Scenario Rule-Baseball and/or softball

[The Man In Blue]

Basically just letting it drop. The point to get from the rule supplement is that in order for a ball to be considered intentionally dropped it has be considered legally caught first. Also don’t forget that an infield fly supersedes an intentionally dropped ball

An infield fly and an intentionally dropped ball cannot occur on the same play, therefore one cannot supersede the other. My thought, and it is just my thought, is that the same logic is used in each rule to extend the protection to the offense. Both rules include the clause "which can be caught ... with ordinary effort". (edited out the description of infielder for infield fly). Burying an obscure and illogical interpretation in the supplement speaks to how tacky and incorrect it is. (Note: dropping an infield fly or letting it drop does not require intent.)

Letting it drop is letting it drop. That is intentional. What is "guiding it to the ground" and why would it be considered something different?

Runner on first base, one out. The batter hits a pop fly to F4. F4 camps out under the ball and repeatedly yells "I got it!" The batter (batter runner now) does not run and R1 is holding on first base. F4 sees this and, at the last moment, steps back and intentionally lets the ball drop. F4 picks it up and throws to F6 at second base; F6 throws to F3 at first base for the double play.

I find it VERY hard to believe that is the intent of this rule. If it is, then there is no reason for the rule to exist.

 

[testandor]

Runner on first base, one out. The batter hits a pop fly to F4. F4 camps out under the ball and repeatedly yells "I got it!" The batter (batter runner now) does not run and R1 is holding on first base. F4 sees this and, at the last moment, steps back and intentionally lets the ball drop. F4 picks it up and throws to F6 at second base; F6 throws to F3 at first base for the double play.

The only thing that caught my attention was that the batter-runner has a chewing out coming to her. Since when do kids have a choice in whether they run hard to 1st after putting the ball in play? NEVER, is my answer to that. I know that wasn’t your point, but it stood out like a sore thumb to me. Right behind that “cardinal sin” is a routine fly ball between your two OF’ers, neither calls for the ball, and the ball drops in for a ”base hit”. Now I’m thinking about the things that used to get my blood boiling when I was coaching. None of them had anything to do with talent...they all had to do with effort.

 

[umpwally]

An infield fly and an intentionally dropped ball cannot occur on the same play, therefore one cannot supersede the other. My thought, and it is just my thought, is that the same logic is used in each rule to extend the protection to the offense. Both rules include the clause "which can be caught ... with ordinary effort". (edited out the description of infielder for infield fly). Burying an obscure and illogical interpretation in the supplement speaks to how tacky and incorrect it is. (Note: dropping an infield fly or letting it drop does not require intent.)

Letting it drop is letting it drop. That is intentional. What is "guiding it to the ground" and why would it be considered something different?

Runner on first base, one out. The batter hits a pop fly to F4. F4 camps out under the ball and repeatedly yells "I got it!" The batter (batter runner now) does not run and R1 is holding on first base. F4 sees this and, at the last moment, steps back and intentionally lets the ball drop. F4 picks it up and throws to F6 at second base; F6 throws to F3 at first base for the double play.

I find it VERY hard to believe that is the intent of this rule. If it is, then there is no reason for the rule to exist.

Well, I can tell you this

An infield fly and an intentionally dropped ball cannot occur on the same play, therefore one cannot supersede the other. My thought, and it is just my thought, is that the same logic is used in each rule to extend the protection to the offense. Both rules include the clause "which can be caught ... with ordinary effort". (edited out the description of infielder for infield fly). Burying an obscure and illogical interpretation in the supplement speaks to how tacky and incorrect it is. (Note: dropping an infield fly or letting it drop does not require intent.)

Letting it drop is letting it drop. That is intentional. What is "guiding it to the ground" and why would it be considered something different?

Runner on first base, one out. The batter hits a pop fly to F4. F4 camps out under the ball and repeatedly yells "I got it!" The batter (batter runner now) does not run and R1 is holding on first base. F4 sees this and, at the last moment, steps back and intentionally lets the ball drop. F4 picks it up and throws to F6 at second base; F6 throws to F3 at first base for the double play.

I find it VERY hard to believe that is the intent of this rule. If it is, then there is no reason for the rule to exist.

Speaking USA Softball , what you believe has nothing to do with how the rule should be enforced. Merely letting a can of corn fly ball drop to the ground with a runner on first, first and second or first second and third with less than 2 outs is not to be ruled an intentionally dropped fly. If you do rule it as such and it is protested you would lose the protest and no umpire wants that. Also, an infield fly and an intentionally dropped ball can certainly happen on the same play. Keep in mind that an infield fly is nothing more than a regular fly ball except that the batter is out automatically. When both do happen on the same play remember that the infield fly rule supersedes the intentionally dropped fly ball. Supersedes only means that when you are in an infield fly rule situation there is no need to consider whether the fly ball was intentionally dropped or not. Hope this helps

 

[flash277]

Well, I can tell you this

Speaking USA Softball , what you believe has nothing to do with how the rule should be enforced. Merely letting a can of corn fly ball drop to the ground with a runner on first, first and second or first second and third with less than 2 outs is not to be ruled an intentionally dropped fly. If you do rule it as such and it is protested you would lose the protest and no umpire wants that. Also, an infield fly and an intentionally dropped ball can certainly happen on the same play. Keep in mind that an infield fly is nothing more than a regular fly ball except that the batter is out automatically. When both do happen on the same play remember that the infield fly rule supersedes the intentionally dropped fly ball. Supersedes only means that when you are in an infield fly rule situation there is no need to consider whether the fly ball was intentionally dropped or not. Hope this helps

Is this your one post for the year Umpwally?....Considering you've been here since 2012 and have 12 posts

 

[umpwally]

Lol...It sure appears that way. Being locked down at home has afforded me the opportunity to see what’s happening in the online umpiring world. Over the years I’ve perused this site from time to time but seldom commented. For some reason I felt compelled to comment this time. Maybe from the boredom and frustration of being stuck at home when I should be on the field? One good thing about this is, I’m getting to know my wife a little better. Turns out, she’s not so bad....lol

 

[The Man In Blue]

Well, I can tell you this

Speaking USA Softball , what you believe has nothing to do with how the rule should be enforced.

Correct. Doesn't mean I cannot express my opinion on the rule.

Merely letting a can of corn fly ball drop to the ground with a runner on first, first and second or first second and third with less than 2 outs is not to be ruled an intentionally dropped fly.

Correct. Stupid, but correct according to the rule book.

If you do rule it as such and it is protested you would lose the protest and no umpire wants that.

As an umpire, I honestly couldn't care less about protests. If I get something wrong to that extent, and we are all subject to errors, I would rather it was corrected. Again, doesn't mean I have to agree with the rule.

Also, an infield fly and an intentionally dropped ball can certainly happen on the same play. Keep in mind that an infield fly is nothing more than a regular fly ball except that the batter is out automatically.

Which is why both situations cannot exist on the same play. The batter was already out. If the fielder drops it, are you going to call the batter out again?

The difference between the two penalties is a live ball and a dead ball. So if you are going to stand by the notion that both scenarios can exist at the same time, we are going to punish the offense for the defense's wiley actions to circumvent the rule book. Drop it accidentally and the runners can run. Drop it on purpose and they cannot. Just another reason it is a dumb interpretation which interjects wording that is not written into the actual rule, but added later in an obscure section.

I know you guys said it goes back to the 2001 book ... I would love to know the origin of it.

 

[umpwally]

I understand your point about not agreeing with the rule. I feel the same way about some rules and also some mechanics but I follow both the manual and rule book. It’s rarely a good idea consider opinion or intent when it comes to applying a rule. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word supersede when talking about infield fly Balls and intentionally dropped fly balls. This may register more clearly with you : An infield fly takes precedence over an intentionally dropped fly ball. I hope that gives you a more clear understanding

 

[umpwally]

An example of an infield fly and an intentionally dropped fly ball happening on the same play: Runners on first and second with one out. Runners leave on the pitch. High fly ball is hit to the short stop who camps underneath it. Infield fly is called and the batter ruled out. The shortstop legally catches the ball then , for whatever reason, intentionally drops the ball to the ground. Now realizing that the runner never tagged up picks up the ball and throws the ball to the second baseman who steps on the bag before the runner the runner gets back. The base umpire calls the runner out. The offensive coach requests time to argue that his runner could not be ruled out as per the leaving early rule because the ball was not caught and everyone in the stadium saw the ball on the ground. With your understanding that an infield fly and an intentionally dropped fly ball can not happen during the same play, how are you going to explain to the coach that despite the ball being on the ground you still have his runner out for not tagging up?

 

[umpwally]

Now that we have established that an intentionally dropped fly ball and and infield fly can happen on the same play let’s take a look on why it’s important to know why an infield fly supersedes or takes precedence , if you will, over an intentionally dropped fly ball as per the play above. The conversation would probably go like this:
COACH: Blue, how can you call my runner out, the ball was on the ground?
UMPIRE: Yes it was coach but I had her legally catching the ball but then intentionally dropping it
COACH: Well, if you had an intentionally dropped fly ball why didn’t you invoke the appropriate penalty for an intentionally dropped fly ball ?

(This is where we bring out the big gun)

UMPIRE: Because coach the infield fly rule supersedes (or takes precedence) over the intentionally dropped fly ball rule.
COACH: Thank you blue

 

[MTR]

Speculating (i.e. I didn’t look it up) - I think the batter is out due to the force. Which makes the runner safe.

Now if the fielder tagged the runner, then the base, it would have been a double play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This response, the first one to the OP, is correct. Everything following is a waste of time. The only error in the response is calling the put out of the BR a force out