The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Infield fly not called (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/49598-infield-fly-not-called.html)

umpjim Tue Oct 28, 2008 09:30pm

Infield fly not called
 
Believe it was the 5th inning in game 5 WS. Wicked fly ball to right side of infield because of rain and wind. Caught with much effort by infielder. Announcers mention "no infield fly signaled" and then pontificate on "If he intentionally dropped it they could have gotten a DP". Did I hear right?

Forest Ump Tue Oct 28, 2008 09:52pm

Yep. You heard right. But what would you expect from these announcers. To their credit, they did come on after the commercial and read the rule, waiting until the end to say “with ordinary effort". Great non-call.

I really liked the sounds of the game when U1 came over and told the HP that the foul line was wiped out in front of 1st base on that last slide and the GK should fix it. He said, and I paraphrase, "that's your call up to first so we should get it fixed so you won't have any problem."

jimpiano Tue Oct 28, 2008 09:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 546737)
Believe it was the 5th inning in game 5 WS. Wicked fly ball to right side of infield because of rain and wind. Caught with much effort by infielder. Announcers mention "no infield fly signaled" and then pontificate on "If he intentionally dropped it they could have gotten a DP". Did I hear right?

Which would have been impossible since the batter was standing on first base when the ball was missed.

umpjim Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:35pm

Which was impossible since if no infield fly was called an intentionally dropped fly ball or line drive is a dead ball and batter is out and runners return.

DG Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:39pm

Wind is a factor in whether to call IFF, sun is not. I guess under the conditions, wind and downpour combined are also a factor...

I remember a game several years ago I was working BU on a windy day, wind coming in from RF, and went out on fly ball to right because I thought it might be a shoe stringer. F4 went out too and wind blew the ball back into infield to about where F4 was before he went out. No IFF was called that day on any plays.

bobbybanaduck Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:20am

sun could absolutely be a factor. take the same situation as in game 5, but make it a day game with a bright sun. ball goes up above F4's position and should be a "routine" catch, but he looks up and right into the sun, causing him to move his head away and put his arms up over his head for protection. reading this reaction of the fielder, you no longer have a catch that is about to be made with ordinary effort, you have a fielder that doesn't know where the ball is. you're telling me you're going to call infield fly on that?

tballump Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:29am

Tim Tschida, the first base umpire, covered the IFF situation in the post suspended game interview quite nicely.

Dave Reed Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:32am

bobby,

I suspect that J/R isn't your favorite rules interpretation source, but they say that wind is a factor in not calling IFF, but sun and natural darkness are not.

In the particular example you site, I think most umpires would have already called the IFF once the ball reached its apex, and before (as I read your description) the fielder began to have trouble.

bobbybanaduck Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:58am

Never read it, and 100% disagree. So a guy hits a popup in the infield and the second baseman sees it on the way up but loses it because it's getting dark out, and you're going to call infield fly? Ridiculous.

Dave Reed Wed Oct 29, 2008 01:16am

I shouldn't have paraphrased it. They say:
"When determining ordinary effort wind is a factor, sun in a fielder's eyes and natural darkness (e.g., fly ball is temporarily lost above the lights) are not factors."

SanDiegoSteve Wed Oct 29, 2008 01:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 546737)
Believe it was the 5th inning in game 5 WS. Wicked fly ball to right side of infield because of rain and wind. Caught with much effort by infielder. Announcers mention "no infield fly signaled" and then pontificate on "If he intentionally dropped it they could have gotten a DP". Did I hear right?

I think he meant let it drop untouched. I hope.:rolleyes:

TxUmp Wed Oct 29, 2008 06:50am

Infield fly or foul ball?
 
I saw this happen in a game I was watching a few years ago:

R1 & R2 less than 2 out. Batter hits a high pop fly behind home plate. Catcher overruns it and the ball falls untouched in foul territory behind the plate then trickles into fair territory. The catcher should have easily caught it, and it was a fair ball - so IFF, right? No call was made. The pitcher piched up the "foul ball" and play continued. What would you do in this situation?

ozzy6900 Wed Oct 29, 2008 07:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck (Post 546779)
Never read it, and 100% disagree. So a guy hits a popup in the infield and the second baseman sees it on the way up but loses it because it's getting dark out, and you're going to call infield fly? Ridiculous.

The only difference between us is that I have read it (J/R), and I too disagree with most of it!

And to the question of others, "Ordinary Effort" is the umpire's judgment - no one else's.

mbyron Wed Oct 29, 2008 07:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 546758)
Which was impossible since if no infield fly was called an intentionally dropped fly ball or line drive is a dead ball and batter is out and runners return.

An intentional drop is called only if the fielder touches the fly ball and then drops it. If he just lets it fall to the ground untouched, he can field it for a double or triple play.

bob jenkins Wed Oct 29, 2008 08:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 546803)
An intentional drop is called only if the fielder touches the fly ball and then drops it. If he just lets it fall to the ground untouched, he can field it for a double or triple play.

Agreed if the umpires determine that it truly wasn't an infield fly.

If the umpirese decide that it should have been an infield fly, then they'll allow the defense only one out. If the defense gets one out on the play (or no outs on the play), then the play stands. If the defense gets two or three outs on the play, then the umpires will declare the batter out and return all the other runners.

Based on what I saw of the play in question, I would have called the infield fly. (To be fair, I didn't see a previousl paly in which a "routine" pop up in the infied was not caught -- that might have changed my judgment on the play in question.)

bobbybanaduck Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900 (Post 546797)
The only difference between us is that I have read it (J/R), and I too disagree with most of it!

And to the question of others, "Ordinary Effort" is the umpire's judgment - no one else's.

And I'm a lot taller.

johnnyg08 Wed Oct 29, 2008 01:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 546813)
If the defense gets two or three outs on the play, then the umpires will declare the batter out and return all the other runners.

Bob, are you saying that you'd "call IFF after the fact", if the defense gets more than one out?

PeteBooth Wed Oct 29, 2008 01:14pm

Quote:

Based on what I saw of the play in question, I would have called the infield fly. (To be fair, I didn't see a previousl paly in which a "routine" pop up in the infied was not caught -- that might have changed my judgment on the play in question.)
[/QUOTE]

Bob, Jimmy Rollins drop of a routine fly ball "set the stage" for the umpires NOT to invoke the IFR.

Rollins had all kinds of trouble trying to field what would have been a "can of corn" under normal conditions.

Therefore, on the play in question, the IFR was NOT invoked because the condtions had gotten so bad that a normal fly ball was now judged differently.

The interesting question would have been

Suppose the ball was dropped and the defense went on to complete the DP.

Since the umpire judged that the ball could not be caught with ordinary effort, no IFR to invoke and the call would most likely stand. However, the umpires put a run on the Board some 3 innings later in the O's Indians game a couple of years back so anything is possible.

Pete Booth

midtnblu Wed Oct 29, 2008 01:40pm

I think this was another error on the part of this crew. The IFF is designed to protect the offense in this situation, and by not calling it, they failed to protect the offensive team. You can't "not protect" them just because it's raining.

If they call IFF and the ball is dropped everyone is happy (1 out against the off. team). If they do not call IFF and the ball would have been dropped, somebody is getting pissed (most likely the off. team because the runners are hanging out near the bases expecting the ball to be caught and the def. team has a good shot at a DP (force at 3b and 2b).

bob jenkins Wed Oct 29, 2008 01:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 546878)
Bob, are you saying that you'd "call IFF after the fact", if the defense gets more than one out?

If it was supposed to be an infield fly and I just forgot to call it, then, yes, I'd call it retroactively. If it wasn't supposed to be an infield fly, then the play stands.

SanDiegoSteve Wed Oct 29, 2008 02:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by midtnblu (Post 546885)
I think this was another error on the part of this crew. The IFF is designed to protect the offense in this situation, and by not calling it, they failed to protect the offensive team. You can't "not protect" them just because it's raining.

But you can determine no infield fly because the wind made the play require more than ordinary effort. Good "no call."

SethPDX Wed Oct 29, 2008 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 546783)
I think he meant let it drop untouched. I hope.:rolleyes:

I hope so too, but that would be expecting a lot out of the announcers.:)

midtnblu Wed Oct 29, 2008 04:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 546898)
But you can determine no infield fly because the wind made the play require more than ordinary effort. Good "no call."

Let's change the play...

No IFF rule is called and no one is able to make the play but the defense recovers and is able to get a force at 3b and 2b.

Now you have a sh#tstorm.

IIRC, if uncaught, the ball would have landed in the infield dirt. Call the IFF rule and reference the "preventive umpiring" section of the rule book.

I'm just offering what I would have done.

It was just surprising to see a pop-up come down in this area of the infield and not see anyone call the IFF rule.

And you know it was unusual if the announcers picked up on it.;)

SethPDX Wed Oct 29, 2008 06:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by midtnblu (Post 546943)
No IFF rule is called and no one is able to make the play but the defense recovers and is able to get a force at 3b and 2b.

Now you have a sh#tstorm.

Not really. You might have the manager of the team at bat argue for an infield fly, but if no infielder was able to catch it with ordinary effort, that is what you tell him. If he still doesn't like it, there are other things you can tell him...
Quote:

Originally Posted by midtnblu (Post 546943)
IIRC, if uncaught, the ball would have landed in the infield dirt. Call the IFF rule and reference the "preventive umpiring" section of the rule book.

Where it might land does not matter. If you judge that an infielder could catch it with ordinary effort, then you should call it. What you shouldn't do is use "preventative umpiring" as a catch-all or a way to avoid a craphouse. Arguments can and do happen even when you apply the rules correctly.

ozzy6900 Thu Oct 30, 2008 06:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck (Post 546870)
And I'm a lot taller.

So I could call you "Big Boy"? :D

mbyron Thu Oct 30, 2008 07:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by midtnblu (Post 546943)
No IFF rule is called and no one is able to make the play but the defense recovers and is able to get a force at 3b and 2b.

This statement is ambiguous. If by "no one is able to make the play" you mean that no infielder can catch it with ordinary effort, then it's highly unlikely that the defense will get 2 outs here.

More likely, you meant that in fact the fielder did not catch the ball, though he could have. This is still an IFF.

Think of it this way: the IFF rule is intended to prevent the defense from making a DP on a pop-up in the infield. So if you've got a pop-up, and the defense gets 2 outs from it, you probably should have called an IFF.

If that happens, then fix it: send the runners back and declare the batter out.

johnnyg08 Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 546887)
If it was supposed to be an infield fly and I just forgot to call it, then, yes, I'd call it retroactively. If it wasn't supposed to be an infield fly, then the play stands.

okay, thank you. how do you talk your way out of a potentials SS when they come out and argue "Why didn't you call it right away?"

My reply would be: "Well, I wasn't sure, Now I'm sure, I'm calling it retroactively."

Just looking for other thoughts...I often work adult league 1-man.

bob jenkins Thu Oct 30, 2008 01:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 547223)
okay, thank you. how do you talk your way out of a potentials SS when they come out and argue "Why didn't you call it right away?"

"You're right. It was poor mechanics. But, it was the right call."

griff901c Thu Oct 30, 2008 01:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TxUmp (Post 546793)
I saw this happen in a game I was watching a few years ago:

R1 & R2 less than 2 out. Batter hits a high pop fly behind home plate. Catcher overruns it and the ball falls untouched in foul territory behind the plate then trickles into fair territory. The catcher should have easily caught it, and it was a fair ball - so IFF, right? No call was made. The pitcher piched up the "foul ball" and play continued. What would you do in this situation?

It's IFF.." if fair"..meaning in fair territory..right? Landing foul ( no IFF) and rolling fair...no IFF

griff

johnnyg08 Thu Oct 30, 2008 01:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by griff901c (Post 547261)
It's IFF.." if fair"..meaning in fair territory..right? Landing foul ( no IFF) and rolling fair...no IFF

griff

the ball is nothing until it lands...if it lands in foul and rolls fair, it's no longer in flight and can't be a fly ball. play on, fair ball.

johnnyg08 Thu Oct 30, 2008 01:50pm

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

bob jenkins Thu Oct 30, 2008 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by griff901c (Post 547261)
It's IFF.." if fair"..meaning in fair territory..right? Landing foul ( no IFF) and rolling fair...no IFF

griff

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).

griff901c Thu Oct 30, 2008 02:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 547277)
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

johnnyg08 Thu Oct 30, 2008 03:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 547277)
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 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.

SethPDX Thu Oct 30, 2008 03:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 547325)
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.

DG Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck (Post 546776)
sun could absolutely be a factor. take the same situation as in game 5, but make it a day game with a bright sun. ball goes up above F4's position and should be a "routine" catch, but he looks up and right into the sun, causing him to move his head away and put his arms up over his head for protection. reading this reaction of the fielder, you no longer have a catch that is about to be made with ordinary effort, you have a fielder that doesn't know where the ball is. you're telling me you're going to call infield fly on that?

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.

SanDiegoSteve Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG (Post 547448)
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.

johnnyg08 Fri Oct 31, 2008 07:47am

that makes perfect sense...thanks Seth

D-Man Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:57am

Sure Am!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck (Post 546776)
sun could absolutely be a factor. take the same situation as in game 5, but make it a day game with a bright sun. ball goes up above F4's position and should be a "routine" catch, but he looks up and right into the sun, causing him to move his head away and put his arms up over his head for protection. reading this reaction of the fielder, you no longer have a catch that is about to be made with ordinary effort, you have a fielder that doesn't know where the ball is. you're telling me you're going to call infield fly on that?

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

UMP25 Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck (Post 546779)
Never read it, and 100% disagree. So a guy hits a popup in the infield and the second baseman sees it on the way up but loses it because it's getting dark out, and you're going to call infield fly?

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.

UMP25 Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 547249)
"You're right. It was poor mechanics. But, it was the right call."

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.

DG Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by midtnblu (Post 546885)
I think this was another error on the part of this crew. The IFF is designed to protect the offense in this situation, and by not calling it, they failed to protect the offensive team. You can't "not protect" them just because it's raining.

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.

Fan10 Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMP25 (Post 548034)
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. :eek:

dash_riprock Mon Nov 03, 2008 08:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fan10 (Post 548147)

...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 Mon Nov 03, 2008 09:47pm

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 Tue Nov 04, 2008 07:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherblue (Post 548368)
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.

dash_riprock Tue Nov 04, 2008 07:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherblue (Post 548368)
...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 Tue Nov 04, 2008 07:55am

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

ozzy6900 Tue Nov 04, 2008 08:35am

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

UMP25 Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:02am

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.

dash_riprock Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:25am

From my OP: F7 was positioned in shallow LF (he is an outfielder). No other fielder had a chance at the ball. Infield fly?

UMP25 Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:27am

If no other fielder had a chance at the ball, it sure sounds like an infielder could not have caught the ball with ordinary effort; hence no I.F.

Dave Reed Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 548405)

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 Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 548451)
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 Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 548451)
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 Tue Nov 04, 2008 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 548462)
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 Tue Nov 04, 2008 07:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 548401)
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.

justanotherblue Tue Nov 04, 2008 07:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 548405)
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 Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherblue (Post 548574)
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.

mbyron Wed Nov 05, 2008 09:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 548603)
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.

I agree: if he's close enough to 3B to keep R2 from stealing, then he's an infielder.

ozzy6900 Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 548633)
I agree: if he's close enough to 3B to keep R2 from stealing, then he's an infielder.

Hence my statement about it being the umpire's decision. This is what we get paid for, people! Not calling balls & strikes but the real P.I.T.A. situations such as the one the Dash proposed!

justanotherblue Wed Nov 05, 2008 08:37pm

Which is why Jimmy says.....Sometimes you just gotta umpire...

Dash, I know the rule and I know the test. In fact, I usually do very well on them. I think we agree, were just hung up on the word fielder. In order for it to be an IFF, I understand the infielder with ordinary effort part of the rule, I also understand that any fielder can catch it if the critera is met for an IFF. Or to quote Jimmy one more time.....Sometimes you just gotta umpire.

dash_riprock Thu Nov 06, 2008 08:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherblue (Post 548763)
Which is why Jimmy says.....Sometimes you just gotta umpire...

Dash, I know the rule and I know the test.

jab: I have no doubt you do. Previous gratuitous comment withdrawn and edited out (with apologies).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1