Had a play last night that reminded me of a recent thread.

Runner on 1B, no outs.

B3 hits a pop-up in the infield and sulkingly walks toward the dugout with the bat pressed to the back of his neck.

F1 notices him not running and lets the ball drop near the pitcher's plate. R1 is frozen on 1B as the pitcher gains control of the ball after a wierd bounce. BR still not running. Defense has an easy twin killing.

Them: You've gotta call in infield fly.
Me: Nope, there's no runner on 2B.
Them: He did that intentionally.
Me: Sure did!
Them: You've gotta call something.
Me: I called exactly what I'm supposed to call.
Them: No you didn't, you called them out.
Me: Like I said . . . .

I think they're still confused. :)

You were right. They were wrong. Amazing how many players, even with years of experience, don't know that rule. The concept must be just beyond the cognitive abilities of a huge number of people.

IFR, I agree. It ain't that difficult to understand (although in a single umpire game, with no partner to help, the sitch can sometimes sneak up on you).

On the intentionally dropped ball, the ASA interp that it must be legally caught first is not exactly intuitive from reading the rule. With this rule, ASA doesn't seem to be after protecting the offense from the cheap double / triple play (which is the intent of the IFR), but rather protecting the offense from a deception wherein the force is removed by the catch, but the drop tries to draw the runners off base. JMO, though.

And you made it through that without an ejection!!
 

That is supreme game management.........

When you have a coach SURE that they are right.........and you still talk them out of it and they remain in the game...........grin

Joel

******

From your description, it sounds as if the batted ball was allowed to fall to the ground untouched. That can NOT be an intentionally dropped ball. To be intentionally dropped, a fielder must AT LEAST touch the ball.

The debate on this rule revolves more around whether the fielder must first make a legal catch THEN drop it for the rule to be invoked *or* whether the fielder can also just bat the ball down, without catching it, for the rule to be invoked. Or both.

I personally believe the rule is intended to prevent ANY intentional act on the part of the fielder, that puts the runners at risk or creates the impression that they are at risk.

But I'm aware that there are those that disagree.

I do know one thing ... this rule in baseball would cause the batter to automatically be called out if:
1) the fielder makes a legal catch and then quickly (and intentionally) drops the ball, or
2) the fielder touches the ball in some fashion that can not remotely be construed as a catch, and INTENTIONALLY allows the ball to fall to the ground.

There is no need to make any distinction as to whether the fielder made a legal catch or not. Naturally, if the fielder never touches the ball, regardless of his intent, the rule can not be invoked.

Count the ASA rule book among those that disagree. ASA is explicit about it. To be intentionally dropped, it must first be caught.

I know you're not talking about ASA 8-2-J, because it is not at all clear that the fielder must first make a legal catch before it can be determined that he intentionally dropped it.

So, you must be referring to POE #28 where it <i>does</i> say that the ball must first be caught before it can be intentionally dropped.

"Guiding the ball to the ground" is a very odd comment. It's hard to imagine what they were thinking when they came up with that peculiar phrase. It's difficult to get a mental image of that act.

The more common method of "not catching" the ball would simply be to allow the ball to hit one's open glove, never close it, and allow it to fall harmlessly to the ground at the fielder's feet. Do you think that's what they meant by "guiding the ball to the ground?"

In any case, I've contacted Merle Butler on this issue, and I am still waiting his reply.

I'd be curious for somebody to explain WHY 8-2-J is even in the rulebook IF a fielder is allowed to do what I just described.

The purpose of the rule SHOULD be to prevent the defense from deliberately mishandling a fly ball that would unfairly put forced runners in jeopardy -or- unfairly create the impression that they are in jeopardy.

The fielder can accomplish this in one of two ways, both of which could be characterized as "intentionally dropping the ball" -

1. by quickly dropping a caught ball leaving some doubt in the runner's mind whether it was a legal catch or not. Although the runner would have the benefit of knowing that they DON'T have to run because the umpire would signal/call the batter out ... and, in any case, the runner would have to be TAGGED for the out.

2. by simply allowing the ball to hit their glove leaving no doubt in the runner's mind that they must now run. This latter case is the one that would most likely result in a double play since the fielders will not have to waste any time attempting to tag the runner and the runner clearly MUST run.

The rule is nearly SENSELESS if the only interpretation is <i>first</i> case and not inclusive of the <i>second</i>.

Yet, I'll have to admit, that DOES seem to be the case. It's insane, though.

Yes, I was referring to the POE (it <u>is</u> part of the rule book).

Caught means caught - a legal catch. So under ASA rules, letting the ball fall into an open glove and having the ball fall to the ground would not be ruled a catch, therefore this is not an intentionally dropped ball under ASA rules.

As for the easy double play rationale for the rule, I'm not sure that is the reason for the rule. IFR is there for that, and under ASA, IFR takes precedence.

My own thinking about this has led me to a somewhat unsure conclusion in my mind that the rationale behind the rule is preventing a deceptive act - the fielder trying to make the runners think the force is on when it isn't, and drawing them off base for a tag.