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

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.

Both
 

Technically, the IFF rule is reserved for umpire's judgement. You may want to learn another rule that prevents the infielder from intentionally dropping the ball and turning a DP.

OBR 6.05 A batter is out when --
(l) An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases;
APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies.

There is no height requirement, so both of you are wrong. And honestly you would have to be there. I have no idea if this would be an IFR by practice.

If a fielder can get under the ball and easily make a play with reasonable effort, then you have an infield fly if you truly have a fly ball. There is not requirement how high the ball is, just the judgment of the umpire.

Remember the rule is to protect runners from being double off on purpose.

Peace

The umpire was wrong. As Rut said, there is no height requirement, and to use the backstop as the measurement is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (including things I've said). Backstops come in all shapes and sizes, and what are we supposed to do, look at the backstop then back to the ball to make our decision?

While I was not there, and cannot know for sure if the IFF rule should have been called, it sounds like it should have. You stated that the second baseman had "camped out" under it. To me, this indicates some kind of arc, and not a line drive, which now qualifies it for the IFF rule.

If, on the other hand, the umpire did not (as he stated) feel that the ball met some standard in order to become an IFF, then he definitely should have invoked Rule 6.05(L), which was quoted by SAUmp. An infielder cannot intentionally drop a fair fly ball or a line drive. If no IFF was called, the umpire should have then called "Time," and then called the batter out and returned the runners to their position at the time of the pitch.

Similar situation happened to me last year in a tournament with 2 pretty good teams. Runners on first and second, one out. Batter hits what you would call a "flare," probably about 12-15 feet off the ground. Shortstop needs to take a few steps to his left, when it becomes apparent he could catch the ball with ordinary effort. I call IFF on the way down, and think nothing of it, because the fielder easily could have let the ball fall and doubled off two runners. As I see my partner motion to me in between innings (one of the top umpires in the state), he & I discuss the call and he thinks I incorrectly called an IFF. My basis is and was the rulebook definition of a line drive...a ball that goes sharp & direct from the batter's bat to a fielder. If it doesnt meet that criteria, it could be an IFF situation. The umpire in your case was 100% wrong, but my advice to anybody who asks for guidance in this area would be "Sometimes we just have to umpire, plain and simple."

SA, if the OP meant that the fielder allowed the ball to drop untouched, this is different from an intentionally dropped ball.

Read the approved ruling, the IFF was not called, batter NOT out.

If the fielder caught the ball, then let it drop, now you have an "intentionally dropped ball".

Just a smart play by the fielder.

To Op, did anyone protest the umpires explanation that the ball has to be higher than the backstop?

While I agree that isn't the rule, it might provide reasonable rule-of-thumb. I tend to NOT call the "hump-backed liner" an infield fly.

I agree, but I would have called an intentionally dropped ball in the OP. No way they get multiple outs on this play.

Naturally, I'm assuming a certain level of ball here. I can imagine a case with yooots where the drop would not be intentional.

As others have stated, this could have also been interperted as an Intentional Drop (ball dead, batter out). Both the Intentional Drop and the IFF are intended to prevent exactly what happened to your team - the defense put the offense at a disadvantage.

Let's look at OBR 2.00
*******************************************
An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. 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.
When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield Fly, if Fair.”
The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul.
If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly.

Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder—not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately.
When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05 (L). The infield fly rule takes precedence.
******************************************
Now, I colored (in blue) the only reference to height and it just shows that it really is the umpire's judgment - but there is no "height requirement" (such as higher than the backstop).

Now for the other rule that could have come into play in your game, also from OBR 6.05(l).
******************************************
(l) An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases;

APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies.
******************************************

So in your case, the IFF rule applied because of your situation (runners on 1st & 2nd with 1 out). You did the correct thing in questioning as to why the IFF was not applied but once you got the umpire's lame excuse, you should have protested. Even though it was judgment, his "height requirement" was a clear misunderstanding of the rule and thus a mis-application of said rule! That mis-application should have been protested!

That was not the umpire's fault! The call may not have helped, but scoring more runs than the opposition is the job of your team, not the umpire!

Regards

The definition of a fly ball is a ball hit high in the air. High is a judgement call. If you want to use your particular backstop as your benchmark, I see nothing wrong with that.

Two things:

1) "Camped out" is one way of putting it (and is very subjective--someone else watching this play may describe it differently). If it was a looping ("hump-backed") liner and the fielder didn't have to move much, it could be described this way and also not qualify as an IF. It really is the umpire's judgement as to whether this should be considered an infield fly or a line drive.

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).


Had I been that umpire, I would have said that the ball was hit too sharply and directly to be an infield fly. This is then entirely judgement and not open to protest. Assuming that I thought it really wasn't an IF, of course. It might have been, but I wasn't there to see it.


Even though that is that fly-ball definition is from the rulebook, it is grossly simplified. For example, a batter is ruled out when a line drive is caught, but 6.05a states that a batter is out "His fair or foul fly ball (other than a foul tip) is legally caught by a fielder". No mention is made of a line drive here, and by this definition, a line drive that didn't go high wouldn't be a fly ball.

*THUD*

(Sound of Ump25 hitting the floor in disbelief.)

I think how high the ball is hit is secondary to the intent of the rule.
The intent is to prevent easy double plays, and this play resulted in an easy DP. I agree this is a judgement call, but judging by the results, I think it's fair to say poor judgement was used.
Actually he may have used great judgement on this play based on his criteria. His criteria was out of whack.
Garbage in, garbage out. He just needs a bit more qualified training.

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??????

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?

Allow me to clarify.

If you want to use some sort of gauge for your definition of high, so be it. If you want to tell someone that the backstop is your gauge, that's not ok. You just say "In my opinion, the ball was hit high in the air", and that ends it.

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Not totally true

Forget the word "infield" for a minute

here is the definition of a fly ball

Therefore while there is no difinitive heght requirement measured in feet, there is the term "high in the air" How high is "high" becomes umpire judgement.

Perhaps this was one of those "lofty" fly balls not a Line drive but a little "dinker" just above say the mound area.

Pete Booth

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.

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.

Great Wrap up SDS
 

We are wrapped up, right?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I am amazed: :confused: :confused:

BASED UPON WHAT YOU WROTE, the umpire was wrong.

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

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

The why does 6.05l include the approved ruling?


Agreed.


Excellent summary. I emphatically agree.

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

I would have to say based on primary physics, if the ball fell untouched by the fielder and he was quickly able to coral the ball and get a double play, It was most likely a Fly ball. A "line drive" left untouched by a fielder who is "Camp{ed} UNDER" it most likely scoots past the fielder far enough to make a double play very difficult. Considering the ball should land 4-5 feet behind the location of the fielder, if it was a line drive.

Based on the description given this is an IFF or an "intentionally Dropped ball" one or the other. the result of the play most likely the same (apart for the live ball vs dead ball bit).

Legitimate One Hoppers
 

A soft flair and line drive may be legally turned into a double play because it doesn't call for an IFR. Runners are at risk if baseball is caught and they fail to retouch or are forced to advance on a quick one-hopper, or two. That's how the game is played and why the approved ruling exists. The defense keeps its opportunity to turn the 5-4-3 DP.

However, runners are protected if the ball is touched in the air and then dropped. Again the purpose is to protect the offense from defensive posturing; such as stopping the ball on the back side of the glove and allowing it to fall, only to pick it right up for an easy DP. Likewise, IFR is one up on 6.05.l because it acknowledges that most fielders camp underneath the fly ball 96% of the time. Those 4% who don't are either too late (2%) or too lazy (giving it 2%).

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

Is that like theatres? :D

Yes. x

Legitimate One Hoppers
 

When I read the Approved Ruling in 6.05.l, I have always assumed it's there because people have mistakingly tried to rule a fly ball that was deliberately allowed to fall untouched the same as a deliberately dropped fly ball. From personal experience, I have seen this. Several times in the last couple years I've have variants of the following happen (with R1 and either a hump-back liner or a slow B/R):

COACH: But Blue! He let the fly drop on purpose so he could get the double play!

ME: Yes, you're right; he didn't touch it before it 'dropped'.

COACH: That's a dropped fly ball! They should only get one out!!!

ME: No, it's not.

COACH: But you just said he dropped it!

ME: No, letting it drop untouched is not dropping it. You have to touch it to drop it. Let's play.

COACH stands confused and flabbergasted that his well-reasoned argument didn't save him an out.

Has this scenario happened to others? I find it extremely ironic that a coach who knows about the dropped-fly rule would not know the definition of a dropped fly (especially since the Approved Ruling makes it very clear).

When you say that I am incorrect, am I incorrect in my thought that 7 meters is just less than 23 feet or am I incorrect in thinking that 7 meters is the cut off for an IFF.

Thanks

:)

7 meters = about 22.96 feet.

Must be the other......

You are incorrect in thinking there is ANY specific cutoff for an IFF. Did you read the rest of the thread?

why in the hell would you even try to measure that...then probably be a "smitty" and go to the concession stand explain "the rule" and a certain height...then pretty soon some other rat comes unglued when his team gets called for IFF when the ball is under 7 fricken meters...

Is this discussion still going on???

Enough already. There is a clear demarcation or indicator: if the ball's arc is less than 23*, it cannot be an Infield Fly (OBR 9.01c subsection 2-a[i]).

Thanks UMP25, I thought I was losing my mind

:D

Exactly. Are some of you saying that your fields do not have a laser level mounted at the appropriate height on the backstop to measure this? I mean, there are *some* fields here (mostly for very low level games or in the extremely poor counties) that don't have the auto-sensor that turns on the "infield fly rule" light, and in one field the light is poorly positioned (only about 1/2 the fielders can see it), but even the local park district field that's used only for pick-up games has the level.

You mean yours doesn't have the buzzer?

(If mook was pulling my chain, I fell, mook, line and sinker. :) )

We couldn't tell the buzzer from the cicadas. (That is, we couldn't tell the sounds apart. We could tell the items apart -- the cicadas taste better.)

All - I apologize that my initial quote didn't have some sort of smiley face. I thought the fact that I was quoting some arbitrary amount in meters would be obvious.
I got a kick out of this thread as soon as I saw the title. I knew it would be interesting. The dropped/ let fall discussion was an added bonus.