[celebur]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

First, nothing he said would indicate that he "obviously" does or doesn't know anything. He said "dropped the ball." I have only that to go on, not some imagined "obvious-ness." I'm only assuming a dropped ball because he said "dropped the ball on purpose." I would just think that even the sub-100 I.Q. coach would say "let the ball bounce on purpose" if that is what happened.

The why does 6.05l include the approved ruling?

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Second, he did not make it obvious that he "thinks" the umpire cost him the game. He does, however, indicate the umpire did indeed give him a bogus answer to why an infield fly was not called. Backstop height, my butt.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Third, any way you look at it here, we have the correct call. It is one of 3 calls:

1.) If the fielder let the ball fall untouched, we know that 6.05(l) is not the correct call. Then it would be either an IFF, or nothing.

2.) If the fielder intentionally dropped the ball (which is what was said, BTW), then 6.05(l) should have applied, and a dead ball, the batter declared out, and runners returned.

3.) If the ball was actually high enough to be called an IFF, then the Infield Fly Rule should have been called.

The only way the umpire could have avoided molesting Fido is if call #1 were indeed the case here, and not an IFF. Still, he gave an improper determination of how to judge an infield fly, and his use of that criteria could be a protestable rule interpretation, IMO.

Excellent summary. I emphatically agree.