Infield Fly Or Not? This was really strange.

[Gre144]

This was girls softball but I believe the rule for infield fly is the same.

R1 and R2 on their respective bases with one out-infield fly is in affect. Batter hits a lazy pop fly between F2 and F5. Normally this would be a routine catch by F5. However, F2 and F5 call for the ball simultaneously causing them to both hesitate. Because of the hesitation by both players, the fly ball is no longer routine. F5 lunges for it but drops it. All runnes advance safely including the batter-runner.

Should have I called an infield fly? I chose not to do so because the defense, because of not playing the ball correctly, made a routine fly into a difficult play.

Thanks,

Greg

[Rich Ives]

My vote:

Wind alters ordinary effort.

A long run affects ordinary effort.

A Keystone-cop routine between two players who could have easily caught the ball does NOT erase ordinary effort.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Gre144
This was girls softball but I believe the rule for infield fly is the same.

R1 and R2 on their respective bases with one out-infield fly is in affect. Batter hits a lazy pop fly between F2 and F5. Normally this would be a routine catch by F5. However, F2 and F5 call for the ball simultaneously causing them to both hesitate. Because of the hesitation by both players, the fly ball is no longer routine. F5 lunges for it but drops it. All runnes advance safely including the batter-runner.

Should have I called an infield fly? I chose not to do so because the defense, because of not playing the ball correctly, made a routine fly into a difficult play.

Thanks,

Greg

Greg,
By your statement above, especially the portions that I
have underlined, I, and JMHO, feel you had an infield fly.
An infield fly should be called when the ball reaches its
highest point based on nearest player, and your description
indicates that problems occurred when the two infielders
incorrectly played the ball. (However, I really like Rich's
Keystone-cop Routine reply). You said because of the
hesitation by the two fielders the ball was no longer a
routine fly! The fact that they goofed does not change the
balls *routine fly* status.

glen

[Gre144]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Greg,
By your statement above, especially the portions that I
have underlined, I, and JMHO, feel you had an infield fly.
An infield fly should be called when the ball reaches its
highest point based on nearest player, and your description
indicates that problems occurred when the two infielders
incorrectly played the ball. (However, I really like Rich's
Keystone-cop Routine reply). You said because of the
hesitation by the two fielders the ball was no longer a
routine fly! The fact that they goofed does not change the
balls *routine fly* status.

glen [/B][/QUOTE]

I guess my point is is that if I were to have called the infield fly, then the defense would be awarded an out even though they didn't derserve it. It seems to me that the purpose of the infield fly is to prevent the defense from getting an easy out on either r1 or r2 on the force. In my siutation that I described, it would have nearly been impossible for F5, after having dropped the fly, to get the advancing R1 or R2 out. The only way that F5 could have gotten an out was by catching the ball.

I think the infield fly should only be invoked if the routine fly would not allow either r1 or r2 to advance easily if the fly were to be dropped.
It seems to me that the infield fly is appropriate when the defense player is well underneath the ball, but the ball pops out of his mitt. On the contrary, if the defensive players make a bad judgement thus making it difficult to catch the ball, you have a situation that penalizes the offense upon invoking the infield fly rule. Shouldn't the batter-runner and all other runners have the right to advance on an infield fly situation if it is probable that the infield fly will not be caught because of the defense's misjudgment of the ball?

Thanks,

Greg

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Gre144
[/QUOTE]

I think the infield fly should only be invoked if the routine fly would not allow either r1 or r2 to advance easily if the fly were to be dropped. It seems to me that the infield fly is appropriate when the defense player is well underneath the ball, but the ball pops out of his mitt.

Greg I'm trying to visualize this. You said softball which means 60 ft. diamond - ball between F5 and F2. On a 60 ft. diamond, that's routine enough for me. Anytime you can call the IF call it -it's one out closer to going home

The rule states "ordinary effort" which is judgement. In addition we need to know if these are kids that shave or not. We are not Krescan and it's not our job to know in advance that the defense is going to misplay the ball. If the kid shaves and he is near enough to make the catch - IF

If the kid doesn't shave, then he / she has to be right under the ball. It all boils down to judgement of the term "ordinary effort" but anytime we can get an out - take it.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Greg, many years ago I had a similar call to make in a rather important Fed game. With bases loaded and less than 2 out, batter hits a high fly toward right against a strong wind. F4 and F3 each break toward their respective bases while F9 is bustin his butt toward the infield.

F4, upon approaching 2B looked up to see that the wind was hanging this ball well short of F9, turned, and started bustin his butt toward an area maybe 20 ft. behind F3. F3 had his bag well covered and a bulldozer wasn't about to move him. His mind was somewhere on the yellow brick road as this guy was dreamin of Oz.

The ball eventually came down at the grass cut maybe 15 ft. inside the foul line. F4, in a half-hearted dive had the ball tip off the end of his glove toward F3. Neither myself as PU nor my partner called for an infield fly. The runners advanced, but F3 was able to recover the ball and throw out R1 at 2nd base. However, a run scored.

Neither my partner nor I felt that this was an infield fly because no player at any time made an attempt that would have allowed that ball to fielded with normal effort. That is what we both judged separately while it was occurring. Had F3 made a play toward the ball, it's likely we both would have rang the IF call immediately, but with him nailed to 1B that never occurred.

After the game, the assistant coach of the offensive team approached me to to discuss the play. I knew the coach as he was an umpire within our chapter, and he had umpired MLB during the MLB strike (1979 or 1980 I believe). He knew his umpiring well, and he advised me that I blew the IF call---that it should have been made. Not only did I disagree, but I told him I felt it was one of the best judgement calls I had ever made. I judged it (as did my partner) close enough that the fielder could get to the ball, tip it off his glove while diving, yet not make the catch.

Bottom line, based on the effort of the fielders during the play, this ball was not going to be caught with normal effort. Even when it dropped (or if caught), there was little possibility of a DP. That, indeed, is the intent and purpose of the rule---to prohibit a purposeful "no catch", allowing the ball to drop, so that the defense can obtain a DP on 2 runners that had to hold their base in fear of being put out if the ball is caught.

I still think it was a proper call...perhaps it wasn't. You can judge for yourself.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[JJ]

Anytime I have a game in a "strong wind", in the pregame my partner and I agree NOT to call the Infield Fly until someone has the ball virtually in their glove. That assures they could get it with "ordinary effort". The rule was designed to protect the runners - who USUALLY aren't going anywhere on an infield pop-up (unless there are two out).

Your MLB fill-in was off base...imo

GBA

[Skahtboi]

From the way the play was described, it sounds as if either player could have made the play "with ordinary effort." Since the mechanics for calling the IF include making the call while the ball is in flight, and had one player made the call for the ball, the catch could have been made with ordinary effort, I would have probably had the IF Rule in effect. Seems what was extraordinary about this play was the fact that the two fielders just stood there. Of course, like everyone else, this is just my humble opinion.

Scott

[Gee]

One of the problems i find with the infield fly rule is the "With reasonable effort" part.

I like Jim Evans interp, where he says that the fielder should be "comfortably set under the ball" before you declare the infield fly. It seems to cover all levels better than reasonable effort. G.

[Gre144]

Originally posted by Bfair

That, indeed, is the intent and purpose of the rule---to prohibit a purposeful "no catch", allowing the ball to drop, so that the defense can obtain a DP on 2 runners that had to hold their base in fear of being put out if the ball is caught.

Just my opinion,

Freix

Upon thinking about it, the purpose of the infield fly rule would also be to avoid the situation where the lead runners(R1 and R2) can't be easily put out on a force play.

I think I have a great idea on how to solve the situation that I brought up in the thread. Simply let the play finish itself out. If the infielder drops the infield fly and R1 or R2 are put out on the force at the base to which they are advancing, enforce the infield fly rule, call the Batter-Runner out and return R1 and R2 to their respective bases. If all runners including the batter-runner advance safely on a routine infield fly that was dropped, do not enforce the infield fly.

After thinking about it, I am glad that I didn't call the infield fly because it is ridiculous to punish the offense(by calling an out) if all runners advance safely. Moreover, the offensive coach and fans would have made me pay dearly if I would have called the infield fly.

It would go something like this assuming that I called the infield fly at the moment the ball reached its peak:

Coach says, "Hey blue, how could you call the batter-runner out on the infield fly when he and everyone else arrived safely to their repective bases? If the catch was so routine, how on earth could everyone arrive safely. To simplify it for you blue, how can you call someone out when he and everyone else is safe? Get another freakin job you no good for nothing pile of ____. You are horrible."

I say," You're out of the game, you know good for nothing pile of ____!"

Offensive fans began to jeer at me and start throwing beer bottles. Opposing fans and players began to fight. Swat team comes to restore order.

End of story

[Edited by Gre144 on Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:54 PM]

[bluezebra]

"I think I have a great idea on how to solve the situation that I brought up in the thread. Simply let the play finish itself out. If the infielder drops the infield fly and R1 or R2 are put out on the force at the base to which they are advancing, enforce the infield fly rule, call the Batter-Runner out and return R1 and R2 to their respective bases. If all runners including the batter-runner advance safely on a routine infield fly that was dropped, do not enforce the infield fly."

Try this in your next game. But make sure your insurance is paid up to date. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've read on these boards yet. You can't call the IF fly retroactively because of what happens.

Bob

[Gre144]

All that I am saying is the following: Do not enforce the infield fly if all runners,including the batter-runner, advance at least one base. Just my opinion

Greg

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Gre144
All that I am saying is the following: Do not enforce the infield fly if all runners,including the batter-runner, advance at least one base. Just my opinion

Greg

Greg,

Do I understand your post correctly, you are saying
do not call infield fly until you see if all
runners, including batter-runner have advanced at
least one base, or are you saying call it but do not
enforce it if all runners including batter-runner,
advance at least one base. Either way, I think you
are kinda *off-base* here. Offensively, coaches will
enjoy having you in game.

glen

[Gre144]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump

Greg,

Do I understand your post correctly, you are saying
do not call infield fly until you see if all
runners, including batter-runner have advanced at
least one base, or are you saying call it but do not
enforce it if all runners including batter-runner,
advance at least one base. Either way, I think you
are kinda *off-base* here. Offensively, coaches will
enjoy having you in game.

glen

I like how you put: Call it but don't enforce it if all runners, including the batter-runner advance at least one base.

[Rich Ives]

You call it - the batter's automatically out.

You call it while it's still in the air so you don't know if it actually gets caught yet.

Are you saying call it, then don't enforce it if all runners advance at least one base? If you are, the defense will protest and you will have to come back next Tuesday for the re-play after the protest is upheld.

Are you saying to wait for the outcome then only call it runners doen't all advance a base? Then the offense will protest. Then you'll have to lie to the protest committee when you tell them that it wasn't, in your judgement, catchable with reasonable effort.

Either way, you've done the game wrong.