fly that it is not called by the umpires. The ball was not caught and F5 picks up the ball and throws home for a force play with no tag being applied, and the runner is called out. After all play has ceased the defensive coach requests time to discuss the play with the umpires as they feel that the infield fly should have been called per ASA rules. After the umpires discuss the situation the plate umpire calls the batter-runner out on an infield fly and rules the runner that touched the plate safe for not being tagged. The offensive coach protests and asks if the umpires can legally call Infield fly after the fact?

Ruling: If after the umpires get together and agree this fly ball met the criteria of Rule 1, INFIELD FLY, and the umpire failed to make the correct call at the time, then Rule 9, Section 1A[1-4] allows the umpire to call “Infield Fly” when the opposing team brought this to the attention of the umpires. In regards to R1 at 3B, by the umpire not calling “Infield Fly” this put both teams in jeopardy. Rule 10, Section 3C allows for the umpire to rectify any situation in which a reversal of an umpire’s decision or delayed call places the offensive or defensive team in jeopardy. In the above case, the batter should be ruled out for Infield Fly and return R1 to 3B.
As to the question of whether the umpires can decide, after the fact, to call an Infield Fly or not, the following information should be noted:

1) If the umpires thought it was a fly ball that could be caught by normal effort (Rule 1 Definition Infield Fly) and did not call infield fly, then the opposing team could protest a misapplication of the playing rules under Rule 9A, Section 1-4.
2) Not calling infield fly put both the offense and defense in jeopardy, especially the runner from 3B attempting to score.
3) Rule 10 Section 3C allows the umpires to rectify any situation in which a reversal of an umpire’s decision or delayed call by an umpire places a batter-runner, runner or defensive team in jeopardy.
In this case, if the umpires decide, under protest, that the Infield Fly Rule should have been called, then they put the defense in jeopardy by not knowing that they had to tag the runner. The umpires should have returned all runners to the last base touched before they ruled the batter–runner out on the Infield fly rule that should have been called.

 

[djcarter1966]

Interesting....sounds like this does make sense although I'm not sure exactly how this applies when no play is made on the runner at home. It would seem to punish the offense because under either circumstance the defenders could have attempted either a force play (No IF rule) or tag (IF rule) on the runner going home but chose not to and instead to throw to third and second perhaps most obviously because they were not sure they could get the runner at home out. It does seem straightforward with the lead runner being no longer out all runners would have to go back but this does make for a case it would seem not specifically addressed in the rule book.

 

[canyonjoe]

Once the ball is touched by the fielder, may the runners still attempt to advance even if IF was called?

If the IFF is called it means the runners aren't forced to advance. Outside of that they can do whatever they like but at their own peril. So if it is actually caught they need to tag up prior to advancing but if the ball is never caught they could have taken off on contact.

 

[testandor]

How long would that be? One second, five seconds? One step, two steps, ten steps?

Umm, I'd say "ten steps and about five seconds", at least.

Really? Why be silly and insulting? I thought I made it clear that this wasn't a challenge, but just a question. Maybe not clear enough.

Whenever these type of plays are presented and opinions are asked about the call or the outcome, I always keep 3 things in mind that I feel are "givens". Quite frankly, I always assume - or hope - that most rational, level headed people will feel the same.

THREE "GIVEN'S" W/ QUESTIONED SITUATIONS.
1. We all know that to give a truly accurate answer, YOU HAD TO BE THERE to make your own accurate judgement call.
2. But since we weren't there, we have to rely on the version AS DESCRIBED by the original poster.
3. Odds are that someone will start with the "what if's" that more often than not take us far astray from the original post.

Since the umpire made the out call, I have to assume s/he determined possession prior to the fall. Not being able to see it, we cannot render judgment.

There's #1.

What if the SS got the ball in the glove and immediately flipped it in the direction, but not in flight all the way, of another fielder while tripping? Even though the SS didn't clearly show possession, that would be a voluntary release and by rule must be ruled a catch though it may not have even been close.

There's #3, followed immediately by #2, a scenario that bears no resemblance to the play as described by jppoker in the OP.

Again, I was just trying to learn something. In my approximately one month here, it seems that guys like TMIB, MTR, Marriard and COMP are the guys who answer the most questions about rules. I'll continue to ask if I think it's an opportunity to learn. Sometimes I'll get an answer, sometimes I won't. In any case, I am NEVER challenging anyone. - just asking.