Infield fly rule

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In both instances the crucial judgment call is whether the fly ball "can be fielded by an infielder with ordinary effort."

Bzzzzzzzzt, wrong, INF do NOT have to be involved in an IFF. In Big Boy Ball, an OF can easily be determined inside the ordinary effort call to be the player who is putting out the ordinary effort hence = IFF.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Bzzzzzzzzt, wrong, INF do NOT have to be involved in an IFF. In Big Boy Ball, an OF can easily be determined inside the ordinary effort call to be the player who is putting out the ordinary effort hence = IFF.

Bzzzzzt. That's not what mbyron said.

[UMP25]

Ding ding ding! You are correct, dash. fitump56 is wrong in his interpretation of what mbyron said. An Infield Fly IS judged solely on ordinary effort by an INfielder, but this does not preclude an outfielder from gloving a ball that can still be called Infield Fly.

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by mbyron
In both instances the crucial judgment call is whether the fly ball "can be fielded by an infielder with ordinary effort."

Originally Posted by fitump56

Bzzzzzzzzt, wrong, INF do NOT have to be involved in an IFF. In Big Boy Ball, an OF can easily be determined inside the ordinary effort call to be the player who is putting out the ordinary effort hence = IFF.

A key to this interpretation is the ability for the fly ball to have considerable hang time. As you ponted out, this will often not be the case in the younger age groups even at 60/90 ball.

mbyron is incorrect in assuming that only an INF can be judged as attaining OE in the interpretation of the IFF rule. F7-9 if positioned in the infield, they are still charted as OF (feel free to see the Definition Of IFF), are INFs for the purpose of this call.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Ding ding ding! You are correct, dash. fitump56 is wrong in his interpretation of what mbyron said. An Infield Fly IS judged solely on ordinary effort by an INfielder, but this does not preclude an outfielder from gloving a ball that can still be called Infield Fly.

You didn't just say gloving did you?

[UMP25]

Yes I did, to differentiate it from a catch, because the I.F.R. can be called with or without the catch being made.

[dash_riprock]

IFR can be called without a gloving as well.

[UMP25]

Really? Gee, I never knew that.

[Interested Ump]

You would be right and you two completely wrong.

[UMP25]

Huh???

[fitump56]

IU is correct...as usual, so Huh? what?

[UMP25]

Forget it. You and IU have no clue anyway, so it's pointless for me to try and explain what he didn't understand to begin with.

[fitump56]

Ok, IU has got that piece down with you pat.

Btw, speaking of clues, the clues as to why we are posting like this are right in front of you.

[Interested Ump]

Would you be alluding to the fact that posters who answer by Quick Reply supposedly expect us to use mental telepathy to figure out to whom, about what and regarding Subject?

[fitump56]

Why yes I would, IU Old Boy