Infield fly causes a shitstorm.

[Guest Guest]

So, Babe Ruth league game. Bases loaded, with 1 out. Home team up to bat, down by 2 in the last inning.

The batter hits a shallow pop up around second base. No one catches it and F6 gets it on a couple of hops, and throws to F4 for the force on R1. The BR gets to first and R2 and R3 both advance safely advance. Neither umpire calls infield fly, and the play seems over. But after R1 is in the dugout and R3 had scored the umpires call infield fly. The BU puts ALL the runners back on their bases (including the guy who scored and the guy who was forced out at second) and calls out the BR. He explains to the coach that "No runners can advance on an infield fly." That's obviously wrong, and the coach knew he was wrong and tries to explain the runners can advance at their own risk. But the umpire doesn't get it and the coach goes back to the dugout. So, what would you guys do here?

Also, the next batter drilled a double over F7's head, so the home team won on the walk-off hit.

Thanks.

[Jocko]

For starters, I know the rule, so I would have called it correctly.

[Replacematt]

Secondly, if I didn't call it, I'm not enforcing it when all runners advance. That is against the intent of the rule.

[mjr_2013]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

[Replacematt]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

[scrounge]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

The retroactive IFF call may not be protestable, but the incorrect returning of runners who have already successfully advanced might be.

[JaxRolo]

Major screw up!

[Replacematt]

The retroactive IFF call may not be protestable, but the incorrect returning of runners who have already successfully advanced might be.

Yes, yes.

[Umpire in Chief]

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

IFF can be called retroactively , but that will be anther S-Storm. My best guess would be they might have known they screwed up, but either didn't know how or were afraid to try to fix it.

[Jocko]

I don't see the need to fix anything when you kick it that bad. 1 run + 1 out and runners on the corners is better than what they did. I guess if you were gonna fix it, you put R1 on 2nd, unless he was tagged, score the run, R2 becomes R3, and BR is out. Totally FUBAR how it went down.

[Jocko]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

not protest the IFF, but the placement of runners and removing the scored run is protestable because of rule misinterp.

[kylejt]

"He explains to the coach that "No runners can advance on an infield fly.""

Holy smokes! Once that flies out of the umpire's mouth, any manager that doesn't protest that ruling needs to turn over his clipboard. He just ceased to be manager, and is now just a coach. And a dumb one at that. Yeah the umpire should know the rules, but so should the manager.

I like to equally kick the managers, when they don't do their job. A protest was in order. Yeah, the umpires kicked it, sat on it, and stepped on it some more. But lets share the blame on this.

[mjr_2013]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

It can be. It shouldn't be, but it can be... But when it is you have to enforce the rule correctly. They butchered the rule.

[Replacematt]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

It can be. It shouldn't be, but it can be... But when it is you have to enforce the rule correctly. They butchered the rule.

They messed up on replacing the runners (which I forgot about when I originally responded.) Here's the problem I see--they called R1 out on the force, but the force was retroactively removed, so what to do with him? Assume he would have been safe? He was never legally out. But is that fair to the defense?

It's quite clear that mistakes breed more mistakes. I'd be willing to bet that the "fix" was intended to be equitable to both sides, but we all know there is no rules basis for an equitable fix in this case. The umpire's comment, I'm guessing, was a combination of ignorance and trying to cover his ass and hoping the manager wouldn't catch it--which he didn't.

[mjr_2013]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

It can be. It shouldn't be, but it can be... But when it is you have to enforce the rule correctly. They butchered the rule.

They messed up on replacing the runners (which I forgot about when I originally responded.) Here's the problem I see--they called R1 out on the force, but the force was retroactively removed, so what to do with him? Assume he would have been safe? He was never legally out. But is that fair to the defense?

It's quite clear that mistakes breed more mistakes. I'd be willing to bet that the "fix" was intended to be equitable to both sides, but we all know there is no rules basis for an equitable fix in this case. The umpire's comment, I'm guessing, was a combination of ignorance and trying to cover his ass and hoping the manager wouldn't catch it--which he didn't.

I understand what you are saying now... Hmm... I guess that would be a league issue if the protest was accepted... Interesting situation... :question1:

[Dannytheman]

I would have called it right in the first place.

If I had been that umpire, not knowing the rules, I would have expected the word "protest" to be coming loud and clear out of the coaches mouth.

This isn't protestable. IFF can be called retroactively. In general, IFF is only protestable if the criteria aren't met, and it is called anyway.

It can be. It shouldn't be, but it can be... But when it is you have to enforce the rule correctly. They butchered the rule.

Yup, protest the misinterpretation of the rule. But too late now!!

[mstaylor]

I agree the umpires kicked it in a couple of ways. First it doesn't sound like an IFF at all. Then once the play is over they decide to enforce it and call the BR out, that's OK if they feel it was an IFF. Now once they enforce it retroactively the force at second is not an out so he should placed back on second. Next they really step in it and say that the runners can't advance. This is completely wrong and protestable. The end result should have been runners on second and third, one run scored. Or eat the IFF and have first and third, one run in.

[Guest Guest]

I guess I don't really understand the protest rule. Why would the coach/manager want to protest it when his team won after the next hit? Thanks.

[Replacematt]

A protest has to be done at the time of the contested call--before the next play or pitch. He didn't know that his team would win it on the next hit at the time it would have been protestable.

[Guest Guest]

A protest has to be done at the time of the contested call--before the next play or pitch. He didn't know that his team would win it on the next hit at the time it would have been protestable.

Okay, so after the game winning hit, could he drop the protest? Or does the coach have to stick with it?

[Replacematt]

He can withdraw it.

[Guest Connie]

What a horrible call. How much more do these Umpires not know about the rules. This is scary!

Not even an unusual rule! IFF happens all the time. I know umpires are human and blow calls from time to time, but this is inexcusable.

[Replacematt]

Yes! Let's put them in prison! Won't somebody please think of the children scarred for life because of a bad call?

[UMP45]

Connie,It is not very smart to come on an umpire website and talk SH*# about umpires. Good or bad the only ones allowed to "discuss" umpires are other umpires. Since you are so knowlegable of the rules what is the difference in OBR and FED IFF rule? :mellow:

[Jocko]

What a horrible call. How much more do these Umpires not know about the rules. This is scary!

Not even an unusual rule! IFF happens all the time. I know umpires are human and blow calls from time to time, but this is inexcusable.

how about the errors committed by the teams prior to that call. What about all the base running errors? Unearned runs? Balks? HBP? BB?

Well, we'll forget about all THAT. The umpires kicked one. E on the ump trumps all that like MC trumps OBS I guess.

Whatever......

[mstaylor]

Guys, this is an area for nonumpires to ask questions, try to not to slam them too bad.This is a simple rule obviously blown by untrained umpires. Unfortunately many youth umpires are either untrained or poorly trained. I know when I started I worked about eight years with absolutely no training. I finally got some real rules training and then some mechanics training. Since then I have been to many,many clinics. I have seen guys work for years flying by the seat of their pants. The experienced guys here know my quote," You play 80% of the games with 20% of the rules." Because of this, many guys can go years flying blind. I get phone calls daily with questions that guys couldn't figure out. They are usually very simple questions but because they aren't trained they don't know.

This is the premise behind this section. Many questions will be very basic questions which is fine. What the experienced umpires need to do is answer the questions without making them feel like they should already know. If they did, they wouldn't be asking the question.