Quick question

by Vacafan on Sep 2, 2005 1:08 PM PDT

sorry to use an entry on this, but I couldn't find it addressed in any of the other recent posts.

In today's SF Chronicle, Susan Slusser writes that the umpire ruled that "Ellis intentionally dropped the ball, so only Cabrera was out." (This on the play with Figgins on first -- he later scored.) Because I'm in Alabama, I wasn't able to watch the game.

First of all, in 30 years of watching baseball, this is the first I've ever heard that it is "illegal" to intentionally drop a baseball. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is not an illegal play. Why would Figgins be allowed to take second base if this were intentional and illegal?

It seems more likely to me that the umpires ruled Ellis actually caught the ball ... however, why then would Figgins not be doubled up?

Again, because I was unable to watch or listen, please enlighten me on this play. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Figgins can't be doubled up

because he was still standing on first. So if Ellis caught the ball, there's no way he's going to be able to get it to 1B in time.

What did happen was that Ellis clearly intended to catch the ball, but he didn't. After it rolled on the ground, he picked it up and stepped on second. Figgins should have been out with Cabrera at 1B.

It really didn't have that much of an impact however, unless one argues that Cabrera wouldn't have been able to advance to 3rd off of Anderson's base hit.

by fadedash on Sep 2, 2005 1:37 PM PDT reply actions

Infield Fly Rule

If they used the "Infield Fly Rule" then there must be runners on 1st and 2nd so it was used incorrectly. However, if there would have been runners on 1st and 2nd and less than two outs then it would completely be a judgment call for the umpire. That is why you will often see the IFR called in the outfield too.

It is totally designed to stop the defense from intentionally dropping the ball and in this case it was a "horseshit" call and I do believe it affected the game but not necessarily the outcome of the game. The longer you keep a team off the board, the more chance you give your offense.

"The first thing I realized in this game, there are no weekends."

by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2005 2:19 PM PDT reply actions

The infield fly rule was addopted:

In the early 1900's to avoid infielders doing what the umpire suspected Eliis did. (Which he didn't)

The rule does state that there needs to be a minimum of runners on 1st and second because it is for a fly not a liner.

In fact IF Ellis did intentionally drop the ball with only a runner on first it would be the third time I'd seen the play and the previous 2 were successful DP's.

macha should have gotten into umpires and then played the game under protest. Period.

Instead, "MMMMM...Pittsburgh....MMMMM...Grass"

Adversity will be there everyday, but you quit the day you don't get up. - D Braden

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Sep 2, 2005 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Moooooooooooooooo!

by RunRickeyRun on Sep 2, 2005 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions

LMAO...

I think that the next good boo he gets should be a "Mooooooooooo"

Adversity will be there everyday, but you quit the day you don't get up. - D Braden

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Sep 2, 2005 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Protest?

Has this ever really worked in the Major Leagues? I am not sure how you make up for an umpire mistake because it penalizes the opposite team in that particular case too. There would be a scenario like "was Ellis actually going to make the double play" which is an easy answer but it wouldn't be for the umpires in this case.

Little League umpires understand that there must be runners on 1st and 2nd with less than 2 outs but Major League umpires don't! This was a "shit sandwich" no matter what toppings you add to it.

"The first thing I realized in this game, there are no weekends."

by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2005 3:17 PM PDT reply actions

It was a blatant rule violation:

That being the case the call would have been reversed and the game would have been picked up with Cabrerra on 2nd base.

Adversity will be there everyday, but you quit the day you don't get up. - D Braden

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Sep 2, 2005 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions

force out?

Figgins would have been out on a force so Cabrera is either the second out of a double play OR he is still on first. I don't think Cabrera would have been on 3rd base like Figgins ended up either. Therefore, they may not have scored the first run at that time.

"The first thing I realized in this game, there are no weekends."

by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 2, 2005 4:02 PM PDT reply actions

Thanks

For some reason I had been under the impression Figgins reached second on the play .... after reading your comments, I see Figgins remained at first and went to third on a hit.

So obviously Slusser is mistaken .... the umpire simply ruled Ellis made the catch and therefore Cabrera was out, and Figgins did not advance.

I contacted an umpire friend of mine ... he says it is completely legal to "drop" a ball on purpose in order to attempt a DP as long as the infield fly rule is not in effect. That is why it is so important to run EVERYTHING out.

Thanks again for the help.

VacaAsFan

by Vacafan on Sep 2, 2005 4:17 PM PDT reply actions

Not sure we understand this yet. What was the

ump's call? If as Vaca says above, the call was that Ellis caught the ball (which was obviously an incorrect observation), then the umpire's decision on the rule was correct--ie. wrong observation, correct rule.

but, I think it was Fosse, said on the TV commentary that it was illegal to intentionally not catch the ball. And that's how the left it on TV. And like Vaca's umpire friend, I've never heard a rule like that.

Does anyone know for sure what the umpire's call was? his observation and then ruling?

she was never able to watch me play because the games were too late back home, and now she's got front-row seats to every game.. Swish re: his grandmother

by alamedaman on Sep 2, 2005 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

in fact I just checked Slusser's article &

she says, "but third-base umpire Jim Reynolds ruled he'd intentionally dropped the ball, so only Cabrera was out."

so it sounds like she thinks it's against the rule to intentionally drop the ball.?????

Weird!!!

she was never able to watch me play because the games were too late back home, and now she's got front-row seats to every game.. Swish re: his grandmother

by alamedaman on Sep 2, 2005 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions

It is against the rules,

and has nothing to do (directly) with the infield fly rule. You can let a ball drop, and of course sometimes you drop a ball, but you cannot catch a ball and then intentionally drop it to the ground. The rule has the same purpose as the infield fly rule, which is to protect the runner from being overly manipulated.

But to make the call the ump did yesterday, you have to be certain that the catch-and-drop was done intentionally. This was very unclear yesterday (because it was not the case) and was thus, IMO, a terrible call.

Nico

by Nico on Sep 2, 2005 5:21 PM PDT reply actions

there it is

I had never heard this, and couldn't find it when I looked last night, but it is rule 6.05(l)

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 base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases; APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies.

So, bad call, but within the rules.

No Crosby and no Harden make AN something something.

by andeux on Sep 2, 2005 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions