From an association quiz

[chapmaja]

We had the following situation on a test in our association a couple weeks ago. How would you rule.

R1 on 2nd, R2 on first, 1 out, B4 hits a high pop fly that lands in foul territory between home and first base then kicks (untouched) into fair territory. F2 fields the ball and throws to F3 who tags R2 as they are standing off the base.

We had a big discussion about one aspect of this play.

Would you call an infield fly on this play? (Edit: changed intentional to infield)

My argument is that it could be an intentional fly situation given that 1) It was a high pop fly on the play. In my opinion, without seeing the play, a high pop fly near a foul line in a high school game should be able to be caught with reasonable effort. 2) The ball ended up in fair territory, even though it hit in foul territory, which means it is a fair ball, thus being eligible for the infield fly rule given the way the rule is worded.

That would make this play a double play with the out on an infield fly being #2 and an out on the tag being the third out.

This is a situation where no matter what, a coach is going to be upset. The defensive coach will want both outs, the out on R2 who was tagged while off the base and the out for the infield fly. The offensive coach is going to be arguing that the only out should be R2 who was tagged off base, and that B4 (who we assume advanced to first while the high pop fly was in the air) should be safe on the play.

[MD Longhorn]

Intentional Fly?

Cutting through the irrelevant stuff, the answer to your question is that YES, the umpire can (and very likely should, in this case) retroactively rule an INFIELD fly and place runners accordingly. Umpires should have called it at its apex (IFF if Fair), but having failed to do so they MUST fix this error, call BR out, and leave the runners on 1st and 2nd.

NO, you should not allow a double play here, as the runner only advanced because of the umpire's error in not calling it an IFF when he was supposed to.

[Dakota]

The purpose of the IFR is to protect the offense from a cheap double play. Who cares what the DC wants?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The purpose of the IFR is to protect the offense from a cheap double play. Who cares what the DC wants?

Let's assume for a moment that is what the OP is asking; it sounds more like attempting to invoke the intentionally dropped rule. It cannot be that, because 1) the infield fly rule would supercede, and 2) when a ball drops untouched, it isn't dropped.

To be more specific, the intent of the infield fly rule is to protect against a cheap double play resulting from runners being forced. Not so much against runners too stupid to stay on a base on a fair batted ball. Without seeing the exact play, and determining that the runner was in jeopardy for the umpire failing to call the IFR (meaning, she is now running to second thinking she is forced), as opposed to a runner too stupid to know this is a fair ball, live ball, and she is in jeopardy standing off the base, I am thinking I probably DO have a double play, based on the post "standing off the base".

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

We had the following situation on a test in our association a couple weeks ago. How would you rule.

R1 on 2nd, R2 on first, 1 out, B4 hits a high pop fly that lands in foul territory between home and first base then kicks (untouched) into fair territory. F2 fields the ball and throws to F3 who tags R2 as they are standing off the base.

We had a big discussion about one aspect of this play.

Would you call an intentional fly on this play?

My argument is that it could be an intentional fly situation given that 1) It was a high pop fly on the play. In my opinion, without seeing the play, a high pop fly near a foul line in a high school game should be able to be caught with reasonable effort. 2) The ball ended up in fair territory, even though it hit in foul territory, which means it is a fair ball, thus being eligible for the infield fly rule given the way the rule is worded.

That would make this play a double play with the out on an infield fly being #2 and an out on the tag being the third out.

This is a situation where no matter what, a coach is going to be upset. The defensive coach will want both outs, the out on R2 who was tagged while off the base and the out for the infield fly. The offensive coach is going to be arguing that the only out should be R2 who was tagged off base, and that B4 (who we assume advanced to first while the high pop fly was in the air) should be safe on the play.

That would make this play a double play with the out on an infield fly being #2 and an out on the tag being the third out.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let's assume for a moment that is what the OP is asking; it sounds more like attempting to invoke the intentionally dropped rule. It cannot be that, because 1) the infield fly rule would supercede, and 2) when a ball drops untouched, it isn't dropped.

To be more specific, the intent of the infield fly rule is to protect against a cheap double play resulting from runners being forced. Not so much against runners too stupid to stay on a base on a fair batted ball. Without seeing the exact play, and determining that the runner was in jeopardy for the umpire failing to call the IFR (meaning, she is now running to second thinking she is forced), as opposed to a runner too stupid to know this is a fair ball, live ball, and she is in jeopardy standing off the base, I am thinking I probably DO have a double play, based on the post "standing off the base".

The OP should have been infield fly, not intentional drop.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Intentional Fly?

Cutting through the irrelevant stuff, the answer to your question is that YES, the umpire can (and very likely should, in this case) retroactively rule an INFIELD fly and place runners accordingly. Umpires should have called it at its apex (IFF if Fair), but having failed to do so they MUST fix this error, call BR out, and leave the runners on 1st and 2nd.

NO, you should not allow a double play here, as the runner only advanced because of the umpire's error in not calling it an IFF when he was supposed to.

I did not say anything about when the IFR was called. In the event it is close to the line the proper mechanic is Infield Fly if Fair. If that call is made, then the only option on the play is a double play.

Now, as for the situation if the umpire does not make the call initially.

The proper ruling, which I just found in the casebook is:

B4 is out on an infield fly, even if it is not called initially the batter is out. Also, R2 is out for being tagged while off the base.

This is from the casebook play on page 15, (2.30 Situation B)

Ultimately it is up to the offensive team to know the situation. I can understand the idea of not counting the double play, but the proper situation for the offense in this case is to stay on the base. If no infield fly is rule, R2 is out when they are tagged standing on the base (force out). If the IFR is in play, they are safe while standing on first base, and the Batter is out on the IFR. The only bad option is to stand off the base, allowing yourself to be tagged out.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I did not say anything about when the IFR was called.

You didn't say it was called at all. If it WAS called, it changes the scenario completely. Including the fact that it was called is as important as mentioning a runner was tagged out - it's critical to the situation.

Omitting relevant information is not going to get you the answer you're looking for, most of the time.

If IFF was called, then you have a double play, and really don't have anything to discuss. Pretty straightforward in that case and coaches have nothing to argue about either.

[Multiple Sports]

Double play whether called or not.....

If we don't call an in field fly on a ball hit above the shortstop in this scenario,

we would still have a dp.....this scenario is no different....

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You didn't say it was called at all. If it WAS called, it changes the scenario completely. Including the fact that it was called is as important as mentioning a runner was tagged out - it's critical to the situation.

Omitting relevant information is not going to get you the answer you're looking for, most of the time.

If IFF was called, then you have a double play, and really don't have anything to discuss. Pretty straightforward in that case and coaches have nothing to argue about either.

Actually is does not change anything on the play. If the IFR is invoked, either when the ball reaches it's highest point, or prior to the next pitch, it is the same ruling.

The runner who is tagged while off base is out and the batter runner is out on the IFR.

It is still the responsibility of the offensive team to know the situation. There is no way a runner tagged out when off base is put back on the base because the umpires did not call the IFR.

[RKBUmp]

It is still the responsibility of the offensive team to know the situation. There is no way a runner tagged out when off base is put back on the base because the umpires did not call the IFR.

That is not entirely true. If the umpire does not call the IFF in a situation where it should have been and the end result ends up with runners being put out who would not have been otherwise the umpire can and should invoke the IFF after the fact and put runners back on base.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let's assume for a moment that is what the OP is asking; it sounds more like attempting to invoke the intentionally dropped rule. It cannot be that, because 1) the infield fly rule would supercede, and 2) when a ball drops untouched, it isn't dropped.

To be more specific, the intent of the infield fly rule is to protect against a cheap double play resulting from runners being forced. Not so much against runners too stupid to stay on a base on a fair batted ball. Without seeing the exact play, and determining that the runner was in jeopardy for the umpire failing to call the IFR (meaning, she is now running to second thinking she is forced), as opposed to a runner too stupid to know this is a fair ball, live ball, and she is in jeopardy standing off the base, I am thinking I probably DO have a double play, based on the post "standing off the base".

I was addressing his comment about the coaches complaining, not whether the correct call was made.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You didn't say it was called at all. If it WAS called, it changes the scenario completely. Including the fact that it was called is as important as mentioning a runner was tagged out - it's critical to the situation.

Omitting relevant information is not going to get you the answer you're looking for, most of the time.

If IFF was called, then you have a double play, and really don't have anything to discuss. Pretty straightforward in that case and coaches have nothing to argue about either.

It was presented as a test question, not a real situation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

It was presented as a test question, not a real situation.

I get that. And IFF was not called. Then chap said, "I did not say anything about when the IFR was called," - implying that it WAS called. Which, despite chap's insistence, CAN change the situation.

If the original scenario was presented on a test, but it said IFF was called... there would be nothing to discuss. The question would be easy. The DP would be obvious - and no coach with a quarter of a brain would complain.

IFF not called is the CRUX of this discussion. It brings into play the concern that the lack of call put someone at jeopardy - and if so, we must protect them. I do agree that if the runner is just wandering off base for no apparent reason (and not confused by the lack of IFF call, running, and then trying to return, or something like that), you probably still have a double play.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It brings into play the concern that the lack of call put someone at jeopardy - and if so, we must protect them.

I wondered if anyone else was considering that.

I certainly hope that was not a test consideration.