As others have said: First, it probably should have been ruled an infield fly. Second, after the third base umpire incorrectly signaled for an out at third, the umpires should have used their discretion to declare the play dead at that point and send the runners back to first and second with one out. The ensuing action ONLY occurs because the third base umpire incorrectly signaled an out at third. The runner at first then took off for second, because the out call by the third base umpire signaled to him that there was a force play in effect and he needed to advance to second. Finally, the “run” only scored because the fielders were attempting to make a play on the batter runner (who was out on the initial catch) and threw the ball into the outfield. The final result of this play should have been 1 out, runners on first and second, 0 runs.
I was NCHS umpire. We were taught to yell infield fly batter is out if fair. The third base umpire blew the call. No force out at third..I would look at my field umps and indicate by a tip of my hat, infield fly is in effect. The runners may advance at their peril.
No infield fly was the first mistake. These are supposed to be top 12 year olds, so a pretty routine pop up to a second baseman at that location requires providing safety for the runners. Failing that, the next step should have been yelling "That's a catch" loud enough to be heard back in both teams' hometowns. That's embarrassing to see that play unfold in such a long, slowly developing fashion.
@@daveh1758 the "that's a catch" is irrelevant here. It was an infield fly rule so the batter is out anyway. The problem happened when each umpire didn't remind his partners of the infield fly situation. The signal varies from place to place, I've seen it where all the umpires will put their right fist over the left part of their chest, or where the umpires might put their index finger on the bill of their cap, whatever, everyone needs to be cognizant of the situation and remind the other umpires that infield fly situation is valid. Then, when the ball is popped up and the infielder can make the play with a reasonable effort, the umpires should very loudly call it, "Infield fly, the batter is out" before the boy has the ball. When he drops it, say again, "infield fly CALLED, batter is out". This wasn't done and that led to the confusion.
@@marmac2768 I'm going off the video (which obviously includes the ESPN announcers), the comments here, and the reaction of the third base umpire... where's the indication that an infield fly was called? That's the cause of this fiasco in the first place. I clearly wrote that failibg to call Infield Fly would require a "That's a catch."
@@daveh1758 that's the point, they should have called infield fly. Then, anything that happened after that would be moot. The third base umpire would have known that it wasn't a force out and would not have called the runner out on the play.
First... As the 2nd baseman was NOT camped out under the pop up it was not called a infield fly... Yes... It could of but it wasn't and that's a judgement call. Second... It was a catch and the ball clearly came loose within the attempt to transfer it to his throwing hand. The proper call would have been a firm out/catch call and vigerously showing with the hands that the loss of control was during the transfer... This would have solved all the problems.
I agree. Blue should have made an vocal call along with the hand motion on the first catch. Then second he indicates loss on transfer. Ball was to deep for infield fly rule. Anything the runners do after the original catch is on the players. Now the ump at 3rd call an out is just wack!
You are incorrect. It doesnt matter where the ball lands, as long as its fair. If an umpire somehow believes that an infielder could have caught it with ordinary effort he could call infield fly on a ball that lands on the warning track if he wanted to.
I think a huge problem here is the 6 umpire situation. Who took the catch/no catch? U1? Right field umpire? Did U1 expect U2 to take that call? Maybe anyone of these guys handles this better when they have more experience working a 6 team? Not to mention they probably never worked together prior to this... They are not a team, they get rotated and maybe did 4-6 games? I'm personally much better when I work with a guy I've worked with a lot.
Agree completely. Too many officials on a small field working positions they’re never normally at. They spend more time thinking about “where am I supposed to be” than calling the game.
@@aydengauthier6237 infield fly doesn't have to be in the infield. A ball that cna be caught with reasonable effort by an infielder can qualify for an infield fly in the right situation. Force at 3rd with less than 2 outs is all you need on top of that.
U1s call and possibly a infield fly. Sell the transfer call by hammering as many times as you want while using your voice. Because it is modified MLB rules umpires can place runners because of their mess up. Return runners and call an infield fly or transfer catch. BR out, runners on 1 & 2.
Since an ump is instructed to make an infield fly rule call at the flight apex, the infielder still had his back to the infield so no IFR. If in the ump's judgement F4 made the catch and dropped on transfer, he should clearly announce "the batter is out, he was pulling it out", allowing both R1 and R2 to remain safely on their respective base.
@Michael Heathman Maybe I just need to clarify, umpires are to judge an infield fly at the flight apex of the ball. I forgot how much semantics are involved in baseball rules. But the infielder's chest was not pointing toward the infield at its apex, meaning it was not ordinary effort by the infielder, which nullifies IFR. However, if the ump saw it as an IFR, he should have made the IFR call audibly loud enough for the infielders to hear him BEFORE the ball was first touched by F4, once the ball was dropped, he should have repeated himself emphatically, Infield fly, batter is still out.
Sorry Scott S, but I don't know of anyone that instructs umpires to call the rule at the apex of the ball flight. If you know of someone doing that it is certainly the wrong way to teach the rule. The infielder can get himself into position to make the catch with ordinary effort well after the ball has hit its apex. That is not a criteria and should not be used to make the call.
@@johnbleyer8490 Well, when I went to MLB umpire Jim Evans Umpire Academy in 1995, he taught us that. When do YOU think you are supposed to call an infield fly rule? Remember, the purpose of the rule is to protect the baserunners from being forced off a base by an infielder intentionally dropping it, allowing for a double play. So if you're waiting for a fielder to touch it or for the ball to hit the ground, you're too late.
@@scotts7453 Scott, not trying to be a smart ass, this is a serious question. Do you remember exactly the wording he used 25 years ago? If yes, and he did say it like that, then I think he is wrong to teach it that way. There is nothing in the rule that states the call needs to be made at it's apex, and doing so would limit the umpire's ability to make the call the way it should be made. Of course you can't wait until the ball drops or touches the infielder. That's just silly to write that. The umpire needs common sense to know when it's too late, but, it IS a judgement call. The ball could be on it's way down when an infielder gets into a position to make the catch with ordinary effort, even if they aren't in that position at the ball's apex. I'm sure you can search UA-cam and find plenty of examples of this happening. Calling the way you're saying you were taught would mean that many plays that should be an infield fly could not be called, and the offense could not be protected the way the rule is intended.
Biggest problem was umpires not calling for the infield fly rule LOUD and QUICKLY. This is pretty clear in my book. The umpire at third base making the out call is what starts the massive confusion.
@@johnvisconti3010 The ball is a fair fly ball that can be reasonably caught by an infielder, triggering the IFF. I don't care that the ball is in shallow right field. The 2nd baseman was there with reasonable effort and so it is in fact an IFF. Batter would be out and all runners advance at their own risk.
I have no problem with anyone calling this an infield fly but I personally would not have called it that way. I would've called it a good catch and dropped on the transfer. either way you call this the umps screwed this one up by not being vocal enough on which way they called it
@@2AForever-wi8yj - That's just arguing semantics at this point. Either way it's called, needs to be loud enough to know what it is. Batter is out either way.
can be caught by an infielder, pitcher, or catcher with ordinary effort and when there are runners on first and second or first, second, and third and less than two outs
The purpose of the rule is the most vital to call an infield fly. The purpose is to avoid a fielder intentionally missing a pop-up in order to turn a double play on the LEAD runners. I feel in this case, it I'd highly unlikely the fielder could have turned a double play on the lead runners from where that ball was hit. Therefore, the play should be allowed to continue without an automatic out call on the batter.
I’m not familiar with the Williamsport version of Little League rules, (which have variations from other levels of baseball), but this play is a perfect illustration of why most organized baseball has the infield fly rule. When called properly, ALL umpire’s should signal (usually pointing directly upward) and loudly stating “Infield fly, batter is out”. Usually a base umpire (closest to the play) is the first to make the call, but all other umpires should immediately follow suit, precisely so that the base runners hear the call. It’s up to the coaches to teach their runners how to react. Runners can attempt to advance, at their own risk, after the ball is first touched (as with any fly ball that is caught), but whether the catch is made or not, the other runners are NOT forced to advance. Now some may object, stating that the catch was made in the outfield, but they don’t understand the rule, which defines the infield fly as a catch that can be made by an infielder with “ordinary effort”. So the location isn’t as important, it’s whether or not an infielder can make the catch with an ordinary effort. The other conditions are that there has to be runners on first and second, or first, second, and third, with less than two outs. We as umpires were taught that when this situation occurred, we should be signaling each other to watch for an infield fly. We wouldn’t vocalize it, it was usually a gesture. The point is how important umpire communication is, so that everyone’s on the same page, and if an infield fly occurs, every umpire is ready to call it, and that every umpire (I usually worked with only one other umpire), vocally repeats the call loudly as the first umpire calls it. The purpose of the rule isn’t to protect the defense if they commit an error (caught or not caught, the batter is out), but to protect the offensive base runners from being forced out in what could become an easy double or even triple play if the ball is not caught. At higher levels of play, there would be a definite temptation to deliberately not catch the ball, in order to get those easy force outs at multiple bases. It’s possible that Williamsport may feel that players at that age may not be experienced enough to realize the benefits they could gain by deliberately allowing the ball to fall uncaught, and perhaps they don’t have an infield fly rule. They do have slightly different rules, such as the batter being out on a third strike, even if the ball isn’t caught by the catcher. At higher levels, in certain situations (first base being vacant), the batter can attempt to run to first if the catcher doesn’t catch the third strike. But I know that rule doesn’t apply to Little League. I’m just not aware if Williamsport has an infield fly rule or not. If they do, it should have been called, and every umpire should have called it, so that every player hears it, and then the runners should know they do not have to advance. This video is also a good example of why it is so important for umpires to communicate with each other.
wow, what a mess. First, that was an obvious infield fly which should have been called. Second, that was not a catch - no demonstration of control, release was not voluntary, popped out of the top of the glove, was not removed by the hand (note though I'm not saying calling it a catch is wrong - it's a judgment... but I definitely would have called it "no-catch"). Third, nobody appears to make any catch/no-catch call; presumably it was U2's call, we don't see him in the video, but if he did make a call nobody knew what it was and it needed to be very big, loud and clear. Fourth, U3 shouldn't have called a force out at 3B unless he was sure someone had made a clear no-catch call. Fifth, the umpires apparently having screwed up the whole play, I don't think letting the action all stand was the right call; probably would've been better to retro-actively call an infield fly and put the runners back on 1st and 2nd; though maybe both sides were happy enough with 2 outs and a run scoring.
couple of minor followups: 1 - this was actually a 6-man crew, so it would've been the RF umpire to make this call; according announcers in the full length clip, he did indeed (they said "first base umpire" but I don't believe U1 made any call so they probably meant U-RF who was fairly near deep A). what's not knowable is how clear that call was; no one on the field seemed to know what had been called, but the announcers make no comment about it being a vague call. 2 - my judgment of no-catch is based on the initial right field camera view, and the view U2 would likely have had were he in position to make that call. from the high home plate camera, it looks a lot more like drop on the transfer, and if I guess the view U-RF would have had, it's a drop-on-transfer from there too.
No infield fly was called which is legitimate as it is a pure judgement call in this case. The catch puts the batter out, the runner from second was called out incorrectly at third base on a force out, apparently the 3rd base umpire did not hear or see the other umpire (first base?) call the out. The defense didn't play on the runner originally on 2nd because he was called out at third base on a force out which was incorrect. I think the run was allowed to score so it ends up 5 to 3, no runners on with two out.
I've seen this happen a hundred times. It's really a shame at this level because these umpires should be at a better level, the cream of the crop". The problem happened when each umpire didn't remind his partners of the infield fly situation. The signal varies from place to place, I've seen it where all the umpires will put their right fist over the left part of their chest, or where the umpires might put their index finger on the bill of their cap, whatever, everyone needs to be cognizant of the situation and remind the other umpires that infield fly situation is valid. Then, when the ball is popped up and the infielder can make the play with a reasonable effort, the umpires should very loudly call it, "Infield fly, the batter is out" before the boy has the ball. When he drops it, say again, "infield fly CALLED, batter is out". This wasn't done and that led to the confusion.
That was a "no catch" because the throwing hand doesn't come close to touching the ball until it is used to pick up the ball off the ground. He didn't "drop it on the transfer" because there was no transfer.
For a legal catch, the player must have control of the ball, control of their body and make a wilful release. Regardless of the fact that all 3 criteria were met, this still should have been ruled an infield fly rule should have been called. The ball does not have to be caught in an infield fly rule situation for the out to be recorded
With first and second base occupied, shouldn't they have raised a hand and called infield fly? The whole purpose for that rule is to avoid base runner/fielder confusion from a "dropped" ball (intentional or not)
damarti that wasn’t called. the third base umpire made the out signal assuming the catch didn’t count and the runner was forced to advance to third. that runner wasn’t really out which is what caused the problem
If there’s ever an infield fly. I yell it out. As a coach I look at the umpire who’s supposed to make the call and if I see a point I start yelling from the dugout
Yup. Usually if the infielders are backing up it's the field umpire's call, if they are standing still or moving in, it's the plate umpire. But when one calls it, they both should point at the sky signaling an infield fly.
At no point in the video did 2B turn his back to the infield. Routine effort, IFR all the way, BR out. Ball release was intentional on the turn, runners advancing at their own peril, B1 out at second on the tag.
Although I do agree with almost all the comments saying it should be "infield fly, batters out". I'm trying to look at a different scenario. This has to be noticed as a minimal effort catch. If you know the second baseman sucks, how can you call it? I know this scenario most likely isn't what happened here, though little league second baseman do suck.
I just re-watched the video. I explain it very clearly. The 1st base umpire, the one that called the catch an out and dropped in transfer, needs to AUDIBLY call the batter/runner out again loudly so everyone can hear. He did not. Not to mention, no one called an infield fly, which also would have solved this mess. In the end, these umpires at this regional in 2019 were absolutely horrible by an standard. So bad were they, that LL International was extremely pissed. It was an entire week of pure embarrassment.
@@MJHBaseball I agree at the end you say with clarity what was needed to be done. But only then I understood the whole development, as prior to the conclusion it is not clear - at least to me.
Why did the third base Ump call an out? The Runners on 2nd and first didn't need to advance. I thought the point was for the 1st base umpire to call the out. I think having the 3rd base ump call the out is what confused the kids.
He screwed up. Because no other ump made a declarative, vocal call on the out, the third base ump was as confused and unaware as the players. Without a discernible out call or motion, or an infield fly ruling, the third base ump called it as a dropped fly ball and, therefore, a force play at 3B. If the umpires later declared that call to be an error, the player at 3B should have been returned to the base and not allowed to advance ... as the defensive team had been told the player was out and no longer a threat to advance. Many mistakes by the umpires.
Um it shouldn't matter if the player dropped the ball or it fell out during the transfer. Runners on 1st and 2nd with less than 2 outs the batter is automatically out for the infield fly rule, runners can advance at their own risk. the runner going to 3rd would not be a force out and would be safe, the other runner was tagged out and would be out. So results would still be the same but the umpires called it wrong. If they called an infield fly rule right away though, i would assume none of the runners would advance so you would still have 1st and 2nd with one out. Then aging kids are stupid, don't know the rules, and might have tried to run to the next base anyways so who knows what would have happened.
@@direcorbie Rule 2.00 Rule 2.00 defines the Infield Fly as, “a fair fly ball (not including a line drive or a bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second, and third bases are occupied before two are out. The pitcher, catcher, and any outfielder stationed in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.” It goes on to state that “[t]he ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of being caught or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul ball.” So now the outfield grass which is in the 'outfield' is really part of the the infield, correct?
@@prsguitars42 nowhere did you say where the ball is hit. It says “caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.” In this case the second basement could make the play.
I just left your Infield Fly (IF) video to this video. Because IF was not called or even mentioned here, I'm guessing it was obvious to everyone that it wasn't an IF. But why? Runners on first and second with no outs and a reasonably catchable ball for the second baseman. Is it because the ball was in shallow right and not technically the infield? - Actual question from an old guy enjoying your channel during quarantine. Thanks!
realtoast I don’t call it as an infield fly because his body is turned sideways and in my judgment it’s not ordinary effort to catch it. That’s where we disagree, your judgment is reasonable effort and mine is not. Even still, an umpire calling the out would have prevented the situation.
@@Niel2760 Thanks. I didn't really have a take on it. Just curious, as the ball didn't look too much different than than the IF ball from the previous vid. Appreciate the response!
I will go with calling the infield fly rule. Batter out and other runners still on base run at their digression. At least, everybody should know the batter is out ball caught or not.
i agree infeild should been called here, secondly the other thing is there hand singles you can also do as umpire saying he drop on transfer there no reason for this to even happen
Umpire here: Infield fly call should have been invoked immediately by the plate umpire or one of the officiating crew members. Batter-runner is then immediately out regardless of whether or not the fielder caught the ball, lost it on the transfer or did not catch it at all. The ball is still in play and runners advance at their own risk. Remember, the IFF rule is not concerned with whether the fly ball is over the infield or the outfield or the position of the infielder in relation to the ball or the field (except fair/foul). None of that matters. The main criteria is whether or not an infielder could have reasonably caught the fly ball. In this case, yes, he could have and he, in fact, did make a legal catch. He was camped out under the ball for a while. After every out, but before the first pitch to the next batter, the plate umpire will discreetly signal to his partners the number of outs and any special conditions (i.e., Infield Fly, Timing Play) so that the crew is on the same page. Not sure if the plate umpire gave the IFF signal to his partners or not before that batter stepped into the box but he should have.
Long time umpire here also, and agree 100%. Would love to see the 60 seconds or so previous to the start of this video to see if a IFF was signaled between the umpires. Seems they are not on the same page at all. Additionally, you can see the first base umpire clearly out of position to make the call, as he is in the coaches box when the throw to first occurs and he is trying to buttonhook around into position. This is marginal umpiring, at best.
I see a lot of the comments say that there should have been a in field fly rule. NO NO NO, It's clearly not, so anyone who made that opinion was mistaken.
Why do you think this is clearly NOT an infield fly? It was the 2nd baseman that camped under the ball to catch it. It was easily caught with ordinary effort by an infielder. So why do you say it "clearly" is not an infield fly?
Absolutely. No way you call this a infield fly. The infield fly rule is to protect the runners on base. A player drops that ball 2 runners held up then its a easy doubble play. Someone who calls this a infield fly is a lazy umprie who is the real one ruining the game, I understand the confusion on this play. I actually am a umpire for Goffstown NH ( the team in this video) and a quick time call and conversation with the other umpires would have avoided disaster here
It should have been called and infield fly and the batter is out. That way the runners know what is going on and they do not needlessly run the bases. If it was just a catch and on the transfer he drops the ball, they could have easily called the play dead and put the runners back o first and second.
I so confused why the run counts! The runner advancing to second that causes the ball to be thrown away was a retired runner. Is that not interference on a retired runner? Making the runner at 3 return to the base or calling him out. Meaning no runs scored?!?! Once you are called out you have to leave the field! Edit: I know that was R1 attempting to advance. You see in the video U2 call R1 out for trying to advance to second base. Meaning he knew he was out. I emailed my assigner and rules guys. (I live in a Missouri and do high school ball, FYI) This is what my assigner said: That’s a clusterfuck. The umpires screwed that whole thing up. All they had to do was communicate. U3 called R2 our thinking it was a force play because he didn’t know either U2 or U1 had a catch on the pop up (which it shouldn’t have been called a catch...that wasn’t secure possession/voluntary release). No one knew what to do because none of the umpires stepped up and made a definitive call. The runners didn’t know what to do or who was out. The defense didn’t know where the play should go. Plate umpire probably should have recognized all of the confusion and just stopped play. I would have called time once they threw it to 3rd and U3 called the force out. That would have been a good stopping point. Clarify if it was a catch or no catch. If it was a catch, keep the kids where they were with 1 out. If it was no catch, call R2 out and move on. Thank you, Jason Blackburn I also talked with our rule guy. He said for R1 to called on interference, after being retired, there would have to be intent to draw the attention of the defense. WITH ALL THIS SAID. If third base would have held the ball and not thrown it to second NONE of this would have happened. The third basemen should have just tagged R1 and been done with the play.
@Michael Heathman I think the runner going to second on the errant throw was the runner that was on first when the play started. I think, but correct me if I am wrong.
You are correct. #42 was tagged out, went back toward 1st and then for some reason returned to second where the ball was thrown into the outfield at which time the batter then advanced to 2nd. Both were in reality already out. The original R2 may have scored prior to the throw? We never see when he advances home.
First of all, those of you below who say "this shouldve been an infield fly rule call" are missing the point. I personally don't consider an infielder running OUT to the outfield, with the sun obviously playing a factor, to be a routine infield catch. But, thats not the point. You have 6 umpires(overkill on a 200 ft field), and it looks to me like the calling umpire(I assume the plate umpire made this call since the 1st base ump has his back to the play) HAS to be loud and signal over and over a CATCH. If he didnt, then that same plate umpire has the right to correct the play once its over since HE put the runners and fielders in jeopardy. I wouldve swallowed my pride, called the batter out on the catch, and then put the baserunners back........and live with the defensive coach giving me crap
It's a 6-man crew, so PU has no fly ball responsibility past the baselines (and almost none past the pitcher's mound except in specific scenarios). In this case, it appears U6 took the call. On a 4-man crew that would clearly be U2's call. As to IFF or no, we'll have to just disagree, to me that's an obvious IFF with very little to argue against it, and the sun is slightly behind the fielder (his shadow falls slightly in front of him) so I don't see that as a factor either.
Funny reading all the IFF arguments in this thread when I can't see where IFF was ever called by any official. Further, this is not an IFF situation in my judgement.
So much to say here about proper umpire mechanics...but, instead let's just fault the folks in that LL East Region who were supposed to have been training these fine volunteers. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
For everyone saying this is a infield fly. Your wrong. A infield fly is called to protect the runners from being doubled up. This ball was cleary far enough that if the infielder intentionally dropped it would be still a challenge to doubble up. Anyone saying it is a infield fly, to me, is a lazy umprie
But that is exactly what happened, whether intentionally or not. I would say the umpiring on the field is lazy or marginal, by not invoking the IFF rule as it was intentioned.
No, it would not be wrong. But, I would concede that it is not black or white here. It wasn't so much the distance, as it was making the play with ordinary effort. The distance was really not that great. Obviously, they showed they were able to get two outs in addition to the batter, albeit with help from the confusion.
First of all, infield fly rule should of been called! Secondly, how do you call this a legal catch on the transfer! C’mon man I appreciate the clips “IFR”was intended to eliminate crap like that.
I was at this game. When it ended, the 3rd base umpire retired from umpiring to have gastric bypass surgery. The 2nd baseman never forgave himself for dropping the ball and became a drug addict. The announcers floundered around in the minor leagues of baseball, never making the big time. And I got my face ripped off by an 11 year old after the game during the riot that ensued.
The kid who was on second and was "called out" at 3rd was a wrong call. Because the batter/runner was called out, there was no force play at 3rd. That umpire didn't know if the 1st base umpire called him out or not.
@@MJHBaseball But they should have just kept him at third the umpire calling him out confused the defense that is the right call to make as they made no mistake it was the umpire that did.
@@63076topher I would agree 100%. I also think umpire failure also got the runner on first out. The best solution would likely be to put the runners back on first and second and one out. None of this would have happened if the umpire verbalized his call. But then I would have this video 😉
maybe little league but not high school thats not a catch, but should be infield fly. but it not a catch. the exchange should be intentional and complete
Aaah youth league. This is where umpires earn their pay. If they call infield fly, and the second baseman falls down, than who looks silly. Just another woulda, coulda, shoulda play. Wander what the computer would have called? LOL
I agree, when a play gets confusing you got to repeat your call to make sure all of the players understand.
As others have said: First, it probably should have been ruled an infield fly. Second, after the third base umpire incorrectly signaled for an out at third, the umpires should have used their discretion to declare the play dead at that point and send the runners back to first and second with one out. The ensuing action ONLY occurs because the third base umpire incorrectly signaled an out at third. The runner at first then took off for second, because the out call by the third base umpire signaled to him that there was a force play in effect and he needed to advance to second. Finally, the “run” only scored because the fielders were attempting to make a play on the batter runner (who was out on the initial catch) and threw the ball into the outfield.
The final result of this play should have been 1 out, runners on first and second, 0 runs.
infield fly for kids is stupid - they will drop a catch as often as they will make a catch
I was NCHS umpire. We were taught to yell infield fly batter is out if fair. The third base umpire blew the call. No force out at third..I would look at my field umps and indicate by a tip of my hat, infield fly is in effect. The runners may advance at their peril.
Excellent point… the whole intent of the IFR is to avoid crap like that.
All the umps blew that one, as well as the commentary of this clip.
Why no infield fly rule. That was not that deep in the outfield and easily handled by , no extraordinary effort required, 2b.
No infield fly was the first mistake. These are supposed to be top 12 year olds, so a pretty routine pop up to a second baseman at that location requires providing safety for the runners.
Failing that, the next step should have been yelling "That's a catch" loud enough to be heard back in both teams' hometowns.
That's embarrassing to see that play unfold in such a long, slowly developing fashion.
Dave H agreed. Umps blew that one big time. Hope it didn’t impact the game to any appreciable degree
@@daveh1758 the "that's a catch" is irrelevant here. It was an infield fly rule so the batter is out anyway. The problem happened when each umpire didn't remind his partners of the infield fly situation. The signal varies from place to place, I've seen it where all the umpires will put their right fist over the left part of their chest, or where the umpires might put their index finger on the bill of their cap, whatever, everyone needs to be cognizant of the situation and remind the other umpires that infield fly situation is valid. Then, when the ball is popped up and the infielder can make the play with a reasonable effort, the umpires should very loudly call it, "Infield fly, the batter is out" before the boy has the ball. When he drops it, say again, "infield fly CALLED, batter is out". This wasn't done and that led to the confusion.
@@marmac2768 I'm going off the video (which obviously includes the ESPN announcers), the comments here, and the reaction of the third base umpire... where's the indication that an infield fly was called? That's the cause of this fiasco in the first place.
I clearly wrote that failibg to call Infield Fly would require a "That's a catch."
@@daveh1758 that's the point, they should have called infield fly. Then, anything that happened after that would be moot. The third base umpire would have known that it wasn't a force out and would not have called the runner out on the play.
First... As the 2nd baseman was NOT camped out under the pop up it was not called a infield fly... Yes... It could of but it wasn't and that's a judgement call.
Second... It was a catch and the ball clearly came loose within the attempt to transfer it to his throwing hand. The proper call would have been a firm out/catch call and vigerously showing with the hands that the loss of control was during the transfer...
This would have solved all the problems.
Camping under the ball is not a requirement.
I agree. Blue should have made an vocal call along with the hand motion on the first catch. Then second he indicates loss on transfer. Ball was to deep for infield fly rule. Anything the runners do after the original catch is on the players.
Now the ump at 3rd call an out is just wack!
You are incorrect. It doesnt matter where the ball lands, as long as its fair. If an umpire somehow believes that an infielder could have caught it with ordinary effort he could call infield fly on a ball that lands on the warning track if he wanted to.
I think a huge problem here is the 6 umpire situation. Who took the catch/no catch? U1? Right field umpire? Did U1 expect U2 to take that call? Maybe anyone of these guys handles this better when they have more experience working a 6 team? Not to mention they probably never worked together prior to this... They are not a team, they get rotated and maybe did 4-6 games? I'm personally much better when I work with a guy I've worked with a lot.
Agree completely. Too many officials on a small field working positions they’re never normally at. They spend more time thinking about “where am I supposed to be” than calling the game.
That's an infield fly. Should have yelled "infield fly, batters out".
The bases weren’t loaded and the ball was hit to the outfield
Based dont have to be loaded
@@aydengauthier6237 infield fly doesn't have to be in the infield. A ball that cna be caught with reasonable effort by an infielder can qualify for an infield fly in the right situation. Force at 3rd with less than 2 outs is all you need on top of that.
Really it is a judgement. which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, once he turn a shoulder it may not be judged as ordinary effort
Only that was not an infield fly..........
U1s call and possibly a infield fly. Sell the transfer call by hammering as many times as you want while using your voice.
Because it is modified MLB rules umpires can place runners because of their mess up. Return runners and call an infield fly or transfer catch.
BR out, runners on 1 & 2.
Thanks for making this video!
Since an ump is instructed to make an infield fly rule call at the flight apex, the infielder still had his back to the infield so no IFR. If in the ump's judgement F4 made the catch and dropped on transfer, he should clearly announce "the batter is out, he was pulling it out", allowing both R1 and R2 to remain safely on their respective base.
@Michael Heathman Maybe I just need to clarify, umpires are to judge an infield fly at the flight apex of the ball. I forgot how much semantics are involved in baseball rules. But the infielder's chest was not pointing toward the infield at its apex, meaning it was not ordinary effort by the infielder, which nullifies IFR. However, if the ump saw it as an IFR, he should have made the IFR call audibly loud enough for the infielders to hear him BEFORE the ball was first touched by F4, once the ball was dropped, he should have repeated himself emphatically, Infield fly, batter is still out.
So.... tell my infield to always keep their chests pointed to outfield during IFR situations and drop it for two. Got it ty!
Sorry Scott S, but I don't know of anyone that instructs umpires to call the rule at the apex of the ball flight. If you know of someone doing that it is certainly the wrong way to teach the rule. The infielder can get himself into position to make the catch with ordinary effort well after the ball has hit its apex. That is not a criteria and should not be used to make the call.
@@johnbleyer8490 Well, when I went to MLB umpire Jim Evans Umpire Academy in 1995, he taught us that. When do YOU think you are supposed to call an infield fly rule? Remember, the purpose of the rule is to protect the baserunners from being forced off a base by an infielder intentionally dropping it, allowing for a double play. So if you're waiting for a fielder to touch it or for the ball to hit the ground, you're too late.
@@scotts7453 Scott, not trying to be a smart ass, this is a serious question. Do you remember exactly the wording he used 25 years ago? If yes, and he did say it like that, then I think he is wrong to teach it that way.
There is nothing in the rule that states the call needs to be made at it's apex, and doing so would limit the umpire's ability to make the call the way it should be made.
Of course you can't wait until the ball drops or touches the infielder. That's just silly to write that. The umpire needs common sense to know when it's too late, but, it IS a judgement call. The ball could be on it's way down when an infielder gets into a position to make the catch with ordinary effort, even if they aren't in that position at the ball's apex. I'm sure you can search UA-cam and find plenty of examples of this happening. Calling the way you're saying you were taught would mean that many plays that should be an infield fly could not be called, and the offense could not be protected the way the rule is intended.
You make great videos your super underrated
Biggest problem was umpires not calling for the infield fly rule LOUD and QUICKLY. This is pretty clear in my book. The umpire at third base making the out call is what starts the massive confusion.
It's not a in field fly. It's clearly in the outfield so that's NOT THE CALL.
@@johnvisconti3010 The ball is a fair fly ball that can be reasonably caught by an infielder, triggering the IFF. I don't care that the ball is in shallow right field. The 2nd baseman was there with reasonable effort and so it is in fact an IFF. Batter would be out and all runners advance at their own risk.
I have no problem with anyone calling this an infield fly but I personally would not have called it that way. I would've called it a good catch and dropped on the transfer. either way you call this the umps screwed this one up by not being vocal enough on which way they called it
So what extraordinary effort was required by the second baseman to get to the ball. That was 100% an appointment infield fly rule ball
@@2AForever-wi8yj - That's just arguing semantics at this point. Either way it's called, needs to be loud enough to know what it is. Batter is out either way.
Of course this should have been called an infield fly even the moderator here missed it.
Enlighten me......how is that an infield fly?
Runner on first and second, less than two outs, flyball that can be routninely fielded by an infielder.
He is running back so that is not an infield fly. Look up the rule.
can be caught by an infielder, pitcher, or catcher with ordinary effort and when there are runners on first and second or first, second, and third and less than two outs
The purpose of the rule is the most vital to call an infield fly. The purpose is to avoid a fielder intentionally missing a pop-up in order to turn a double play on the LEAD runners. I feel in this case, it I'd highly unlikely the fielder could have turned a double play on the lead runners from where that ball was hit. Therefore, the play should be allowed to continue without an automatic out call on the batter.
I’m not familiar with the Williamsport version of Little League rules, (which have variations from other levels of baseball), but this play is a perfect illustration of why most organized baseball has the infield fly rule.
When called properly, ALL umpire’s should signal (usually pointing directly upward) and loudly stating “Infield fly, batter is out”. Usually a base umpire (closest to the play) is the first to make the call, but all other umpires should immediately follow suit, precisely so that the base runners hear the call. It’s up to the coaches to teach their runners how to react. Runners can attempt to advance, at their own risk, after the ball is first touched (as with any fly ball that is caught), but whether the catch is made or not, the other runners are NOT forced to advance.
Now some may object, stating that the catch was made in the outfield, but they don’t understand the rule, which defines the infield fly as a catch that can be made by an infielder with “ordinary effort”. So the location isn’t as important, it’s whether or not an infielder can make the catch with an ordinary effort. The other conditions are that there has to be runners on first and second, or first, second, and third, with less than two outs.
We as umpires were taught that when this situation occurred, we should be signaling each other to watch for an infield fly. We wouldn’t vocalize it, it was usually a gesture. The point is how important umpire communication is, so that everyone’s on the same page, and if an infield fly occurs, every umpire is ready to call it, and that every umpire (I usually worked with only one other umpire), vocally repeats the call loudly as the first umpire calls it.
The purpose of the rule isn’t to protect the defense if they commit an error (caught or not caught, the batter is out), but to protect the offensive base runners from being forced out in what could become an easy double or even triple play if the ball is not caught. At higher levels of play, there would be a definite temptation to deliberately not catch the ball, in order to get those easy force outs at multiple bases.
It’s possible that Williamsport may feel that players at that age may not be experienced enough to realize the benefits they could gain by deliberately allowing the ball to fall uncaught, and perhaps they don’t have an infield fly rule. They do have slightly different rules, such as the batter being out on a third strike, even if the ball isn’t caught by the catcher. At higher levels, in certain situations (first base being vacant), the batter can attempt to run to first if the catcher doesn’t catch the third strike. But I know that rule doesn’t apply to Little League.
I’m just not aware if Williamsport has an infield fly rule or not. If they do, it should have been called, and every umpire should have called it, so that every player hears it, and then the runners should know they do not have to advance.
This video is also a good example of why it is so important for umpires to communicate with each other.
Holy Cow Sir, you sure are long winded. Yes they do have a infield fly rule but NO IT WAS NOT A INFIELD FLY, hence the NO Call.
wow, what a mess. First, that was an obvious infield fly which should have been called. Second, that was not a catch - no demonstration of control, release was not voluntary, popped out of the top of the glove, was not removed by the hand (note though I'm not saying calling it a catch is wrong - it's a judgment... but I definitely would have called it "no-catch"). Third, nobody appears to make any catch/no-catch call; presumably it was U2's call, we don't see him in the video, but if he did make a call nobody knew what it was and it needed to be very big, loud and clear. Fourth, U3 shouldn't have called a force out at 3B unless he was sure someone had made a clear no-catch call. Fifth, the umpires apparently having screwed up the whole play, I don't think letting the action all stand was the right call; probably would've been better to retro-actively call an infield fly and put the runners back on 1st and 2nd; though maybe both sides were happy enough with 2 outs and a run scoring.
couple of minor followups:
1 - this was actually a 6-man crew, so it would've been the RF umpire to make this call; according announcers in the full length clip, he did indeed (they said "first base umpire" but I don't believe U1 made any call so they probably meant U-RF who was fairly near deep A). what's not knowable is how clear that call was; no one on the field seemed to know what had been called, but the announcers make no comment about it being a vague call.
2 - my judgment of no-catch is based on the initial right field camera view, and the view U2 would likely have had were he in position to make that call. from the high home plate camera, it looks a lot more like drop on the transfer, and if I guess the view U-RF would have had, it's a drop-on-transfer from there too.
Infield fly should have been called but it wasn't so no infield fly.
No infield fly was called which is legitimate as it is a pure judgement call in this case. The catch puts the batter out, the runner from second was called out incorrectly at third base on a force out, apparently the 3rd base umpire did not hear or see the other umpire (first base?) call the out. The defense didn't play on the runner originally on 2nd because he was called out at third base on a force out which was incorrect. I think the run was allowed to score so it ends up 5 to 3, no runners on with two out.
Seems to me the infield fly rule comes in to effect immediately. Was that not called ?
No, it wasn't. I would have called it, but I can't fault the umpires if they didn't think that the catch was ordinary effort for that level.
I've seen this happen a hundred times. It's really a shame at this level because these umpires should be at a better level, the cream of the crop". The problem happened when each umpire didn't remind his partners of the infield fly situation. The signal varies from place to place, I've seen it where all the umpires will put their right fist over the left part of their chest, or where the umpires might put their index finger on the bill of their cap, whatever, everyone needs to be cognizant of the situation and remind the other umpires that infield fly situation is valid. Then, when the ball is popped up and the infielder can make the play with a reasonable effort, the umpires should very loudly call it, "Infield fly, the batter is out" before the boy has the ball. When he drops it, say again, "infield fly CALLED, batter is out". This wasn't done and that led to the confusion.
That was a "no catch" because the throwing hand doesn't come close to touching the ball until it is used to pick up the ball off the ground. He didn't "drop it on the transfer" because there was no transfer.
For a legal catch, the player must have control of the ball, control of their body and make a wilful release. Regardless of the fact that all 3 criteria were met, this still should have been ruled an infield fly rule should have been called. The ball does not have to be caught in an infield fly rule situation for the out to be recorded
@@_outofphase5480 that's not my personal definition. That's the definition in the rules of baseball. Feel free to look them up.
With first and second base occupied, shouldn't they have raised a hand and called infield fly? The whole purpose for that rule is to avoid base runner/fielder confusion from a "dropped" ball (intentional or not)
I agree with all infield fly batter out. Runners advance on own risk.
damarti that wasn’t called. the third base umpire made the out signal assuming the catch didn’t count and the runner was forced to advance to third. that runner wasn’t really out which is what caused the problem
The infield fly should have been called on that easy catchable ball then runners only advance if they want too.
Michael Heathman a catch is determined by willful release, not the direction the ball falls.
@Michael Heathman not necessarily. A ball can bounce around inside the glove and come out the same was as a blown transfer
If there’s ever an infield fly. I yell it out. As a coach I look at the umpire who’s supposed to make the call and if I see a point I start yelling from the dugout
Yup. Usually if the infielders are backing up it's the field umpire's call, if they are standing still or moving in, it's the plate umpire. But when one calls it, they both should point at the sky signaling an infield fly.
Announcer got it right on the first try. Kudos to him. Once I realized that it was ruled a catch, my brain had to rewind and reassemble the play.
Love your vids
At no point in the video did 2B turn his back to the infield. Routine effort, IFR all the way, BR out. Ball release was intentional on the turn, runners advancing at their own peril, B1 out at second on the tag.
Although I do agree with almost all the comments saying it should be "infield fly, batters out". I'm trying to look at a different scenario. This has to be noticed as a minimal effort catch. If you know the second baseman sucks, how can you call it? I know this scenario most likely isn't what happened here, though little league second baseman do suck.
Yup - infield fly rule - second baseman caught the ball - umpire should have yelled that before the ball was even caught
How could you propose umps a better way at signaling the situation when you cannot explain it clearly in your video?
I just re-watched the video. I explain it very clearly. The 1st base umpire, the one that called the catch an out and dropped in transfer, needs to AUDIBLY call the batter/runner out again loudly so everyone can hear. He did not. Not to mention, no one called an infield fly, which also would have solved this mess. In the end, these umpires at this regional in 2019 were absolutely horrible by an standard. So bad were they, that LL International was extremely pissed. It was an entire week of pure embarrassment.
@@MJHBaseball I agree at the end you say with clarity what was needed to be done. But only then I understood the whole development, as prior to the conclusion it is not clear - at least to me.
Call infield fly batters out really loud. To me it looks like the runner going to 2nd base slide under the tag so I only see 1 out on the play.
Why did the third base Ump call an out? The Runners on 2nd and first didn't need to advance. I thought the point was for the 1st base umpire to call the out. I think having the 3rd base ump call the out is what confused the kids.
He screwed up. Because no other ump made a declarative, vocal call on the out, the third base ump was as confused and unaware as the players. Without a discernible out call or motion, or an infield fly ruling, the third base ump called it as a dropped fly ball and, therefore, a force play at 3B. If the umpires later declared that call to be an error, the player at 3B should have been returned to the base and not allowed to advance ... as the defensive team had been told the player was out and no longer a threat to advance. Many mistakes by the umpires.
Um it shouldn't matter if the player dropped the ball or it fell out during the transfer. Runners on 1st and 2nd with less than 2 outs the batter is automatically out for the infield fly rule, runners can advance at their own risk. the runner going to 3rd would not be a force out and would be safe, the other runner was tagged out and would be out. So results would still be the same but the umpires called it wrong. If they called an infield fly rule right away though, i would assume none of the runners would advance so you would still have 1st and 2nd with one out. Then aging kids are stupid, don't know the rules, and might have tried to run to the next base anyways so who knows what would have happened.
Here’s what should have happened
☝️ “infield fly, batters out”
Enlighten me...how is that an infield fly?
@@prsguitars42 bases loaded; less than 2 out; 2B can catch the ball with ordinary effort. 4 steps parallel to the infield dirt is ordinary effort.
@@direcorbie Rule 2.00
Rule 2.00 defines the Infield Fly as, “a fair fly ball (not including a line drive or a bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second, and third bases are occupied before two are out. The pitcher, catcher, and any outfielder stationed in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.” It goes on to state that “[t]he ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of being caught or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul ball.”
So now the outfield grass which is in the 'outfield' is really part of the the infield, correct?
There was a infield fly call in the MLB were the shortstop was like 100 feet from the dirt. So it doesn’t jus have to be in the dirt
@@prsguitars42 nowhere did you say where the ball is hit. It says “caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.” In this case the second basement could make the play.
Got to make those calls loud so the players know what's going on. They are all confused because the call wasn't made properly.
I just left your Infield Fly (IF) video to this video. Because IF was not called or even mentioned here, I'm guessing it was obvious to everyone that it wasn't an IF. But why? Runners on first and second with no outs and a reasonably catchable ball for the second baseman. Is it because the ball was in shallow right and not technically the infield? - Actual question from an old guy enjoying your channel during quarantine. Thanks!
realtoast I don’t call it as an infield fly because his body is turned sideways and in my judgment it’s not ordinary effort to catch it. That’s where we disagree, your judgment is reasonable effort and mine is not. Even still, an umpire calling the out would have prevented the situation.
@@Niel2760 Thanks. I didn't really have a take on it. Just curious, as the ball didn't look too much different than than the IF ball from the previous vid. Appreciate the response!
I will go with calling the infield fly rule. Batter out and other runners still on base run at their digression. At least, everybody should know the batter is out ball caught or not.
umpires crapped the bed on that one.
i agree infeild should been called here, secondly the other thing is there hand singles you can also do as umpire saying he drop on transfer there no reason for this to even happen
Ump should've called a Infiled fly rule,and the runners on first and second could've advanced or I would've left them on there base.
Infield fly batter is out!!!
Umpire here: Infield fly call should have been invoked immediately by the plate umpire or one of the officiating crew members. Batter-runner is then immediately out regardless of whether or not the fielder caught the ball, lost it on the transfer or did not catch it at all. The ball is still in play and runners advance at their own risk. Remember, the IFF rule is not concerned with whether the fly ball is over the infield or the outfield or the position of the infielder in relation to the ball or the field (except fair/foul). None of that matters. The main criteria is whether or not an infielder could have reasonably caught the fly ball. In this case, yes, he could have and he, in fact, did make a legal catch. He was camped out under the ball for a while.
After every out, but before the first pitch to the next batter, the plate umpire will discreetly signal to his partners the number of outs and any special conditions (i.e., Infield Fly, Timing Play) so that the crew is on the same page. Not sure if the plate umpire gave the IFF signal to his partners or not before that batter stepped into the box but he should have.
Long time umpire here also, and agree 100%. Would love to see the 60 seconds or so previous to the start of this video to see if a IFF was signaled between the umpires. Seems they are not on the same page at all.
Additionally, you can see the first base umpire clearly out of position to make the call, as he is in the coaches box when the throw to first occurs and he is trying to buttonhook around into position.
This is marginal umpiring, at best.
I see a lot of the comments say that there should have been a in field fly rule. NO NO NO, It's clearly not, so anyone who made that opinion was mistaken.
Why do you think this is clearly NOT an infield fly? It was the 2nd baseman that camped under the ball to catch it. It was easily caught with ordinary effort by an infielder. So why do you say it "clearly" is not an infield fly?
Infield fly depending on the umpire, however OP is incorrect Dropped ball not dropped on transfer.
hwileyiii what do you mean depending on the umpire, it doesn’t matter what ump they have it’s an obvious infield fly call.
@@jacklaker1939 No it's not. It's not necessarily ordinary effort
Infield fly rule all the way. Umps screwing up baseball yet again.
That far out in right field? Disagree.
Absolutely. No way you call this a infield fly. The infield fly rule is to protect the runners on base. A player drops that ball 2 runners held up then its a easy doubble play. Someone who calls this a infield fly is a lazy umprie who is the real one ruining the game, I understand the confusion on this play. I actually am a umpire for Goffstown NH ( the team in this video) and a quick time call and conversation with the other umpires would have avoided disaster here
Ever umpired a single baseball game? I’m guessing not. Go give it a try. They need perfect people like you.
It should have been called and infield fly and the batter is out. That way the runners know what is going on and they do not needlessly run the bases. If it was just a catch and on the transfer he drops the ball, they could have easily called the play dead and put the runners back o first and second.
I so confused why the run counts! The runner advancing to second that causes the ball to be thrown away was a retired runner. Is that not interference on a retired runner? Making the runner at 3 return to the base or calling him out. Meaning no runs scored?!?! Once you are called out you have to leave the field!
Edit: I know that was R1 attempting to advance. You see in the video U2 call R1 out for trying to advance to second base. Meaning he knew he was out.
I emailed my assigner and rules guys. (I live in a Missouri and do high school ball, FYI)
This is what my assigner said:
That’s a clusterfuck. The umpires screwed that whole thing up.
All they had to do was communicate.
U3 called R2 our thinking it was a force play because he didn’t know either U2 or U1 had a catch on the pop up (which it shouldn’t have been called a catch...that wasn’t secure possession/voluntary release). No one knew what to do because none of the umpires stepped up and made a definitive call. The runners didn’t know what to do or who was out. The defense didn’t know where the play should go.
Plate umpire probably should have recognized all of the confusion and just stopped play. I would have called time once they threw it to 3rd and U3 called the force out. That would have been a good stopping point. Clarify if it was a catch or no catch. If it was a catch, keep the kids where they were with 1 out. If it was no catch, call R2 out and move on.
Thank you,
Jason Blackburn
I also talked with our rule guy. He said for R1 to called on interference, after being retired, there would have to be intent to draw the attention of the defense.
WITH ALL THIS SAID. If third base would have held the ball and not thrown it to second NONE of this would have happened. The third basemen should have just tagged R1 and been done with the play.
@Michael Heathman I think the runner going to second on the errant throw was the runner that was on first when the play started. I think, but correct me if I am wrong.
Not only are you misunderstanding the rule, but that's R1 attempting to advance, not BR.
You are correct. #42 was tagged out, went back toward 1st and then for some reason returned to second where the ball was thrown into the outfield at which time the batter then advanced to 2nd. Both were in reality already out. The original R2 may have scored prior to the throw? We never see when he advances home.
@@MH-Tesla You see R2 advance after the throw to the outfield.
Am I the only one who thought that was a nice toss from shallow right to third even tho it didn't matter?
First of all, those of you below who say "this shouldve been an infield fly rule call" are missing the point. I personally don't consider an infielder running OUT to the outfield, with the sun obviously playing a factor, to be a routine infield catch. But, thats not the point. You have 6 umpires(overkill on a 200 ft field), and it looks to me like the calling umpire(I assume the plate umpire made this call since the 1st base ump has his back to the play) HAS to be loud and signal over and over a CATCH. If he didnt, then that same plate umpire has the right to correct the play once its over since HE put the runners and fielders in jeopardy. I wouldve swallowed my pride, called the batter out on the catch, and then put the baserunners back........and live with the defensive coach giving me crap
It's a 6-man crew, so PU has no fly ball responsibility past the baselines (and almost none past the pitcher's mound except in specific scenarios). In this case, it appears U6 took the call. On a 4-man crew that would clearly be U2's call. As to IFF or no, we'll have to just disagree, to me that's an obvious IFF with very little to argue against it, and the sun is slightly behind the fielder (his shadow falls slightly in front of him) so I don't see that as a factor either.
Funny reading all the IFF arguments in this thread when I can't see where IFF was ever called by any official. Further, this is not an IFF situation in my judgement.
He dropped the ball on the transfer
So much to say here about proper umpire mechanics...but, instead let's just fault the folks in that LL East Region who were supposed to have been training these fine volunteers. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
It was a catch and when he tried to get the ball out he dropped it. The batter was out and nobody had to advanced
This is an infield fly the second baseman never turn his back was using routine effort that should have been called loud and clear
For everyone saying this is a infield fly. Your wrong. A infield fly is called to protect the runners from being doubled up. This ball was cleary far enough that if the infielder intentionally dropped it would be still a challenge to doubble up. Anyone saying it is a infield fly, to me, is a lazy umprie
But that is exactly what happened, whether intentionally or not.
I would say the umpiring on the field is lazy or marginal, by not invoking the IFF rule as it was intentioned.
No, it would not be wrong. But, I would concede that it is not black or white here. It wasn't so much the distance, as it was making the play with ordinary effort. The distance was really not that great. Obviously, they showed they were able to get two outs in addition to the batter, albeit with help from the confusion.
2:51 Isn't that a balk?
First of all, infield fly rule should of been called!
Secondly, how do you call this a legal catch on the transfer!
C’mon man I appreciate the clips “IFR”was intended to eliminate crap like that.
I was at this game. When it ended, the 3rd base umpire retired from umpiring to have gastric bypass surgery. The 2nd baseman never forgave himself for dropping the ball and became a drug addict. The announcers floundered around in the minor leagues of baseball, never making the big time. And I got my face ripped off by an 11 year old after the game during the riot that ensued.
Ok, im still confused.
The kid that scored should have been sent back to third the umpire on third called a out this made the defense think they had 3 outs.
The kid who was on second and was "called out" at 3rd was a wrong call. Because the batter/runner was called out, there was no force play at 3rd. That umpire didn't know if the 1st base umpire called him out or not.
@@MJHBaseball But they should have just kept him at third the umpire calling him out confused the defense that is the right call to make as they made no mistake it was the umpire that did.
@@63076topher I would agree 100%. I also think umpire failure also got the runner on first out. The best solution would likely be to put the runners back on first and second and one out. None of this would have happened if the umpire verbalized his call. But then I would have this video 😉
maybe little league but not high school thats not a catch, but should be infield fly. but it not a catch. the exchange should be intentional and complete
Last year my 10/11 All star team beat Madison (Connecticut) the same team as this year
Not a catch... infield fly, but it’s still a live ball. Runners can advance...
I’ve got a missed infield fly. That signal from the umpire would have saved the headache from everyone involved
Aaah youth league. This is where umpires earn their pay. If they call infield fly, and the second baseman falls down, than who looks silly. Just another woulda, coulda, shoulda play. Wander what the computer would have called? LOL
oye...atrocious officiating
100th comment
Get a new mic please!?!?!?
I think the audio in the video is more user error than microphone.