Infield fly rule
 

Had a couple of plays yesterday with 1st and 2nd , 1 out, B1 hits pop up over 1st base with F3 running out making the catch with his back to infield. Same situation later in game with F9 coming in calling F3 off, to make the catch.
How would you rule this?

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

If the infielder has to turn around to run out for the catch, and makes it running away, then I'm generally not calling an infield fly. That's more than "ordinary effort."

The second case is probably an infield fly: I'm envisioning a high pop fly, with F3 backing up and F9 calling him off. Still, many of these will be HTBT.

Edited to add: if the second situation is the same as the first, then it's still not an infield fly, no matter who catches the ball. I was thinking of a different case.

mbyron is correct. How did you rule on these plays?

I ruled no infield fly for the reasons Bryon commented as no ordinary catch. The second situation involved F3 running out in short right field while being called off. Judgement was the key factor here and explained it to the defensive coach. Thanks guys for your input.

The key words in OBR is "ordinary effort". I would think that there are few times when an INFer has his back to INF that "ordinary effort" prevails.

F9 is a completely different sitch. OF can be held to the IFR if the IF is high enough, the OF has enough chance and the INF has been waived off or failed to properly playhis position.

I had two games last season in which there were two infield flies called in the same inning.

Not unusual. Makes for easy innings :D

Maybe this will help you out when trying to decide to call an IFF or not. Was there an infielder, or outfielder calling him off the ball, comfortably under the ball. If the answer is yes, then you most likely have an IFF.

Deej, imagine that there exists a world where you are correct? :D :D

"Cats and dogs sleeping together..."

One of few OBR's that have endured the times is this concept of ordinary effort. Way back when, players would routinely allow infield flies to drop to ground. Rs who were unable to logically advance in this fly ball situation, were forced out at the base ahead.

Masterminds as they were, comin fresh off beating the Redcoats, the Infield Fly Rule prohibited defensive players from thisw subterfuge.

With this history, and logical thought, in the umpire's logical head, ordinary effort becomes the milestone for Infield Fly Rule decision making.

Would thia be the same world where you don't have your multi and I have to escort your a$$ and CFI your logs?

Yes, that would be the same one, Frick. Excuse me while I, Frack, calendar your women who pay no attention to you, they see strait through you, come to my side for comfort. :D :D
Go to bed, long days ahead.

1100 and you? Velocity XL and you?

Roger wilco and flyboy talk back at ya'.

IFF has to be judged by one criteria only. Ordinary effort.

Pray you get more of them.

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.

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.

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."

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.

You didn't just say gloving did you?

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

IFR can be called without a gloving as well.

Really? Gee, I never knew that. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You would be right and you two completely wrong.

Huh??? :confused:

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

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.

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.

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?

Why yes I would, IU Old Boy

No, I was alluding to the fact that you are unable to discern sarcasm. All of my posts above regarding the Infield Fly Rule were 100% accurate and in no need of revising.

Thankee Fitty see you around.

No problemo, Old Boy, anytime we can help out Ump25, we shall, sall we?

Charity begins at home, so considering that I need no help, I'd suggest you guys work on yourselves first. As your superior intellect, I strongly advocate this.

We shall if we can, we shan't if we can't !

The let us fire up the pusher and canard our way home, shall we?

Roger that and all that flyboi talk, up, up and AWAY!

<eom>

It must get tedious being schizophrenic on a message board.

Such a simple question results in 26 of 40 responses from my ignore list.

Simply amazing!

I see what you mean, DG. It's no wonder most people here have such children on their ignore list.

Why don't you face them head-on, rather than hiding behind your little ignore list and taking cheap shots while protected. If you've got a problem, deal with it like a man. By the way, if I am not on your ignore list already, please add me.

Well, at least "You're never alone when you're schizoprenic". :rolleyes:

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

What would an ignorant child like you know about being a man, anyway?

Courage, Dan.

Originally Posted by canadaump6
Why don't you face them head-on, rather than hiding behind your little ignore list and taking cheap shots while protected. If you've got a problem, deal with it like a man. By the way, if I am not on your ignore list already, please add me.

So you admit to enjoying verbally molesting children on forums? See how that works?:rolleyes:

;)

:D

Rather (like) heroin, LSD.

Much better.

LOL I am sure he enjoyed and agreed with your assistance. BTW, got email, will have Deej send back a direct line to me.

Rich,

Which part of his question or proposed action do you consider childish?


Originally Posted by canadaump6
Why don't you face them head-on, rather than hiding behind your little ignore list and taking cheap shots while protected. If you've got a problem, deal with it like a man.


It seems to be an insightful, well thought out question.
I doubt a child would recognize the concept of hiding behind an ignore list.
They, children, think in much more concrete terms.

Dealing with problematic people directly and in a non inflamatory, non insulting fashion seems to be a mature perspective.

You respond to the question with an insult and since you didn't lend any insight to the question posed I assume you're only intent was to insult and inflame.
Does a true "man" respond this way to his wife, kids, peers, employees, coaches, players, nieces, nephews etc etc?
If this isn't a mature response to any of the above is it an exception to the rule that it is mature on this forum?

So . . .
 

. . . does everybody get it now?

fitump56, Interested Ump, CO Ump, Canadaump6, SAUmp and whatever profile PWL/Steven Tyler uses now own this site.

Best of luck to everyone for the remainder of this baseball season.

Yes.

I thought with a little time away, conversations wouldn't seem so childish here... I admit that I was, unfortunately, wrong. :confused:

It is clear to me that there are some on here who completely misunderstand the purpose of the ignore list, or perhaps choose to ignore the purpose of the ignore list. I might not always agree with everyone on this site, but there are those that I respect and are interested in hearing from and those that add no substance and are more often just wrong so therefore best to ignore.

And to you. Own this site? That's absurd. If it is your choice to refuse to participate, please, don't use such a childish and indefensible excuse to do so. Truth in doses has remedy that is often painful. The facts are that we challenge everything as everything should be. The result is often painful.

I hope they don't ignore you. Ignoring your Ignore List advice would be ignoreRANT. :D

Of course when you and Gart have a running discussion in another thread back and forth, that's A-OK.:rolleyes: I see. Got it.:eek:

Indeed it is OK. Now that you understand the pecking order...

;)

Yes I do. We own the place and you get to peck on corn.

Go away, try back in 180. Garth ought tobe on his feet and off the Internet for a friggin' chang.e;)

Got it a long time ago there Tim, which is why I post less and less, there seems to be those that refuse to open their minds and at least attempt to grab a concept, simple as it may be, it escapes them.:eek:

Unsure what that means but my sig explains my position.

Oh, I see how this works.

Finally, I agree with you.

What you describe above is commonly known as "trolling". Not one of you adds piss-all to this site.

You should have your own little site. Wait a minute......you already tried that, didn't you?

MODERATOR...

please remove tis trollingpost and email it to Garth now, please.

nyuk.

Ah, yes, I remember it like it was a decade or more ago. You joined Day One, then Donovan kicked you to the curb Day Two. Then NotSoSup San Diego, where is that Old Guard Boi anyway?, went on a rampage. Garth got booted, then came the BigTim56 trying to use our internal message system to distribute illegally copied book from Jim Evans.

Whence called out on the same, he picked up his little cadre of copyright violators, picked you up at the sewer inlet, and stole off into the sunset of Ump Talk. I suppose he will be back here now that Rob's place has hit the skids (hopefully, temporarily).

Aw, those weren't the days! Do I hear a "nyuk"?

Nyuk!