retroactive Infield Fly rule

[canyonjoe]

Situation Bases loaded 1 out we are up to bat in a friendly so only 1 ump

Batter hits a popup towards SS. For some reason she doesn't catch it (I don't think on purpose). Ump says nothing so runners take off when ball is hit. R2 is tagged out at third just after R3 scores. The other coach ask the up if it should be IF fly and he says yes and call it a double play but lets run count.

My initial reaction is that if he calls IF fly rule our runners would have held (at least I hope) so they he should place them back on their bases with 2 outs or not call the IF Fly and have the batter be on first.

I didn't really want to argue as this was a friendly but if it comes up in a real game I'm asking umps what the correct final should have been.

 

[quincy]

I think you are in trouble from the get go. I do not think the umpire can retroactively call an IFR, they either do or they don’t and the play stands.

They only thing they could have called is that the fielder intentionally dropped the ball then the runners go back to where they started.

IFR is not a protestable call.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

I think you are in trouble from the get go. I do not think the umpire can retroactively call an IFR, they either do or they don’t and the play stands.
Umpires can reverse IFR calls/non-calls like other calls and the PU can rectify any situation created by a reversal or late call that placed players in jeopardy.

They only thing they could have called is that the fielder intentionally dropped the ball then the runners go back to where they started.
"Dropped" is key as the fielder has to make contact (ASA R/S says they have to catch and then drop). There's no rule against intentionally missing the ball, which occurred in last night's Angels-Rangers game. Rangers SS was camped under high infield fly and then moved away so they could retire Trout instead of Pujols.

IFR is not a protestable call.

You can't protest the judgement aspect of whether the ball was catchable with ordinary effort, however you can protest any misapplication of the rules.

 

[Comp]

As stated above, the umpire not recognizing and calling the iff does not change the fact that it should have been called. The umpire has the authority to retroactively call the iff, and if the failure to call it put runners in jeapordy the umpire should correct the situation be putting the runners back on base. The rule in NCAA is different, in that ruleset if the umpire does not call it, it is not considered to be an iff.

 

[canyonjoe]

As stated above, the umpire not recognizing and calling the iff does not change the fact that it should have been called. The umpire has the authority to retroactively call the iff, and if the failure to call it put runners in jeapordy the umpire should correct the situation be putting the runners back on base. The rule in NCAA is different, in that ruleset if the umpire does not call it, it is not considered to be an iff.

So if this happened again, I could argue that not calling it put my runners in jeopardy so they should put them back?

 

[sluggers]

Right...if the guy is going to retroactively call the IF, then the runners should have been put back at the bases.

but, it won't happen again. The ump didn't know the IF rules.

 

[BretMan]

So if this happened again, I could argue that not calling it put my runners in jeopardy so they should put them back?

Yes, you could make that agrument.

The only problem is that if you have an umpire so inexperienced that he can't properly administer the infield fly rule, he's probably not going to be experienced enough to even realize that the rule book allows this to be corrected.

 

[Jquick823]

I have witnessed a rash of IF's that are not called and the umpires look says it all. Depending on the age and level of play the umpires are either new or extremely elderly and don't work as fast as the game requires. I've had 3 inning ending double plays happen to my girls this season because IF wasn't called before, during or after. The only thing I get is the ordinary effort argument. Well if it hits the girls glove and she moved forward less than 3 steps that's pretty ordinary to me. But I guess that's how this game goes sometimes.