Infied fly or not

[chapmaja]

This happened a few days ago and resulted in a rather heated discussion after the game between the umpire and the defensive coach.

12 U fast pitch.
USSSA rules modified for league play.
League play, one umpire system (ugg).

Runners are first and second, zero out.

Batter his a ball that goes about 12 feet in the air and is coming down about halfway between the pitcher and 1st base. Pitcher attempts to run over and at full stretch (almost to the point of falling down), gets her glove on the ball but is unable to secure the catch. She then picks the ball up and throws to third where f5 is standing with her feet straddling the base. F5 catches the ball, but isn't touching the base, so the runner slides in safely.

The umpire does not rules this an infield fly. The dug out is not happy. The umpire's response is that the ball was not able to be caught with ordinary effort, therefore the infield fly rule doesn't apply. The dug out grumbled, but play continued. The game ended later that inning when the home teach reached the run ahead rule while at bat.

Following the game, an assistant coach for the defensive team comes out and confronts the umpire to the point the umpire tells him he will not continue the conversation because it contained inappropriate language. The head coach then comes over in a much calmer attitude to get an explanation. He doesn't agree, but sort of accepts the explanation.

One of his arguments is that anytime a popup has been hit during an IF situation, the umpires have immediately been calling it an IF off the bat.

Question, would you have called, the IF based on the description of the hit? I know it's a HTBT situation, to actually see the play, but I described it the best I could.

This game also had a player ejected. Early in the game, girl his a ball almost to the wall and is rounding third when the throw comes in to the cutoff, who throws a dart to the catcher. Catcher catches it in the left hand batters box and steps into the path of the runner, while holding the ball. Runner lowers her shoulder and plows over the catch, who did hang on to the ball (to her credit). The umpire rules her out on the tag and ejects her from the game for malicious contact. The team was using bat around rules and the players position was a declared out when she came up. This is one time the coaches agreed with the ejection. Apparently she has done this before and not been called out or ejected for running over the catcher. The coaches are hoping she will actually learn from being tossed and get over her desire to not slide.

[jmkupka]

It’s funny how it’s always the defense that is whining that a infield fly was not called… The rule is in place to protect the offense from cheap double play, not to give the defense of free out.

“It was not ordinary effort coach. End of conversation.”

[dlsumpntx]

Good call on no IFF.

[Tru_in_Blu]

This is purely a judgment call. You say HTBT, but we need someone who was actually there to render an opinion as to whether the on field official exercised good judgment.

I worked with a partner who called an IF too quickly. It landed 30 over F6's head and that was after he was running after it. The offense was none too pleased. We probably could have reversed it, but no one asked my partner to check with me, and I wasn't about to interject into a $h!t storm he created.

We discussed it after the game, and he still wasn't fully convinced that it wasn't an IF. One tip I gave him was that if he sees the number on the back of an infielder's jersey, it likely is not an IF.

[SWFLguy]

I agree on good call/no call. That's why the "easily caught" is there in the rule.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

It’s funny how it’s always the defense that is whining that a infield fly was not called…

Funny how it's always the team who's getting their ass beat that has a coach confront you with a profane tirade...

I've had similar plays and a "no-call" for the same reason. When the defense cries, "Why no infield fly?', I've reminded them about the "ordinary effort" clause of the rule. Often, they don't believe that and think that you're just making stuff up. Sorry, I can't be responsible for your rule ignorance.

But, I have said, "The ball has to be catchable with ordinary effort. The fact that it wasn't caught demonstrates that it was not ".

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by BretMan

The fact that it wasn't caught demonstrates that it was not .

Just for clarity to all, there can be an ordinary effort hit which is not caught.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Just for clarity to all, there can be an ordinary effort hit which is not caught.

Sure. But when the fielder had to run and dive for it, that should reinforce the fact that it wasn't ordinary effort.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Sure. But when the fielder had to run and dive for it, that should reinforce the fact that it wasn't ordinary effort.

Of course, I wasn't debating that.

[jmkupka]

Cecil, this weekend I had an IF called between the PP and 1B.

F1, F3 and F4 (3 feet apart from each other) stood and watched the ball hit the ground between them.

Landed 10' fair, lots o' spin, headed foul, F3 for some reason makes a desperate attempt to grab it, and touches it fair.

Imagine the chaos that ensued (the offense was just as unclear what to do).

These were 18s.

[falsecut]

If you have to dive, it's not ordinary.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by falsecut

If you have to dive, it's not ordinary.

Not necessarily true. Ordinary effort for an average fielder is the requirement.

Example: Not paying attention and then having to dive should not negate an IFF call.

Standing and watching it drop when it could have been easily caught does not negate an IFF call.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

This happened a few days ago and resulted in a rather heated discussion after the game between the umpire and the defensive coach.

12 U fast pitch.
USSSA rules modified for league play.
League play, one umpire system (ugg).

Runners are first and second, zero out.

Batter his a ball that goes about 12 feet in the air and is coming down about halfway between the pitcher and 1st base. Pitcher attempts to run over and at full stretch (almost to the point of falling down), gets her glove on the ball but is unable to secure the catch. She then picks the ball up and throws to third where f5 is standing with her feet straddling the base. F5 catches the ball, but isn't touching the base, so the runner slides in safely.

The umpire does not rules this an infield fly. The dug out is not happy. The umpire's response is that the ball was not able to be caught with ordinary effort, therefore the infield fly rule doesn't apply. The dug out grumbled, but play continued. The game ended later that inning when the home teach reached the run ahead rule while at bat.

Following the game, an assistant coach for the defensive team comes out and confronts the umpire to the point the umpire tells him he will not continue the conversation because it contained inappropriate language. The head coach then comes over in a much calmer attitude to get an explanation. He doesn't agree, but sort of accepts the explanation.

One of his arguments is that anytime a popup has been hit during an IF situation, the umpires have immediately been calling it an IF off the bat.

Question, would you have called, the IF based on the description of the hit? I know it's a HTBT situation, to actually see the play, but I described it the best I could.

This game also had a player ejected. Early in the game, girl his a ball almost to the wall and is rounding third when the throw comes in to the cutoff, who throws a dart to the catcher. Catcher catches it in the left hand batters box and steps into the path of the runner, while holding the ball. Runner lowers her shoulder and plows over the catch, who did hang on to the ball (to her credit). The umpire rules her out on the tag and ejects her from the game for malicious contact. The team was using bat around rules and the players position was a declared out when she came up. This is one time the coaches agreed with the ejection. Apparently she has done this before and not been called out or ejected for running over the catcher. The coaches are hoping she will actually learn from being tossed and get over her desire to not slide.

Am I the only one here that would not call an IFF based upon what I highlighted in red?

MTD, Sr.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Am I the only one here that would not call an IFF based upon what I highlighted in red?

MTD, Sr.

12' in the air to the pitcher sure as heck is an IFF. Not bunted. Not a line drive.

Think slow pitch vs fast pitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Am I the only one here that would not call an IFF based upon what I highlighted in red?

MTD, Sr.

Apparently. Please find a height minimum in the rule.

If not a bunt or line drive, if the ball rises off the bat and any infielder, pitcher or catcher can, in the umpire's judgment, catch the ball with ordinary effort, it is by rule and Infield Fly.

Everybody see that? The acronym would be IF