infield fly rule question

rcaverly

paulsonj72 wrote
…the communication between the umpires was HORIBLE …the infield fly was called

I don’t agree that the issue you make is “HORIBLE” umpire communications. A “No catch!” by the appropriate umpire would have been nice, but it is not required. The problem is that U2 called out an unforced runner without a tag.

paulsonj72 wrote
Said runner gets up…thinking...

There may be no worse nightmare for a base coach.

paulsonj72 wrote
Because the umpires failed to communicate properly said team lost A CHANCE to tie the game with the next batter

More correctly, because said runner no longer was in contact with his acquired base and was tagged with a live ball, “…said team lost A CHANCE to tie the game with the next batter.”

paulsonj72 wrote
…we are being penalized because YOU(The umpires) screwed up.

We, too, are often wronged because YOU (the announcers) screw up.

paulsonj72 wrote
I was broadcasting this game and took me until the drive home to figure out the very very basics of what happened.

I’ll hazard a guess that the umpires had it figured out sooner than that.

SanDiegoSteve

Rich Ives wrote
It wasn't the terminology he got wrong. It was the requirement. Significant difference.

YOU may know, or think you know, what he meant, but the lurkers will just see the wrong requirement. Not good.

You've been turing into a real something-or-other lately - feeling OK?

Yeah, I've been defending you on the boards for your vast knowledge of the rules, giving you many compliments, etc. I'm really turning into a something or other. Oh, I'm feeling pretty good considering I just had heart surgery last month.

mbyron

tankmjg24 wrote
He wants a triple play called as according to him the first out is the infield fly, the second out was the force at 3rd, then the 3rd out was the out of the basepath at 1st. Tried to explain it to him, but he was adamant that he was right.

"Coach, how can R2 be forced if the BR is out on the IFF?"

Sounds like 1 year's experience 30 times to me.

MRD

you are correct. forgot about that

JJ

SanDiegoSteve wrote
Yeah, I've been defending you on the boards for your vast knowledge of the rules, giving you many compliments, etc. I'm really turning into a something or other. Oh, I'm feeling pretty good considering I just had heart surgery last month.

Wasn't a transplant from a coach, was it? 🙄 😀

paulsonj72

rcaverly wrote
I don’t agree that the issue you make is “HORIBLE” umpire communications. A “No catch!” by the appropriate umpire would have been nice, but it is not required. The problem is that U2 called out an unforced runner without a tag.

There may be no worse nightmare for a base coach.

More correctly, because said runner no longer was in contact with his acquired base and was tagged with a live ball, “…said team lost A CHANCE to tie the game with the next batter.”

We, too, are often wronged because YOU (the announcers) screw up.

I’ll hazard a guess that the umpires had it figured out sooner than that.

The arguement was by the coach. I pulled my OBR book(always carried one) and tried to figure out what in the blazes was going on.

SanDiegoSteve

JJ wrote
Wasn't a transplant from a coach, was it? 🙄 😀

JJ

HA! No, my body would have rejected it!😃

It was merely an aortic valve replacement. Now I have to get a pacemaker this week. The fun never ends. Once I recover from this, I should be back on the field by the September adult ball season.

celebur

Rich Ives wrote
SanDiegoSteve wrote
But if I correct someone's terminology, you tell me that I knew what they meant and to shut up. Can't have it both ways.

It wasn't the terminology he got wrong. It was the requirement. Significant difference.

YOU may know, or think you know, what he meant, but the lurkers will just see the wrong requirement. Not good.

Rich, it seems to me that you misread nopachunts' post:

Rich Ives wrote
nopachunts wrote
Just like any other fly ball that may or not be caught. If fly ball is caught, the runner(s) can advance at their own risk after the ball is touched and the runner(s) has tagged the base at TOP. If the fly ball is not caught, the runner(s) may advance at any time at their own risk.

No No! The tag-up must be at (or after) the time the ball is touched by the fuielder.

The phrase you highlighted needs to be read together with the part before it, especially, "the runner(s) can advance at their own risk after the ball is touched." No, it wasn't absolutely clear, but I'm pretty sure CT1 had it right:

CT1 wrote
I'm sure he meant "tagged the base occupied at TOP."

nopachunts

To RI and CT1,
I did mean the base occupied at TOP and the base tagged after the IFF is touched. My bad for not making myself more clear.

« Previous Page