Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site oasys.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!nbires!oasys!rhoads
From: rhoads@oasys.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: An infield-fly-rule question
Message-ID: <128@oasys.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 17:33:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: oasys.128
Posted: Mon Oct 21 17:33:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 06:02:48 EDT
References: <475@ttidcb.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 22

> 
>     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