IFF Called Retroactively - Ejection Follows

[johnnyg08]

IFF is in place to protect the offense. The defense doesn't get an out b/c they botched the play. 

 

[grayhawk]

This is what I wrote on X:

I don’t like it and here’s why: The offense wasn’t disadvantaged on the play - nobody was put out. If, because the umpires failed to declare the infield fly, the defense was able to turn a double play, then yes, turn back the clock and call the batter out for infield fly and return the runners. But not in this case. They penalized the offense for the defense’s poor play.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

This is what I wrote on X:

I don’t like it and here’s why: The offense wasn’t disadvantaged on the play - nobody was put out. If, because the umpires failed to declare the infield fly, the defense was able to turn a double play, then yes, turn back the clock and call the batter out for infield fly and return the runners. But not in this case. They penalized the offense for the defense’s poor play.

Yep! The rule is in place to protect the offense!

[Tog Gee]

Infield fly rules don't say "... unless the ball is not caught and all runners are safe."

They should have called it when the ball went up, but maybe PU thought it was a foul ball? PU was busy trying to stay out of the catcher's way.

"If fair" is always implied for infield fly.

[Velho]

Two discussion points this play triggers for me:

1) If IFF isn't called real time but in retrospect it should have*, how do you deal with that? @grayhawk covered that well. Batter out, runners return, move on.

* I'm having problems finding cites for the generally accepted practice of calling it after the fact. I see it in J/R (page 54 16th edition/2022). Anyone have anything?

2) One of my windmills: A) Should it be called based on the location of the ball for that level? B) Should it be called based on the location of the ball for where those fielders started (if shifted for example)? c) Should it be called based on the actual actions of those exact players on that exact play (i.e. the "see the fielder camped at the apex")?

In this one, imo, this one meets A and B - that ball should be caught with reasonable effort. As for C, none of the defense ever had that play managed. F5, F1, and F3 all were spectators letting F2 struggle. You can be assured the defense coach was on F5 or F1 for not calling for that ball.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

Infield fly rules don't say "... unless the ball is not caught and all runners are safe."

They should have called it when the ball went up, but maybe PU thought it was a foul ball? PU was busy trying to stay out of the catcher's way.

"If fair" is always implied for infield fly.

If the catcher’s gyrations were due to wind affecting the ball it could be judged not ordinary effort. Wind is a factor in judging ordinary effort. 

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, Tog Gee said:

They should have called it when the ball went up

Should be when the ball starts to come down.

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Should be when the ball starts to come down.

Should be when you determine ordinary effort. Is it ideal to calI it at the apex? Sure, but if ordinary effort hasn't been determined, then calling it at the apex, or when the ball starts to come down might lead to calling it when it shouldn't have been called. We need to be patient, while still giving the offense the time they need to act accordingly.

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

Two discussion points this play triggers for me:

1) If IFF isn't called real time but in retrospect it should have*, how do you deal with that? @grayhawk covered that well. Batter out, runners return, move on.

 

Why would you return the runners?

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

If the catcher’s gyrations were due to wind affecting the ball it could be judged not ordinary effort. Wind is a factor in judging ordinary effort. 

 

To me, this is the only question I have.  If it was wind-induced, I have no IFF, all live action stands.

If it was not wind-induced, I have the batter out on IFF (outcome does not matter for him, and sadly, neither does the catcher's particularly bad read and poor performance).  I have the runners staying put, as it is not a dead ball, and runners advance at their own peril. 

[grayhawk]

9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Why would you return the runners?

The presumption is that failing to call IFF put the offense at a disadvantage which resulted in a double play. In this case, returning the runners back on base from being called out.

[The Man in Blue]

1 minute ago, grayhawk said:

The presumption is that failing to call IFF put the offense at a disadvantage which resulted in a double play. In this case, returning the runners back on base from being called out.

I read that as sending runners back who did advance (as in this play).  

[Coach Carl]

8 hours ago, grayhawk said:

This is what I wrote on X:

I don’t like it and here’s why: The offense wasn’t disadvantaged on the play - nobody was put out. If, because the umpires failed to declare the infield fly, the defense was able to turn a double play, then yes, turn back the clock and call the batter out for infield fly and return the runners. But not in this case. They penalized the offense for the defense’s poor play.

Per the play by play on the Virginia website, the runners were not returned:  https://virginiasports.com/boxscore/18676

You have to navigate to play by play. It was in the 6th inning.

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, Coach Carl said:

Per the play by play on the Virginia website, the runners were not returned:  https://virginiasports.com/boxscore/18676

You have to navigate to play by play. It was in the 6th inning.

That's not what I was saying. On THIS play, I felt they should NOT have retroactively called the IFF because the offense (who IFF is supposed to protect) was not disadvantaged. I was saying that if the umpires failed to call IFF, and the defense was able to turn a DP because of that, THEN they should retroactively call the IFF, call the BR out and put the runners who were called out back on base.

[johnnyg08]

8 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

That's not what I was saying. On THIS play, I felt they should NOT have retroactively called the IFF because the offense (who IFF is supposed to protect) was not disadvantaged. I was saying that if the umpires failed to call IFF, and the defense was able to turn a DP because of that, THEN they should retroactively call the IFF, call the BR out and put the runners who were called out back on base.

Agree. Why bail out the defense? 

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Agree. Why bail out the defense? 

I suppose an argument could be made that IFF should have been called regardless of the eventual outcome. @Velho makes some good points about how ordinary effort should be determined.

[The Man in Blue]

Fun question … it was not @grayhawk who used that terminology first, but based on his reply …

If a runner had been called out and you were correcting it … what bases are you putting them back at?

[grayhawk]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Fun question … it was not @grayhawk who used that terminology first, but based on his reply …

If a runner had been called out and you were correcting it … what bases are you putting them back at?

To be clear, if the defense got ONE out on the play, then I wouldn't advocate invoking IFF after the fact. It's one out either way. But to answer your question, I would place runners where they would have ended up if the IFF was declared.

[The Man in Blue]

Weird duplicate after a reply . . . erasing the repeat.

[grayhawk]

Here's what the BRD has to say:

[noumpere]

iirc, that OBR interp was listed on some other reference.  In any event, it matches what I was always taught.  It will be interesting to see if NCAA puts out a clarification on its RQ site.

[johnnyg08]

We have a general consensus that this was an error by the crew? Correct? 

This was not ordinary effort. The defense should not have been awarded an out. 

[Coach Carl]

14 hours ago, grayhawk said:

That's not what I was saying. On THIS play, I felt they should NOT have retroactively called the IFF because the offense (who IFF is supposed to protect) was not disadvantaged. I was saying that if the umpires failed to call IFF, and the defense was able to turn a DP because of that, THEN they should retroactively call the IFF, call the BR out and put the runners who were called out back on base.

I see now that I was conflating your general statement of principle as a criticism of how you thought that the umpires ruled in the actual situation.

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

We have a general consensus that this was an error by the crew? Correct? 

This was not ordinary effort. The defense should not have been awarded an out. 

Careful, we have already seen how words matter here.

It doesn’t matter if the catcher made normal effort or did … well … this.  The standard is that it could have been caught with normal effort.

The factor we don’t know is whether wind changed that standard.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

Careful, we have already seen how words matter here.

It doesn’t matter if the catcher made normal effort or did … well … this.  The standard is that it could have been caught with normal effort.

The factor we don’t know is whether wind changed that standard.

I agree with that...and should have added "wind" into my post.