Vlad Guerrero's Smart Play - Untouched Drop Turns Two

[Lindsay]

Toronto's Vlad Guerrero's smart play in the field led to a Blue Jays double play against Cincinnati when Reds batter Will Benson's infield fly ball with one out and a runner on first base fell to the ground untouched, with Guerrero throwing to first base to retire batter-runner Benson (who didn't run the play out), leading to a double play via tag as the lead baserunner was retired during a rundown. Umpires had a lot to consider here and we review the various rules involved.

The rules discussed include the infield fly rule (we eliminate an infield fly possibility, because only first base was occupied with less than two out [e.g., not first and second or bases loaded]), Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10) fielder protection on a batted ball against batter/runner interference (Guerrero was the protected fielder entitled to field this fly ball), OBR 5.09(a)(12) the intentional drop rule (dead ball, batter is out -- only occurs if the fielder TOUCHES the ball before intentionally dropping it...Guerrero didn't touch the fly ball), and OBR 5.09(b)(6)the force being removed on the lead runner when the batter was retired which necessitated a tag of the runner instead of the base.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Guerrero's heads up double play - a comprehensive rules overlook

View the full article

[Lou B]

Stupid base running !!!

[Velho]

37 minutes ago, Lou B said:

Stupid base running !!!

How do you suggest R1-BR do different? If the defense knows the rules about who to tag first that's a double play every time.

[SeeingEyeDog]

3 minutes ago, Velho said:

How do you suggest R1-BR do different? If the defense knows the rules about who to tag first that's a double play every time.

Yeah...this only looks like stupid base running. This is one of those baseball deals, at least under OBR, where R1 is cooked either way. If R1 stays closer to 1B, then F3 is letting it drop untouched and then throwing to 2B and then they are going to 1B for a double play. (Or going to 1B immediately like Vlad did and getting the tag on R1)

If R1 breaks for 2B on contact, then F3 makes that catch and throws to 1B for the 2nd out.

~Dawg

[Velho]

20 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Yeah...this only looks like stupid base running. This is one of those baseball deals, at least under OBR, where R1 is cooked either way. If R1 stays closer to 1B, then F3 is letting it drop untouched and then throwing to 2B and then they are going to 1B for a double play. (Or going to 1B immediately like Vlad did and getting the tag on R1)

If R1 breaks for 2B on contact, then F3 makes that catch and throws to 1B for the 2nd out.

And if R1 stays put - and they know the rules - they'll tag him first and then the bag to get BR. Only hope seems like stay on the bag and hope they touch the bag first (or near it and play patty cake if you want to make it fun)

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

And if R1 stays put - and they know the rules - they'll tag him first and then the bag to get BR. Only hope seems like stay on the bag and hope they touch the bag first (or near it and play patty cake if you want to make it fun)

How about B-R runs out his pop up?

[Velho]

32 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

How about B-R runs out his pop up?

Fair and valid point in this example.

I'll recant my prior position and go +1 point to @Lou B

[Velho]

Tangent question into the extreme (fine, maybe absurd): Let's say the batted ball was a soft line drive that F3 takes it off his chest (think a soccer player controlling a high pass) without the ball touching his glove, is that an "intentional drop"?

[SeeingEyeDog]

6 hours ago, Velho said:

Tangent question into the extreme (fine, maybe absurd): Let's say the batted ball was a soft line drive that F3 takes it off his chest (think a soccer player controlling a high pass) without the ball touching his glove, is that an "intentional drop"?

OBR 5.09(a)(12) is what Lindsey cites in the video. "...the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the IFF rule applies.

Your scenario is open to umpire judgement...did they intentionally drop the ball?

~Dawg

[maven]

22 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

OBR 5.09(a)(12) is what Lindsey cites in the video. "...the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the IFF rule applies.

Your scenario is open to umpire judgment...did they intentionally drop the ball?

~Dawg

If the ball hits him in the chest, it's not dropping "untouched."

We're used to seeing this play involving the glove and hands, but touched is touched. The scenario is not what folks usually think of as a judgment call, pretty black/white.

[Senor Azul]

Completely agree with Mr. maven's post. The other rule sets have a very similar rule regarding intentional drops of fly balls by infielders. In FED it's rule 8-4-1c and for the NCAA it's rule 7-11q.

All three tell us that it is not an intentional drop if the batted ball is allowed to fall to the ground untouched. But only the FED has a case play that expands on the rule to include manipulating the ball to the ground (Case Book play 8.4.1 Situation G). Here's the ruling from the case play--

...Manipulating the ball to the ground is prohibited. Allowing the ball to drop to the ground untouched is not considered an intentionally dropped ball.

That's as close as the rules get to your scenario, Mr. Velho.

[beerguy55]

10 hours ago, Velho said:

Tangent question into the extreme (fine, maybe absurd): Let's say the batted ball was a soft line drive that F3 takes it off his chest (think a soccer player controlling a high pass) without the ball touching his glove, is that an "intentional drop"?

Touched is touched...once the fielder touches it in any way, the only judgment to apply here is whether or not there was intent.

[Mussgrass]

12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

How about B-R runs out his pop up?

It does appear that the F# was watching the ball the whole way. Perhaps if he could see the BR actually running it out he would have just caught the ball.

[beerguy55]

58 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

It does appear that the F# was watching the ball the whole way. Perhaps if he could see the BR actually running it out he would have just caught the ball.

I see a few possibilities:

1. he noticed early that the batter was giving up, and simply went with that assumption (or even saw it out of the corner of his eye)

2. he was going to let it drop anyway to trade a fast runner for a slow runner - seeing the batter had stopped running was a nice bonus

3. he got a verbal indication from Merrifield to let it drop