That is how the rule is written. I'm sure that is not the intent.

I write for a living. I cringe each year as I read rule books, because often the rules are not worded well and do not impart the intent of the rule.

"When an infield fly is declared and the fair batted ball hits the batter-runner before reaching first base."
Worded this way, the batter-runner would NOT be out unless both pieces were true - infield fly must be declared, AND the fair batted ball must hit the batter-runner before reaching first base. A coach who has a grasp of English could argue this well (but would still lose, as we all understand the intent of the rule). But that is an argument we, as umpires, should never have to face. IMO, the rule was much clearer in previous editions.

Except that by rule, the IFF is in effect, even if it was not signaled/verbalized at the normal peak of the fly ball.

This argument is asinine. Take your logic to any other rule...

8-7-B: "The runner is out when the ball is live and while the runner is not in contact with the base, the runner is legally touched with the ball in the hands of the fielder."

Therefore, by your way of reading the book, if a fielder catches the ball and steps on a base the runner is forced to, the runner is not out ... because all the pieces of 8-7-B have not been fulfilled.

Is this stupid? Of course it is ... because there are 24 other letters in rule 8-7.

It's just as absurd as the way you're parsing this rule. You're intentionally omitting the first (and most important) sentence and reading the 2nd sentence alone and out of context. The second sentence is merely a clarification of what happens in one specific instance, just as 8-7-b is one specific instance.

.

The argument may be asinine and stupid, but what else is there to talk about? ;)

The conumdrum is that nowhere does it definitively state that a batter-runner is out if he/she hits an infield fly, period. It doesn't say that in the Rule 1 Definitions. That only defines what constitutes an Infield Fly.

8-2-I used to under the old rule, but now it reads as if it requires the batter-runner to be hit with the ball. Yes, that may cover one specific instance. But the "routine" infield fly declaration was removed when the two sentences were combined into one.

8-2-J only says an Infield Fly has precedence over an intentionally dropped ball. But again, what do you go back to to find that precedence?

8-4-L mentions the Infield Fly, but only in the context of when other runners may advance.

9-1-A provides guidance on an Infield Fly as it relates to protests.

The NCAA rule book definitively states a batter is out if she hits an infield fly under Defintion 1.68 and Rule 11.18. The NFHS rule book also clearly states that in Definition 2-30 and in Rule 8-2-9. The ASA book? Not anymore.

I know, I know. Asinine and stupid. But to me, equally mysterious. :p

I'm soooooo glad my season is under way.:cool:

Lucky. My first scrimmage is March 5. And I'm sure I'll be wearing four layers... :(

:D...I knew we could get along

Huh?

The very rule you keep referring to. Under 8-2 (The batter is out...), Rule I: "When an Infield Fly is called."

I can't see that as being any clearer.

Oops, you went too far on that one. The NCAA rule ONLY applies if the infield fly is declared; unlike other levels of softball which acknowledge that misapplying the infield fly (failing to declare an obvious infield fly when the rule does apply) is correctable.

This is one rule in NCAA which, if misapplied (not talking judgment, saying umpires just didn't declare it) cannot be corrected. Guess what that leads to? The coach that claims he didn't hear it, so it must not have been declared!!:eek::eek:

My ASA rule book doesn't have a period after "called" under that rule. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Hmmm... that's incredibly odd. Mine does. Is the "I" capitalized in yours?

What Manny writes in post #28 is true. The wording changed between 2011 and 2012. We now have two clauses joined by "and".

Stranger and stranger. For both years, I have a Participants Manual and an Umpire's Manual. The UM stays with my gear at all times. The PM is the one I keep here at work. The 2012 PM has a period, not an 'and'. Very Very odd.

I now completely get your point, Manny. My apologies.

No worries, Mike. I've never seen a Participants Manual before, and I would have assumed that the Umpire's Manual is verbatim what is written in the PM, with the added umpire-only material in the back.

It appears that the change that was made in the UM did not get reflected in the PM. I still don't understand why that change was made in the UM.