Interestingly, I suspect Rule 5.09(a)(12) is rarely used on line drives -- because an umpire cannot easily determine if an infielder deliberately drops a hard-hit ball.
“If the umpires really wanted to “protect a star player,” then they would have called the batter out and put Jackson and Munson back on their original bases, right?”
By the time it had hit Jackson, they had already committed to allowing the play to continue intentional dropping uncalled. It would have looked even worse for them to change the call on the dropped looper to Russell when it was allowed to continue and a run scored, especially at home. The screw up by the umps was not making the original call of intentionally dropping a ball in the air and killing the play before it could go any further. And there is no question he did drop it intentionally to get the double play as the film displayed. And they weren’t protecting Russell who was actually guilty of something first. They let him get away with it just as much as Jackson and never even brought him up.
“because an umpire cannot easily determine if an infielder deliberately drops a hard-hit ball.”
The ball clearly went into the pocket of the glove, dropped straight down in front of him while he was moving toward second base, and was scooped up a step short of second base so he immediately and easily could perform the act without even a toss to the second baseman as he was going to the base in the act of dropping it. There is no doubt as to it being accidental. It was intentional with a player taking advantage of the illegal act to gain an advantage. But Jackson messed up the opportunity to get out of the inning without the umpires being made to look questionable by not allowing the DP to be completed. If it had, no one would have been the wiser for either missed call.
Both calls were accomplished incorrectly. the only thing I can think of for a reason is to protect the integrity of the game and the players. Like I said...a lot of money.
“...suspect Rule 5.09(a)(12) is rarely used on line drives”
I have watched the show since I was about 5 years old and I can only remember that call being used two times. But the consistency with the protection of the players’ and game’s appearance has been a considerable effort of the league to angelize it since the late 1930’s. The rule is in the rule book, and the case book. It’s just ignored because of the appearance of malfeasance, or actual misconduct, to the adoring fan that goes to the games and buys the sports merchandise.
wy69