I should know the answer, but . . .

[gsf23]

Originally posted by Dakota

No one in jeopardy. I'd let the non call stand.

And then when the defense asks you why that wasn't an infield fly you tell them...?!?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by gsf23

And then when the defense asks you why that wasn't an infield fly you tell them...?!?

Oh, the usual BS... fly ball behind the pitcher, blowing in the wind, too low, or just the generic "in my judgment..."

Actually, what I have told them before when I did not judge a fly to be catchable with ordinary effort (i.e. a legitimate non-call) was, "The IFR is there to protect the offence, coach, not give an unearned out to the defense."

[CecilOne]

OK, but we were discussing a genuine infield(er) fly.
The "offense not harmed" does not hold water because it implies you are reading the mind of every infielder - that they did not know it was an IFR situation.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
OK, but we were discussing a genuine infield(er) fly.
The "offense not harmed" does not hold water because it implies you are reading the mind of every infielder - that they did not know it was an IFR situation.

Referring to situation C, what I said was "no one in jeopardy" not "offense no harmed." The ASA case play on the uncalled IF says in the ruling

The infield fly should have been in effect. Failure of the umpire to invoke the infield fly placed the runners in jeopardy. This is correctable by calling the batter out and returning the runners. (8-2I; 10-6C)

This implies to me that one of the rationales for making the delayed IF call was to correct the situation of placing the runners in jeopardy. There is no case play making the opposite case (placing the defense in jeopardy) by merely not giving them the BR out they did not earn. In situation C, it seemed to me that there was no jeopardy for the defense (other than the lack of the gift out), unlike situation B, where the defense attempt to put the BR out thereby allowing other runners to advance.

[mcrowder]

Here's the problem, Dakota...

In both, Umpire doesn't call IFF, but realizes immediately afterward that it should have been called.

Sitch A - R1 and 2 on 2nd and 1st, no outs. Pop up in the infield is dropped and booted, runners advance, batter safe.

Sitch B - R1 and 2 on 2nd and 1st, no outs. Pop up in the infield is dropped then fielded cleanly, Force out at 3rd, Force out at 2nd. Batter safe.

You are saying to "fix" this in B, but not in A.

If you'd called IFF in A, you'd have 1 out, runners on 2nd and 3rd. If you'd called IFF in B, you'd have 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd.

So if you only fix B, but not A, then in either case, the umpire incorrectly not calling IFF harms the defense, and costs them an out. It is an inequitable way to "fix" things. It is imperative that we fix our mistake in as equitable way as possible.

[debeau]

It doesnt seem right or rational to correct something to give an advantage to one team .
In one case you dont correct it because you have put the runners in jeopardy but they are safe so you dont give in an easy out to the defense .
In the other case you do correct it because you have put the runners in jeopardy and they are out so you give an out and place the runners back .

[greymule]

Is this reasoning relevant?

In Fed baseball, a spitball is an illegal pitch.

If the umpire sees spit flying off the ball on its way to the plate, he is supposed to call an illegal pitch immediately and a ball (with no runners) or a balk (with a runner), even if the batter hits the pitch over the fence. (I admit that I doubt many umpires would call the illegal pitch in this case.)

The rule against spitballs is supposed to protect the offense. In the case of the spitball hit for a home run, if the umpire goes by the book, the rule ends up hurting the offense.

I see a parallel situation with correcting an infield fly situation in which the defense messed up and everyone ended up safe.

Of course, if the defense fails to catch the ball and the offense benefits, you might say that the error is ipso facto proof that the ball could not have been handled with ordinary effort.

And thanks for the case book references, Dakota. (Can't find my case book at the moment.) ASA should make a case play for the reverse situation.

[Edited by greymule on Jun 24th, 2005 at 05:42 PM]

[debeau]

Yes I can see that.
Under ISF rules the definition of IFF is given (same as ASA) then under notes it says "When an IFF is apparent the Ump shall immediatly call Infield fly if fair batter is out , for the benifit of the runners .
This goes with you logic that if not called then you put the runners in jeopardy and if put out then you correct the call and put the runners back but if runners are safe you leave them where they are and no outs .