Runners on first and second with one out. Strange play in a middle school game. Infielders playing a few feet infront of their normal positions. The left fielder is playing where the short stop normally plays near the grass-dirt line that separates the infield with the outfield. Ball is hit in the air such that the only person who can make the routine catch is the left fielder who is positioned in the infield.

Do you call an infield fly even though the only fielder who could make the routine catch is the left fielder? Remember that no infielder could have made this catch since they were playing to far in.

Thanks,

Greg

From OBR Rule 2.00, definition of IFF (in part):

The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.

Outfielder doesn't necessarily have to be in "infield" for it to be an infield fly. eg. A shortstop getting under a pop up in short left using normal effort would be an infield fly. A left fielder playing in catching a ball in the same place as per above you could call an infield fly if the play was made with "normal effort".

If one remembers WHY the Infield Fly Rule even exists, they will get it right everytime.

It is to prevent the defense from getting an undeserved double play.

If, in my opinion, a fielder could intentionally drop a fly ball and realistically pick it back up and turn a double play ... it's an Infield Fly.

So, naturally, the deeper the ball is hit, the less likely a double play could be turned.

The more difficult the catch, the less likely a double play could be turned.

It doesn't concern me in the least WHERE the catch is made or WHO makes the catch. If this criteria is used, you'll get it right everytime.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David,
Nice job - are you and Academy graduate? That's the thinking more and more umpires have to follow. To know the rules is one thing, but there are two other important elements to consider:

1: Why the rule was put in place (Which you so elequently stated)

2: The interpretation of the rule

Knowing the rules of the game will make you a good umpire (there's lots of them around). Knowing the WHY (origin of the rule) and the HOW (it's interpretation) will help you become a GREAT umpire (not too many of them around). Just my opinion..... and I think some guy named Jim Evans also - that's who I got it from. :)

Infield fly response
 

I agree with what everyone has said. But you bring up an interesting dilema in middle school. In middle school 99.9% of the time a double play will not occur(on an infield
fly) because the ability and knowledge of players is not at the point where they know how to turn a double play on a missed fly ball that would normally be considered an infield fly in high school

In fact when an infield fly is dropped in middle school, the majority of the time the runners advance safely at their own risk

In the game that I did, the left fielder missed a routine fly that was hit in the infield. Everyone advance easily and all players including the batter-runner would be easily safe if I had not called the infield fly. In short, what I am saying is that when a middle school fielder misses an infield fly, the majority of the time all runners advance safely.

Should we be more hesitant to call an infield fly in middle school since player have trouble turning a double play?
Greg

Re: Infield fly response
 

No. Call the game as it should be called.

In my area, an infielder is more likely than not to catch a routine infield fly. 9 year olds catch routine fly balls.

[Edited by DG on Oct 21st, 2004 at 11:26 PM]

Re: Infield fly response
 

Do not overly complicate an Infield Fly ruling based on the perceived inability of the players to make routine plays.

Because as soon as you do NOT call it ... and a double play occurs ... you will have some explaining to do.

Technically, you can retroactively call an Infield Fly if an undeserved double play occurs as a direct result of your failure to call an Infield Fly. But then you will have created a huge mess explaining it.

Most reasonable people understand why an umpire would call an Infield Fly. It would not be a very intelligent argument on the part of a coach to claim that "they're just a bunch of 9-yr-olds!"

I will say this, however - you *still* have the burden of determining what is routine. A 9-yr-old may very well make a pop-up much harder than it should be.

Example: A high pop-up is hit over the 2nd baseman's head, at the edge of the outfield grass. Normally, this would pose no problem for a good 2nd baseman. He hustles back ... camps out underneath it ... and makes the catch. I would probably rule that an Infield Fly. Anytime a fielder can camp out under a fly ... it's routine.

But a 9-yr-old 2nd baseman might stand flat footed, watching the ball without moving instead of reacting as soon as a more experienced and capable infielder. If the umpire observes that ... he may determine that it will now NOT be routine.

Remember, take your time in calling an Infield Fly. Call it no sooner than the ball reaching its apex and, if you want to call it while the ball is descending, that shouldn't create any problem, either. Calling it too soon is where you get into trouble.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 03:13 PM]

Let's complicate it.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gre144
[B]Runners on first and second with one out. Strange play in a middle school game. Infielders playing a few feet infront of their normal positions. The left fielder is playing where the short stop normally plays near the grass-dirt line that separates the infield with the outfield. Ball is hit in the air such that the only person who can make the routine catch is the left fielder who is positioned in the infield.

Do you call an infield fly even though the only fielder who could make the routine catch is the left fielder? Remember that no infielder could have made this catch since they were playing to far in.
----------------------------------------------------
Technically this was not an infield fly. You said that the outfield stationed himself where the SS usually plays which was at the outside edge of the cutout that you believe seperates the infield from the outfield.

See OBR 1.04 which states:
"No. 3. The infield shall be a 90 foot square. The outfield shall be the area between two foul lines formed by extending two sides of the square, as in Diagram 1." So the outfielder did not station himself in the infield.

Since you also said that no infielder had a chance to catch the ball it couldn't be an infield fly. Black letter law, would you believe Gray. G.

[Edited by Gee on Oct 22nd, 2004 at 05:20 PM]

infield fly
 

their is no where in OBR that says an infield fly is determined by location IE: in field out field but weather a player can resonable make the catch in position to take defensive advantage of the situation. thus if a coach pulls his outfielders in to just behind where the infielders are playing because a batter is know to hit grounders or pop flys then all are considered infielders.

Me thinks you should re-read my post. Nowhere did I mention the infield area of an infield fly and the rule doesn't either.

The only thing I mentioned concerning the area of the infield is where the outfielder was positioned and that was not the infield according to OBR 4.01. G

Garth your reading of 1.04 is disingenuous. If you look at Diagram 1, you would note that that 90 foot square is made up by the foul lines down 1st and 3rd and the four corners of the square are, in fact the bases themselves.

Unless an infielder were playing in on a bunt, none of them in their typical positions could be considered infielders by your definition.

But it was a nice try....

First, it was Gee, not Garth who made that post.

Second, it's a well known "error" in the book -- and just one reason why it can't be read literally.

Bob,
I stand corrected, it was Gee, not Garth.

I was not the one trying to quote the rule book to determine outfield and infield. I was simply pointing out that such a quotation was disingenuous. The fact that the rule book may be in error only serves to make my point even more.

And, for the love of God, why the xxxxx don't they FIX the rule book!!!


[Edited by mick on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 11:47 AM]

1) Because the player's union must approve all changes. They won't.

2) Because (on the IF rule and similar), it'[s not an issue -- everyone knows how it should be called and calls it that way. It's only some internet geeks who would even recognize the discrepancy and / or think that it was an issue.