Infield Fly?
 

Bases loaded and BR hits a pop fly behind the mound. Umpires did not call anything and let play continue. The ball dropped and when questioned the umpire said the ball wasn't "high enough" for IFR. I could understand "ordinary effort" not applying (the ball dropped after all) but had not heard of a height requirement before.

I've reviewed OBR and NFHS and could not find anything about height of the pop. Do you all typically look at height of the ball on pop flies when determining whether or not to call IFR?

Height does help determine whether it can be played with ordinary effort but a fly ball is a fly ball....I have heard that reasoning before and it drives me crazy.

-Josh

The book definition of a fly ball is one that's hit high in the air. How "high" is "high"? Judgment call. And that's what the umpire should have said.

The right call
 

It appears nobody was in position to make a play on a pop fly ball behind the mound. Perhaps it was just a well placed infield hit and the umpires did not call anything, and correctly let the play continue, and one should be asking why it wasn't caught. That would help answer part of the question.

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.

dash, are you stating this in general, or in response to the OP situation?

Both.

OK. Infield's playing for the bunt. F5 is very shallow, and pop fly is hit just inside the line, about 5' behind 3B. There was no way for F6 or F5 to get there. Do you call it?

Of course not. Do you?

Of course not.

I probably read this as your general rule.

It is my general rule to determine whether the first condition of an infield fly has been met - is it a fly ball? You're reading it as the only condition.

Actually, the first condition is placement of runners. Second is number of outs. Third is fly ball or not. Fourth is "ordinary effort."

I misunderstood your original post as being your only condition. I regarded you a bit more than that. I apologize. :P

The order is irrelevant. They are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for IFF.

Actually, the placement of the runners, as well as the number of outs, are stipulated, as the Infield Fly situation already exists. There is no need to think about these conditions during a play. The only real considerations are (a) sufficient arc to distinguish it from a line drive and (b) can it be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder.

SA - I agree with you and would have had no problem with a call/explanation that it couldn't have been called with ordinary effort because it did, in fact, drop (where our middle infielders were is a question for another day and many, many laps).

My main reason for asking the question was I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing some aspect of the rule that had a height requirement for the fly ball. It would seem there isn't, but that it factors into whether or not the ball can be caught with ordinary effort.

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.

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.

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.

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.