Intentionally Dropped Ball

tzme415 · #1 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 08:00am

R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, 0 Out - Batter hits line drive to F6, which F6 has enough control of to literally push the ball down directly in front of himself. Picks up ball tags R1(still standing on 2B) and steps on 2B and fires ball to 1B, trying to get triple play. I, as lone ump, call time call batter out and leave R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B with one out. I was wondering how some of you would have called it.

JEL · #2 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 08:18am

Quote:

Originally posted by tzme415
R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, 0 Out - Batter hits line drive to F6, which F6 has enough control of to literally push the ball down directly in front of himself. Picks up ball tags R1(still standing on 2B) and steps on 2B and fires ball to 1B, trying to get triple play. I, as lone ump, call time call batter out and leave R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B with one out. I was wondering how some of you would have called it.

Would have had to seen it, but it sounds like you got it right.

"Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered an intentionally dropped ball"

If that is NOT what you saw the B-R out, others return.

It's another "judgement call".

mcrowder · #3 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 08:53am

Sounds like a good call to me too.

Dakota · #4 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 10:11am

This rule and the accompanying interpretation have always puzzled me.

If "guiding the ball to the ground" does not violate the rule, then by definition of what DOES violate the rule, there is a catch and a voluntary release.

Therefore, the force is already removed.

In the specific case cited, the defense did lose an out on the tag, but in general, what's the point of the rule?

It can't be to prevent cheap force outs (like the IFR), since it was by definition caught (BR already out, so no force.)

tzme415 · #5 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 12:44pm

"Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered an intentionally dropped ball"

It appeared to me that he actually caught the ball and then let go of it in front of himself, but it happened quickly and he could have actually just guided the ball down. It definitely did not just bounce out his glove. I took this rule to have the same intent as the IF rule, which is to protect the offense. If you don't rule this like a catch, the offense is put at a severe disadvantage and would have been better of with an IF.

[Edited by tzme415 on May 20th, 2005 at 01:52 PM]

coachfanmom · #6 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 01:16pm

What would the penality be if it were an "intentionally dropped ball"?

IRISHMAFIA · #7 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tzme415
"Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered an intentionally dropped ball"

It appeared to me that he actually caught the ball and then let go of it in front of himself, but it happened quickly and he could have actually just guided the ball down. It definitely did not just bounce out his glove. I took this rule to have the same intent as the IF rule, which is to protect the offense. If you don't rule this like a catch, the offense is put at a severe disadvantage and would have been better of with an IF.

[Edited by tzme415 on May 20th, 2005 at 01:52 PM]

It's whatever the umpire says it is. If it is a catch and drop, it is a IDB. If not, it's nothing. Total judgment.

Sunny, there is no penalty. The BR is out, the ball is dead and all runners return to the base occupied at the TOP.

coachfanmom · #8 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 02:25pm

That rule is the one rule that confuses me the most.....I STILL don't get it after 5 years now....lol

CecilOne · #9 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 02:46pm

I guess we have to back up and set aside the IDB situation temporarily. Visualize an attempted catch by any fielder, which the fielder loses or drops after contact, in effect not a legal catch. If that fielder could do that intentionally, touching but not catching the ball without "Merely guiding the ball to the ground"; then that would allow the rule to be applied.

The intent of the rule is to protect runners from being deceived into thinking a fly ball will be caught and therefore not advancing. Basically, that means anything the fielder does to cause that deception, while handling the ball in flight, is an IDB. But we are told "Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered an intentionally dropped ball"; so it would have to be something else.

Can a fielder intentionally fake a catch without "guiding the ball to the ground"? If so, that would be an IDB.

I still agree with Tom and others that the rule is difficult, should not have the "guiding the ball to the ground" exception; but is probably a deterrent eevn if we can't figure it out.

coachfanmom · #10 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 02:49pm

Calgon!!! Take me away!!!!!

IRISHMAFIA · #11 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 11:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
I guess we have to back up and set aside the IDB situation temporarily. Visualize an attempted catch by any fielder, which the fielder loses or drops after contact, in effect not a legal catch. If that fielder could do that intentionally, touching but not catching the ball without "Merely guiding the ball to the ground"; then that would allow the rule to be applied.

The intent of the rule is to protect runners from being deceived into thinking a fly ball will be caught and therefore not advancing. Basically, that means anything the fielder does to cause that deception, while handling the ball in flight, is an IDB. But we are told "Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered an intentionally dropped ball"; so it would have to be something else.

Can a fielder intentionally fake a catch without "guiding the ball to the ground"? If so, that would be an IDB.

I still agree with Tom and others that the rule is difficult, should not have the "guiding the ball to the ground" exception; but is probably a deterrent eevn if we can't figure it out.

There is no "guiding the ball to the ground" exception. It is not even mentioned in the rule.

It is mentioned in the POE as a guide for those who chose to reconfigure the rule to suit their own beliefs. The interpretation is that a player cannot drop something they don't have. The interpretation is actually to make the call EASIER for the umpire.

It is so simple, I am amazed that it has generated so much discussion. It is quite similar to the thought process with obstruction. Either the player has possession of the ball or not. No gray areas. On the IDB, the umpire cannot make that ruling unless they believe the fielder caught the ball for an out. Umpires rule on dozens of catches a game, what is so difficult with understanding this? Either the fielder has the ball or they don't. No gray areas.

Dakota · #12 (**permalink**) Fri May 20, 2005, 11:55pm

Recognizing it is not my issue, Mike.

It is... what is the point of the rule? It's not to remove the force (like IFR) - that was accomplished by the catch. Why does this rule exist? Is it the deception angle?

SC Ump · #13 (**permalink**) Sat May 21, 2005, 08:15am

Sunny,

The penalty is the ball is dead, the batter is out (because of the catch) and the remaining runners must return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

Tom,

If this was not a rule, the catch could be ruled an out on the batter and then the runners could stay on the bases. However, when the fielder intentionally drops it, it can confuse a runner and cause them to immediately think, "Was it a catch? Was it not? Should I run or should I stay?"

My thought is that it is kind of like a fake tag being obstruction. The only difference is that the fielders are on their bases and the rule is just to kill the ball so as to kill the confusion caused by the fielders bad acting.

IRISHMAFIA · #14 (**permalink**) Sat May 21, 2005, 08:27am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
Recognizing it is not my issue, Mike.

It is... what is the point of the rule? It's not to remove the force (like IFR) - that was accomplished by the catch. Why does this rule exist? Is it the deception angle?

The defender should be discouraged from making a smart, yet risky play. Anytime a defender foregoes catching a ball in flight an allows it to touch the ground, THEY are taking a calculated risk that they will be able to contain that ball which isn't always the easiest thing to do.

The runner should be aware of their situation and prepared to advance or retreat with a millisecond notice as the game dictates. The runner cannot make that decision until THEY can determine if the ball is caught in flight and that is the purpose of the rule.

If the runner sees the ball caught, THEY most likely move into a mode of retreat to the base just left. The point of the rule is to allow that runner the comfort of knowing that once they turn their back, the defender will not drop the caught ball in an effort to acquire extra outs.

If the defender is good enough to knock the ball down or trap it to force the runners to advance, and successfully turn a double play, more power to THEM. After all, it wasn't the defense which placed the runner(s) in jeopardy, it was the runners' offensive teammate. The defense is simply reacting to the situation offered by the offense and, in my opinion, is their job to collect as many outs as possible. Also, especially with only one runner on base, I believe if the BR fails to advance to 1B in a timely fashion to avoid the back end of a double play, tough. The BR does not deserve protection from the rule book.

JMHO,