Had this happen to another umpire crew this past weekend.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

making calls on situations that don't apply requires spot on rule 10 fix.

True, but we DO have rules and interps that exactly cover this situation. If you use Rule 10 more than once every 10 years or so, you're overusing it and making it a crutch for your lack of rules knowledge. Rule 10 lets you do what is right when an airplane crashes into the CF fence during a play ... or when play ends and you somehow have 5 runners on 3 bases and no one can find the ball.

I didn't read that OP correctly initially.

Obviously, considering that the ENTIRE POINT of this conversation was how to handle a situation where an umpire calls IFF in a non-IFF situation.

[shagpal]

the rule 10 fix is just what it is, used often or not.

it's rare to have both partners brain fart. partners come in all shapes and sizes. if a partner needs a fix, I just help out, not pontificate the fix, and I would expect the same if I wee in a bind.

I would agree, working solo, something is wrong if invoked too often. I'm not going to insist and justify any frequency. I'll leave that to offenders and pretenders.

I read carelessly when the situation can be explained so simply. I loathe long explanations.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

True, but we DO have rules and interps that exactly cover this situation. If you use Rule 10 more than once every 10 years or so, you're overusing it and making it a crutch for your lack of rules knowledge. Rule 10 lets you do what is right when an airplane crashes into the CF fence during a play ... or when play ends and you somehow have 5 runners on 3 bases and no one can find the ball.

Obviously, considering that the ENTIRE POINT of this conversation was how to handle a situation where an umpire calls IFF in a non-IFF situation.

[ontheway]

slightly off topic here.......If the IFF rule is to protect the offense from a cheap double play how come its not in effect when there is less then two outs with single runner on 1st base?

[Dakota]

Because the BR will likely beat the double play attempt.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ontheway

slightly off topic here.......If the IFF rule is to protect the offense from a cheap double play how come its not in effect when there is less then two outs with single runner on 1st base?

Because the odds of getting a double play in that case would be if the BR fails to or delays his/her advancement to 1B. The runners need to stay on or near the base or be subject to being doubled off. That possibility does not exist with the BR.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by ontheway

slightly off topic here.......If the IFF rule is to protect the offense from a cheap double play how come its not in effect when there is less then two outs with single runner on 1st base?

It's sorta covered w/ the intentionally dropped fly ball in the infield. Not 100% as an infielder can guide the ball to the ground [ASA].

[AtlUmpSteve]

To paraphrase what others have said:

The IFF rule is intended to protect the offense from a cheap double play due to runners that must stay at their base because the ball is obviously in flight and they would be doubled off if they run. With two or more such runners, it would be a fairly easy task by most players.

But nothing keeps that batter-runner from running, other than laziness or stupidity; there is certainly no jeopardy attached to the batter-runner running, like there is for the other runners. There is no reason to protect that person if he/she fails to run out their hit.

[ontheway]

Thanks!!!!

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

To paraphrase what others have said:

The IFF rule is intended to protect the offense from a cheap double play due to runners that must stay at their base because the ball is obviously in flight and they would be doubled off if they run. With two or more such runners, it would be a fairly easy task by most players.

But nothing keeps that batter-runner from running, other than laziness or stupidity; there is certainly no jeopardy attached to the batter-runner running, like there is for the other runners. There is no reason to protect that person if he/she fails to run out their hit.

the batter runs the play out then there shouldn't be any chance of getting a double play. But, if he's an idiot and tosses his bat down, mutters some obscenity, then sulks back to the dugout then he deserves to get doubled!