Infield Fly Or Not? This was really strange.

[Skahtboi]

I really find it hard to believe that anyone would propose a "retroactive" call on the IF rule or any rule for that matter. Heck, why don't we just wait to see how the game turns out before we enforce any of the rules...then we can go back and see which ones we really need to apply. Wouldn't that be easier? Come on...get real. Really...the IF rule isn't that hard to understand. However, it sounds as if you are more concerned on how you will be viewed by the coaches and players and fans than on what is right according to the rules, Greg. We cannot decide which rules we will enforce or how we will enforce them. That is not what we are here for. Plain and simply put, we must enforce all rules, as they are written. In the play you described, as you wrote it, you should have had an out on the batter. Its that simple.

This is long thread on a simple answer that Rich gave you at the beginning. On a play such as this call the IF and be done with it. If the managers whine tell them to go home and reread the rule. You can't make calls based on how they are going to react to it. On a controversial call somebody is going to be mad. What I can't figure out is why the defense didn't hammer you when you didn't call IF.

[Gre144]

What I am suggesting is that the infield fly rule should be changed. Under the current rule you automatically call the batter-runner out on on an infield fly even if all the runners including the batter-runner advance one base. It is my opinion that if the defense cannot even catch a routine infield fly than they should not be awarded an out if all the runners including the batter runner advance. Of course, under the current rule you have to call the batter-runner out. I am suggesting that the rule change as follows:

1) The umpire calls the infield fly immediately.
2) However, if all runners including the batter runner advance one base than the infield fly is ignored

This would be similar to ignoring an obstruction if the runner being obstructed advances to the base that he would have reach had there been no obstruction.

In short, I think it is absolutely ridiculous to award a defense team, who is unable to catch a routine fly ball, with an out. I guess my question would be is why would anyone think that the infield fly rule as it stands makes sense to them?

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Gre144
What I am suggesting is that the infield fly rule should be changed. Under the current rule you automatically call the batter-runner out on on an infield fly even if all the runners including the batter-runner advance one base. It is my opinion that if the defense cannot even catch a routine infield fly than they should not be awarded an out if all the runners including the batter runner advance. Of course, under the current rule you have to call the batter-runner out. I am suggesting that the rule change as follows:

1) The umpire calls the infield fly immediately.
2) However, if all runners including the batter runner advance one base than the infield fly is ignored

This would be similar to ignoring an obstruction if the runner being obstructed advances to the base that he would have reach had there been no obstruction.

In short, I think it is absolutely ridiculous to award a defense team, who is unable to catch a routine fly ball, with an out. I guess my question would be is why would anyone think that the infield fly rule as it stands makes sense to them?

Gregg,

Referencing your suggested change 1)The umpire calls the
infield fly immediately.

When you made this call, the batter runner cannot
advance one base, because by the rule you imposed, BR
is out!

[umpirefour]

it does not matter what you called either would be correct because as we all know its a judgement call so what ever you called it was correct nice job!!!!

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by umpirefour
it does not matter what you called either would be correct because as we all know its a judgement call so what ever you called it was correct nice job!!!!

W E L C O M E to the board Umpirefour.

glen

[David Emerling]

Whenever an Infield Fly is *not* called, and no double play results, it is difficult to make an argument about how somebody was dealt an unfair blow by the hit *not* being called an Infield Fly.

In your case, there was no double play - so, it's difficult to say that it was an unfair ruling since the whole point of the Infield Fly Rule is to prevent cheapo double plays.

Sure, in your scenario, it might seem that R1 was unfairly dealt with. But the fact of the batter is that *somebody* can expect to be out on a hit like that. It should be the batter, but, in this case, it happened to be R1.

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by Gre144

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 [/QUOTE]

[Carl Childress]

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. Greg

Greg:


According to black letter law, you answered your own question.

The purpose of the infield fly rule is to prevent the defense from obtaining an unmerited double play. When the ball was hit, you said it was a routine play. Since no envionmental conditions affected play, you must go with the definition in your rule book. In baseball it says: The batter is out if the fly ball can be caught with "ordinary effort."

It is not up to you (or any other umpire) to impose your ideas of how fielders should play onto the basic rules. Once you start evaluating the fielder's actions on that play (rather than all plays), you leave open the possibility some coach will teach a behavior that will induce runners to attempt to advance. The unmerited double play beckons.

With R1 and R2, or R1, R2, and R3 and fewer than two outs: Any fly ball that rises to an appreciable height and that will come down within the infield should be called an infield fly in any game where the players shave (either their faces or their legs).

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 16th, 2001 at 03:09 PM]

[Pat O'Reilly]

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