Originally Posted by prekowski
Your hypothetical example, while amusing, only shows that an umpire can, and I underscore can change an IFF call made or in this case unmade under R10-3-c. However, you have failed to show either in your example, or in any specific cited rule, where it says that IFF is in effect when it happens, not when it is declared. In fact, the rule specifically says, “when declared” nowhere have I found or have you provided a specific reference to it being in effect “when it happens”.
Your hypothetical example is also not close enough to this actual happening to make a valid comparison. First off, in this situation, there is only one umpire, the home plate umpire, no base umpires, so there is no opportunity for the umpire who was in position to make the call to consult with the home plate umpire. The home plate umpire is the only umpire, so he can’t consult with himself, although I guess perhaps in theory perhaps he could have such consultation with himself but that would be weird. Second. the runners and fielders had the duty to have positioned themselves according to the call being made or in this case in the absence of an IFF being declared, so there is no excuse for not having done so.
Plus, the only reason defensive team had the opportunity to turn double play was because batter runner failed to move more than one or two steps out of the box. He has an obligation to run out the fly ball in the absence of a declared IFF. The runner at first also has the obligation to go half way as we say (but we all know half say does not necessarily mean 50 percent of distance to next base, it means the safe distance far enough to be able to return to the base safely upon a caught ball) so if he did that, and the ball was dropped, he would have opportunity to make it to the next base in the event of a dropped ball.
While I initially said, it could have been called IFF because it was routine, it was 10 to 15 ft behind the skin of the infield, and the 2nd baseman was back peddling to get to the ball, so while an argument could be made either way IFF should have or should not have been called, the fact of the matter is it wasn’t called.
The purpose of the IFF rule is to prevent the (at least) two runners from being put in jeopardy, not to protect the batter-runner, who did not “run it out”. A double play could not have been made had the batter runner run the ball out there was not time enough to have made a double play otherwise. The call after the fact only gave the batter runner a get out of jail fee card even though he did not run it out.
So while I can agree, that under the one rectification rule you cited (R10-3-c) that an umpire has the prerogative to change the call and perhaps even call an IFF after the fact, in so many ways, especially in this specific situation, it is not so cut and dry as it is apparently being made out to be, and a protest by either offense or defense could have been made depending on how the final call ended up, and the final outcome of the protest would be a subjective determination, not an objective one (i.e. the rule book is ambiguous on this particular issue).
I do however appreciate you taking the time to answer my question and giving your input.
|