how high does a ball need to be for a infield fly?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by celebur

2) In my experience, most players that say "drops ball on purpose" mean that the fielder deliberately allowed the ball to fall untouched. I suspect that's what happened here, and if so there would be NO reason to call a deliberately dropped ball as advocated by some other posters. If it's not an IF, then allowing the ball to fall is simply smart, heads-up fielding (assuming the fielder is competent enough to execute the play--I've seen many fielders eat crow on this play).

How do you get "drops ball on purpose" to equal "allowed the ball to fall untouched?" That seems like quite a leap of logic to me. It really sounds like the fielder dropped the ball on purpose, meaning he gloved it, then dropped it. If he had meant otherwise, he would have said so.

Sure, allowing the ball to fall untouched would have been a smart play, but what are the odds that the average fielder has time to be so devious? I must reinterate that the poster meant exactly what he said.

[sargee7]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

How do you get "drops ball on purpose" to equal "allowed the ball to fall untouched?" That seems like quite a leap of logic to me. It really sounds like the fielder dropped the ball on purpose, meaning he gloved it, then dropped it. If he had meant otherwise, he would have said so.

Sure, allowing the ball to fall untouched would have been a smart play, but what are the odds that the average fielder has time to be so devious? I must reinterate that the poster meant exactly what he said.

SD Steve, Let's try to clear this up by asking to OP to clarify.

mkolton, please clarify the "drops ball on purpose". Did the fielder field the ball then let it drop or let the ball drop untouched??????

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by sargee7

SD Steve, Let's try to clear this up by asking to OP to clarify.

mkolton, please clarify the "drops ball on purpose". Did the fielder field the ball then let it drop or let the ball drop untouched??????

Yes, lets.

mkolton - when you typed "drops ball on purpose", did you mean "drops ball on purpose"? Were there any other words that you typed for which you meant the opposite? When you typed fielder, did you really mean runner?

Why do people enjoy changing people's questions to fit their own perception instead of simply believing the facts presented in the question? Especially in a case like this where someone wants to change the meaning of a phrase to the opposite, so that a completely different ruling is in play?

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by sargee7

SD Steve, Let's try to clear this up by asking to OP to clarify.

mkolton, please clarify the "drops ball on purpose". Did the fielder field the ball then let it drop or let the ball drop untouched??????

No problem in letting him clarify but I don't think it much matters.
If F4 had time to get to the grass and wait for the ball(I'm not sure how much clearer that could be since the OP said he was "camped under") then this is textbook IFF.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

How do you get "drops ball on purpose" to equal "allowed the ball to fall untouched?" That seems like quite a leap of logic to me. It really sounds like the fielder dropped the ball on purpose, meaning he gloved it, then dropped it. If he had meant otherwise, he would have said so.

Sure, allowing the ball to fall untouched would have been a smart play, but what are the odds that the average fielder has time to be so devious? I must reinterate that the poster meant exactly what he said.

What are the odds that the average fielder knows that dropping the ball on purpose means gloving it and then dropping it? Very few, in my experience. Therefore, until the OP is clarified, I will not jump to any conclusion except to say that it is premature to tell the poster that the dropped-ball rule should have applied.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by celebur

What are the odds that the average fielder knows that dropping the ball on purpose means gloving it and then dropping it? Very few, in my experience. Therefore, until the OP is clarified, I will not jump to any conclusion except to say that it is premature to tell the poster that the dropped-ball rule should have applied.

I think the average 10 year old knows the difference between dropping something and letting it fall untouched. If I asked one, "why did you drop that, son?" and he said, "I didn't drop it, I never touched it!" that would be the answer I would expect. This applies to adults as well, BTW.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by celebur

What are the odds that the average fielder knows that dropping the ball on purpose means gloving it and then dropping it?

What are the odds that the average coach knows what a 'force play' is?

The rules apply to players whether they know them or not.

[Jimology]

We are wrapped up, right?

[ajjl22]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

How do you get "drops ball on purpose" to equal "allowed the ball to fall untouched?"

because it is coming from a coach who obviously doesn't know the difference between dropping a ball and allowing it to fall untouched. This is a had to be there situation and you are assuming that the player caught the ball and dropped on purpose.

This question is coming from a coach who is obviously thinks they lost because of the umpire and is going to explain the situation to make it sound like he got screwed.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by ajjl22

because it is coming from a coach who obviously doesn't know the difference between dropping a ball and allowing it to fall untouched. This is a had to be there situation and you are assuming that the player caught the ball and dropped on purpose.

This question is coming from a coach who is obviously thinks they lost because of the umpire and is going to explain the situation to make it sound like he got screwed.

First, nothing he said would indicate that he "obviously" does or doesn't know anything. He said "dropped the ball." I have only that to go on, not some imagined "obvious-ness." I'm only assuming a dropped ball because he said "dropped the ball on purpose." I would just think that even the sub-100 I.Q. coach would say "let the ball bounce on purpose" if that is what happened.

Second, he did not make it obvious that he "thinks" the umpire cost him the game. He does, however, indicate the umpire did indeed give him a bogus answer to why an infield fly was not called. Backstop height, my butt.

Third, any way you look at it here, we have the correct call. It is one of 3 calls:

1.) If the fielder let the ball fall untouched, we know that 6.05(l) is not the correct call. Then it would be either an IFF, or nothing.

2.) If the fielder intentionally dropped the ball (which is what was said, BTW), then 6.05(l) should have applied, and a dead ball, the batter declared out, and runners returned.

3.) If the ball was actually high enough to be called an IFF, then the Infield Fly Rule should have been called.

The only way the umpire could have avoided molesting Fido is if call #1 were indeed the case here, and not an IFF. Still, he gave an improper determination of how to judge an infield fly, and his use of that criteria could be a protestable rule interpretation, IMO.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

First, nothing he said would indicate that he "obviously" does or doesn't know anything. He said "dropped the ball." I have only that to go on, not some imagined "obvious-ness." I'm only assuming a dropped ball because he said "dropped the ball on purpose." I would just think that even the sub-100 I.Q. coach would say "let the ball bounce on purpose" if that is what happened.

The why does 6.05l include the approved ruling?

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Second, he did not make it obvious that he "thinks" the umpire cost him the game. He does, however, indicate the umpire did indeed give him a bogus answer to why an infield fly was not called. Backstop height, my butt.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Third, any way you look at it here, we have the correct call. It is one of 3 calls:

1.) If the fielder let the ball fall untouched, we know that 6.05(l) is not the correct call. Then it would be either an IFF, or nothing.

2.) If the fielder intentionally dropped the ball (which is what was said, BTW), then 6.05(l) should have applied, and a dead ball, the batter declared out, and runners returned.

3.) If the ball was actually high enough to be called an IFF, then the Infield Fly Rule should have been called.

The only way the umpire could have avoided molesting Fido is if call #1 were indeed the case here, and not an IFF. Still, he gave an improper determination of how to judge an infield fly, and his use of that criteria could be a protestable rule interpretation, IMO.

Excellent summary. I emphatically agree.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mkolton828

Situation:

We have runners on first and second with one out. Our batter hits a ball that has little bit of loft on and the 2nd baseman camps under the ball in the infiield grass. Umpire does not call infield fly and 2nd drops ball on purpose and throws to 3rd (force out). third bsaeman throws to seond (force out). End of the inning.

i go to umpire and ask why there was no IFF called. He said that the ball did not high enough to warrant the call. He claims that the ball has to get higher than the backstop fence to call it. I claimed you can call IFF anytime b/c the rule is to protect the runners on base.

Tell mje your opinions, was I wrong or was the umpire wrong.

By the way we lost the game by 1 run.

I am amazed:

BASED UPON WHAT YOU WROTE, the umpire was wrong.

[mook11]

I always say 7 meters or just under 23 feet. Is that incorrect?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mook11

I always say 7 meters or just under 23 feet. Is that incorrect?

Meters? Did you say METERS?!? Where do you think you are, England?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Meters? Did you say METERS?!? Where do you think you are, England?

Obviously not. If he thought he was in England, he would have said "metres."