Sac fly question

[jojolemon]

When a batter hits a sac fly, why doesn't iScore assume the runner from 3b scored? Are there any instances where a batter gets awarded a sac fly and the runner from 3b doesn't score? I can see that you cannot assume any other base runners advance on a sac fly but the very definition of sac fly seems to require that the runner from 3b score. This has been bugging me for awhile and I just keep forgetting to ask.

Thanks,
Joanna.

[FTMSupport]

We do not like forcing runners around the bases unless it is very clear it has to happen. Not all people realize a Sac Fly requires the runner to score (unlike a Sac Bunt where any advancement is a sacrifice), so some people will enter it for any runner advancing. Rather than forcing the runner to score and confusing people that way, if you do not score the runner from third, we just do not count the fly out as a sacrifice in statistics.

[jojolemon]

We do not like forcing runners around the bases unless it is very clear it has to happen.

Wait. What??? By RULE, it IS very clear it has to happen. The very definition of a Sacrifice Fly states that the runner from 3b scores. I go back to my initial question: is there ANY instance where a batter is LEGITIMATELY awarded a sac fly where the runner from 3b does not score?

The fact that SOME people might misuse the sac fly does not mean it shouldn't be implemented correctly in iScore.

I'm sure there are all kinds of things people do with the program that aren't correct...simply because they don't know a rule...or how to find something.

Say...a balk. That's really hard to find on iScore. And, I'm betting there are plenty of balks that don't find their way to the stats because people don't know what a balk is or where to find the balk on iScore. That doesn't mean you don't automatically advance the base-runners when someone hits the balk button...because they might not have known what they were doing when they hit the balk button.

[FTMSupport]

Sacrifice Fly is implemented correctly in iScore - where are you seeing it not implemented correctly? We do not automatically advance the runner, but if you do not advance the runner, we also do not award a sacrifice fly.

[jojolemon]

My original question: why don't you automatically advance the runner from 3b on a sac fly?

Answer: because some people don't understand the sac fly rule. But you can advance the runner if you want to.

This does not make sense to me.

[FTMSupport]

We did not say "because some people don't understand the sac fly rule. But you can advance the runner if you want to.".

We did say "Not all people realize a Sac Fly requires the runner to score (unlike a Sac Bunt where any advancement is a sacrifice), so some people will enter it for any runner advancing."

If the runner is not advanced from third, then a Sac Fly is not awarded to the batter - it is simply a Fly Out. iScore correctly handles this.

We understand that you would like the runner on third to automatically advance. Some day maybe we will add a preference that would allow you to set iScore to automatically advance the runner from 3rd on a Sac Fly.

For now, we feel it leads to fewer support issues implementing it the way we do.

Thank you.

[jojolemon]

Okay. I don't agree with your reasoning. But, okay.

[FTMSupport]

If you want a purely technical reason for not automatically doing it, then yes, there is a case where a sacrifice fly can be awarded where the runner on 3rd does not score.

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, ball hit deep to the outfield. Both players tag up and score, but on appeal, the runner on 3rd is called out for not properly tagging up. As long as that would not be the third out, the runner from 2nd would score on the sacrifice fly, the runner on third would be out, and the batter would still be credited with a sacrifice.

As contrived as this scenario sounds, it is a reason to not automatically score the runner from third.

[Kartz]

Bravo!

[Kartz]

Bravo!