Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
Thanx for the replies so far.
From an older case study file I have, I found the following:
PLAY 8.2-35
With one out and R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, B3 hits an apparent infield fly. The umpire does not call "infield fly." The fly ball is not caught and in the confusion, both R1 and R2 are tagged off base resulting in three outs.
RULING: The infield fly should have been in effect. Failure of the umpire to invoke the infield fly place the runner in jeopardy. This is correctable by calling the batter out and returning the runners to their respective bases (8-2l; 10-3C)
Has this interpretation been changed? While this case play was not identical to the OP play, it's similarity is relevant.
|
In most every case, jeopardy has been considered subjective, and a judgment to be made by those on the field (although KR has, more than any predecessor, seemed to try to make those calls from afar; I suspect his motivation is an effort for "consistency").
With any subjectivity, I see a substantial difference between:
1) this case play, where a) no call was made in live time, b) all runners appeared confused, and c) a no-call was later changed to a an IFR; and
2) this OP, where a) the call was made (be it not very loud, not at the apex of the flight, but acknowledged by the offense, and prior to the ball being dropped), b) at least one runner was NOT confused, and c) there was no change of a call nor it necessarily "delayed".
Certainly a play somewhat similar, but I see some substantial differences that I consider pertinent to the ruling.