|
Mon Jul 07, 2003, 10:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
We had a game the other night in which my daughter was playing. She is in Little leage fast pitch in Kansas. The umpire called the infield fly rule and our batter was out. Our coach, seeing that the defense was sleeping, advanced the runners and the umpire let them stay. I thought it should have been a dead ball and runners would have to stay where they were. Who is right?
|
|
Mon Jul 07, 2003, 10:28pm
|
|||
|
|||
Blue was correct. Runners may advance at the risk of being
put out. glen
__________________
glen _______________________________ "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." --Mark Twain.
|
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003, 12:13am
|
|||
|
|||
|
What runners may do on an infield fly is no different from any other fly ball. They need to tag up if the ball is caught. They may attempt to advance with liability of being put out, etc.
The ONLY thing the infield fly call does is remove the force by declaring the batter-runner out, so the runners are not FORCED to advance if the ball is dropped.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003, 08:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
And... this is one of the most "fan (and coach) confusing calls" you can make. The usual arguement is " it wasn't a catchable ball" ( because nobody treid to catch it). This rule is to protect the runners, they can move, but dont have to move, Dakota stated it clearly. I can't remember ever calling IF rule in fast pitch, and not getting an arguement. In baseball, rarely will any argue it.
|
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003, 09:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem always has been and always will be the "ordinary effort" factor. When the rule was new, I'm sure original rule writer(s) saw that as a conservative approach. They were so focused on infielder versus outfielder reach that they over-emphasized it and under-emphasized runner protection in the wording. The rule says infielder, not infield; because they considered them the ones that would make a play on the runner(s). Don't forget, all levels adopted the wording of the MLB rule and MLB infielders are better and faster than everyone else.
On a fly ball coming down right near 2nd base, the fielder might have to dash from a deep or shifted position. But a non-catch at that spot puts both runners in jeopardy if the rule is not applied. That's why I maintain that the rule should be applied with the intended runner protection superceding the fielder's effort. The "ordinary effort" applies to the landing spot allowing the fielder to retrieve a non-catch in time to put out the runner(s) on the force.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003, 09:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Tue Jul 08, 2003, 10:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Right, TB, good clarification. I was only talking about "because they considered them the ones that would make a play on the runner(s)" as a rule maker viewpoint and not the actual specifics of the rule.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
