you're right griff...my bad...did realize you were replying to a previous post.

Until the ball is touched, or comes to rest, or goes beyond 1st/3rd, it's neither fair nor foul.

Landing foul and rolling fair (and then being touched...) will still result in an infield fly (if the other conditions are met).

I hate being wrong.....by my own verbage no less...

thanks

I got that one wrong too. Bob, can you explain that a bit further? I guess I don't understand how (assuming all other fair ball conditions are met) a ball that lands foul, legally rolls fair can still be ruled infield fly when touched. Where does that end? At some point, defense is going to have to "touch" the ball.

Consider a fly ball hit between the plate and 1B or 3B. Let's say an infielder was under the ball, ready to make a play on it, but misjudges it and it drops in foul territory without him touching it (And wind, weather, etc. was not a factor).

The ball then rolls into fair territory where he picks it up, making it a fair ball. Because it is a fair ball that could have been caught with ordinary effort, we have an infield fly.

I played 2B when I played and never dropped an easily catchable ball due to the sun. I also can't remember the last time I saw this happen in a major league game. The sun is not a factor, or should not be a factor in judging IFF on ordinary effort.

I agree, and the infield fly is traditionally called at the apex of the ball's upward flight anyway, so the fielder's late reaction to the sun would be after the IFF was called.

that makes perfect sense...thanks Seth

Sure Am!
 

The fielder can protect his eyes from the sun. How are you going to guage the integrity of a player who learns he can just fake the sun in his eyes to get an easy double play?

The characteristics of the batted ball are what I consider when calling an infield fly (along with conforming to the rule, of course). The wind is a physical factor acting on the batted ball, making it move laterally in an unpredictable fashion. A fielder can't be expected to catch a wind deviated fly ball with ordinary effort. His integrity does not matter because we can see the affect the wind is having on the batted ball.

As an aside, the rule is all about protecting the offense.

D

Absolutely! Why? Because, simply put, it's a ball that can be caught with ordinary effort. Period. Considering the decision will be made by me once the ball has reached its peak of begun its descent, the fielder's inability to cope with the sun is irrelevant and not considered "unordinary" effort.

And I might add a comment that simply explained, "The rule is there to protect the offense. I cannot let the defense gain an advantage in this situation; therefore, I must call the Infield Fly."

I once had the offensive manager come out to argue this very play. When I politely explained to him that I was making the ruling to protect his runner(s), he commented, "Oh," and walked away.

Wind made the play not one that could be made with ordinary effort, not rain. If he was camped under a fly ball in the rain, then IFF would be the correct call.

Ironically, I saw the infield fly rule screw the offense in an NCAA game last year. Runners at 1st/2nd, 1 out. Batter hits a pop up to 1B. Should be an easy out. The ball hit off the side of the first baseman's glove and rolled all the way into foul territory between third and home. Both runners advanced, and the batter was called out on the infield fly. However, had there been no infield fly, the batter would have easily reached 1st, and it would have been bases loaded.

It was the right call, and nobody argued. But, as a fan who was sitting in the stands rooting for the offense, I was upset (not upset with the umps, just upset in general) that a rule designed to protect the offense actually screwed my team. :eek:

The rule didn't pop up to first with two on and one out, the batter did.

Throughout this thread several poster's keep coming back to it was a ball that should have been caught with ordinary effort....maybe so...,or I would call it at it's apex. What seems to be left out is the judgement portion of the rule, as well as the judgement of the umpires on the field fighting the elements, living it, not sitting home with a cold one watching the game. So what I gather from some, is that simply because the ball was in the infield, it should have been caught with ordinary effort. That's wrong. Take this play.....bases loaded, one out, high fly ball is hit near the first base line, 20 feet up the line from the plate. Catcher can't find it, as the ball hits it's apex, it's spotted and F1, 2, and 3, rush in, with the first baseman diving unsucessfully. The ball lands and stops in fair territory. All runners advanced one base, with R3 scoring. If you employ the addage of it should have been caught, so it's an IFF your wrong. There is clearly no ordinary effort in this play. Something some need to add into their thought process, when calling an IFF is, is there a fielder comfortably under the ball to make that catch? If not, you very well may not have an IFF. Weather can and does very often come into play when deciding to call an IFF or not. Including the sun.