From an association quiz

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

Rule 8-2-9 note and casebook 2.30 B ruling seem told support all outs on this play. What rule trumps these?

I think there is a difference between the OP and the discussion about putting a team obviously in jeopardy by not calling he IFF. In the case of the discussed items, the DP resulted from out called as force outs on both runners, when they should not have been forced to advance.

In that case you are putting both teams in jeopardy by not calling the IFF. First, you require runners to advance when they should not be forced to advance. Second, the defense will likely only tag the base for the force out, which is not a legal out since the IFF should have been called. When the DP is two force out plays, the only proper procedure is to negate the penalty both teams would incur, rule the Batter out, and put the runners on the bases they should be on had they not been forced to advance.

This used to be in the casebook somewhere, although I don't recall the location,

This is different from the OP which is a case the runner was off base and was tagged. You can't rightfully put the runner back on a base when it was their mistake that caused them to be off the base because that penalizes the defense which rightfully tagged the runner who was off the base out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

You can't rightfully put the runner back on a base when it was their mistake that caused them to be off the base because that penalizes the defense which rightfully tagged the runner who was off the base out.

Yeah, you can. If the IF was called, would the runners be more likely to hold the base or leave?

This is brain surgery and the interp isn't new. The umpire ****ed up and you cannot hold either team responsible for your stupidity.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

Rule 8-2-9 note and casebook 2.30 B ruling seem told support all outs on this play. What rule trumps these?

Generally, NFHS 10-2-3-m, using the wording "rectify any situation" can trump any other. Use of that rule has to be judiciously applied. But, if you judge one team was put in jeopardy as a result of reversing a decision (didn't call the infield fly, applying it retroactively is a reversal), you have the authority and obligation to fix it.

That said, based on the OP (not force outs, just bad baserunning), I have two outs on THAT play. While the thread has morphed, I believe IrishMafia is addressing those that state it will always be a double play if the rule is applied retroactively, not so much the initial post.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

That said, based on the OP (not force outs, just bad baserunning), I have two outs on THAT play. While the thread has morphed, I believe IrishMafia is addressing those that state it will always be a double play if the rule is applied retroactively, not so much the initial post.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Steve.

What else do you expect runners to do that see the ball roll fair and the umpire has NOT made the appropriate call that protects them? After all, they cannot read what is in the umpire's mind as to whether s/he judges the ball to be catchable with ordinary effort. You may call it dumb base running, I may call it indecision based upon an umpire failure.

IF the umpire does make the call retroactively, I don't believe s/he has a choice than protect BOTH teams.