I was watching my brothers baseball game yesterday and their were runners on 1st and 2nd with 1 out and the ball was hit in the air really close between the outfield grass and the infield. The field ump called an infield fly but no one heard him, he said he called and the 2nd basemen also dropped the ball just in tghe outfield so the runners advanced. Then the umps had a meeting and made the runners go back to 1st and 2nd with the batter out. Is this the correct call or should the baserunners be able to stay at 2nd and 3rd since on infield flys you can advance at on your own risk, but the runners didnt know it was an infield fly so they didnt tag up. So what does everyone think of this. It's a little confusing.

nodak,

Unfortunately, the umps got this one wrong.

When the ump declared the "infield fly" the batter was out. True, the ump should have been louder when calling it but that doesn't change the fact that the ump determined it was an infield fly. Other than the batter being out, an infield fly is no different than any other fly ball. If the ball is caught the runners must tag up. If it isn't caught they don't have to.

In your scenario the advance by the runners was legal. I can't think of any reason why the umps put the runners back on first and second.

Wait a minute, it was stated that the runners "didnt know that it was an IF, SO THEY DIDNT TAG UP".The umps were then correct in putting runners back on 1st and 2nd.

oops, mybad, disregard previous!!

It is possible that the umpires ruled the ball "intentionally dropped". This would have made the ball dead at the time of the "dropping" and then the runners would be returned.

this would be an incorrect ruling too as the IFF rule negates the possibility of the ball being ruled intentionally dropped.

Just another thought

The ball stays live on an intentionally dropped IFF. Any other ID is a dead ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
The ball stays live on an intentionally dropped IFF. Any other ID is a dead ball.

yep, that was my point about it being an "incorrect ruling, as well". Either way, they didn't get it right (assuming that something missing from the OP didn't cause this to be a ball that required greater than ordinary effort, like a lot of wind).