You can either be an umpire, and get this simple concept ... or you can be a lawyer, and try to lawyerese this into meaning something it doesn't mean. But if you're going to be a lawyer, you need to take into account the ENTIRETY of this rule, and not just pluck one partial sentence and use it out of context.

Either way, you're interpretation is wrong. You're being told so by people who would know. Believe us... or don't. Your call, really.

OK, I guess I was not clear, hoped the brief version would be; but I'm not re-explaining what others have covered so well. :rolleyes:

Isn't this thread something like you can give a horse water but your can't make it drink it?

Part of learning the rules of baseball and softball is learning how the rules are read.

I and the other umpires have told you: Except for the fact that the batter is out on an IFF regardless of whether or not the ball is caught, it is just like ANY other fly ball.

What that means is, that a runner does not need to retouch if the ball is not caught.

It's as simple as that.

Rita

"LEAD a horse to water......" :cool:

Just for grits and shins, let's assume the ruleswriters wanted us to take the literal interpretation of the IFF rule that the OP is using. He (I assume male) argues that runners have to retouch their bases after the infield fly ball is first touched.

Ok, so suppose the infield fly ball falls to the ground, completely untouched. By that narrowly-restricting language in the IFF rule--"or retouch and advance after the ball is touched"--you could argue that the runners have to stay anchored to their bases until a fielder finally goes over and physically touches the ball!

That's the problem you can get into by, as MD alludes, lawyerizing the rules. No way in hell are we going to make the runners maintain contact with their bases until a fielder picks up that ball, even though that's what the rule, by strict interpretation, tells us has to happen.

Yeppers. Look what "lawyerizing" (love that new word) has done for this country. :eek: If you take a good look, you would be running to burn down every law school in the country. :rolleyes: So what do you think it would do to a game of softball? :confused: :(

I appreciate everyone's response. I'm not a lawyer; I'm just trying to understand the rule as it is written. After re-reading that sentence, it still doesn't make sense to me. It would be better if MLB would simply remove "retouch and advance after the ball is touched," then it would eliminate a possible exception to "as in any flyball."

Or you could just join us in the real world. There are numerous discrepencies and contradictions in the MLB rule book. By going with the intent of the rule as accepted by interpretations, umpires, players, coaches; you will do just fine. Don't nitpick where there is no need to.

If you removed that, the rule would no longer mean what it's supposed to mean.

It amazes me how often we see similar posts like this... "I misunderstand this one word here in a rule ... we should change it to this other thing", yet if we made the change being suggested, it would create bigger logical holes in the rule.

cf 9 is kind of new to the forum, so let's be gentle.