Infield fly rule, sorta

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Steve M
David,
I do tend to agree with you on this. I see a difference between knocking a ball down and guiding the ball down - on paper. But I do need to say that I just have not seen this kind of a play happen in better levels.

Steve M

**********

So, Steve, let me ask you - if YOU were the umpire in an ASA game, how would you rule in the following situation?

R1 & R2. No outs. Batter hits easy line drive, directly at F5. F5 allows the ball to strike her glove, let's it fall to the ground at her feet, picks it up quickly, steps on 3rd for the force out, fires to 2nd for another force out, and F4 follows that up with a quick throw to 1st, in time to retire the batter.

Triple play????

No way! The intentionally dropped ball rule is specifically designed to prevent this kind of silliness.

If ASA does not interpret it in this manner, then here's my theory: Many of softball's rules are taken directly from the baseball rulebook. The ASA rulesmakers, when adopting the equivalent of baseball's intentionally dropped ball rule, didn't have a full understanding of WHY that rule existed. ASA's elaboration of this rule in the POE reveals their misconceptions.

IT'S ALL ABOUT PREVENTING CHEAP-O DOUBLE PLAYS!

If the ASA is saying that you can only "intentionally drop" a ball once it is has been legitimately caught ... is insane!

[Steve M]

David,
If I am the PU of that game, I am going by rule and any approved interp for softball that I am aware of. The offense just got screwed - that is a triple play. And I know very well what will happen when the defense comes to bat - AS DOES THE DEFENSE.

Remember the Cold War and the MAD philosophy? That's kind of what you see in the better levels of softball. My team is going to play as well as we can, as hard as we can, as long as we can and make every legitimate effort to beat your team. Should my team pull something that all players agree is cheap, we know that your team will retaliate. As players, we do not want that. So we do not pull cheap stuff. Yeah, there is the thrown elbow or other unsportsmanlike behaviour, but the umpires deal with that quickly and decisively. But for the most part, the players police themselves.

That's why I said that I tend to agree with your point - on paper.

Steve M

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by David Emerling

************

This seems ludicrous.

The spirit of the "intentionally dropped ball" rule has always been the prevention of a cheap-o double play by the defense. By not catching a catchable ball, the fielder forces runners to advance, and forces them out.

This is particularly true with regards to a line drive.

Baseball has a similar rule [6.05(l)], but it is not interpreted in the bizarre manner that is described here.

In baseball, a dropped ball is one that is dropped ... and not CAUGHT. It seems you're saying that, in softball, for the purposes of this rule, a dropped ball is one that is CAUGHT ... then dropped. This defeats the whole purpose of the rule, which should be to prevent the fielders from FORCING the runners into a situation where they HAVE to run, thus laying the groundwork for a cheap-o double play.

If a fielder is allowed to CATCH the ball, then the batter is OUT! If he subsequently drops the ball, I don't see the purpose of killing the play since the runners are no longer obliged to run. Why invoke this rule once the fielder has made a legitimate catch just because he should allow it to fall out of his glove afterwards? It makes no sense.

I have no problem with the rule or the sense of it.

You kill the ball to keep the circus off the field. If a fielder wants to take the chance that by knocking the ball to the ground, they'll get a double play, more power to him. The odds are about 50/50 that it will work because you find very few true bounces on most softball fields I've been on.

The defender isn't the one which put the ball in play, the batter did that. If you don't want to put your runners in jeopardy, don't hit it at a defender. Duh!

Why should the defense be deprived of making additional outs? This usually only happens when they notice the BR NOT proceeding to 1B.

This isn't baseball, and unless any of us were in the room when this rule was developed, we don't know what the "spirit" of any rule is. We may get an interpretation, but that is about it.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I have no problem with the rule or the sense of it.

You kill the ball to keep the circus off the field. If a fielder wants to take the chance that by knocking the ball to the ground, they'll get a double play, more power to him. The odds are about 50/50 that it will work because you find very few true bounces on most softball fields I've been on.

The defender isn't the one which put the ball in play, the batter did that. If you don't want to put your runners in jeopardy, don't hit it at a defender. Duh!

Why should the defense be deprived of making additional outs? This usually only happens when they notice the BR NOT proceeding to 1B.

This isn't baseball, and unless any of us were in the room when this rule was developed, we don't know what the "spirit" of any rule is. We may get an interpretation, but that is about it.

[/B]

********

These type of things never happen in youth leagues because the kids are not savvy enough and can not think fast enough to fully realize the benefits of INTENTIONALLY dropping a ball hit in their direction.

I've seen some pretty ingenious stuff at the adult level, however. I've seen adult infielders DELIBERATELY drop infield flies in an attempt to confuse the runners.

True, I wasn't in the room when the ASA rulesmakers crafted ASA rule 8-2-J regarding an intentionally dropped fly. But I can just about promise you they were referencing baseball's similar rule.

After reading POE #28, I can guarantee you that they completely misunderstood the purpose of such a rule.

First of all, I think we can all agree that the Infield Fly Rule exists in order to protect the runners from any kind of trickery or mishap that would unfairly put the runners at risk and allow the defense to gain an undeserved double play.

The "intentionally dropped ball" rule exists basically for the same reason, only it is there to cover those situations that would not normally qualify as an Infield Fly.

Whenever it is *not* an infield fly situation (i.e. R1 only), as long as the batter hits a fly ball with appreciable height, there generally is no advantage that can be gained by intentionally dropping the ball, since the batter is almost always going to be safe at 1st. Yet the rule still exists for the following reason:

Situation: R1 is a speedster and a base stealing threat. Batter is a slug. Batter hits high pop-up to F4. R1 has to hold. F4 drops the ball and forces R1 out at 2nd easily. The defense has still gained only one out but the net effect of the play has replaced a fast runner with a much slower runner.

The proper application of the "intentionally dropped fly" rule would prohibit this kind of shenanigan. As soon as the umpire determined that the ball was intentionally dropped, he would declare it dead and call the batter out.

But, mostly, the rule exists for line drives - where the Infield Fly rule *never* applies.

You say: "If a fielder wants to take the chance that by knocking the ball to the ground, they'll get a double play, more power to him. The odds are about 50/50 that it will work because you find very few true bounces on most softball fields I've been on." I disagree. I think it is very easy to allow a line drive to hit your glove and be allowed to fall harmlessly to the ground, at the fielder's feet, without much worry of the ball going off into Never Never Land.

With R1 and a line drive hit directly to F4 - it is *so* easy to convert that into a double play by simply blocking the ball with your open glove and never squeezing it shut, allowing the ball to fall at your feet. R1 will be forced it with great ease.

You say: "Why should the defense be deprived of making additional outs? This usually only happens when they notice the BR NOT proceeding to 1B." But with a line drive, whether the batter hustles off to first or not, is not going to help them much. The very nature of a line drive will rob the batter of valuable time that he would normally have on a pop-up.

In baseball, this would result in an immediate deadball. And today, for the first time, I'm discovering that softball has a *completely* different spin on this play. Apparently, in softball, the defense CAN pull of this trick.

Yet, in softball, surprisingly, if the fielder makes the legal catcher (retiring the batter) and then subsequently intentionally drops the ball ... THEN the ball becomes dead and the rule is invoked. Why? Once the fielder makes the catch and the batter is signaled out by the umpire, the runner no longer is forced to run and has nothing to fear, whether the fielder holds it ... accidentally drops it ... or intentionally drops it. It makes no difference!

The rule makes sense. The interpretation does *not*!

[David Emerling]

I've got it!

This has been bothering me all day. I've been reading the rulebook along with countless caseplays and I think I've finally figured out why this huge disparity exists between baseball and softball with regards to the "intentionally dropped fly."

I still believe that the ASA rulesmakers were trying to duplicate the intent of the baseball rule.

When the ASA interpretation says that the ball must first be "caught", I think what they *really* mean is that the ball must hit the fielder's glove in order to qualify as an intentionally dropped fly. If the ball is allowed to hit the ground, untouched, it can NOT be ruled an intentionally dropped fly.

This is the same as in baseball! The only difference is that baseball's interpretation doesn't cause any confusion by saying that the ball must first be "caught". They say that the ball must be "touched."

I think this was what the rulesmakers intended, they just made a poor choice of words which leads to confusion.

Surely, they understood that if a ball is legally "caught", that the runners can not possibly be in any jeopardy - therefore no cheap-o double play can occur.

If a fielder catches the ball and then intentionally drops it, the runners can stand there and laugh at the fielder. "Butterfingers!" No harm can come of it as long as the umpire has signaled the batter out. Nobody is forced to run.

On the other hand, if the fielder merely allows the ball to hit her glove and fall to the ground (i.e. not a catch), *then* the runners are forced to runner. This is how the defense is going to get their cheap-o double play. The spirit of this rule is to prevent EXACTLY this!

[IRISHMAFIA]

David,

Believe what you may, but this is a softball board. And as much as you may want to believe the softball community is a spin-off of Abner Doubleday's game, rounders(English) or "town ball"(as it was known in Massachusetts) was be played much earlier (1700s) and was more of a kin to a softball game than baseball.

The following is from World Book Encyclopedia:

History

Baseball began in the United States in the mid-1800's. Historical evidence indicates that Americans developed the game from an old English sport called rounders. In spite of this evidence, many people believe that Abner Doubleday of the United States invented baseball.


Early development

Rounders. People in England played rounders as early as the 1600's. Rounders, like baseball, involved hitting a ball with a bat and advancing around bases. Although rounders resembled baseball, there were many differences between the two games. Perhaps the main difference was the way in which fielders put out base runners. Fielders threw the ball at runners. If the ball hit a runner who was off base, the runner was out. This practice was called soaking or plugging runners.

From rounders to baseball. American colonists in New England played rounders as early as the 1700's. They called the game by several names, including town ball, the Massachusetts game, and—sometimes—base ball. Rules for the game appeared in books from time to time. Even so, people generally played the game according to their local customs. The number of players on a side, the number of bases and distance between them, and other rules varied from place to place.

Americans gradually changed the game into baseball. The earliest known published reference to organized baseball appeared in the July 13, 1825, edition of the Delhi (New York) Gazette.

One of the key points in the development of baseball took place when players replaced the practice of soaking runners with the present practice of tagging them. Historians believe players in New York City probably made the change in the 1830's or 1840's.

The Abner Doubleday Theory. In spite of evidence showing that baseball developed from rounders, many people believe that Abner Doubleday invented the game in Cooperstown, New York, in 1839. Doubleday later became a general in the U.S. Army. He died in 1893.

The Doubleday Theory arose from a dispute over the origin of baseball in the early 1900's. A commission was appointed to settle the question of the game's origin. Many people told the commission that baseball developed from rounders. But the commission's report, published in 1908, credited Doubleday with inventing the game. It based its conclusion on a letter from Abner Graves, who had been a boyhood friend of Doubleday's. Graves said he had been present when Doubleday invented baseball in Cooperstown in 1839.

Historians now believe that Doubleday had little, if anything, to do with baseball. They also point out that the game described by Graves included the practice of soaking runners. Thus, it was not essentially different from rounders.

Alexander Cartwright, a New York City sportsman, is called the father of organized baseball. In 1845, he started a club whose only purpose was playing baseball. Called the Knickerbocker Base Ball Club of New York, it was the first organization of its kind. Cartwright wrote a set of baseball rules when he organized the club. These rules, together with rules added in 1848 and 1854, did much to make baseball the game it is today.

The 1845 rules set the distance between the bases at 90 feet (27.4 meters), and provided for nine players on a side. They contain the first known mention of the need to tag runners rather than soaking them. The 1848 addition included the present-day rule of tagging first base to put a batter out on a ground ball. The force out rule was added in 1854.

Rule changes. Although Cartwright's rules and today's rules are alike in many ways, there are also many differences between the two. Following are some of the original rules and the dates when they were changed.

Length of game. Cartwright provided that the first team to have 21 or more runs at the end of an inning won the game. The present rule in which the team with the most runs after nine innings wins was adopted in 1857.

Pitching. At first, the pitcher stood 45 feet (13.7 meters) from home plate and had to throw the ball underhanded. The pitching distance was increased to 50 feet (15.2 meters) in 1881 and to the present 60 feet 6 inches (18.4 meters) in 1893. The rule that allows the pitcher to throw overhanded was adopted in 1884.

Fly-outs. Originally, a batter was out if a fielder caught the ball either on the fly or on the first bounce. An 1864 rule change provided that fair balls caught on the bounce were not outs. An 1883 rule change provided that foul balls caught on the bounce were not outs.

Strikes and balls. In early baseball, batters only made strikes by swinging and missing. Called strikes became part of the game in 1868. The National League adopted the foul strike rule in 1901, and the American League in 1903. There was no such thing as a walk in early baseball. An 1879 rule change provided that a batter walked after nine balls. The present four-ball rule was introduced in 1889 after several changes.

Sorry I took a page from Joel's How to cut and paste, but this was through an AOL service and not everyone would have access to that.

Now, the most likely reason that softball insists on the ball being CAUGHT is probably to create a definitive point alleviating some of the umpire's judgment as to what was an intentional drop and what wasn't.

If you allowed every umpire to make their calls based on what they determined to be fair, there would be no consistency to the manner in which a game is called. It's already bad enough that the umpire is going to determine what was a CAUGHT ball without the envocation of personal opinions. It is not a stretch AT ALL to believe that there would be umpires seeing what they considered a routing humpback ball and automatically ruling the BR out regardless of how the defender(s) handled the batted ball. I know it is not a stretch because I have witnessed this attitude more than a few times and not just at a local level.

Thanks,

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Now, the most likely reason that softball insists on the ball being CAUGHT is probably to create a definitive point alleviating some of the umpire's judgment as to what was an intentional drop and what wasn't.

If you allowed every umpire to make their calls based on what they determined to be fair, there would be no consistency to the manner in which a game is called. It's already bad enough that the umpire is going to determine what was a CAUGHT ball without the envocation of personal opinions. It is not a stretch AT ALL to believe that there would be umpires seeing what they considered a routing humpback ball and automatically ruling the BR out regardless of how the defender(s) handled the batted ball. I know it is not a stretch because I have witnessed this attitude more than a few times and not just at a local level.

Thanks,
[/B]

********

Let's face it, softball wouldn't even exist it weren't for baseball.

There are just too many things in the softball rulebook that look conspicuously like baseball's rulebook to naively believe that the creators weren't referencing it. Of course they were!

I have a hard time believing that the creators of ASA's 8-2-J weren't looking at OBR's 6.05(l) when it was written.

There can be no question what the intent of this rule is. It fills a hole in the Infield Fly rule, where there are situations that are *not* covered by the Infield Fly rule, whereby the defense can *still* benefit by purposely misplaying a batted ball ... like a dropped line drive or bunt. Or, when there are situations that do *not* involve runners at both 1st and 2nd. The intent is to prevent forced runners from being unfairly put in jeopardy.

A soft liner that is hit directly toward a fielder who simply allows the ball to hit his glove and fall directly to the ground (where there can be no reasonable claim that the ball was caught), and then picks it up to complete a double or triple play would be a gross injustice to the runners.

Would you really allow such a thing?

Whichever interpretation you prefer, you can *never* escape the umpire's requirement to judge the fielder's intent. Does it really matter whether you are trying to figure out whether it was intentionally dropped after caught, or, intentionally not caught?

I have been bouncing this off the baseball guys, and they are of the opinion, "You'll know when to invoke this rule when you see it. The fielder will do something intentional and the runners will suddenly be put at risk. It'll just look wrong. Raise your hands and KILL THE PLAY. Whether the fielder caught it and dropped it or whether he just purposely failed to make a catch is irrelevent. He dropped it on purpose and now the runners are in jeopardy. Don't let it happen."

In any case - I leave room for the possibility that you are RIGHT and that the Powers-That-Be in softball thought that it would be kind of "neat" if a fielder would purposely not catch a catchable ball and pull off a double or triple play. If so, that's bizarre.

I'm waiting for Merle Butler's response to this. I'm not claiming I know the official interpreation ... you may be right ... I'm just claiming that if the official interpretation is as you say ... IT'S SENSELESS by any standard.

[SamNVa]

David,

I agree with Mike here. Not only does the POE state that the ball must be caught and then dropped, it goes on to say "Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered and intentionally dropped ball. The only was I can see for a fielder to guide the ball to the ground is to use some part of their body, most logically their glove. (I don't know many players who would chest trap a line drive.) So as absurd as the notion is, in an ASA game, and Pony too I guess, I would have to allow the cheap-o double play.

SamC

[IRISHMAFIA]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Emerling

********

Let's face it, softball wouldn't even exist it weren't for baseball.

There are just too many things in the softball rulebook that look conspicuously like baseball's rulebook to naively believe that the creators weren't referencing it. Of course they were!

In your opinion. Mine would be that if it wasn't for rounders or town ball as the settlers of Massachusetts called it, there wouldn't have been baseball. I am not a believer that Ol' Abner D'day came up with this all by himself and apparently, I'm not alone.

I have a hard time believing that the creators of ASA's 8-2-J weren't looking at OBR's 6.05(l) when it was written.

There can be no question what the intent of this rule is. It fills a hole in the Infield Fly rule, where there are situations that are *not* covered by the Infield Fly rule, whereby the defense can *still* benefit by purposely misplaying a batted ball ... like a dropped line drive or bunt. Or, when there are situations that do *not* involve runners at both 1st and 2nd. The intent is to prevent forced runners from being unfairly put in jeopardy.

A soft liner that is hit directly toward a fielder who simply allows the ball to hit his glove and fall directly to the ground (where there can be no reasonable claim that the ball was caught), and then picks it up to complete a double or triple play would be a gross injustice to the runners.

Would you really allow such a thing?

Absolutely! I did see an umpire rule the way you suggest at a National a few years back. It was a soft humpback to F4 with bases loaded, no outs. The defender took two steps in reverse and trapped the ball to the ground when it got below his knees. The umpire immediately ruled the ball dead, the batter out and moved the runners back. When asked about it after the game, he stated, "I'm not going to have any of that in my game." He was reminded that it wasn't "his" game and to not do it again.

Even the players knew it was the wrong call and requested that I overrule my partner (I was working the bases). I politely informed them that they would have to take their point to the man who made the call. They were up by a half-dozen and decided to just keep playing.

I'm waiting for Merle Butler's response to this. I'm not claiming I know the official interpreation ... you may be right ... I'm just claiming that if the official interpretation is as you say ... IT'S SENSELESS by any standard.

Like it or not, that's the rule and the interpretation as listed in POE#28. If the "powers-that-be" want to change the rule, that's fine by me because I'm getting paid to do what I am instructed to do. BTW, many softball rules are there because a play occurred during a game that the powers-that-be were forced to make a determination of how a similar play should be ruled in the future. Not because baseball has a different rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SamNVa
David,

I agree with Mike here. Not only does the POE state that the ball must be caught and then dropped, it goes on to say "Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered and intentionally dropped ball. The only was I can see for a fielder to guide the ball to the ground is to use some part of their body, most logically their glove. (I don't know many players who would chest trap a line drive.) So as absurd as the notion is, in an ASA game, and Pony too I guess, I would have to allow the cheap-o double play.

SamC

Sam,

You know, from they way some people talk, you would think the ground was a flat and smooth as a gym floor. When I see a player try this, it is not unusual for the ball to get away from them and in no way is anyone guaranteed a "cheap-o double play". Sometimes, they are lucky to get one out, let alone two.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I did see an umpire rule the way you suggest at a National a few years back. It was a soft humpback to F4 with bases loaded, no outs. The defender took two steps in reverse and trapped the ball to the ground when it got below his knees. The umpire immediately ruled the ball dead, the batter out and moved the runners back. When asked about it after the game, he stated, "I'm not going to have any of that in my game." He was reminded that it wasn't "his" game and to not do it again.

Even the players knew it was the wrong call and requested that I overrule my partner (I was working the bases). I politely informed them that they would have to take their point to the man who made the call. They were up by a half-dozen and decided to just keep playing.
[/B]

The play you describe wasn't called in "the way" I suggest. I would still insist that whatever the fielder did with the ball; whether he caught it and dropped it, or, whether he just didn't catch it; it would have to be INTENTIONAL.

The way you described this play ... it seems pretty obvious it was not intentional. So, I'd permit whatever happened. If a double play resulted ... I'd allow it, of course.

Please don't mistake my exuberance on this issue to be argumentative or combative. I know I come across like that sometimes. I am just flabergasted that the softball world has adopted such a bizarre interpretation for a rule that has, as its intent, the preventation of trickery to get undeserved double plays.

When Merle Butler tells me what you are all telling me is true ... I'll accept it. But that won't change my mind about it being a most bizarre interpretation. And, I suspect he's going to tell me exactly what you all have been telling me ... certainly the case book suggests that you're all correct.

I'm just stunned and shaking my head in disbelief. I just don't see how the softball people can interject a requirement in the rule that the baseball people would NEVER adopt ... even though the rule is supposed to accomplish the same thing. I do not accept that "it's a softball thing." This is fundamental to BOTH games. Forced runners are FORCED to run when the ball is not caught. Baseball and softball have that in common.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by David Emerling

The play you describe wasn't called in "the way" I suggest. I would still insist that whatever the fielder did with the ball; whether he caught it and dropped it, or, whether he just didn't catch it; it would have to be INTENTIONAL.

The way you described this play ... it seems pretty obvious it was not intentional. So, I'd permit whatever happened. If a double play resulted ... I'd allow it, of course.

Please don't mistake my exuberance on this issue to be argumentative or combative. I know I come across like that sometimes. I am just flabergasted that the softball world has adopted such a bizarre interpretation for a rule that has, as its intent, the preventation of trickery to get undeserved double plays.

When Merle Butler tells me what you are all telling me is true ... I'll accept it. But that won't change my mind about it being a most bizarre interpretation. And, I suspect he's going to tell me exactly what you all have been telling me ... certainly the case book suggests that you're all correct.

I'm just stunned and shaking my head in disbelief. I just don't see how the softball people can interject a requirement in the rule that the baseball people would NEVER adopt ... even though the rule is supposed to accomplish the same thing. I do not accept that "it's a softball thing." This is fundamental to BOTH games. Forced runners are FORCED to run when the ball is not caught. Baseball and softball have that in common. [/B]

The fielder taking two steps back and trapping the ball to the ground doesn't seem intentional to you?

And, once again, softball people do not go around, look at what the baseball folks do and then change the rules to align the games. From my point of view, baseball has adopted some rules from softball especially at the NFHS level.