Infield fly rule after the fact
 

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.

Called or not it was an IFF situation and the umpire was correct in applying it after the fact and returning the runners put in jeopardy by the non call back on base.

Unless NCAA has changed their ruling, they do not allow the IFF to be called after the fact. The umpire must call it at the time of the play.

No apparent basis for a protest being upheld.

Neither runner can be forced out and apparently did not advance.

If the runner who started on 2nd (R1) had advanced to 3rd, she stays there.
If the runner who started on 1st (R2) had reached 2nd without a tag, she stays there.

+1's for above. It's still a live ball but it's designed to prevent exactly what happened with the cheap double play. Umpire was right to call it retroactively.

The rule code isn't mentioned, but I have to agree with the other comments. Umpires made is a mistake not calling it, and as a result of their error, they put the offense in jeopardy. The rule is still the rule even if it is not called by the umpire. The rule doesn't say the infield fly is in effect when it is called by the umpire. It says it is in effect when there are less than 2 outs and first and second, or first second and third bases are occupied. This wording in fact allows for an "after the fact" application of the rule.

I would even go so far as to say the offense, had the correct call not been made, would have had grounds for a protest for a misapplication of the rule.

Not necessarily... the "ordinary effort" aspect of the rule is what brings umpire's judgement into the discussion, and which could prevent the possibility of protest.

A gusty day can turn a can o'corn fly ball over F1's head into a nightmare to catch, but still recoverable enough to turn a double play. Some would reverse it to be IFF.
But if that same dropped ball became a "safe all around" due to a panicky F1, we'd say play on, despite DC's complaints.

Question for RKBUmp who says: Called or not it was an IFF situation and the umpire was correct in applying it after the fact and returning the runners put in jeopardy by the non call back on base.

Unless NCAA has changed their ruling, they do not allow the IFF to be called after the fact. The umpire must call it at the time of the play.

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.

I'm pretty sure that what is meant is that under the NCAA rule code, an IFF must be called at the time and can not be retroactively applied. In other words, unlike other codes, the IFF is called by the umpires and is not "in effect" when it occurs.

ASA and NFHS rules stipulate that the IFF is in effect when it occurs and if it is not called by the umpires, the IFF situation still existed and therefore the umpires can retroactively make the call, correcting their error in not making the call.

in effect as to the time it occurs
 

Please refer me to the rule and section of the 2016 ASA book which states what you just said, which is, the IFF is in effect as of the time it occurs and not at the time it is called. Thank You.

My comment was based on the original posting, which seemed to indicate that the pop up was routine, and as such the IFF would be in effect.

Where the protestability part would come in if the umpires failed to apply the rule on a situation where it was clear (and maybe they even admit), they didn't call it and in their judgment it was a routine play.

I find it hard to believe a UIC would not uphold a protest if it was a calm day and the popup went to a player who had to move minimally to make a catch, even if the umpires don't admit it was a can o corn play. This would be a situation where the UIC needs to make a decision based on as much information as he/she has at the time.

I had a similar situation to what you mentioned earlier this season. I did not call and IFF because the level of play (12 U) and the fact it was a 30 mph wind that night. Off the bat it appeared to be a routine pop up to 2nd, but based on the conditions, the ball kept carrying away from the fielder who had to try diving to make the catch. The DC did approach me asking why an IFF wasn't called. My explanation was simple. Due to the conditions it a routine play, so the IFF was not called. (It was a play where the runners all advanced one base anyway)

This is because an NCAA umpire would not screw up and forget to call it. If they don't call it ... it's because they don't deem it to be an infield fly.

Other rule codes, if the umpire knows he screwed up ... he not only has the ability to fix it, he has the RESPONSIBILITY to fix it.

ASA partly because 8-2-I just says declared, not immediate, not in flight, etc. and partly 10-3-C.

Declared
 

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.

:rolleyes:

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.