![]() |
|
|
|||
EXACTLY! On any other flyball, the runners do not have to retouch their base after the ball is touched (and dropped) by the fielder. But in the case of the IFF, they do. Otherwise, why would MLB say "retouch and advance after the ball is touched?"
|
|
|||
Quote:
"The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught...." The ball is alive and the runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught. Notice there is no mention of tagging up or anything at this point, yet the IFF is already in effect. The rest of your citation in bold from the post I copied this from goes on to explain how a runner may advance if the ball is caught, which is, at first touch, if the runner has tagged up, they may now advance. No need to complicate things.
__________________
Scott It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
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. |
|
|||
Isn't this thread something like you can give a horse water but your can't make it drink it?
|
|
|||
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
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."
|
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Infield Fly Rule | rbmartin | Baseball | 30 | Fri Apr 27, 2012 04:04pm |
Infield Fly Rule | UES-2 | Baseball | 11 | Sun Jul 04, 2010 01:10am |
Infield Fly Rule | mccann | Softball | 1 | Sat Apr 01, 2006 06:31pm |
Infield Fly Rule | Bandit | Softball | 13 | Mon Dec 15, 2003 01:55pm |
Infield Fly Rule | paparada | Softball | 5 | Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:44am |