intentionally dropped ball

[greymule]

A look at the history of the rules reveals why they are worded the way they are. OBR long had a rule that an infielder couldn't intentionally drop a fair fly ball in an IFF situation. Obviously, on a popup on which the IFF was called, it wouldn't matter, so the rule was intended to cover a deliberate drop on an fly ball (usually a liner of some kind) on which the IFF wasn't called. Some umpires considered letting an easily catchable ball drop as "intentionally" dropping it, so an approved ruling was inserted that allowed the fielder to let the ball drop untouched. The violation was defined as catching the ball and then letting it drop. Then the question arose concerning guiding the ball to the ground. OBR interpreted that also as an intentional drop, though they never specified such in the book.

It clear that ASA, in considering the same situation, specifically wanted to permit guiding the ball to the ground and therefore put it in black and white in its book. Had ASA not spelled this out, umpires and players could logically have assumed that guiding the ball to the ground was a violation.

If infielders could guide liners to the ground in OBR, you'd see them do it routinely. In the thousands of ASA games I've done, I've can't remember ever having seen a double play completed on a ball guided to the ground, though I don't doubt it's happened.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by greymule

A look at the history of the rules reveals why they are worded the way they are. OBR long had a rule that an infielder couldn't intentionally drop a fair fly ball in an IFF situation. Obviously, on a popup on which the IFF was called, it wouldn't matter, so the rule was intended to cover a deliberate drop on an fly ball (usually a liner of some kind) on which the IFF wasn't called. Some umpires considered letting an easily catchable ball drop as "intentionally" dropping it, so an approved ruling was inserted that allowed the fielder to let the ball drop untouched. The violation was defined as catching the ball and then letting it drop. Then the question arose concerning guiding the ball to the ground. OBR interpreted that also as an intentional drop, though they never specified such in the book.

It clear that ASA, in considering the same situation, specifically wanted to permit guiding the ball to the ground and therefore put it in black and white in its book. Had ASA not spelled this out, umpires and players could logically have assumed that guiding the ball to the ground was a violation.

If infielders could guide liners to the ground in OBR, you'd see them do it routinely. In the thousands of ASA games I've done, I've can't remember ever having seen a double play completed on a ball guided to the ground, though I don't doubt it's happened.

There was a play 2 years ago, mike lowell was playing 3rd, runners on 1st and 2nd, 1 out, HE DOVE TO HIS RIGHT(edited) to "catch" a line drive, never closed his glove on it, let it drop, tried to step on 3rd throw to first but the ump killed the play right away for a IDB.

I would say that in lower level slo pitch games, a potential IDB situation presents itself 1 in 3 games.

[BretMan]

It's not even really a "baseball vs. softball" thing.

Some softball associations other than ASA rule this the same as the OBR baseball rules and prohibit guiding the ball to the ground. Some even enforce the out if a fielder allows the ball to drop untouched when it could have otherwise been caught with ordinary effort!

The ASA rule is clear enough, just different than some of the others. To each their own, I guess!

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BretMan

It's not even really a "baseball vs. softball" thing.

Some softball associations other than ASA rule this the same as the OBR baseball rules and prohibit guiding the ball to the ground. Some even enforce the out if a fielder allows the ball to drop untouched when it could have otherwise been caught with ordinary effort!

The ASA rule is clear enough, just different than some of the others. To each their own, I guess!

FED 2009 softball case book 8.2.10 B Directing the ball to the ground is considered, in the spirit of the rule, an intentional drop.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by BretMan

It's not even really a "baseball vs. softball" thing.

Some softball associations other than ASA rule this the same as the OBR baseball rules and prohibit guiding the ball to the ground. Some even enforce the out if a fielder allows the ball to drop untouched when it could have otherwise been caught with ordinary effort!

The ASA rule is clear enough, just different than some of the others. To each their own, I guess!

Bretman, or anyone else that may know....

is there a website or a pdf that outlines the differences between OBR and ASA rules, like stepping on the plate, the IDB rule....

[greymule]

There was a play 2 years ago, mike lowell was playing 3rd, runners on 1st and 2nd, 1 out, HE DOVE TO HIS LEFT to "catch" a line drive, never closed his glove on it, let it drop, tried to step on 3rd throw to first but the ump killed the play right away for a IDB.

I'm not quite clear as to what happened. If by "let it drop," you mean Lowell allowed the ball to fall untouched, then the ump blew the call. If you mean he blocked it with the side of his glove, then the call was correct. And just because the glove didn't close on the ball doesn't mean an intentional drop can't be called. But it's hard to visualize F5 diving to his left and expecting to knock a ball down and still have time to step on 3B and throw to 1B. Well, maybe if he was positioned right near the line.

Some softball associations other than ASA rule this the same as the OBR baseball rules and prohibit guiding the ball to the ground. Some even enforce the out if a fielder allows the ball to drop untouched when it could have otherwise been caught with ordinary effort!

I know that NCAA follows ASA on permitting the guiding of the ball to the ground. I assume Fed does the same, but I don't know for sure. There are a lot of softball codes out there, and I don't doubt that some call it differently.

[greymule]

is there a website or a pdf that outlines the differences between OBR and ASA rules

I cannot imagine that there is any such site, but there seems to be a site for everything else, so who knows?

Actually, differences between ASA and Babe Ruth softball would get you pretty close in many areas, since Babe Ruth takes entire sections (especially regarding interference, obstruction, appeals, awards) directly from the OBR book—verbatim. For example, there are no dead ball appeals in Babe Ruth, and not only are there two types of OBS, but OBS that has no bearing on the play is not called. Good luck doing a Babe Ruth softball tournament with coaches and players accustomed to Fed and ASA.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by greymule

I'm not quite clear as to what happened. If by "let it drop," you mean Lowell allowed the ball to fall untouched, then the ump blew the call. If you mean he blocked it with the side of his glove, then the call was correct. And just because the glove didn't close on the ball doesn't mean an intentional drop can't be called. But it's hard to visualize F5 diving to his left and expecting to knock a ball down and still have time to step on 3B and throw to 1B. Well, maybe if he was positioned right near the line.

the batter hit a line drive to lowells RIGHT, i mistyped earlier, it was my left, his right. the ball entered lowells mitt, he just never closed it, picked the ball up off the ground, was in the process of taking 2 steps towards 3rd when the ump killed the play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

I know that NCAA follows ASA on permitting the guiding of the ball to the ground. I assume Fed does the same, but I don't know for sure. There are a lot of softball codes out there, and I don't doubt that some call it differently.

Apparently, there is a belief that this is something that is easy to do with no possible down side. That is not true. There is little guarantee the ball is going to be controled after it hits the ground.

I have made this call a couple of times as recent as this past season. OTOH, I have also seen it botched more often than it being successful. The ball and the contour of the field do not always cooperate with the fielder. IMO, the "runner on 1B" requirement should be removed because if the BR isn't going to run, tough. And if it happened quick enough to turn a double play in that situation, the IDB had no affect on the play than if it were a trapped ball.

I'd also like to add that the rule, at least ASA, notes that to qualify as a IDB, it must have been able to be caught with ordinary effort. Unless a line drive is directly at the fielder, IMJ the effort is probably a bit more than ordinary.

[greymule]

IMO, the "runner on 1B" requirement because if the BR isn't going to run, tough.

I think you might have left something out.

Incidentally, my first post mentions IFF situation. The rule of course also includes runner on 1B and no other runners. But the rule could say, like the U3K rule, simply "when 1B is occupied."

I once called an IDB on a shortstop only to have the defense argue, "He [F6] isn't good enough to intentionally drop a ball!"

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by greymule

I once called an IDB on a shortstop only to have the defense argue, "He [F6] isn't good enough to intentionally drop a ball!"

ive heard that said a fair amount of the time, but it doesnt change the effect of the spirit of the rule, which, just as the IFF, is to prevent the defense from turning a double or triple play on a ball that the rule writers believe should only result in 1 out.

on a side note, i just got home from a game and mentioned the RS to the ASA ump and he said all the ASA umps he knows of, which im assuming is a large #, all call the play the same way as its written in the MLB rules, not the ASA rules. meaning if he, or the other umps he knows, see an IF guide the ball to the ground, they will call IDB.

[BretMan]

I find it hard to believe that he has: Discussed this very play with "every umpire he knows", and; That to a man they have all decided to ignore the written rules of the sanctioning body they're working for and just make up their own interpretation.

Maybe he only knows, like, two or three umpires!

That's strange. Did he bother to explain why he and every umpire he knows does this?