Infield fly rule after the fact

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

10.3.C only allows the umpire to rectify the situation which places either team in jeopardy due to a delayed or incorrect call.

The valid protest is what permits the rule to be applied after the fact.

Like the lines on the field, just because they fade or are not applied to begin does not negate any rules for which they are a reference point, neither does the applicable rule not apply simply because the umpire mistakenly failed to call it.

If you want to hang your hat on the word "declared", I hope you have a lot of hats as they will all end up on the floor.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by prekowski

So declaring something means saying it out loud. To infer that could be meant to be said after the fact would defeat the whole purpose of the rule.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying it is ambiguous. all if IFF were declared versus what they did do when it was not declared.

Thanks for your input, but like I said, it is not cut and dry.

Originally Posted by prekowski

These two seem contradictory. On one hand it says it was right to make call after the fact but then says NCAA requires it to be called at the time of play and does not allow after the fact. Please clarify what is meant here.

The apparent contradiction is easily explained, and should be obvious. Unless this game was played under NCAA rules (because ONLY the NCAA says it cannot be declared after the fact), it was right to do so in this case, as long as the other appropriate criteria was met.

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. ~snip~
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.

It's more than obvious that, despite your initial question if the protest should be upheld, you have a strong belief that it should be. However, you are, in fact, wrong.

What you call an amusing "hypothetical example" is the cut and paste of the official play ruling from ASA National Umpire Staff. In case you don't grasp the significance, that means it has the effect of being THE RULE for that play.

Even if you want it to mean it COULD be an IFF, the only appropriate way to rule in this case is to ask 1) Does it meet every criteria to be an IFF by rule? 2) Does the umpire (no matter how many are involved) agree that it could have been caught with ordinary effort? If yes to both, then this play ruling is that the umpire SHALL declare it after the fact, and apply Rule 10.3-C to place or protect any players placed in jeopardy by the delayed ruling.

And NFHS has a similar ruling; and so do every other rules body EXCEPT NCAA. Call it a contradiction if you like, but unless this was played under NCAA rules, the protest should have zero chance of success, because the ruling is in full accord with the official rule interpretations.

You don't have to like it; you can believe it is ambiguous. But that is the proper ruling based on the authorities responsible to answer the question.

[chapmaja]

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.

Here is a place to start looking for the rule citation.

Rule 1 - Definitions.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by prekowski

Situation was runner on 1st and 2nd and one out. Batter hits routine popup to 2nd base and runners at first and 2nd hold close to their base, batter barely moves from batters box. Umpire fails to make infield fly rule call, 2nd baseman drops the ball and picks it up and gets force at 2nd and then throws to first to complete the double play. When other team voices protest that IFF should have been called, the umpire declares that's right, it should have been called and therefore I am calling it now, so only batter is out, double play is erased, and runners are allowed to return to their bases they held before the batted ball. When defensive team argues to the ump that he did not call IFF during the play, ump responds with yes, but that he is calling it now (on dead ball).
Protest was lodged immediately and recorded in scorebook at time. Who has an opinion on whether the protest should be upheld.

Under the definition of an infield fly, the umpire SHALL have declared the ball an infield fly (based on the description provided). When he/she failed to do so, his mistake put the offense in jeopardy.

[prekowski]

Boy how quickly some get their hackles up to defend their position, instead of just taking an objective view. My point about “declared” being the apparent objective rule, has now become unchallenged by fact (only by opinion) since you have had several opportunities to point out specifically where it says in black and white in the rule book, your assertion, that an IFF is as it happens versus when it was declared. I must therefore assume you could not find it in the book (nor could I), that it does not exist, it is just a made up extrapolation by someone of the rulebook that is unwritten. And it is interesting how a person, who cannot objectively back up his assertion in black and white, can make such an irrefutable statement such as “you are wrong”. If I am wrong in the above, back it up with a cite of the rule that makes it cut and dry about your assertion.
While it is nice that you have some hypothetical play in some guide book that is not part of the official rule book, it is irrelevant. And even your hypothetical example, that indeed may have been an actual ruling from an actual called play in an actual game, (and I don’t dispute it did actually happen, but it is quite irrelevant), it still did not even come close to backing up your assertion that IFF is a fact when it happens, not when it is declared. By the way, even if it is some official guidebook put out by ASA, it is not part of the rulebook, the ASA official rulebook is the guiding “law”, not some compendium of historical rulings made in games. If it were referenced in the ASA rulebook something like, “and the Official play ruling by the National Umpire Staff is an appendix to this book and shall be considered part of this official rulebook” then I would tend to agree with you. But like I said, even your copy and paste did not back up your assertion, it only proved an umpire “can indeed” attempt to rectify a situation of a call or non-call. Even your example was a compromise, where both the offensive and defensive team still had a legit argument after the fact. The offensive coach’s argument is, you took a run off the board for me because even if the IFF had been called, our runner was entitled to advance on a dropped ball and only can be put out by a tag (no force in effect). The defensive coach has a legit argument against the compromise call because they realized it was not an IFF because it was not declared (assuming it did not meet the IFF criterion since it was not declared), and they should have been able to have the force of that runner at home. Since it was not mentioned in the example, no way of knowing it but they even had a legit shot for another out with an additional force at third. It did not give that detail so there is no way to know if they even attempted and succeeded at an additional out at third. Furthermore, how many ASA umpires in all the leagues even know about your reference book, let alone use it as a guide in settling protests. I can tell you for a fact, the umpires in the leagues I have played in have only been required to review the official ASA rulebook to get certified under ASA, not required to be versed in the compendium of historical rulings.
This exercise has been helpful and I have withdrawn my protest but only for the reason outlined in R10-3-C. i.e. the umpire has the prerogative to make the ruling after the fact. Therefore I agree that a protest has little or no chance of prevailing, because ultimately even after the fact, the umpire can change the call even on an IFF, and that after the fact ruling is just another judgment call empowered to the umpires, no matter how good or bad that judgment may be. Even your so called slam dunk of “ordinary effort” is a subjective determination that on some plays, a poll of 100 individual umpires could come up with 50 saying it could have been caught with ordinary effort and 50 saying it could not have been caught with ordinary effort. And neither one could be proved to be wrong because there is no detailed definition of ordinary effort. Bottom line is, the definition of IFF in the book is ambiguous and it is up to the umpires discretion after the fact on how to apply R10-3-c. And the objective definitions in the rule book could lead you to determine either to apply it retroactively or not apply it. It is still a judgment. One thing is clear on the intent of the rule is, it is intended to be declared verbally while the play is happening to advise both offense and defense of the situation, and it is not the intent of the rule to apply it after the fact.
Good debate and I did learn something from it. Thanks.

[RKBUmp]

InAnyone that wants to view the plays and clarifications can go to the asa/USA softball website and view them. And, any umpire that actually wants to leam and advance should read all the plays and clarifications as well as the case play book. No rule book is ever going to cover every situation that could occur on a field, that is the reason for the case book and the plays and clarifications. Each and every rule set publishes a case play book to cover how that rule set wants particular plays called. As has already been mentioned, nfhs and usssa also both have case plays stating the iff can and should be applied after the fact. You can point at the rule book all you want, but it is not the only source of information as to how the rules are applied.

[prekowski]

RKBump, the operative words in your reply are, “can”, “should” and “want to” as opposed to “shall” or “required to”. The book could and should be undated on next round to clarify it with either “IFF is in effect when it happens” or “IFF is in effect only when declared”. That would eliminate or at least minimize ambiguity. It is not surprising that in a level above the ASA (i.e. amateur), NCAA (which is one notch below professional) that they do indeed make it clear that it is in effect only when declared. That tells players that they know if it is in effect because it has been made known while the play is happening, and they can react accordingly, and don’t have to guess is this an IFF that has not been declared but may be called after the fact.
Respectfully, I admire your passion for the sport and your diligence at being the best you can be at your job of umpiring.

[BretMan]

This is straight from the published ASA Case Book, the sole purpose of which is to clarify and explain the playing rules.

With one out and R1 on second base, R2 on first base, 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 placed the runners in jeopardy. This is correctable by calling the batter out and returning the runners to their respective bases (see rule 10-3C).

It can't be much more plain than that.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by prekowski

...It is not surprising that in a level above the ASA (i.e. amateur), NCAA (which is one notch below professional) that they do indeed make it clear that it is in effect only when declared. ...

Unfortunately, your distinction between ASA (and as stated all other codes sans NCAA) and NCAA are not so black and white, and rests on how the rules/interpretations are implemented.

ASA rule changes are proposed and voted on by player representative at the annual convention. Like any convention, changes take time and some are very passionately argued (Steve and Mike can shed more light on this).

NCAA rules, on the other hand, are made by a committee of coaches, who may bring a "I got burned by this one time" bias. While the "declared" part of IFF has been around since at least 1999, my guess is that this play negatively impacted a game of an influential coach.

NCAA isn't "one step from professional," as much as it is a unique rules for unique players.

[prekowski]

It’s Monday, and mother wakes up in the morning and looks out at the grass and says, the grass is not cut and criticizes the husband for not cutting the grass on the weekend which was agreed to be when he would always cut the grass. They go back and forth arguing for 30 to 45 min where the husband tells the wife well I couldn’t cut the grass because the lawnmower broke, and the wife replies well you should have fixed it to which the husband replies well I tried to fix it but I couldn’t to which the wife replies well that’s the problem you both did not fix the lawn mower, and thus did not cut the grass, to which the husband replies, well I almost had it fixed but I did not have the part to fix it, and the wife replies, well that is your fault too because you should have went and bought the part, to fix the lawn mower, so you could cut the grass. Well the husband replies but the part is only available at the lawmower store which was closed on the weekend, and they continue to go back and forth arguing for a total of 30 to 45 minutes. At that point while the parents are just about done arguing and are about to come to an amiable conclusion as to a justifiable reason why the grass did not get cut, and the boy wakes up and walks to the window and says, DAD, YOU LAZY BUM, YOU DID NOT CUT THE GRASS LAST WEEKEND, AND MOM IS GOING TO KICK YOUR ASS.
BretMan, you are the boy in the metaphor.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by prekowski

It’s Monday, and mother wakes up in the morning and looks out at the grass and says, the grass is not cut...blah, blah, blah

Hilarious...

I just wanted to note that there was another official source- one which no one had yet quoted- with an official interpretation to cover this exact play.

Being the ASA Case Book, it should probably be the first source referenced to help explain a ruling.

I thought that maybe after a handful of 500 word essays explaining why you think the ruling shouldn't have been what it was, you might be interested in an official source explaining that it was exactly what it should have been.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by prekowski

Boy how quickly some get their hackles up to defend their position, instead of just taking an objective view.

Do you understand the purpose of the case book at all?

It's not OUR position. It's the position of ASA. It's the position of NFHS. The ruling bodies for whom you are working.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Hilarious...

I just wanted to note that there was another official source- one which no one had yet quoted- with an official interpretation to cover this exact play.

Steve quoted it.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Steve quoted it.

In which post? None that I see.