Infield fly not called

[Fan10]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Fan10

...I was upset (not upset with the umps, just upset in general) that a rule designed to protect the offense actually screwed my team.

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

[justanotherblue]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

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.

You're using the wrong test. If the ball COULD have been caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, the we rule IFF. It doesn't matter whether the player actually catches the ball.

You're right that weather can enter the judgment of whether ordinary effort could be sufficient to make a play. But the question of whether we expect a fielder to make the catch is irrelevant.

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You're using the wrong test. If the ball COULD have been caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, the we rule IFF. It doesn't matter whether the player actually catches the ball.

Yes and no. For instance, infield in, expecting a bunt, batter slashes and hits a pop up near the outfield grass line, 4 feet fair. F5 is unable to get near the ball to make a catch. Had he been playing in his normal position, an infielder COULD have caught this ball with ORDINARY effort, however becasue he is playing up, this is far from ordianary effort, and NOT an IFF. The intent of the rule is to protect the offense as has been stated, however by simply calling IFF because a fielder, (not just an infielder) COULD have caught the ball doesn't make it an automatic call.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

...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?...

Bingo. That's the magic criterion for me (change fielder to infielder, but I'm sure JAB meant that). I will sometimes call the IFR well after the ball has reached its apex, but never before.

How about this:

Lefty Pullsall is at bat, 1st & 2nd, no out. Lefty has never hit a ball to left field in his life. The defense is stacked on the right side, except for F7, who is in very shallow left field, close enough to 3rd base to prevent R2 from taking an easy base.

Lefty hits a soft fly right around 3B. F7 gets under it but lets it drop for an easy triple play. No other fielder had a chance at the ball. Is it an infield fly?

[UMP25]

Only if, in the judgment of an umpire, an INfielder could have caught the ball with ordinary effort.

[ozzy6900]

You also must judge if F7 was stationed in the infield in this scenario.

[UMP25]

Even if he wasn't, if an infielder could have caught the ball with ordinary effort, the I.F. can still be called, of course.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Lefty hits a soft fly right around 3B. F7 gets under it but lets it drop for an easy triple play. No other fielder had a chance at the ball. Is it an infield fly?

Yes, even before he let it drop. This is an (unusual, but plausible) example of the kind of situation the IFR is intended to protect against. There is no requirement that the player who actually fields the ball should be an infielder.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Yes, even before he let it drop. This is an (unusual, but plausible) example of the kind of situation the IFR is intended to protect against. There is no requirement that the player who actually fields the ball should be an infielder.

Exactly right.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Yes, even before he let it drop. This is an (unusual, but plausible) example of the kind of situation the IFR is intended to protect against. There is no requirement that the player who actually fields the ball should be an infielder.

OK, now the DC comes out and asks you: "In your judgment, which infielder could have caught that ball with ordinary effort?"

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

OK, now the DC comes out and asks you: "In your judgment, which infielder could have caught that ball with ordinary effort?"

"What difference does it make? I called IFF, the rules doesn't say as umpire, I have to specify a fielder does it?"

or

"I would've called it the same way for your team"

Typically you're not going to get the defensive coach arguing...most coaches "get it"...where you could get in trouble is OC coming out saying "why didn't you call it?"

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Bingo. That's the magic criterion for me (change fielder to infielder, but I'm sure JAB meant that). I will sometimes call the IFR well after the ball has reached its apex, but never before.

How about this:

Lefty Pullsall is at bat, 1st & 2nd, no out. Lefty has never hit a ball to left field in his life. The defense is stacked on the right side, except for F7, who is in very shallow left field, close enough to 3rd base to prevent R2 from taking an easy base.

Lefty hits a soft fly right around 3B. F7 gets under it but lets it drop for an easy triple play. No other fielder had a chance at the ball. Is it an infield fly?

If F7 was close enough to keep R2 from taking 3B, then I most likely have an IFF. Otherwise, I most likely have Lefty taking the first pitch and R2 walking into 3B.
And no, I'll keep it fielder, F6, goes out onto the outfield grass, using ordinary effort, he is 20' onto the outfield grass and he is comfortable under the ball. F8 comes in and calls him off making the catch. Still an IFF in my book.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

And no, I'll keep it fielder, F6, goes out onto the outfield grass, using ordinary effort, he is 20' onto the outfield grass and he is comfortable under the ball. F8 comes in and calls him off making the catch. Still an IFF in my book.

Yes, that (your sitch) would be an infield fly, but who winds up catching the ball is irrelevant to that determination.

Under the "spirit of the rule," this (my sitch) clearly SHOULD be an infield fly. But under the letter of the rule, the only way it is an infield fly is if F7 is judged to be an infielder. I don't think it is a stretch to do that.