Infield Fly?

[Paul L]

Since the purpose of the infield fly rule is to prevent the defense from getting an easy double play, I interpret "high" as so high that when it comes down to an infielder, he could let it drop untouched and the ball would stay close enough to let him retrieve it and still get an easy double play.

In other words, if it's high enough for me to think about calling it an infield fly, it's high enough to be an infield fly, I think.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

(a) sufficient arc to distinguish it from a line drive

You would actually call a little bloop to the infield an IFF as that it doesn't meet the distinction of a line drive?

Not in my game, Brother.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I don't consider a blooper to an infielder as an infield fly. I meant that the ball should have a sufficient arc on it, as in a fly ball. I consider bloopers to be "soft liners."

If I don't have the time to call "Infield Fly, batter's out," then it isn't of sufficient arc.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I don't consider a blooper to an infielder as an infield fly.

The rule mentions fly balls and line drives (well, bunts too, but that's not relevant). It does not mention bloopers. The umpire must judge whether it's a fly ball or a line drive in order to decide whether to invoke IFF.