I'm not a rule guru, but I always thought that the infield fly rule was pretty simple. As it turns out it is, but another rule came up in tonight's game for 11 and 12 year-olds.

I got the following out of the NSA rule book online, but I think it's the same as what the ump showed me out of his ASA rule book. (Since I can't get an ASA rule book anywhere)

Under NSA Rule 7 "Batting"
Sec 9 "The batter is out:"
Subsection "e" states:
"If a fielder intentionally drops or lets drop a fair fly ball, including a line
drive, and an attempted bunt which can be caught by an infielder with
ordinary effort with 1st, 1st & 2nd, 1st & 3rd or 1st, 2nd & 3rd bases
occupied with less than 2 outs.
EFFECT: The ball is dead, the batter is out and baserunners must
return to the last base touched at the time of the pitch. This does not
apply to an infield fly; the dropped ball remains alive on an infield fly.
NOTE: A trapped ball shall not be considered as having been
intentionally dropped."

What's the difference between an infield fly and this?
Doesn't this mean you can't have an error with first base occupied?

Our umpire tonight called an infield fly with only first base occupied. He pointed to this rule as support for the ruling. The ball fell between the pitcher and short-stop without being touched.

Is the difference that an infield fly is called immediately (with 1st and 2nd occupied) and this other rule is applied only when a player OBVIOUSLY and DELIBERATELY muffs a catch?

Todd

[Edited by tkrochta on May 24th, 2004 at 11:39 PM]

That is correct in ASA - it is an umpire judgement call that a player intentionally dropped a ball (for assumed purpose of making a double play) - and the ball is dead br out, runners return. An IF, which is called immediately, ball remains live.

Speaking ASA.

ASA does not have language similar to the NSA phrase of "or lets drop" in the ASA rule. Your partner's ruling, speaking ASA, was incorrect. A ball falling untouched is not "intentionally dropped."

ASA POE 29 says the following:
And, if guiding it to the ground is not intentionally dropped, certainly letting it fall untouched is not either.

I find this rule curious in that a hustling batter should almost always be able to avoid the double play when a ball is "intentionally dropped" and then picked back up.

The only advantage I can think of for a defensive team dropping a ball with only first base occupied is to get a fast runner(the one on first) off the bases in exchange for a possibly slower runner(the batter).

Todd

getting the lead runner is always nice.

I'd have to really see clear cut intent to call it at that level to be honest.. and in the back of my mind I would be impressed the player at that age thought so quickly.

So does a player have to touch the ball to intentionally drop it?

You cannot drop something you haven't touched.

In order to intentionally drop the ball, the ball must be caught - not just touched. Remember ASA's book states that "Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered an intentionally dropped ball." In order to guide the ball, the ball will be touched. In order to intentionally drop the ball, the ball must be caught and then intentionally dropped. Let's call the intentional drop a voluntary release.

Also for an intentionally dropped fly ball situation, the ball
may be a line-drive or bunt attempt. Whereas an infield fly call
should not be made in these two situations. Thus, if the
IF is ruled it has precedence over an intentionally dropped ball.

I usually do ASA games, but every once in a while I am asked to do an NSA tournament. There are several key rule differences, but I was not aware of this one. The "lets drop" clause is not present in any other code I know of. This means, I assume, that a fielder who in the umpire's judgment could have caught a ball but elected not to—perhaps by not taking the two easy steps a catch would have required—has committed an infraction that deadens the ball.

This is a major rule difference.

By the way, <b>"with 1st, 1st & 2nd, 1st & 3rd or 1st, 2nd & 3rd bases occupied"</b> could have read simply "with 1B occupied."

The intentionally dropped ball is basically a ruse to make the runners on base think the force is on. It isn't, of course, since (speaking ASA) the ball has been caught and voluntarily released. It is also possibly a ruse to make the umpire think the force is still on and attempt to get a double play (or at least the lead runner).

My assumption is the ball is declared dead to protect the offense from the ruse. It is assumed the IF is called when the ball is at its apex, giving the runners due notice the force is off, so the ball is kept live allowing them to advance if they choose.

However, with the intentionally dropped ball, the call is not made until the drop, meaning runners will likely have already reacted to the assumed force situation. Therefore, the ball is dead protecting them from being caught off base.

All of this is just my own assumptions on the purpose of the rule.

With the apparent NSA rule of intentionally letting the ball fall untouched being covered by the rule, then the force is indeed on unless the rule is invoked.

There you go again - expecting concise, tightly written English from the rules writers! Silly man. :D

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".

As much as you like to scoff at the wording of some of these rules, much of it comes about in an effort to diminish the affect of stupidity on the game.

In addition to Dakota's fine explanation I might add there is another difference between an intentionaly dropped ball and a ball that you let drop and pick up. If the hit is high enough that you can let it drop without fear that it'll get past you then the only way that you can turn the double play is if the batter isn't running and she should be allowed to be put out. If you catch and drop a soft liner you might get both the runner at 1st and the BR no matter how fast.

Carlton Fisk showed Deon Sanders what can happen if you don't run out every hit.

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! http://www.auction-pix.com/katasha/stuff/pinocchio.gif

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.

Quote:

Dakota

[/QUOTE]OK .... I've never seen anything like that posted here or anywhere else! http://www.auction-pix.com/katasha/stuff/pinocchio.gif [/QUOTE]

Tom,

How long you been waiting to use that one?

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.