ASA. What if the infield fly rule isn't invoked when it should be?

Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, no outs. Charles hits a popup directly above F1, who says, "I got it." However, the umpires fail to call "infield fly."

Does the erroneous non-call mean that the IFR is not in effect, or would the umpires be able to "correct" the following plays with a "retroactive" IFR call?

A. F1 misses the pop, retrieves the ball, and throws to F5 for the force on Abel.

B. F1 misses the ball but retrieves it and throws to F3 to get Charles. Abel and Baker advance.

C. F1 misses the ball, can't retrieve it in time, and everyone is safe.

D. F1 misses the ball but throws to F5 to put Abel out, and F5 throws to 2B to get Baker.

E. F1 lets the ball drop and then throws to 3B but throws the ball away. Abel scores, Baker to 3B, Charles to 2B.

F. Not hearing the IFR called, Abel and Baker go halfway. F1 catches the ball and throws to 2B to get Abel for having left before the catch.

Would you make some sort of corrective ruling in these plays, or does the non-call of IFR mean that whatever happens simply stands?

This is fixable --- but one thing to bear in mind is that you should decide to fix it without considering what happened after the play developed. Otherwise, if you use the "fix it only if the defense gets a cheap double play out of it" mentality (one I've heard often), then you've created a situation where only the defense can be harmed by your mistake - an inequitable situation.

In all of these but B and F, you should put Able and Baker on 2nd and 3rd, Charles is out.

On F, if you'd called IFF, you have exactly the same sitch - runners off bases when the ball is caught. I might be inclined to leave F alone, unless I am POSITIVE my lack of call is what caused the runners to be off base. (Or, put better, they should not be halfway on a pop up to pitcher anyway, whether IFF is in effect or not).

On B, there's nothing to fix - everyone is where they should be.

I'll agree that the non-IFF is a fixable situation, but wouldn't any fixes put in place have to depend on how the ensuing play finished? My understanding is that the IFF only puts the BR out, thereby cancelling the force plays.

Therefore:
A. Charlie out, runners back to 1st and 2nd
B. Agree, nothing to fix
C. Charlie out, Runners at 2nd and 3rd
D. Charlie out, runners back to 1st and 2nd
E. Charlie out, Abel scores, Baker at 3rd
F. Agree with Crowder on the judgement call...if my fault, Charlie out, runners at 1st and 2nd...if not, play stands

As I've seen in many other posts, the players should already have a pretty good idea when IFF should be in effect, and should react accordingly. I can't count the number of times I've called IFF only not to be heard due to all the commotion and having to explain why events are happening the way they did on the field.

Actually, the more I think about it...with F, the play should stand. IFF does not remove the liability of the base runner to be put out for leaving early on a caught fly.

ASA makes it clear that, even though the IF should be called when the ball is at its apex, if it is not called, this does not mean the IFR is not in effect, and that the rule may be applied retroactively if the failure to call the IFR placed the runners in jeopardy. See Case Play 8-2-35. It is also my view, although there is no specific case play for this situation, that even if all runners advance safely and the BR reaches first on an undeclared IF, the BR may be declared OUT retroactively.

However, this is not in the "spirit" of the rule, since the rule is to protect the offense, and if all runners advanced safely, they did not need the protection, hence calling the BR out after the play is over is benefiting the defense, not protecting the offense. Just an editorial, take if for what it is worth.
Able placed in jeopardy. Rule BR out. Return runners.

No runners placed in jeopardy. However, the non-call may have placed the defense in jeopardy by having them make the play on BR instead of holding the runners. The "right" thing to do is probably rule IF in effect and return the runners.

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

Runners placed in jeopardy. Rule IF in effect, BR out, runners return.

Defense trying to be too clever. Let it stand.

This one is a bit tougher. Was the IF not called or did the players not hear it? I'm assuming not called. The runners probably took a longer lead than they might have since they knew they would have to beat a force if not caught. This would have to be an on-the-field judgment, however, since the IF does not change the tag-up responsibilities of runners on a caught fly. IF you judge the runners were reacting to the possible force, THEN you may rule the non-call placed them in jeopardy. However, the benefit of the doubt would fall to the defense, IMO.

[Edited by Dakota on Jun 20th, 2005 at 11:09 AM]

Thanks for the answers, guys. Yes, in F I meant that the IFR was not called and also that the runners were aware of the non-call.

mcrowder posted: <b>In all of these but B and F, you should put Able and Baker on 2nd and 3rd, Charles is out.</b>

I assume you meant Abel and Baker on 2B and 1B (right?).

So in the case of an IFR non-call, you <i>can</i> call it retroactively and correct an unfair mess that you caused.

Yes - typed too fast...

Shouldnt it be up to the coach and runners to know the IFF situation the same as a dropped 3rd strike .
The rule is written as I see it to be still in effect even if not called .

Some make that argument, but my problem with it is that even if the players & coaches are aware they are in an IF situation, the actual call is still a judgment call, so they cannot assume the call will be made merely because there was a fly ball hit in an IF situation.

Yes that has bothered me too .
On RE reading the ISF rule 8 2 e
Batter Runner is out when am infield fly is DECLARED which I take as this as it must be declared to be an IFF .
The definition of IFF is as we know it .
What say ASA ?

ASA recognizes two parts to IFF; part is rule, part is judgment. The part that is rule (is there less than two outs, is there a force at third, has a fly ball been hit than can be caught with normal ease by an infielder) can be (must be) corrected if not verbalized. In other words, if plate ump just loses the ball, or forgets how many outs there were, or thinks that an infielder MUST actually catch the ball, all of these can and should be corrected as the misapplication of a rule.

The judgment part (is THAT fly one that can be caught with normal ease by an infielder) is not correctable, just as any other judgment call is not correctable.

The IFR states the batter is automatically out, under the specificied conditions, and is in effect whether an umpire calls it or not and whether anyone knows it or not. The rule exists to protect runners, not the batter-BR. The "declared" part of the rule has no time limit.

p.s. the word is effort, not ease.

I'd like to pursue this a bit further. AtlUmpSteve and CecilOne have agreed that a failure to call IFR when it should have been called is correctable. In my view, their position is logical and seems fair. Misapplication of rules can and should be corrected.

But even in the case of an obvious non-call, since the rule was designed to protect the offense, if the offense is happy with the result of the play (perhaps everybody was safe, or perhaps the runner from 2B was put out at 3B leaving the same situation, except that a faster runner is now on 2B), do we let the play stand?

(The rule may have been designed to protect the offense, but at all but high levels of play it is usually something the defense likes to have called. Believe me, in 12u girls' softball, the defensive coach is happy to hear IFR called.)

My answer is that our job definition is to attempt to assure the game is played fairly and on an even playing field as guided by the rules. If a rule applies, we should apply it, without regard to who would be happy if we do or don't, and without regard to the original purpose to a rule. Where would this stop, if you don't apply rules because one team likes the result? And, if that was the intent of the rulemakers, we would certainly see an exception noted in the rule (similar to illegal pitch or catcher obstruction, where the offended coach can take the result of the play).

Let me concur with the esteemed AUB. If you only correct a correctable missed IFF call when it helps the offense to do so, you've essentially given the offense a free pass by your missed call. If they are safe, great. If not, you'll fix it. That is an inequitable solution. I have actually heard umpires (Umpires working for me no less) tell me that they would only correct this if the offense was damaged by the non-call (i.e. defense got a DP). This is blatantly unfair to the defense.

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."

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 rulingThis 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.

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.

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 .

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 <i>immediately</i> 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]

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 .