Answer 1: (Should the plate umpire vocalize a pitched "Ball")?

Absolutely --- although in reality there is no right or wrong here.  But consider the following.  What is more convincing on that close pitch?  The umpire who says nothing, creating doubts as to whether or not the umpire is sure himself?  Or the umpire who snaps off that “Ball!” call with conviction in his voice, leaving no doubt whatsoever as to the call?  Exactly.  If nothing else, and despite whether or not it is the correct call, it is telling everyone within earshot that they better not even bother arguing with that call.  Period.  And that’s good "Preventative" umpiring.  No, it  may not stop the bench jockeys from whining about the call itself.  But there should be little doubt in their mind as to your take on the whole thing.

While it may be true that vocalizing a pitched “Ball” is generally considered as personal preference, or "style," not doing so implies laziness as well as uncertainty..  Even arrogance.  (Let's face it, the "silent treatment" for any situation in life where a response is expected indicates a narcissism that can be downright irritating).  What may be "obvious" to the plate umpire  may actually create confusion for everyone else.  Especially the runner who is stealing 2^nd on a 3-2 count---as well as the base umpire who is ringing him “Out!” despite the silent Ball 4 call of his partner.

Unfortunately, some umpires organizations (or at least individual instructors) actually teach new umpires to refrain from vocalizing the pitched “Ball.”  While this may be his own personal preference, or "style,"  he (or she) should avoid teaching new students what is in reality a bad habit.  His or her approach should be, "Do as I say, not as I do."  And besides, if vocalizing a pitched "Ball" is good enough for the guys on television, it is certainly good enough for the rest of us.  (COMMENTS?  Use the ‘Talk To Me’ feature below to provide feedback).

Answer 2:  (If an umpire has mistakenly called a fair ball "Foul!", may he reverse the call)?

Yes---and No.  (How's that for setting the record straight)!?  The reason for asking this question is to dispel any notions that there is a (pro) rule that says once an umpire calls "Foul!" he can't reverse the call.  There is no such rule.

So, what's the answer and how should it be handled?  Basically, the advice is this (based on pro rules):  If the players have obviously ignored the "Foul!" call, then it's "okay" for the umpire to correct his call so long as he does so immediately.  (And he should do this by emphatically pointing into fair territory to remove any doubt).  Of course the players referred to are those obviously affected by the call.  Specifically, all runners and any defensive players in chase of the batted ball.

If, however, it is obvious that any runner or any defensive player has reacted to the original (though erroneous) "Foul!" call, then the umpire should "eat" the call and kill the play.  (And he should also stand there and say nothing while the Offensive Manager chews on his butt.  The dude's got it coming, right)?  At the same time, and though you know the tongue lashing is justified, you should still "sell" the foul call by not openly admitting that the ball was indeed fair.  (Of course, whether or not you admit to it is entirely up to you.  There's nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't make it a habit---for that particular game in particular.  Not that you will be making many bad calls that day, of course).  Under no circumstances should the umpire try to fix the bad call by "guessing" where he thinks the runner, or runners, would have ended up had he not called out "Foul!" and which subsequently resulted in the progress of a play being affected.  (That's almost certain to end up in an ejection of a defensive player or the manager.  Truly).

(Note:  Federation rules/high school does allow the umpire to not only reverse his call, but it also allows him to "fix" the situation by placing runners according to where he thinks they may have ended up had the play not been interrupted.  Well, that's fine, I suppose.  But I think that's a bit more dangerous than just eating the call.  After all, most of the rules of baseball at all levels truly discourage, and are written to prevent, putting the umpire in a position of having to "predict" the future).

Answer 3:  (If two runners end up occupying the same base and neither runner was forced to run when the ball was batted into play, which runner will be called out when both are tagged)?

Before discussing the answer, it should be noted that this question was inspired by a call witnessed by the author during a game between the San Diego Padres and Seattle Mariners on 6/21/2003.  Situation:  Mariners at bat.  Ben Davis of the Mariners is the runner on 3rd (R3), another Mariners runner is on 2nd (R2).  First base is unoccupied with no outs.  The Mariner batter hits a ground ball to the Padres 3rd baseman, Burroughs, and Ben Davis (R3) heads for home, but then changes his mind.  He subsequently gets in a run-down between 3rd and home.  Meanwhile, the Mariner runner (R2) runs to 3rd and stands there on the bag.  Eventually, Ben Davis (R3) makes it back safely to 3rd during the rundown and also stands there on the bag.  The Padres catcher, Bennett, tags both runners.  The umpire calls Ben Davis (R3, who is the preceding runner) out.  Was this the correct call?

NOPE!

And why not?  One simple reason---3rd base (technically and "legally") still belonged to Ben Davis and not the Mariner runner who was originally on 2nd when the ball was batted into play.  Why?  Because neither runner was forced to run when the ball was batted since 1st base was unoccupied.  Therefore, the base still legally belongs to the original runner (Ben Davis).  So, he should have been allowed to stay and R2 should have been called out.

Rule 7.03:  Two runners may not occupy a base, but if, while the ball is alive, two runners are touching a base, the following runner shall be out when tagged.  The preceding runner is entitled to the base.

And that's that---except for this:  (Rule Confusion!) The above rule makes no mention whatsoever of whether or not either runner had been forced to run when the ball was batted into play.  This is truly significant.  Why?  Well, had either runner been forced to run, then the following runner would in fact be entitled to the base, resulting in the preceding runner (aka, original runner R3) to be called out.  For instance, take our above play, only now put a runner at 1st base as well, making the bases loaded, which creates a force situation for all runners when there is a batted ground ball.  This would then have made R2 above the legal occupant of 3rd base, since he and R3 (Davis) were forced to run.  In this scenario, the umpire's call would have been correct.

So, what do we do as an umpire to "prove without a doubt" (since Rule 7.03 really doesn't elaborate on any details) that Davis (above) should not have been the runner called out for that particular play?  Well, we must also include Rule 7.01 into our explanation to the complaining coach (and in our report to the Chief Umpire when explaining why the defensive coach was ejected ).

Rule 7.01:  A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out.  He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.  If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

Okay, we don't need this whole rule to prove our point, just that part of it which states ". . . He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it (my emphasis) for another runner legally entitled to that base . . ."

Knowing this, we see the umpire booted the call above, since neither Mariner runner was forced to run.  Again, R2 (the following runner as stated in Rule 7.03) should therefore have been called out.

Two last things to consider.

First, just because you work a game on TV and get paid a six-figure salary does not make you impervious to mistakes. 

Second, and perhaps most important, is the question---why in the hell should we care who was called out, as long as there's an out recorded?  Good question.  But simply awarding an out is not the only point.  It does matter who gets called out---or rather, it could matter.  Take our Padres/Mariners play above.  Ben Davis was the original runner on 3rd and also the runner who should not have been called out, which would have left him at 3rd.  So what's the big deal?  Well, Ben Davis (because he's Ben Davis and a catcher to boot) runs about as well as a 3-legged pregnant elephant.  Meanwhile, the Mariner runner who was allowed to stay at 3rd runs like a gazelle.  This becomes significant IF THERE IS A WILD PITCH OR PASSED BALL to the next Mariner batter.  Right?  Or, if there are less than two outs (which was the situation above), Davis has less chance of tagging up and scoring on a sacrifice fly ball then the gazelle had.  I mean, if I were Bochy (the Padre manager), I would much rather have the pregnant 3-legged elephant standing on 3rd instead of the gazelle.  Catch my drift?

So, it does matter who gets called out and not just the fact that you got half of it right by merely calling an out.  Keep that in mind.

Wish to "take issue" with any of the above or provide your own input?  Well, then, Talk To Me here.

Answer 4: (If a pitcher is ejected, how many warm-up pitches should his replacement be allowed to have)?

Same as if the pitcher was being removed because of injury---as many as he needs to get ready.  (This should be considered as a "sudden emergency" as defined under Rule 8.03 below).

Some umpires mistakenly (or even purposely) offer only the 8-10 customary warm-up pitches for this situation, considering it as a "punishment" due to the ejection.  That's absurd.  Who's really getting punished here?  The poor guy who has to come into the game to pitch "cold," that's who.  (If you do that, you might as well instruct the manager to start warming up a third pitcher to replace the soon-to-be-injured pitcher now on the mound).

Warm-Up Pitches Rule 8.03:  When a pitcher takes his position at the beginning of each inning, or when he relieves another pitcher, he shall be permitted to pitch not to exceed eight preparatory pitches to his catcher during which play shall be suspended.  A league by its own action may limit the number of preparatory pitches to less than eight preparatory pitches.  Such preparatory pitches shall not consume more than one minute of time.  If a sudden emergency causes a pitcher to be summoned into the game without any opportunity to warm up, the umpire-in-chief shall allow him as many pitches as the umpire deems necessary.

Wish to "take issue" with the above or provide your own input?  Well, then, Talk To Me here.

Depends . . .

. . . on whether it involves DBT within the actual playing area (dugouts and/or chalked lines that mark off a specific area), or DBT as defined by the ball field perimeter itself (stands, outfield fence, etc.).  Therefore, this will be discussed in two parts.  (Reminder:  The below assumes a game is being played under the guidelines of the MLB Official Rules of Baseball).

Answer 5 (Three Parts):  (If a fielder obtains possession of either a batted or thrown ball while in Live Ball Territory (LBT), but his momentum causes him to enter an area designated as Dead Ball Territory (DBT), is the ball still live and in play)?

(Answer 5) PART I:  DBT Within Actual Playing Area:

These areas are defined by the dugouts and/or any chalked lines that may be specific to a particular field.  For instance, some fields may have chalked lines that run quite a few feet away from and parallel to the fences that mark the perimeter of the playing field down 1st and 3rd base in foul territory.  These lines may run from the edge of one or both dugouts all the way to the outfield fence or to some other point on the field within foul territory.  The usual purpose is to designate an equipment storage area such as tarps, batting cages, whatever.  Because safety of the players is the issue, these chalked off areas are sometimes larger than they need to be and subsequently mostly vacant.  As a result, this DBT area may be considered "playable" under most conditions, although there are restrictions and/or requirements that must be met to make it so.

The unofficial rule governing these DBT areas is generally referred to as the "Catch and Carry."  The conditions necessary for allowing a ball to remain live and in play and what causes the ball to become dead within these areas are as follows:

1.  Batted (Fair) Ground Balls and Thrown (Live) Balls:

a.  Ball remains live ("chalked" DBT)---If the batted or thrown ball is gloved (and control obtained) while it is still in LBT.  The fielder himself must have both feet in LBT when he gloves/controls the ball before he enters DBT.

b.  Ball becomes dead ("chalked" DBT)---if the batted or thrown ball enters DBT untouched by a fielder.

Rule 7.05(f)  will apply when awarding bases for a batted ball.  (All runners, including the batter-runner, will be awarded two bases subject to the base each occupied at the time of the pitch).  Rule 7.05(g) will apply for a thrown ball.  (All runners, including the batter-runner if applicable, will be awarded two bases subject to the base each occupied at the time of the pitch or the throw, depending on the situation governed by this rule.  (Both rules typically referred to by "rookies" as the "ground rule double").

c.  Ball becomes dead ("chalked" DBT)---if the fielder obtains possession/control of the ball while in LBT, but falls when he enters DBT, or if a "diving" catch results in his entering DBT while prone.

One base will be awarded to all runners subject to the base each occupied at the time of the pitch, regardless of whether it was a batted or thrown ball.  That is, Rule 7.04(c) would be applied.

d.  Ball becomes dead (dugout DBT)---if any batted (fair) ground ball or any thrown (live) ball enters the dugout untouched by a fielder, regardless of any local ground rules pertaining to dugouts and whether or not a fielder has "beat" the ball into the dugout in order to field it.

Rule 7.05(f) or Rule 7.05(g)will apply when awarding bases, depending on the situation governed by each rule.

2.  Batted Fly Balls:

e.  Ball remains live ("chalked" DBT)---If the fielder has both feet in LBT when he gloves and obtains control of the ball before he enters DBT, regardless of the ball's relative position to DBT or LBT.

f.  Ball becomes dead ("chalked" DBT)---If the fielder falls when he enters DBT (having made the catch in LBT), or if a "diving" catch in LBT results in his entering DBT while prone, regardless of whether the fielder continues to maintain possession/control of the ball.

For this situation, the play will be ruled a "catch" and one base will be awarded to all runners subject to which base each occupied at the time of the pitch.  That is, Rule 7.04(c) would be applied.

g.  Ball becomes dead ("chalked" DBT)---If the fielder, having made the catch in LBT before entering DBT and remaining on his feet, drops the ball when attempting to make a throw.

For this situation the play will be ruled a "catch" and one base will be awarded to all runners subject to which base each occupied at the time of the pitch.  That is, Rule 7.04(c ) would be applied.

h.  Ball becomes dead ("chalked" DBT)---If the fielder is straddling any line (chalk or otherwise) that defines DBT when making the catch.

Even if a catch is made, the play will not be ruled a "catch," but rather "foul" and out of play (assuming the play takes place in foul territory.  If the play has taken place in fair territory---that is, at an outfield "wall" marked by chalk or other means---the play will be ruled a homerun).

i.  Ball becomes dead ("chalked" DBT)---If the fielder, having touched the ball while in LBT, "bobbles" it as he enters DBT.

For this situation, as in the previous, the play will not be ruled a "catch" even if the fielder eventually obtains control, but rather "foul" and out of play (assuming the play takes place in foul territory.  If the play has taken place in fair territory---that is, at an outfield "wall" marked by chalk or other means---the play will result in a two base award for all runners, including the batter-runner, subject to each base occupied at the time of the pitch.  That is, Rule 7.05(f) would be applied.

j.  Ball remains live (dugout DBT)---If the fielder catches the ball while on LBT and subsequently enters the dugout.  Also, and unless local ground rules dictate otherwise, the fielder may completely enter the dugout to make the catch as well.

(Special Note:  See the "Dugout Discussion" just below Part II for other important information related to dugout plays).

k.  Ball becomes dead (dugout DBT)---If the fielder falls inside the dugout after the catch has been made.

The play will be ruled a "catch" and all runners will be awarded one base subject to the base each occupied at the time of the pitch.  That is, Rule 7.04(c) would be applied.

l.  Ball becomes dead (dugout DBT)---If the fielder, having touched the ball while in LBT, and as stated earlier, "bobbles" the ball as he enters the dugout.

Again, as in "l" above, the play will not be ruled a "catch" even if the fielder eventually obtains control of the ball, but rather "foul" and out of play.

(Answer 5) PART II:  DBT As Defined By the Perimeter of the Ball Field Itself

That is, all areas (such as the stands) that are located beyond the actual playing area.

The rules governing the ability of a fielder to make a play/catch, or whether or not a ball remains live and in play, for these situations are relatively simple:

A "catch" will be allowed and the ball remains live if a fielder is able to lean over any fence, rope, or other such means that define the perimeter of the playing area---so long as both of the fielder's feet remain within the playing area when the catch is made.

A "catch" will be allowed, but the ball will become dead if the fielder falls into the stands (or any DBT outside the playing area) after the legal "catch" has been made.  All runners will be allowed to advance one base subject to the base each occupied at the time of the pitch.  That is, Rule 7.04(c) will be enforced.

Note:  If there is any fan interference that causes a failure by the fielder to catch a fly ball that is located over DBT while the fielder remains in LBT, the play will be ruled a "foul" and out of play if it happens in foul territory.  If fan interference occurs when the ball is over DBT in fair territory (that is, over the outfield fence), then the play will be ruled a homerun.

No "catch" will be allowed if the fielder enters with one or both feet any DBT outside the playing field in order to attempt the catch.  The play will be ruled "foul" and out of play (assuming it happens in foul territory.  If it happens in fair territory, that is, at the outfield fence, the ball will be ruled a homerun).

(Answer 5) PART 3: Dugout Discussion:

This whole dugout thing, unfortunately, becomes a bit problematic at times for the following reason:  The rulebook (Rule 2.00 A CATCH)  states that If a fielder, attempting a catch at the edge of the dugout, is "held up" and kept from an apparent fall by a player or players of either team and the catch is made, it shall be allowed.

Fine.  But here's the problem.  The rule only specifies the "edge" of the dugout and makes no mention of actually being "in" the dugout.  Not only that, while the rule specifies that the "catch" shall be allowed, it does not specify whether or not the ball remains live and in play.  (Assumptions, I suppose, can be made---which is typical for the rulebook, right)?  Anyway, since a fielder is allowed to go completely into the dugout to make a catch, and having made that catch the ball remains live so long as he remains on his feet, then I guess we can assume that being "held up at the edge" of the dugout includes being held up inside the dugout as well.  (Shrug).

Okay, so that's figured out (I assume).

Now there's this to consider.  While the "catch" may be good for the "holding" situation, whether or not the ball remains live is still a "mystery" (at least according to the rules, or rather a total lack of mentioning it either way).  And this could be a problem.

Why?  Well, let's face it, for almost every other situation mentioned in the rulebook with reference to physically "aiding," touching," or "distracting" any player most always ends up being an interference of some type, which subsequently results (most of the time) in a dead ball.  Right?

Okay, so now we have a situation whereby the rulebook says a fielder on the edge (or inside) the dugout can be "held up" by players from either side when making the catch.  The problem, of course, is that the player or players who do in fact touch/aide the fielder might cause unpredictable consequences beyond the ruling of a "catch."  That is, while an opposing team member may be deemed "altruistic" for having prevented the fielder from falling, he may consequently "hold on to" that fielder longer than is necessary in the hopes of preventing the fielder from making any subsequent play on any advancing runner or runners.  That, of course, wouldn't be "fair."  And even if it is a teammate who has prevented the fielder from falling, his actions may in fact impair the fielder from making any subsequent plays.  Or, the opposite may occur in that the fielder's teammate may in fact "aid" the fielder by quickly "shoving" him out further onto the field and thereby making it easier for the fielder to make a play on any subsequent runner or runners.  Arguable, to be sure.  Still, and again, "fairness" (either way) becomes an issue.

Bottom line:  There's just too many "what ifs" associated with providing aid and comfort to the fielder in a dugout situation. So what's to be done?

Possible Solutions:  Take these situations on a case-by-case basis.  That is, if the "holding up" of a fielder catching a ball on the edge or inside the dugout is quick, done and over with in a "blink of an eye" then let the ball remain live and in play.  If, however, the "holding up" of a fielder becomes a kind of "loving embrace" or a lingering "group" hug---and most certainly a "catapult" situation---then call for a dead ball and let the "catch" stand.

Wish to "take issue" with the above or provide your own input?  Well, then, Talk To Me here.

Answer 6:  (According to the Official Baseball Rules, Rule 5.09---The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when---(c) A balk is committed;  runners advance; (See Penalty 8.05).  Question:  Is the ball always dead when a balk is committed, which this rule seems to imply)?

Absolutely---NOT!

That's why it's imperative to read the suggestion in Rule 5.09(c)---See Penalty 8.05.  The purpose here, of course, is to inform the umpire that the ball isn't always going to be dead when there's a balk.  So, in this respect, the rules committee has "covered their butts" with the above suggested reading.  But I don't think they went far enough.  They should have absolutely covered their butts by phrasing it in the following manner:  See Penalty 8.05 for those cases where the ball isn't dead when there is a balk.

Splitting hairs?  Maybe.  But then again, from personal experience, no.  Too many rookie and/or "lazy" umpires---and certainly "every" ball player and manager---never reads past that part of 5.09(c) that states the ball is dead when there's a balk.  The words "See Penalty 8.05" seem only to serve as a reinforcement of what has just been said, as opposed to its being an exception to the ball being dead.  So, no need to read 8.05 PENALTY, right?

Yeah, right.  Hey, it still amazes me to see the look of "Oh" on the face of an umpire when showing him the PENALTY and APPROVED RULING sections of Rule 8.05---especially right after he has "killed," say, a 3-run jack because the pitcher had delivered the pitch despite being balked.  Or when he sends that runner who had been at 1st base back to 2nd after he's scored, because the balking pitcher, who had continued with his pick-off throw to 1st, ended up airmailing the ball 300 feet down the right field fence, allowing the runner to score from 1st.  Hey, who's being punished with that call?

Umpiring 101:  Read all the rules.  You'll be amazed by what you will find.

Rule 8.05 PENALTY reads (when there is a balk):  The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless (my emphasis) the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.

Imagine that!  Not only does the PENALTY section overrule what's said in Rule 5.09 about the ball being dead when a balk is committed, but it even says the balk will be disregarded if all runners, including the batter-runner, advance at least one base safely.

Furthermore, Rule 8.05 APPROVED RULING (first) goes on to say (when there is a balk):  In cases where a pitcher balks and throws wild, either to a base or to home plate, a runner or runners may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk.  This also overrules the ball being dead when there is a balk, as stated in Rule 5.09(c).

Careful out there!

Answer 7:  (Situation: R1 (runner on 1st), 1 out.  Batter hits a fly ball to right field.  R1, not bothering to stay on the base or tag up, takes off running.  He hits 2nd base and heads for 3rd.  As he gets there, his coach screams for him to go back to 1st, since the right fielder had caught the fly ball.  The runner turns around to go back.  But before he reaches 2nd base (on his way back to 1st), the right fielder throws the ball to the second baseman, who steps on 2nd base and looks at the umpire ("implying" to the umpire that he is making an appeal).  Meanwhile, R1, now having touched 2nd base, runs back to 1st base and stands on the bag.  The umpire calls R1 out on the implied appeal that was made by the second baseman at 2nd base.  Is this the correct call)?

Absolutely.

While it may be true that R1 was initially guilty of not having retouched 1st base as a result of F9's catch, the fact that he had touched 2nd base and gone on to 3rd requires R1 to retouch 2nd on his way back to 1st.  So, if a fielder (the 2nd baseman in this case) steps on 2nd --- with the obvious "intent" that he is making an appeal even though he doesn't verbalize it --- before R1 retouches that base, R1 is in fact called out.  This is no different than had F9 thrown the ball to the 1st baseman for the purpose of making the "failure to retouch" appeal at that particular base instead.

Applicable rules:

Rule 7.08:  Any runner is out when --- (d) He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder.  He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play.  This is an appeal play;

Splitting Hairs:  Okay, I know there's some guys who will argue that the phrase within the above rule "his base" refers only to 1st with reference to this rule, since that's the base R1 occupied at the time of the batted ball.  Bad assumption.  Why?  Well, if a runner has touched more than one base during the course of a single play, then it stands to reason that all the bases he has touched are "his bases."  Therefore, not only is he required to retouch the base he occupied when the ball was hit and subsequently caught, but he is also obligated to retouch any and all bases (as necessary) on his way back to his original base---as required by the following applicable rule:

Rule 7.02:  In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order.  If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.09.  In such cases, he runner may go directly to his original base.

Therefore, if he fails to retouch the bases he is required to touch before a fielder "appeals" the runner's failure to do so, then the runner will be called out on the (intentionally) "implied" appeal.

Answer 8:  R1 (runner on 1st) and R3, no outs.  B1 hits a "soft" line drive just to the left of the shortstop, who gloves the ball with no problem---then opens his glove and lets the ball hit the ground.  R1, seeing this, takes off for 2nd in a panic.  Meanwhile, the shortstop picks up the ball and throws to the 2nd baseman in time to force out R1, then throws to the 1st baseman in time to retire B1 for a double play.  Question:  Does the double play stand?

Absolutely---NOT!

Rule 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;

Basically what it comes down to is this---any runner who is in a force situation with less than two outs is at a disadvantage when there is a fly ball or line drive that is hit to an infielder, since he is unable to commit to running without the risk of being put out for failure to retouch after the ball is caught.  So, the runner (including the batter) has virtually no shot of advancing safely.  The ball becomes dead and the batter is called out.

This is of course similar to the Infield Fly situation, the only difference being that any single runner in a force situation invokes the enforcement of the above rule, as opposed to runners being on 1st and 2nd, or 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the Infield Fly situation.

NOTE:  Whether or not the fly ball or line drive is purposely dropped by the infielder is solely based on umpire judgment.