Jump to content
  • 0

Infield Fly


Question

OBR

A declared infield fly is caught, then intentionally dropped to the ground. The runner from third, standing several feet off third base from the time the pitch was delivered, sees the ball on the ground, breaks for the plate, (without tagging up) and scores.
If the defense appeals, is the runner out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

(12) An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line
drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first,
second and third base occupied before two are out. The
ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their
original base or bases;
Rule 5.09(a)(12) to 5.09(b)(2)
43
APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is
not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop
untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly
rule applies.

but...

When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their
own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally
drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions
of Rule 5.09(a)(12). The infield fly rule takes precedence.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

All that matters here...

No, not that easy.

7 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

A declared infield fly is caught, then intentionally dropped to the ground.

If it is a catch, and intentionally dropped, then an umpire is (or should be) calling "Time! That's an intentional drop! Batter-Runner is Out (and then placing the Runners at their bases TOP)". No runs score, no baserunners advance, but there are no additional Outs to be had. 

However, as @noumpere points out, an Infield Fly situation ignores ... or better yet supersedes the Intentional Drop. The Batter-Runner is already out by rule. The Intentional Drop is just that... a drop. As in, "Not a Catch". 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
43 minutes ago, MadMax said:

 

If it is a catch, and intentionally dropped, then an umpire is (or should be) calling "Time! That's an intentional drop! Batter-Runner is Out (and then placing the Runners at their bases TOP)". No runs score, no baserunners advance, but there are no additional Outs to be had. 

No, no, no...

If it's caught, it is never an intentional drop for the purposes of that rule. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, Matt said:

No, no, no...

If it's caught, it is never an intentional drop for the purposes of that rule. 

Agreed, if we take TOMUIC literally.  But, s/he only has two posts, and we've seen many new users / heard at many clinics people use that term ("caught and dropped") to mean "the ball entered the glove, but the fielder intentionally let it fall rather than complete the process of the catch."  Tom needs to clarify

 

If it *was* a catch, BU or PU, I suppose) should be selling that -- a big vocal and "that's a catch" or similar.

 

To understand the ruling (if it's judged to be not a catch), recognize that both the Infield Fly and the Intentional Drop rule are meant to protect the offense form a "cheap" double play.  Since the batter is out on the infield fly, there's no need to protect the offense further with the intentional drop rule.  So, it does not apply when the infield fly applies, and the ball can remain live.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
43 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Agreed, if we take TOMUIC literally.  But, s/he only has two posts, and we've seen many new users / heard at many clinics people use that term ("caught and dropped") to mean "the ball entered the glove, but the fielder intentionally let it fall rather than complete the process of the catch."  Tom needs to clarify

 

If it *was* a catch, BU or PU, I suppose) should be selling that -- a big vocal and "that's a catch" or similar.

 

To understand the ruling (if it's judged to be not a catch), recognize that both the Infield Fly and the Intentional Drop rule are meant to protect the offense form a "cheap" double play.  Since the batter is out on the infield fly, there's no need to protect the offense further with the intentional drop rule.  So, it does not apply when the infield fly applies, and the ball can remain live.

I agree, but @MadMax used the term I quoted, and I'm pretty sure he knows what a catch is and isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, MadMax said:

No, not that easy.

If it is a catch, and intentionally dropped, then an umpire is (or should be) calling "Time! That's an intentional drop! Batter-Runner is Out (and then placing the Runners at their bases TOP)". No runs score, no baserunners advance, but there are no additional Outs to be had. 

However, as @noumpere points out, an Infield Fly situation ignores ... or better yet supersedes the Intentional Drop. The Batter-Runner is already out by rule. The Intentional Drop is just that... a drop. As in, "Not a Catch". 

 

So the way I read this.  IFF is in effect BR is out.  Because the runner are now "at there own peril to advance"   the caught and then dropped ball is treated as a drop and the runners do not have to tag as its now "Un-caught", so run would score and an appeal would be safe?

 

Just verifying my understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 hours ago, MadMax said:

No, not that easy.

If it is a catch, and intentionally dropped, then an umpire is (or should be) calling "Time! That's an intentional drop! Batter-Runner is Out (and then placing the Runners at their bases TOP)". No runs score, no baserunners advance, but there are no additional Outs to be had. 

However, as @noumpere points out, an Infield Fly situation ignores ... or better yet supersedes the Intentional Drop. The Batter-Runner is already out by rule. The Intentional Drop is just that... a drop. As in, "Not a Catch". 

He CAUGHT it...then dropped it.  Two separate events.  Think of it as voluntary release.   If it is a catch, it is a catch - a catch can't be dropped...if it's dropped it's not a catch...they're diametrically opposed.  The runner can't leave until a caught ball is first touched.   He was off the base when the ball was CAUGHT.     Even on an IFF. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Agreed, if we take TOMUIC literally.  But, s/he only has two posts, and we've seen many new users / heard at many clinics people use that term ("caught and dropped") to mean "the ball entered the glove, but the fielder intentionally let it fall rather than complete the process of the catch."  Tom needs to clarify

 

If it *was* a catch, BU or PU, I suppose) should be selling that -- a big vocal and "that's a catch" or similar.

 

To understand the ruling (if it's judged to be not a catch), recognize that both the Infield Fly and the Intentional Drop rule are meant to protect the offense form a "cheap" double play.  Since the batter is out on the infield fly, there's no need to protect the offense further with the intentional drop rule.  So, it does not apply when the infield fly applies, and the ball can remain live.

I would agree with this, but @Madmax specifically said "If it is a catch, and intentionally dropped..." which is incorrect - my assumption is that though the poster may not understand the terminology, he does.

Yes, until told otherwise I'm taking the description in the OP literally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The act of a fielder intentionally dropping a fly ball or line drive, AFTER MAKING A CATCH, can occur at any time. Naturally, the application of the rule ( ball dead , batter out , runners return ) is determined by the conditions found in the rule itself.
PLAY: Runner on second, one out. Pop up to the second basemen. The ball is caught, then voluntarily and intentionally released (dropped) to the ground ( the runner was several feet off second from the time the pitch was delivered). The runner breaks for third (without retouching second) and is safe at third. 
if a proper appeal is made ,the runner will be out. In this play the fielder clearly made a catch ,then chose to drop it, (for whatever reason). If asked, the umpire will simply explain that a catch was made (batter out), but the ball remains alive (first base not occupied). 
Once again, the physical act of dropping the ball intentionally after making a catch, can occur at any time, yet is totally independent of whether or not the rule for an intentionally dropped ball  will be applied.
 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

The act of a fielder intentionally dropping a fly ball or line drive, AFTER MAKING A CATCH, can occur at any time. Naturally, the application of the rule ( ball dead , batter out , runners return ) is determined by the conditions found in the rule itself.
PLAY: Runner on second, one out. Pop up to the second basemen. The ball is caught, then voluntarily and intentionally released (dropped) to the ground ( the runner was several feet off second from the time the pitch was delivered). The runner breaks for third (without retouching second) and is safe at third. 
if a proper appeal is made ,the runner will be out. In this play the fielder clearly made a catch ,then chose to drop it, (for whatever reason). If asked, the umpire will simply explain that a catch was made (batter out), but the ball remains alive (first base not occupied). 
Once again, the physical act of dropping the ball intentionally after making a catch, can occur at any time, yet is totally independent of whether or not the rule for an intentionally dropped ball  will be applied.

The ball is going to remain live whether or not first base was occupied.  If it was a catch (as stated) then the "intentionally dropped ball" rule does not apply (nor would it apply if this was an infield fly, as it would be if first was occupied.)

 

The rules are NOT independent, but they are exclusive -- if it's a catch, it can't be intentionally dropped (as meant by that particular rule); if it's judged to be intentionally dropped (as meant by the rule) it can't be a catch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

The act of a fielder intentionally dropping a fly ball or line drive, AFTER MAKING A CATCH, can occur at any time. 

No, it can't. Once it's caught, it's not a fly ball or line drive.

This may seem like semantics, but it's crucial to understanding when the rule can be applied.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
28 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

The act of a fielder intentionally dropping a fly ball or line drive, AFTER MAKING A CATCH, can occur at any time. Naturally, the application of the rule ( ball dead , batter out , runners return ) is determined by the conditions found in the rule itself.

Close...as I said earlier...the catch and the drop are two different events.   Once you catch the ball the "intentional drop" rule cannot be applied.   Determining the possession/control required to constitute a "catch" would be umpire's judgment.

Where you're off, a bit, is that once you make a catch, it's no longer a batted ball -  if you drop "the ball", that's all you are dropping...you are not dropping a batted ball (ie. a fly ball or line drive)...you are simply dropping a ball that was in your glove/hand.  It falls under the realm of "thrown" ball at that point.  (for example, if you dropped the ball,  after catching it, and it rolled into the dugout you would use the rules regarding a thrown ball out of play to determine runner placement - if you dropped the ball without catching it, whether your touched it or not, and it rolled into the dugout you would use the rules regarding a batted ball out of play to determine runner placement)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think TOMUIC has "Ask the Umpire" confused with "Quiz the Umpire"!

And he is the host:crazy:

Thanks for playing! 

This has been another Steven Tyler Production!

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 10/6/2020 at 9:35 AM, beerguy55 said:

Once you catch the ball the "intentional drop" rule cannot be applied.   Determining the possession/control required to constitute a "catch" would be umpire's judgment.

I'll concede that. 

However, you did include a key operative phrase – "umpire's judgement". And to that point, it behooves – nay, demands – that an umpire calls something. If you have it as a catch, then say so! "That's a catch! That's a catch!". Vocalizing that removes ambiguity. You wouldn't have to kill the play (and as we've discussed, you shouldn't be anyway, since the IFF supersedes Intentional Drop).

Conversely, if in your judgement, it wasn't truly a catch (and without seeing an actual play, just reading off description, I'm inclined towards), then again say so!!! "Not a catch! No catch!" (followed closely by "Batter's Out! He's still out!").

We can't just descend to "Don't call the obvious". There's nothing about this play that is obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 hours ago, MadMax said:

We can't just descend to "Don't call the obvious". There's nothing about this play that is obvious.

I don't think that anyone has said that.

Whether an umpire does the right thing and makes an emphatic call of catch/no-catch is, unfortunately for the participants, irrelevant to how the rules apply. If it's caught, it cannot be a dropped ball--there's no provision to kill it because the umpire can't make a F*#King call.

At least if there's no catch, the play can be fixed retroactively if there's no emphatic call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 10/9/2020 at 2:01 PM, MadMax said:

I'll concede that. 

However, you did include a key operative phrase – "umpire's judgement". And to that point, it behooves – nay, demands – that an umpire calls something. If you have it as a catch, then say so! "That's a catch! That's a catch!". Vocalizing that removes ambiguity. You wouldn't have to kill the play (and as we've discussed, you shouldn't be anyway, since the IFF supersedes Intentional Drop).

Conversely, if in your judgement, it wasn't truly a catch (and without seeing an actual play, just reading off description, I'm inclined towards), then again say so!!! "Not a catch! No catch!" (followed closely by "Batter's Out! He's still out!").

We can't just descend to "Don't call the obvious". There's nothing about this play that is obvious.

Absolutely, and never disputed that.   My point all along is the "something" coming from the umpire's mouth should be "that's a catch" not "Time, that's an intentional drop".  Communication (potentially the largest piece of good game management) is where most umpires - experienced or not - could spend their time improving.  It's just as important (if not more) as knowing the rules, and much more difficult to master.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...