Infield fly vs. an intentionally dropped ball - Page 2

IRISHMAFIA · #16 (**permalink**) Tue May 25, 2004, 02:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bluezebra
It is probably written like that because some putz coach talked an umpire into changing a ruling by arguing, "But, Blue, the rule says it applies with a runner on 1st. Well, in our play, there was a runner on 1st and 2nd and 3rd, so the rule must not apply to this play".

"Excuse me, coach. Was there a runner on 1B?".
"Yes".
"Then what's your problem? The rule states a runner on 1B, NOT on 1B ONLY".
"Oh".

Tell me you haven't seen stranger circumstances posted on this and other boards.

Dakota · #17 (**permalink**) Tue May 25, 2004, 02:29pm

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

Originally posted by bluezebra
It is probably written like that because some putz coach talked an umpire into changing a ruling by arguing, "But, Blue, the rule says it applies with a runner on 1st. Well, in our play, there was a runner on 1st and 2nd and 3rd, so the rule must not apply to this play".

"Excuse me, coach. Was there a runner on 1B?".
"Yes".
"Then what's your problem? The rule states a runner on 1B, NOT on 1B ONLY".
"Oh".

Tell me you haven't seen stranger circumstances posted on this and other boards.

OK .... I've never seen anything like that posted here or anywhere else!

mcrowder · #18 (**permalink**) Tue May 25, 2004, 02:53pm

Umpire blew this one.

If he used this rule to justify calling an INFIELD FLY, as posted, he's quite simply a moron. If he used it to justify calling batter out and putting R1 back on 1st after a purposefully caught and dropped fly, he called it right, but from the description of the play that doesn't sound to be the case.

whiskers_ump · #19 (**permalink**) Tue May 25, 2004, 05:20pm

Quote:

Dakota

[/QUOTE]OK .... I've never seen anything like that posted here or anywhere else! [/QUOTE]

Tom,

How long you been waiting to use that one?

tkrochta · #20 (**permalink**) Tue May 25, 2004, 08:40pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
Umpire blew this one.

If he used this rule to justify calling an INFIELD FLY, as posted, he's quite simply a moron. If he used it to justify calling batter out and putting R1 back on 1st after a purposefully caught and dropped fly, he called it right, but from the description of the play that doesn't sound to be the case.

Yep. It was a blooping liner that landed untouched between the pitcher and short (remember, these are 11 and 12 year-old girls). The umpire yelled "INFIELD FLY!". And even more incorrectly he called "DEAD BALL!" and told the lone base runner to go back to first. I think now that it was a simple case of the ump accidently mixing parts the two rules together.