Infield fly rule after the fact

[prekowski]

I am no English major, but according to Webster declare means "to say or state (something) in an official or public way". stating or saying something generally means verbally announcing it (it could be also declared in writing but that would not be applicable here). 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. It is meant to be stated at the time of happening to advise both offense and defense of the call being made so they can react accordingly. Declared does not mean what is in the umpires head but goes unsaid 8-2-I clearly states the batter is out when an IFF is "declared".

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying it is ambiguous. Subject to different interpretations, and it is not cut and dry either way. I still find no evidence in the rulebook that supports the notion that ASA says IFF is in effect when it takes place, not when it is declared. But I could be wrong if pointed to where it says that.

And 10-3-C allows an umpire to try and rectify a situation after the fact, but there is no way to rectify a situation that is so dependent on the declared nature of the call at the time of happening. Unless you have a time machine, you cant go back and recreate how the runners would have reacted by the dropped ball 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.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by prekowski

I am no English major, but according to Webster declare means "to say or state (something) in an official or public way". stating or saying something generally means verbally announcing it (it could be also declared in writing but that would not be applicable here). 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. It is meant to be stated at the time of happening to advise both offense and defense of the call being made so they can react accordingly. Declared does not mean what is in the umpires head but goes unsaid 8-2-I clearly states the batter is out when an IFF is "declared".

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying it is ambiguous. Subject to different interpretations, and it is not cut and dry either way. I still find no evidence in the rulebook that supports the notion that ASA says IFF is in effect when it takes place, not when it is declared. But I could be wrong if pointed to where it says that.

And 10-3-C allows an umpire to try and rectify a situation after the fact, but there is no way to rectify a situation that is so dependent on the declared nature of the call at the time of happening. Unless you have a time machine, you cant go back and recreate how the runners would have reacted by the dropped ball 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.

May 2010 ASA Plays and Clarifications.

Rule 8, Section 2I Batter-Runner is out
Play: R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B and R3 on 1B and one out. B5 hits, what appears to be, an infield fly that it is not called by the umpires. The ball was not caught and F5 picks up the ball and throws home for a force play with no tag being applied, and the runner is called out. After all play has ceased the defensive coach requests time to discuss the play with the umpires as they feel that the infield fly should have been called per ASA rules. After the umpires discuss the situation the plate umpire calls the batter-runner out on an infield fly and rules the runner that touched the plate safe for not being tagged. The offensive coach protests and asks if the umpires can legally call Infield fly after the fact?
Ruling: If after the umpires get together and agree this fly ball met the criteria of Rule 1, INFIELD FLY, and the umpire failed to make the correct call at the time, then Rule 9, Section 1A[1-4] allows the umpire to call “Infield Fly” when the opposing team brought this to the attention of the umpires. In regards to R1 at 3B, by the umpire not calling “Infield Fly” this put both teams in jeopardy. Rule 10, Section 3C allows for the umpire to rectify any situation in which a reversal of an umpire’s decision or delayed call places the offensive or defensive team in jeopardy. In the above case, the batter should be ruled out for Infield Fly and return R1 to 3B.
As to the question of whether the umpires can decide, after the fact, to call an Infield Fly or not, the following information should be noted:
1) If the umpires thought it was a fly ball that could be caught by normal effort (Rule 1 Definition Infield Fly) and did not call infield fly, then the opposing team could protest a misapplication of the playing rules under Rule 9A, Section 1-4.
2) Not calling infield fly put both the offense and defense in jeopardy, especially the runner from 3B attempting to score.
3) Rule 10 Section 3C allows the umpires to rectify any situation in which a reversal of an umpire’s decision or delayed call by an umpire places a batter-runner, runner or defensive team in jeopardy.
In this case, if the umpires decide, under protest, that the Infield Fly Rule should have been called, then they put the defense in jeopardy by not knowing that they had to tag the runner. The umpires should have returned all runners to the last base touched before they ruled the batter–runner out on the Infield fly rule that should have been called.

[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.

[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.

[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.