pumphrey@ttidcb.UUCP (Larry Pumphrey) (10/15/85)
An interesting situation occurred in the NLCS game of Thursday 10/10
when Ozzie Smith was on first base with one out. Andujar was the
batter and was trying to sacrifice Smith over to second base when he
bunted a pop-up to the Dodger pitcher, Hersheiser, who intentionally
allowed the bunt to drop (he could have caught the ball) and then
threw the ball to second to start a successful inning ending double
play. The situation did not call for the infield fly rule because
nobody was on second base. My question is the following: The infield
fly rule was created to disallow double plays caused by intentionally
dropped pop flies. The rule states that baserunners must be on first
_and_ second base with less than two outs for the rule to apply.
Presumably, the reason that the IF rule does not apply with only first
base occupied is that the batter should be able to reach first base
before a pop fly ball is caught, thus eliminating the possibility of a
double play. The previously described NLCS situation did not seem to
fall into this category as the arc of the pop bunt was not of
sufficient height to permit Andujar to reach first base. I guess what
I'm talking about is it appears that the baseball rules committee
should expand the scope of the infield fly rule to cover special
situations with only a baserunner at first and less than two outs.
For example, consider the possibility that an infielder intentionally
drops a line drive for an error in order to get a double play. Should
the IF rule be expanded to cover special situations with only first
base occupied, when in the _judgement_ of the umpire the batter had no
chance to reach first base (for a fielder's choice) when a fly ball is
intentionally dropped or allowed to hit the ground first. What do all
you basenetters think about this?jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/20/85)
> > My question is the following: The infield > fly rule was created to disallow double plays caused by intentionally > dropped pop flies. Not quite. The rule was created to prevent double plays gotten by trickery, by someone freezing the runners by pretending to catch a ball, and then letting it drop and forcing them out. The idea is to prevent a situation where the baserunners don't have any "right" thing to do. If there is only a man on first, the right thing for him to do on a pop-up is stay there, because to run guarantees a double play. With men on first and second and less than two out, both runners would have to try to out-guess the fielder: if the fielder lets it drop, then the right thing to do is run, but if he catches it, the right thing to do is stay put. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
cpf@lasspvax.UUCP (Courtenay Footman) (10/20/85)
The original article wondered if there should be a rule about deliberately
dropped fly balls to prevent double plays. This is not the right question,
because there is such a rule!
6.05 "A batter is out when --"...
(l) "An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive,
with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and
third occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or
runners shall return to their original bases;
"APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the
infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except
where the infield fly rule applies."
In any event, this rule would not apply to the play described in the
preceding article, because that was not a fair fly ball or line drive,
but a bunt. The thought seems to be that a bungled bunt deserves
heavy punishment:
2.00 ... "An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line
drive or attempted bunt)" ...
Thus the rules for a deliberately dropped ball do exist, and are
sufficient. An amusing note is that when 6.05.l was first written the
word infielder was left out, until a student at umpire school asked
"What would happen if an outfielder deliberately dropped the ball?"
The horrified instructor hurriedly contacted the rules committee.
--
Courtenay Footman arpa: cpf@lnsvax
Newman Lab. of Nuclear Studies usenet (finally this will work):
Cornell University {decvax,ihnp4,cmcl2,vax135}!cornell!lnsvax!cpf cffres@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (10/21/85)
The way I heard it was that Andujar was too lazy or stupid to run, because he assumed the ball was going to be caught. He had an obvious attitude problem in that 2nd game, which was more of a problem than the rules.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/21/85)
> > An interesting situation occurred in the NLCS game of Thursday 10/10 > when Ozzie Smith was on first base with one out. Andujar was the > batter and was trying to sacrifice Smith over to second base when he > bunted a pop-up to the Dodger pitcher, Hersheiser, who intentionally > allowed the bunt to drop (he could have caught the ball) and then > threw the ball to second to start a successful inning ending double > play. > ...it appears that the baseball rules committee > should expand the scope of the infield fly rule to cover special > situations with only a baserunner at first and less than two outs. I disagree. It requires a very smart play to allow a bunt or line drive to fall. A pop fly, however, you have time to THINK about it. With the bunt or line drive examples, you have to really be on your toes to get that double play. And, you have to have good execution of the infield play in order to get the batter out at first. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
rhoads@oasys.UUCP (10/22/85)
> > For example, consider the possibility that an infielder intentionally > drops a line drive for an error in order to get a double play. Should > the IF rule be expanded to cover special situations with only first > base occupied, when in the _judgement_ of the umpire the batter had no > chance to reach first base (for a fielder's choice) when a fly ball is > intentionally dropped or allowed to hit the ground first. What do all > you basenetters think about this? The key word here is _judgement_. Any IF rule has to be a non-judgement rule because otherwise the baserunner and the umpire have to have the same judgement. The beauty of the IF rule is that it does protect the runners, hence if they go it's their own problem, whereas with a judgement call, he has to decide whether or not the ump will judge that the batter could make first. I think you have a good idea though. -- Rhoads Hollowell {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires![oasys!]rhoads "I knew I shoulda made dat left turn at Alburqurque!!" --B. Bunny
pete@umcp-cs.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) (10/23/85)
In article <1808@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> >> An interesting situation occurred in the NLCS game of Thursday 10/10 >> when Ozzie Smith was on first base with one out. Andujar was the >> batter and was trying to sacrifice Smith over to second base when he >> bunted a pop-up to the Dodger pitcher, Hersheiser, who intentionally >> allowed the bunt to drop (he could have caught the ball) and then >> threw the ball to second to start a successful inning ending double >> play. >> ...it appears that the baseball rules committee >> should expand the scope of the infield fly rule to cover special >> situations with only a baserunner at first and less than two outs. > > I disagree. It requires a very smart play to allow a bunt or line drive >to fall. A pop fly, however, you have time to THINK about it. With the bunt >or line drive examples, you have to really be on your toes to get that >double play. And, you have to have good execution of the infield play in order >to get the batter out at first. > Hmmmm. During last night's game (a KC win, 6-1, 3rd game) they had another 'You make the Call' segment. In it, with a runner on first, Eddie Murray intentionally let a ball drop out of his glove on an infield popout in order to try and get a double play. The ruling was that a fielder may not intentionally drop a ball in an attempt to do this, so the runner stayed at first and the batter was ruled out. The only difference I see between the 2 situations is that Murray actually touched the ball and let it bounce out. I assume this makes all the difference in the world; the only other conclusion is that the umpires are inconsistent, which is of course far too outlandish a possibilty ;-) -- Call-Me: Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept. UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!pete CSNet: pete@umcp-cs ARPA: pete@maryland
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/26/85)
In article <1953@umcp-cs.UUCP> pete@maryland.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) writes: >Hmmmm. During last night's game (a KC win, 6-1, 3rd game) they had another >'You make the Call' segment. In it, with a runner on first, Eddie Murray >intentionally let a ball drop out of his glove on an infield popout in >order to try and get a double play. The ruling was that a fielder may not >intentionally drop a ball in an attempt to do this, so the runner stayed >at first and the batter was ruled out. The only difference I see between >the 2 situations is that Murray actually touched the ball and let it >bounce out. I assume this makes all the difference in the world; the only >other conclusion is that the umpires are inconsistent, which is of course >far too outlandish a possibilty ;-) No, the difference is that in one play the batter was bunting, and in the other, he was hitting away. This distinction is made at least one other place in the rules, since a foul bunt with two strikes on the batter is strike three. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108