I have a question regarding the Royals v Tigers game. I was watching the game and I think the umpires got the call right but I think it was different than the answer to the case play in the video. Infield fly, ball was dropped, but runner was safe at 3rd because it is no longer a force out. The batter was out, R2 advanced to 3rd by choice not by force, third baseman didn't tag the runner, runner was ruled safe.
The key that most lay people miss is that there’s a difference between intentionally dropping a ball and intentionally not catching a ball. The former involves touching (e.g., line drive) and the latter does not (e.g., allowing a pop up to land naturally at your feet). The biggest potential here is on a R1 & R2, no outs situation and a poor sac bunt attempt the pops up to F1. Bunts are not protected by the IFF rule. So, a fielder should allow the ball to land and get a double play (e.g., 1-5-4).
Good video!But Caseplay #6 is so confused me.Maybe #8 can be considered the umpire's judgment, but #6 is too demanding on the runner.NO calling IFF,NO calling intentional drop,but IFF and out.
the gripe I have with Caseplay #6 is that the video didn't really match the question text very well, but I answered based on the video. In the video the batted ball was not clearly an infield fly (trajectory too low), so I judged that the hypothetical umpires in the Caseplay did not call infield fly because they decided it was not an infield fly and therefore the intentionally dropped ball rule was in effect. It turns out what you were going for was the fact that a called infield fly supersedes the intentional drop rule. There's a difference between no-calling a clear infield fly because the umpire(s) are inexperienced, had the wrong number of outs or just committed a brain fart, and no-calling a possible infield fly because they've judged it not to be one. While what the umpires in the video did is not necessarily relevant to the Caseplay answer, it is interesting to discuss anyway. It looks to me like U1 is in fact calling intentional drop, as his signal looks more like an out than pointing up for an infield fly and the timing of his signal looks like a response to the intentional drop; however U2 appears to echo an infield fly call and then U3 appears to make no call on R2 at 3B as if someone (U1?) had already called Time.
I tend to agree here; I do not think the fly ball was clearly by rule an infield fly. It appears more likely to be a "line drive" as a fielder did not have reasonable time to camp out under it. Especially in this situation; I think a no-call on the ambiguous at best infield fly should defer towards it not being an infield fly. I think a post-catch / no catch infield fly should only be called if it was a clear and obvious umpire mistake. Doing anything else significantly predjudices the offense; as in this situation, the runner, seeing that no infield fly had been or could reasonably be called attempted to advance as in his mind it was either intentional drop (in which case his attempting to advance would be nullified) or not intentional drop (in which case his advancing is necessary). I especially don't like that Umpire Classroom only showed the slow mo. I think a real time view here would make it clear this should be an intentional drop (assuming he touched it before it hit the ground).
I think Patrick has made an error and U-1 signaled intentional dropped ball. You are correct Dave, that the take away is an infield fly supersedes an intentional drop of a baseball. U-2 looks a little puzzled what U-1 called.
I love these videos. However, I’m terrified that umpires will see this and when a defense lets a flyball drop in front of term with a runner on first (because the batter is not hustling) and then starts a double play, an inexperienced umpire who sees this will not understand the different between “dropping” and letting the ball “drop”. The later should not be called “intentionally dropped”. This is covered, but still….😅
General thought and question. Seems to me in many cases of intentionally dropped balls actually favor the defense who committed the offense. By declaring the batter out and dead ball it kills any of the action that might have taken place. Example what is runner on 1B was stealing and made it to second when the ball was dropped? He gets penalized and sent back? Or what if the player who drops it intentionally and then throws back to first and it goes in the stands? That runner should get 3rd base. I just find it strange that the offending team gets no penalty and the offense has no chance of advancing or receiving an award.
I have an issue with case 5. How can you declare the batter out and the runner as well if you never called infield fly. Are the runners supposed to read your mind as an umpire? Either stick with your gut of no iff or call it a botched call and place runners where they should have been had the correct call been made at the right time.
Because it's not subject to the infield fly rule. It's subject to the intentionally dropped ball rule. You are not allowed to let a line drive or a popped up bunt attempt to drop - - deliberately in order to get a double play. It's not an infield fly rule. The batter and runner are not called out on an intentionally dropped ball rule. When a fielder deliberately drops a fly ball or bunt, the umpire will declare the play dead. The batter is out, and all runners return to the base they were on. Only the batter is out.
Case 7. I believe R1 is safe because R1 while standing on 1st base was not tagged until after the BR was put out by F3 received the ball while touching first. It would be a double play if F3 stepped off the bag, received the ball, tagged R1 then touched the bag.
The only issue I have with all these questions is when you ask for an intentional drop ball it doesn't state whether the ball was touched or not. Even in your video you show a case where a ball is intentionally dropped untouched and use the same wording. I find it difficult to even answer the questions because there's no clarification of the ball being touched in the question.
Very good video, but the rule on the IFF must be updated. If the umpire does not declare the infield fly (and the other umpires don't echo it), the runners don't get (feel) protected and even get more confused. Exactly the opposite of the purpose of the rule.
What happens if you let a line drive hit you in the chest and you never put the glove on it, and then it falls to the ground? With at least First base occupied and less than 2 outs.
Hate this rule and Infield Fly rule.....double-plays are good for the game. I also hate that a lot of these calls are judgement. For instance, the last video you show of the Twins SS dropping a hump-back pop up is a perfect example. I judge that he did drop it on purpose while you don't. Just eliminate the rule and if the defense can turn a double-play, so be it.
This was good. I got 100%!
I have a question regarding the Royals v Tigers game. I was watching the game and I think the umpires got the call right but I think it was different than the answer to the case play in the video.
Infield fly, ball was dropped, but runner was safe at 3rd because it is no longer a force out. The batter was out, R2 advanced to 3rd by choice not by force, third baseman didn't tag the runner, runner was ruled safe.
The key that most lay people miss is that there’s a difference between intentionally dropping a ball and intentionally not catching a ball. The former involves touching (e.g., line drive) and the latter does not (e.g., allowing a pop up to land naturally at your feet).
The biggest potential here is on a R1 & R2, no outs situation and a poor sac bunt attempt the pops up to F1. Bunts are not protected by the IFF rule. So, a fielder should allow the ball to land and get a double play (e.g., 1-5-4).
I really appreciate these videos. You do a great job.
Thanks for the nice comment. This one was absolutely brutal in production, so the comments help to keep me fueled. Thanks for supporting!
I’m new this year and just subscribed. Thank you!
Welcome to the brotherhood
@@UmpireClassroom thanks! I’ll be a sponge to get as much info from the veterans!
Thanks for the response to my question with a video..awsome
Thanks for the idea!
Good video!But Caseplay #6 is so confused me.Maybe #8 can be considered the umpire's judgment, but #6 is too demanding on the runner.NO calling IFF,NO calling intentional drop,but IFF and out.
the gripe I have with Caseplay #6 is that the video didn't really match the question text very well, but I answered based on the video. In the video the batted ball was not clearly an infield fly (trajectory too low), so I judged that the hypothetical umpires in the Caseplay did not call infield fly because they decided it was not an infield fly and therefore the intentionally dropped ball rule was in effect. It turns out what you were going for was the fact that a called infield fly supersedes the intentional drop rule.
There's a difference between no-calling a clear infield fly because the umpire(s) are inexperienced, had the wrong number of outs or just committed a brain fart, and no-calling a possible infield fly because they've judged it not to be one.
While what the umpires in the video did is not necessarily relevant to the Caseplay answer, it is interesting to discuss anyway. It looks to me like U1 is in fact calling intentional drop, as his signal looks more like an out than pointing up for an infield fly and the timing of his signal looks like a response to the intentional drop; however U2 appears to echo an infield fly call and then U3 appears to make no call on R2 at 3B as if someone (U1?) had already called Time.
I tend to agree here; I do not think the fly ball was clearly by rule an infield fly. It appears more likely to be a "line drive" as a fielder did not have reasonable time to camp out under it.
Especially in this situation; I think a no-call on the ambiguous at best infield fly should defer towards it not being an infield fly. I think a post-catch / no catch infield fly should only be called if it was a clear and obvious umpire mistake. Doing anything else significantly predjudices the offense; as in this situation, the runner, seeing that no infield fly had been or could reasonably be called attempted to advance as in his mind it was either intentional drop (in which case his attempting to advance would be nullified) or not intentional drop (in which case his advancing is necessary).
I especially don't like that Umpire Classroom only showed the slow mo. I think a real time view here would make it clear this should be an intentional drop (assuming he touched it before it hit the ground).
I think Patrick has made an error and U-1 signaled intentional dropped ball. You are correct Dave, that the take away is an infield fly supersedes an intentional drop of a baseball. U-2 looks a little puzzled what U-1 called.
I also don't think he was tagged going to 3rd, so if they ruled infield fly then he is safe.
But love the videos!
@@rayray4192
The other issue I have with Case Play #6 is that R2 was never tagged. I know the explanation matches the scenario but it does not match the video.
@@alcoraces The lesson is infield fly supersedes intentionally dropped ball
I love these videos. However, I’m terrified that umpires will see this and when a defense lets a flyball drop in front of term with a runner on first (because the batter is not hustling) and then starts a double play, an inexperienced umpire who sees this will not understand the different between “dropping” and letting the ball “drop”. The later should not be called “intentionally dropped”. This is covered, but still….😅
General thought and question. Seems to me in many cases of intentionally dropped balls actually favor the defense who committed the offense. By declaring the batter out and dead ball it kills any of the action that might have taken place. Example what is runner on 1B was stealing and made it to second when the ball was dropped? He gets penalized and sent back? Or what if the player who drops it intentionally and then throws back to first and it goes in the stands? That runner should get 3rd base. I just find it strange that the offending team gets no penalty and the offense has no chance of advancing or receiving an award.
I have an issue with case 5. How can you declare the batter out and the runner as well if you never called infield fly. Are the runners supposed to read your mind as an umpire? Either stick with your gut of no iff or call it a botched call and place runners where they should have been had the correct call been made at the right time.
Because it's not subject to the infield fly rule. It's subject to the intentionally dropped ball rule. You are not allowed to let a line drive or a popped up bunt attempt to drop - - deliberately in order to get a double play. It's not an infield fly rule.
The batter and runner are not called out on an intentionally dropped ball rule. When a fielder deliberately drops a fly ball or bunt, the umpire will declare the play dead. The batter is out, and all runners return to the base they were on. Only the batter is out.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburgyou’re right. I think I meant case play 6.
Case 7. I believe R1 is safe because R1 while standing on 1st base was not tagged until after the BR was put out by F3 received the ball while touching first. It would be a double play if F3 stepped off the bag, received the ball, tagged R1 then touched the bag.
The only issue I have with all these questions is when you ask for an intentional drop ball it doesn't state whether the ball was touched or not. Even in your video you show a case where a ball is intentionally dropped untouched and use the same wording. I find it difficult to even answer the questions because there's no clarification of the ball being touched in the question.
Very good video, but the rule on the IFF must be updated. If the umpire does not declare the infield fly (and the other umpires don't echo it), the runners don't get (feel) protected and even get more confused. Exactly the opposite of the purpose of the rule.
It’s definitely a very strange case play. I wouldn’t have thought of it that way were it not in the case book!
What happens if you let a line drive hit you in the chest and you never put the glove on it, and then it falls to the ground? With at least First base occupied and less than 2 outs.
That would definitely make it a harder judgment call on the umpire!
I think the last video was intentionally dropped, but that's judgement. Not many MLB middle infielders miss that easy of a catch.
Hate this rule and Infield Fly rule.....double-plays are good for the game. I also hate that a lot of these calls are judgement. For instance, the last video you show of the Twins SS dropping a hump-back pop up is a perfect example. I judge that he did drop it on purpose while you don't. Just eliminate the rule and if the defense can turn a double-play, so be it.