Rare intentionally dropped ball call

[David Emerling]

Game #2 of 2009 NLCS - Phillies vs Dodgers (actual play)

R1, less than 2 outs. Bunt situation. Batter pops up bunt toward the first baseline. F3 seemingly catches the ball in the air and then lets it drop in fair territory. R1, thinking the ball would be caught, returns to 1st. F3 throws ball to F4, who is covering 1st on the bunt, who first steps on the base then tags R1.

The umpires astutely invoke Rule 6.05(L) and call the batter out on an "intentionally dropped" ball. Clearly, the defense was trying to get a tricky double play.

Here's the PLAY.

The accompanying article states:

Loney (F3) threw to Ronnie Belliard (F4), who was covering first base and stepped on the bag before tagging Ruiz (R1). Martinez (batter) was ruled out on the play and Ruiz continued to occupy first base, causing Dodgers manager Joe Torre to come out in search of an explanation.

Apparently Joe Torre thought there should be two outs. But it seems to me that the Dodgers' attempt at trickery was improperly executed even if the umpires had not invoked the "intentionally dropped" rule. Belliard (F4) performed the outs in the wrong order. The moment he stepped on the bag - that removed the force out - which negated the tag of R1. He needed to first tag R1 then tag the base.

So, actually the entire ruling and discussion was rendered moot by the faulty execution of the play by the defense.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[johnnyg08]

if they wanted the double play, the player would've had to let the ball drop to the ground w/o it touching the glove...these examples are clearly articulated in many resources.

[JJ]

Pretty cut and dried for me. The plate ump is pointing to it as soon as he judges the ball intentionally dropped, and the base ump (who picked up on that), was pointing to the batter as well as the one being out.
The beauty of this officiating is, even though the play was unusual, neither of the umpires got "excited"...they just very routinely did their jobs. Fun stuff!

JJ

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JJ

Pretty cut and dried for me. The plate ump is pointing to it as soon as he judges the ball intentionally dropped, and the base ump (who picked up on that), was pointing to the batter as well as the one being out.
The beauty of this officiating is, even though the play was unusual, neither of the umpires got "excited"...they just very routinely did their jobs. Fun stuff!

JJ

I agree.

But the point remains - without the umpire's ruling, the Dodgers still screwed it up.

Let's say that the umpire did not rule it as an intentionally dropped ball. The way the play was executed, the BR would have still been (forced) out and R1 would have still been safe (on the bag).

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Paul L]

Or, on the other hand, if F3 had let the ball drop without touching it, then picked it up and threw to F4 covering first, who tags R1 on first base before touching the bag before BR gets there: DP.

So both Dodger fielders screwed it up. As did the Phillie batter, popping up a high fastball on a bunt. Geesh, I think I'll get down there for the next game. If they don't let me ump, at least they should let me play.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Paul L

So both Dodger fielders screwed it up. As did the Phillie batter, popping up a high fastball on a bunt. Geesh, I think I'll get down there for the next game. If they don't let me ump, at least they should let me play.

Pedro Martinez hasn't played much lately, and batted less than the average NL pitcher. He pitches a 2 hitter for 7 innings, and you bash him because he don't get a bunt down to your satisfaction. If you could pitch a 2 hitter for 7 innings in a NLCS game I expect they would let you play, regardless of whether you could bunt or not. Geesh....

[cookie]

"...Loney (F3) threw to Ronnie Belliard (F4), who was covering first base and stepped on the bag before tagging Ruiz (R1)..."

From the video, it appears to me that F4 DID tag R1 first and then the bag & the BR, contrary to what the writer states... (though it is all moot because "intentionally dropped ball" was invoked).

It appears that this might have been one of those odd-ball rehearsed plays to see if the fielders could get away with it...

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by cookie

"...Loney (F3) threw to Ronnie Belliard (F4), who was covering first base and stepped on the bag before tagging Ruiz (R1)..."

From the video, it appears to me that F4 DID tag R1 first and then the bag & the BR, contrary to what the writer states... (though it is all moot because "intentionally dropped ball" was invoked).

It appears that this might have been one of those odd-ball rehearsed plays to see if the fielders could get away with it...

It's close, but maybe you can look again. When R1 was tagged, the foot was already on the base.

Good call by Blue.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by cookie

"...Loney (F3) threw to Ronnie Belliard (F4), who was covering first base and stepped on the bag before tagging Ruiz (R1)..."

From the video, it appears to me that F4 DID tag R1 first and then the bag & the BR, contrary to what the writer states... (though it is all moot because "intentionally dropped ball" was invoked).

It appears that this might have been one of those odd-ball rehearsed plays to see if the fielders could get away with it...

Actually, I'm not so sure the ball was intentionally dropped. But I would have called it anyway - just because it should have been easily caught and the potential for a cheap-o double play was high.

On a play like that, the fielder has to be convinced that R1 is very convinced the ball is going to be caught and hold up at 1st. Imagine how stupid you look when R1 takes off running, you intentionally drop the ball, the umpire doesn't call it, and all you get is an out at 1st with a runner now in scoring position?

Also - you may be right. I looked at the video over and over again and I thought that Belliard may have tagged the runner before putting his foot on the bag. It's close. But it does appear that his foot is on the bag just prior to tagging Ruiz. In any case, it's pretty obvious that Belliard did not understand the significance of the sequence.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[cookie]

"..It's close, but maybe you can look again. When R1 was tagged, the foot was already on the base..."

Thanks Juggling... On second look (perhaps 20th...), it appears as you said...