Clipping:Proto-infield fly rule
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, June 3, 1883 |
|---|---|
| Text | It should be borne in mind, in criticizing the rulings of League umpires, that these officials are specifically instructed by the League Secretary, Mr. Young, how they shall construe certain rules. For example, the rule relative to the dropping of fly balls for double plays. The umpires' instructions on this question are such as to defeat almost any play of the kind that can be attempted. They are required to rule that if a fielder even stops the force of the fly ball, with the object of effecting a double play, the ball shall be decided as having been caught and held. If a fielder were to put up his open hands and bounce the ball off them to the ground it would be ruled a catch, and a runner having left a base on such a play may be put out by return of the ball to the base. To illustrate: A runner is taking ground between second and third, and a fly ball is hit to the left-fielder, who holds the open palms of his hands so as to meet and stop the force of the ball, and it drops to the ground. The runner, thinking it a missed fly, starts for home, whereupon the left-fielder picks the ball off the ground, throws to the second-baseman, the fly is decided to be caught, and the runner who left second is held to be out. The only way to defeat such a play is for the runner to hug his base until the ball touches the fielder's hands. But it is very certain that such an instruction as this is a mistake and a detriment, and will lead to mischievous results. A fielder who is clever enough to break the force of the ball and to recover it in time for a double play ought to be allowed to make the play, and to deprive him of that right is to diminish the fielding beauties of the game. In all such cases the umpire is qualified to judge whether the ball is “momentarily held” or not, but no umpire is qualified to determine whether a ball is “intentionally” muffed or not, and that is what an umpire is expected to do under present instructions. A hot line ball is driven to short stop—so hot and so high that he could not possibly hold the ball, but manages to “break its force,” pick it up, and thereby effect a double play. How shall the umpire decide in such a case? He cannot possibly know whether the short stop's intention was unless he puts the short stop on oath, and he is equally liable to give the ball caught when it was unintentionally and unavoidably missed. An umpire has all he can properly attend to when he undertakes to judge the facts; he should not be permitted, much less required, to rule on the question of intention. The tendency of the League is altogether too much in the direction of restricting clever play in the field—as in abolishing the foul-bound catch, and in declaring a man out for failing to run after a missed or called third strike. The ruling upon fly catches the League umpires are required to make is in the same direction, and ought to be changed. |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />