Incorrect infield fly rule called

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Centerfield9

The main argument was the runner on 3rd. Had the IFF not been called, the runner probably would not have broke for home although he's a fast and aggressive runner.

That argument makes no sense at all. IFF or no IFF doesn't change anything at all about that runner. That runner is allowed to advance on the IFF (if it had actually been one), was not forced by anyone to run on the drop. That runner is irrelevant to the erroneous call.

However,

Pop up to 3B, ball dropped, ball thrown to 1B, tagged the base (no tag on either runner), runners on 1B and 3B hesitated then advanced at the same time on the throw, ball is thrown home, runner is safe, lots of yelling and screaming at this point, ball thrown to 2B and that runner is tagged out, play is blown dead. It took about 5 min for the umpires to sort it all out (seemed like forever).

How it ended up: runner on 3rd is awarded home. Runner on 1st is out at 2nd, BR is awarded 1st.

If the ball was thrown to first and they tagged the base, BR is out (just like on any other normal play). Given your description of the play, I don't see either team actually disadvantaged by the erroneous call. BR is out when first base is tagged, R2 from first is out trying to advance to 2nd.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

That argument makes no sense at all. IFF or no IFF doesn't change anything at all about that runner. That runner is allowed to advance on the IFF (if it had actually been one), was not forced by anyone to run on the drop. That runner is irrelevant to the erroneous call.

However,
If the ball was thrown to first and they tagged the base, BR is out (just like on any other normal play). Given your description of the play, I don't see either team actually disadvantaged by the erroneous call. BR is out when first base is tagged, R2 from first is out trying to advance to 2nd.

if you as the umpire judged that calling the iff erroneously put the br in jeopardy would you change your thinking?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by ronald

if you as the umpire judged that calling the iff erroneously put the br in jeopardy would you change your thinking?

Assuming you mean br to be batter-runner (vs nontraditional base runner), I don't ever make that judgment. The reason the IFF DOESN'T cover a single runner at first is that we don't ever excuse the batter-runner from failing to run out a ball, at least through first base. And not excused now, either.

We often hold players and coaches accountable for knowing the situation; how many outs there are, even if told incorrectly by an umpire, when the D3K rule applies (or doesn't), what the count actually is (catcher not to throw to someone other than pitcher), etc. If the batter and offensive coaches don't know the IFF cannot apply BY RULE, I hold them equally accountable. No jeopardy, just poor baserunning and coaching.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ronald

if you as the umpire judged that calling the iff erroneously put the br in jeopardy would you change your thinking?

It is impossible for the infield fly rule, called or uncalled, to affect the actions of the batter-runner. Given that the rules tell us that it is the responsibility of the players to know the rules - BR has no reason at all to not run to first (or no excuse should he/she choose not to run when IFF was not really in effect).

[ronald]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It is impossible for the infield fly rule, called or uncalled, to affect the actions of the batter-runner. Given that the rules tell us that it is the responsibility of the players to know the rules - BR has no reason at all to not run to first (or no excuse should he/she choose not to run when IFF was not really in effect).

that is quite strong language but when the person in charge of knowing and applying the rules errs and a player reacts to that, there has to be a redress to the screw up. And Asa has a case play for it.

8.2-30

with a runner on 3b and no outs, the batter hits a high fly in the infield above f4's head. the bsase umpire erroneously calls infield fly,batter is out. f4 subsequently drops the ball. the runner from 3b scores and
the batter (a) ends up at 2nd base, or (b) goes to the dugout when he heard the base umpire call him out.

ruling; Th e run scores. in (a)leave the bater at 2b on the correctable error; however, in (b), the plate umpire should rectify the situation by placing the batter on 1b. (8-2i: 8-2d: 10-6c) Thiss is from a case book I bought in 2003

[ronald]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It is impossible for the infield fly rule, called or uncalled, to affect the actions of the batter-runner. Given that the rules tell us that it is the responsibility of the players to know the rules - BR has no reason at all to not run to first (or no excuse should he/she choose not to run when IFF was not really in effect).

that is quite strong language but when the person in charge of knowing and applying the rules errs and a player reacts to that, there has to be a redress to the screw up. And Asa has a case play for it.

8.2-30

with a runner on 3b and no outs, the batter hits a high fly in the infield above f4's head. the bsase umpire erroneously calls infield fly,batter is out. f4 subsequently drops the ball. the runner from 3b scores and
the batter (a) ends up at 2nd base, or (b) goes to the dugout when he heard the base umpire call him out.

ruling; Th e run scores. in (a)leave the bater at 2b on the correctable error; however, in (b), the plate umpire should rectify the situation by placing the batter on 1b. (8-2i: 8-2d: 10-6c) Thiss is from a case book I bought in 2003

[Centerfield9]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

That argument makes no sense at all. IFF or no IFF doesn't change anything at all about that runner. That runner is allowed to advance on the IFF (if it had actually been one), was not forced by anyone to run on the drop. That runner is irrelevant to the erroneous call.

It does make sense. The IFF call could influence how the fielder plays the ball, and that could, in turn, influence what the runners do. In this case, it didn't matter, but to say the "argument makes no sense at all" ...uh... makes no sense at all.