The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Clarification (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/31804-clarification.html)

David B Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:17am

Clarification
 
Preparing for rules session last night and came across the intentional drop by an infielder.

For some reason I can't seem to make sense from the FED book.

8-4-1c - his fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight is intentionally dropped by an infielder with at least first base occupeid and before there are two outs.

Ruling is ball is dead, BR is out and runners return.

Okay that makes sense as we want to prevent the DP by the defense.

Then I read the next section and it confuses me.

8-4-1c1 - in this situation the batter is not out if the infielder permits the fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight to drop untouched to the ground, except when the infield fly rule applies.


This seems like a contradiction. With infield fly the batter it out, but is this saying if the defense doesn't touch the ball we can't have an intentional drop?

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks
David

AlabamaBlue Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B
if the defense doesn't touch the ball we can't have an intentional drop?


This is correct!

David B Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlabamaBlue
This is correct!

:confused: That seems strange since I've two intentional drops and both simply at the last second let the ball fall right in front of them and then went for the DP.

Both were HS varsity seniors who knew exactly what they were doing.;)

Thansk
David

BigTex Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:29am

Intentionally dropping the ball is different than intentionally letting the ball hit the ground. If the defense does not touch the ball, play on!

GarthB Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B
Preparing for rules session last night and came across the intentional drop by an infielder.

For some reason I can't seem to make sense from the FED book.

8-4-1c - his fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight is intentionally dropped by an infielder with at least first base occupeid and before there are two outs.

Ruling is ball is dead, BR is out and runners return.

Okay that makes sense as we want to prevent the DP by the defense.

Then I read the next section and it confuses me.

8-4-1c1 - in this situation the batter is not out if the infielder permits the fair fly, fair line drive or fair bunt in flight to drop untouched to the ground, except when the infield fly rule applies.


This seems like a contradiction. With infield fly the batter it out, but is this saying if the defense doesn't touch the ball we can't have an intentional drop?

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks
David

"Intentional drop" requires the fielder to intentionally drop the ball which requires contact with the ball by the fielder.

Letting the ball fall to the ground untouched is not an intentional drop.

lawump Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:15pm

I remember
 
I remember from old episodes of TWIB that Ozzie Smith was a master at this. When he would see the runner on first not running, he would quickly back up and field the ball on a hop...and get a double play. Yes, he takes a risk that the ball could take a bad hop, but I guess he figured the ball would bounce "true" on Busch Stadium's astroturf.

David B Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:42pm

Makes it a lot clearer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C
Look at it this way:

With the intentional drop the fielder can keep the ball in close proximity and make a play. Combine this with the runner(s) holding to see if the ball is caught makes the reward almost a given for at least a force of the lead runner.

By allowing (a non-IFF) ball in flight to simply drop there is a risk/reward as the ball could spin and slip away frfom the fielders reach.

The critical thing that rules makers did in their wisdom, in all rule codes, was to eliminate a judgment call by an umpire on a poorly played ball in flight that falls untouched.

I see no contradiction between the two situations.

One Rule ~ One Interpretation ~ One Mechanic

Tim and others.

Thanks for the help - makes perfect sense now.

Sometimes it just helps to hear a real situation to go with the rule to clarify. I didn't want to discuss it at the meeting until I was clear on it.

In a way its good because, the smart players can still use the rule to their advantage - a la Ozzie Smith and others have done.

The plays that I had both turned the DP with no complaint from the coaches, but everyone knew they let it fall on purpose or should i say with purpose.

Thanks
David


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1