Infield fly rule after the fact

[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 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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

In which post? None that I see.

Sorry - RKB quotes a monthly case play, not the case book. And Steve refers to it.

My bad.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BretMan

In which post? None that I see.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sorry - RKB quotes a monthly case play, not the case book. And Steve refers to it.

My bad.

Silly umpires...wanting to see things in print to believe them. MD's right that Steve referenced the rule, and Bret's right that Steve never quoted it per se. Regardless, the regulars on the board are all singing the same song, and pretty much the same ruling. Except for NCAA, non-called IFF's can be fixed.