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

[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.

[SAump]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

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.

[mrm21711]

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.

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."

[sargee7]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sargee7

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[ozzy6900]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mkolton828

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.

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!

Originally Posted by mkolton828

By the way we lost the game by 1 run.

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

[kylejt]

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.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by mkolton828

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.

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).

Originally Posted by mkolton828

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.

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.

Originally Posted by kylejt

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.

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by kylejt

High is a judgement call. If you want to use your particular backstop as your benchmark, I see nothing wrong with that.

*THUD*

(Sound of Ump25 hitting the floor in disbelief.)

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by kylejt

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.

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.

[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??????