Infield Fly Rule

[UES-2]

I don't want to re-hash alot of this but I will for the sake of training. A friend of mine owns 1 of the 2 umpire schools in FL. I am sure you know the 2 owners. He confirmed my thoughts that the play @ Oakland was an IFF. Here is part of the email:

I feel the infield fly rule should have definitely been enforced. There are two major considerations here: 1. Did the ball have enough arc to be considered a fly ball rather than a line drive? and 2. Where was the second baseman originally positioned at the time the ball was batted?

The ball had enough arc and the fielder could have fielded it with reasonable effort from his starting position. A smart play by the second baseman. This was an easy one with replay. Might have been a little tougher live action.

This play could happen to any of us. It has happened to me. I don't think that the call made my Crawford was completely wrong. This is a judgement call. However, most of the guys on this board think that there is no way in he!! that this was even close to being an IFF. Just some food for thought.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by UES-2

Here is part of the email:

I feel the infield fly rule should have definitely been enforced. There are two major considerations here: 1. Did the ball have enough arc to be considered a fly ball rather than a line drive? and 2. Where was the second baseman originally positioned at the time the ball was batted?

The ball had enough arc and the fielder could have fielded it with reasonable effort from his starting position. A smart play by the second baseman. This was an easy one with replay. Might have been a little tougher live action.

For what it's worth, without any kind of citation, I doubt you will get much buy in from many here.

I don't think that the call made my Crawford was completely wrong.

Clearly you do because you argued quite emphatically for the IFF call in the now-deleted thread.

[MrUmpire]

A friend of mine owns 1 of the 2 umpire schools in FL. I am sure you know the 2 owners. I sent him a copy of the thread on the alleged infield fly in Oakland. Here is a part of his email in response:

"That UES-2 character doesn't have a clue."

Just food for thought.

[Tim C]

Sorry. You are totally an idiot. If you really think we are going to believe this BS give us a contact name and e-mail address. Thought so, you are pathetic.

A Liar.

T

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UES-2

I don't want to re-hash alot of this but I will for the sake of training. A friend of mine owns 1 of the 2 umpire schools in FL. I am sure you know the 2 owners. He confirmed my thoughts that the play @ Oakland was an IFF. Here is part of the email:

I feel the infield fly rule should have definitely been enforced. There are two major considerations here: 1. Did the ball have enough arc to be considered a fly ball rather than a line drive? and 2. Where was the second baseman originally positioned at the time the ball was batted?

The ball had enough arc and the fielder could have fielded it with reasonable effort from his starting position. A smart play by the second baseman. This was an easy one with replay. Might have been a little tougher live action.

This play could happen to any of us. It has happened to me. I don't think that the call made my Crawford was completely wrong. This is a judgement call. However, most of the guys on this board think that there is no way in he!! that this was even close to being an IFF. Just some food for thought.

Yeah ... we're all going to believe someone with 10 posts whose best friend's sister's boyfriend has a friend who has a cousin that thinks she knows a guy who owns an umpire school - over the common sense and collective experience of the people who post here. OK. Sure.

[Chris_Hickman]

I know who UES-2 is and he is telling the truth. The IFF could have been called on this play. I saw the e-mail and it is legit. He is only trying to offered some insight on a non -routine call. This was not an easy call, but that fielder could have caught that ball, but elected to let it drop. Bash him if you want, but this guy knows what he is talking about.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

I know who UES-2 is and he is telling the truth. The IFF could have been called on this play. I saw the e-mail and it is legit. He is only trying to offered some insight on a non -routine call. This was not an easy call, but that fielder could have caught that ball, but elected to let it drop. Bash him if you want, but this guy knows what he is talking about.

Lets see an email and name for the contact that sent the email. There is no real umpire who's seen this play and has the SLIGHTEST thought about IFF on this play. "could have caught" is not the standard, and nothing about this hit was "high" (see definition of fly ball).

[SAump]

Post the OBR rule, the case plays, video, etc. Better yet, let it go.

I am sure there was something to learn here, but it appears it will have to wait.

What is the difference between a pop fly and a fly ball?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UES-2

I don't want to re-hash alot of this but I will for the sake of training. A friend of mine owns 1 of the 2 umpire schools in FL. I am sure you know the 2 owners. He confirmed my thoughts that the play @ Oakland was an IFF. Here is part of the email:

I feel the infield fly rule should have definitely been enforced. There are two major considerations here: 1. Did the ball have enough arc to be considered a fly ball rather than a line drive? and 2. Where was the second baseman originally positioned at the time the ball was batted?

The ball had enough arc and the fielder could have fielded it with reasonable effort from his starting position. A smart play by the second baseman. This was an easy one with replay. Might have been a little tougher live action.

This play could happen to any of us. It has happened to me. I don't think that the call made my Crawford was completely wrong. This is a judgement call. However, most of the guys on this board think that there is no way in he!! that this was even close to being an IFF. Just some food for thought.

Hey, do me a favor, please. The next time you post, would you please provide boots so we are not standing knee deep in BS!

It was not, not, notan IFF by any means. So you and you imaginary friend and the owner of that umpire school can shovel $hit against the tide!

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

I know who UES-2 is and he is telling the truth. The IFF could have been called on this play. I saw the e-mail and it is legit. He is only trying to offered some insight on a non -routine call. This was not an easy call, but that fielder could have caught that ball, but elected to let it drop. Bash him if you want, but this guy knows what he is talking about.

The non-call was made by all four crew members, all four of which are current working MLB umpires.

I will be saddened if any proschool owner is inserting his judgment based on a video clip over that of four of his former colleagues. But more than that, I will discount it. UES-2 can go on and on, as he has demonstrated, but the fact is not one of the four MLB umpires working that game and who had the opportunity to call an IFF believed the call should have been made.

Sorry Chris, but if it is your hero who is UES-2's source, he has been drinking.

[jwwashburn]

I could not tell where the other runners were, but the idiot third baseman tagged a guy that had been forced instead of trying for the triple play.

[Stu Clary]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

I could not tell where the other runners were, but the idiot third baseman tagged a guy that had been forced instead of trying for the triple play.

Perhaps F5 thought IF had been ruled?