Bases loaded, no outs. Batter hits fly ball high enough for IF but the problem is that F6 is playing deep, isn't the most athletic kid on the team, and can't get to the ball before it hits the ground. I call nothing based on 3 words in the IF rule which states "with ordinary effort". What happens next is that F6 throws to F2 for the force at home, F2 throws to F5 for the force at third and F5 throws to F4 for the force at second. Triple play. Basically no one moved.

My question is, did I turn this into a 3rd world play by NOT calling the IF. I felt I did what the rule states by looking for ordinary effort but does that usually apply to balls hit over the fielders head on the grass instead of right on the infield? IOW, you look for the fielders shoulders to be square to you (when he's running out to get the ball) in order for it to be considered ordinary effort.

Thanks for your help.

Ive always interpreted the 'ordinary effort' part to balls hit on the outfield grass. If a ball is hit 'high enough' and could even possibly land in the infield, I.F is in effect. I dont know whether we(umpires) are to judge players individually with regards to what THEIR 'ordinary effort' is. I'd call IF, batter's out. Interesting scenario tho. Cant wait to hear what the...experts think. -T2ny

Much like t2nyval states, if there is possibility that the "questionable fly" <b>inside the infield</b> could be considered an IF, I call the IFF. That same "questionable fly" when outside the infield will usually not draw my call.

The reason for that is based on the play you cited.
Plays within the infield are too easy to turn a DP with the runners holding whereas it's far less likely on balls outside the infield. The intent of the rule is not to allow a fielder to allow the ball to drop and take an easy double play.

Of course, if I'm <u>certain</u> that the fly inside or outside the infield cannot be caught with ordinary effort, then there's no call.

Based on factors of fly heighth and ordinary effort, <b><U>if in doubt</b></U> on calling IFF:
<ol><li>Inside the infield, then make the call
<li>Outside the infield, then don't make the call</ol>

Just my opinion,

Freix

Thanks BFair. The very reason a triple play was executed made me think that I should have called the IF because that is the reason for the rule in the first place, at least for DP's anyway. doh!

<i> Originally posted by spots101 </i>

<b> Bases loaded, no outs. Batter hits fly ball high enough for IF but the problem is that F6 is playing deep, isn't the most athletic kid on the team, and can't get to the ball before it hits the ground. I call nothing based on 3 words in the IF rule which states "with ordinary effort". What happens next is that F6 throws to F2 for the force at home, F2 throws to F5 for the force at third and F5 throws to F4 for the force at second. Triple play. Basically no one moved.

My question is, did I turn this into a 3rd world play by NOT calling the IF. I felt I did what the rule states by looking for ordinary effort but does that usually apply to balls hit over the fielders head on the grass instead of right on the infield? IOW, you look for the fielders shoulders to be square to you (when he's running out to get the ball) in order for it to be considered ordinary effort.

Thanks for your help. </b>

First and foremost the IF is to protect the offense against the defense getting an EASY DP or maybe a TP as your thread suggets.

With that in mind, IMO some umpires get <i> bogged down </i> on the ordinary effort part. IMO the reason that wording exists is because it's possible to call the IF when the ball is NOT in the infield but that would require a infielder to be right underneath the ball.

Whenever we have R1/R2 and R3 when the ball is popped up in the infield, they have to remain stationary to the bases or at most maybe a step or 2 off the base depending upon where the pop up is.

Therefore, if you don't call the IF and the ball lands anywhere near an infielders reach it's an almost certain DP. So whenever the ball is popped up in the infield with the IF in effect CALL IT because to do otherwise gives the defense an Advantage not intended by the rules.

Also, defenses are smart and if you don't call it they will start to play <b> possum </b> meaning PRETEND they don't have a clue where the ball is or they can't catch it with ordinary effort just so they can get the easy DP.

NOTE: My answer is based on ball for kids who shave.

Pete Booth

I think you did.. turn it into Mars v Pluto. A refresher as to WHY the INF FLY exists would help.

It is to protect the offense, not give free outs for the defense. "Protect" as in protect against cheap double plays or godforbid, triple plays.

The fact that 3 outs were made testifies that you SHOULD have called the INF FLY. You had a fly ball, IN the infield, and these kids were skilled enough to make all those throws for force outs... good deke by the defense I would say.

All have made good point but I'm not sure I agree with their final answer.

What was F6 doing? Was he attempting to get to the ball and just couldn't make it (and no one else could get there either) - not an in-field fly. You made the right NO-call.

Did you have a partner? If so, apparently he didn't think it was an in-field-fly either.

However, if F6 was lolly-gagging around and you felt he saw this high pop fly as an opportunity to fool the offense by not catching the easily fielded ball - then it likely was an in-field-fly and you should have made the call. Afterall there were at least three runners that thought he was going catch the ball - that is why they stayed on base.

I have never heard of any rule-of-thumb about squared shoulders and think this might confuse the issue of ordinary effort.

just some thoughts.... my first post here!

For an IF to be called, it's totally irrelevant as to where the Infielders are standing or positioning themselves. The "ordinary effort" is a judgemental definition which does not refer to the actual physical talents of a specific ballplayer. Infielders may station themselves anywhere in fair territory, including standing against the home run fence if they're so inclined to do so. Or all fielders can "shift" to one side of the field for a known "pull" hitter. Or playing in close in anticipation of a bunt. The fact that the batter hits a popup over an area where an actual fielder is not positioned doesn't alter a call of "Infield Fly". In the scenario given, I would have treated it the same as if no Infielder had attempted to catch a routine popup in an Infield Fly situation, and called an "Infield Fly".
Jerry

"For an IF to be called, it's totally irrelevant as to where the Infielders are standing or positioning themselves. The "ordinary effort" is a judgemental definition which does not refer to the actual physical talents of a specific ballplayer."

Jerry, I would say you are wrong. Agreeably, a player can position himself anywhere. But I believe you have taken what someone has explained as the definition of the "infield" and are using it to define "ordinary effort." Thereby, you have removed the ordinary effort part of the in-field-fly rule. It appears, you would simply call IFF based solely upon the location of the hit ball and the attributes of a fly. This is wrong.

The ball must be capable of being caught by the players that are on the field from their current locations.

The "infield" is anywhere that an infielder can cover. It includes areas in the grass where potentially, an outfielder could also cover. (This by itself is a judgemental call. A properly declared in-field-fly can legally be caught by an outfielder.)

Ordinary effort means the player, or players, can get there and make a catch. (Hence the original comment made by Spots101 about shoulders square to the umpire - although I have never heard of this.) If the ball is not capable of being caught by the defense from their current positions, the fly ball is a HIT and the runners should be advancing. In this case YOU are SACRAFICING the batter-runner to protect runners that should be running.

Any declared in-field-fly that drops to the ground must have intentionally/obviously been left to fall, unhindered by a defense, THAT COULD HAVE CAUGHT THE BALL. Otherwise the offensive coach will be screaming that you called an out that wasn't going to be made - and likely cost him a run. You exchanged his run for your out.

Positioning of the defense cannot be disregarded; they must be capable of getting to the ball and making the catch with ordinary effort.

Oooouchhh!
 

Ooowwww!

In eighteen years I have never <i>purposely</i> failed to call the infield fly rule on a fly to the infield (with appropriate runners on base).

I don't look for boogers or try to create third world situations.

(God, I'm starting to sound like Tee)

Well you guys all seem to be good friends. That is sweet. I can almost hear you guys slapping each other's butts in the background.

However, what Jerry said was wrong. But given your response I can envision the entire defense (besides the pitcher and catcher) leaning against the outfield/homerun fence, the batter hitting a high pop fly that will land in the infield where no one is located, and some dork umpire like Tim C calling an infield fly.

Honestly gentlemen, I didn't throw anything to the wolves. I didn't create any 3rd world situations or eat any boogers. As for arrogance, I haven't seen anything yet that says Tim C has the corner on arrogance. Ignorance possibly. My post was matter of fact. It was not arrogant. I may be new to this buddy-buddy forum but I am not new to officiating. My experience may very well be greater than yours. Perhaps you should quit slapping butts and listen.

Jerry was wrong when he said, "For an IF to be called, it's totally irrelevant as to where the Infielders are standing or positioning themselves."

The initial location of the players is ABSOLUTELY RELEVEANT. Once the ball is hit, the defense must be able to locate themselves in a position to catch the ball. That is ordinary effort. If the defense cannot position themselves so they can catch the ball it is called a HIT - not an infield fly.

Jerry was correct in saying that the rule does not refer to a player's physical talent. And perhaps I misunderstood what he was trying to say. I never meant any offense to Jerry. I just felt he was wrong.

To be honest with you again, you guys can call your game any way you like. This forum however, is for officials well beyond you few... buddies. In the future, when I make other posts, just assume that I am writing to those other, more professional officials.

Wow, he sure told us.
 

DDTB Said: <b>"Well you guys all seem to be good friends. That is sweet. I can almost hear you guys slapping each other's butts in the background.

However..."</b>


Tony:

That wasn't butt slappin' you heard, it was knee slappin'.

Hahahahaha,
 

DTTB:

You actually use the word "dork"?

Wow! I am injured.

Read your own post . . . check the tone of your post.

Now I don't really care if you try to jump my stuff. I get what I deserve, but I just ask you to stop, and read your own post.

Instead of criticizng the rest of us do a little introspection.

BTW Tony, I really suggest you don't start trying to compare umpire resumes with some of the guys on this board, you'll find yourself overmatched.

Gee, I'm feeling left out. No one to butt slap with! Must be another strike against being a female umpire. You know, DTTB, there really is no reason to come on the board insulting other officials. There are far greater ways to earn the respect of your peers. Also, having buddies to "butt slap" with can be a very positive thing.

And this is just my opinion,

Jackie

Hey T-Ball,

I must agree with Downtown. It is relevant where infielders are. If you don't agree, then what are you reading?

As far as Seattle and Idaho go, I now umpire in SoCal and have umpired in Washington (Olympia) and Idaho (Boise) and the game is the same there as anywhere.

The only thing that should give trouble for an IFF is the foul/fair, and the heighth. Everything else is clearly stated...ordinary effort.

Example...the shift is on. Third base is playing shortstop, shortstop is playing second, etc...

Ball his as a pop-up right smack down the third base line on the dirt cut-out. No one home T...what's your call? Now sell that puppy.

Good job Downtown, you were professional and clear. Some of these LL umps just try to get in two-cents every now and again.

P.S. Maybe the sound is butt-smacking from the knees?

Wow, one minute this thread has 4 replies and the next minute it's 2 pages long! I have to be honest with you Tony and Whowefoolin that if I had to call THIS play over again I definitely would have called the IF. While pondering this situation on the way home that day my gut told me that I had made the wrong call. The reason was because of the triple play. I KNOW why there is an IF rule. It's to protect the runners from a DP or god forbid a triple play. Any umpire would know that. I just got hooked on the "with ordinary effort" thing. Why, I honestly don't know. Haven't you ever done something and then just wondered why you did it. Ahh, the beauty of hindsight. I felt so bad about the call that I called the coach to apologize for my blunder. That's just me though and I felt a lot better about it afterwards.

Maybe things would have been different if this were a high school or college game but I doubt it. This was a Pony level game. The bottom line is that I knew even before posting this thread that I screwed up. I was just hoping that someone else would learn from my mistake. I do appreciate the support though.

BTW, the shoulder thing I referred to was when let's say the SS goes out on the grass to catch a potential IF a general rule to determine ordinary effort is to see whether his shoulders are square to you or if he is still running out to catch the ball. In other words, is he facing you as he makes the catch (shoulders square to you) or are his shoulders turned as he is running out to make the catch. If they are square to you then THAT'S "ordinary effort" meaning he's camped out under the ball, a "can of corn" so to speak. The problem is that you don't have much time to make that decision.

God help me, I'm going to borrow a page from His Holiness.:D

If a fly ball is hit over the infield grass with runners at first and second or first, second and third with less than two outs, I'm going to call the IFR. Any situation you can come up with that alleges that SOME infielder cannot catch that fly with ordinary effort is bull, or a third world scenario that <b>is not going to happen</b> in the real world.

I don't care if every infielder is lined up on the first base line and the fly goes to the third base line. There is a fielder there that can make that catch with ordinary effort. Does it matter if he DOES make the catch? By rule, no.

Or, take "youbefoolin's" example:

<b>Example...the shift is on. Third base is playing shortstop, shortstop is playing second, etc...

Ball his as a pop-up right smack down the third base line on the dirt cut-out. No one home T...what's your call? Now sell that puppy.</b>

Let's add, 4A varsity game. My call? "Infield fly, batter is out."

Sell it? No need. Coaches are smart enough to know reality. But just in case one has read the stranger posts in this thread: "Hey Blue, there wasn't any fielder at third."

"Coach, just because he decided not to walk the thirty feet from short to get under the ball is no reason that it couldn't have been done under ordinary effort, you know it, I know it, he knows it."

End of discussion.

But again, in the real world, I don't know a coach who would embarrass himself with such a complaint.

Look for boogers all you want. Quote the black and white of the OBR all you want. Experienced umpires who truly do higher level games are going to call the IFR as I described.

Now then, those who work games with "players who don't shave above the armpits" can do whatever they want. Umpires who work the big dog games and those who hope to become big dogs will call the IFR.

<i>Hey Tee, how's my impersonation of Peter?</i>

HHH simulation: [OFF]



[Edited by GarthB on Oct 18th, 2002 at 03:57 PM]

Good impression
 

I thought it was a good impression.

It is also absolutely a spot on answer.

We are protecting baserunners with the IFR. If there is any doubt on a ball, better to call it an IF than to watch an undeserved double- or triple-play unfold in front of you.

A popup over the infield grass in an IF situation is ALWAYS an infield fly. It may not say that specifically in the book, but in reality is the way it should be (is) called.

Rich

Re: Good impression
 

Rich: Not to pat you on the butt, but (pun intended) what is this "spot on" nonsense? Are you trying to sound like Warren?

Why not just say that Garth nailed the call?
Garth's hearth runneth over.
GB's idee was ros-ee.

To those of you who are claiming not to be in the friendly, inner circle. Allow me to give you a piece of advice.

In any game where the players date with nefarious intentions in mind:

Runners on first and second
Bases loaded
0 out
1 out

A batted ball reaching an appreciable height that will fall on the infield grass

<font size=5>IS AN INFIELD FLY!</font>

Who disagrees?

Re: Re: Good impression
 

Who disagrees?

Well now - - - I can think of a few coaches; but, I won't post their names.

In fact in a not to distant game, R1 & R2 with no outs, batter hits a pop-up over the umpire "C" position, everyone looked at each other guessing that the other guy would take it - no one did!!! I bang out the batter, having called the "IF - if fair, nice and loud. Then tossed the manager, also nice and loud, after he gave his "unabridged" opinion of my call.....

Carl, CC, C2, whatever all your butt-slapping buddies call you in the inner circle, I disagree.

It is not always an infield fly with the situation you suggested.

Do not patronize, do not be all-inclusive, just try to learn the game.

Without the internet a couple of years ago...who were you? So with that in mind, everyone who is taking all these "big-timers" who just sit around and post all the time, please read the rule books.

There are only two. Not complicated. Don't get caught up in someone trying to sell you "their" rule book. Fed or OBR. That is all you need. Study it, live it.

Good try Carl. Now explain to everyone how you are messing up their infield fly calls. :)

And what is up with the big words? Do you use that on the diamond? Good luck!

"Youbefoolin" scrawled:

<b>Carl, CC, C2, whatever all your butt-slapping buddies call you in the inner circle, I disagree.</b>

We usually call him Cantankerous Carl. It used to be just Carl, but ever since he realized that some people just don't want to learn, he's gotten a little cranky.

<b>It is not always an infield fly with the situation you suggested. </b>

To normal umpires who understand the game, yes, it is.

<b>Do not patronize, do not be all-inclusive, just try to learn the game.</b>

Learn the game? LEARN THE GAME? <b>LEARN THE GAME???</b>
Do you have any inkling as to how stupid that statement is?

<b>Without the internet a couple of years ago...who were you? So with that in mind, everyone who is taking all these "big-timers" who just sit around and post all the time, please read the rule books.</b>

In answer to the question in the first sentence, in part only, of course: prior to the advent of the internet Carl was one of the highest regarded amateur umpires in the county working FED, NCAA, NBC and numerous other leagues and levels, a recognized and many times published rules expert, author, columnist, and clinican. This, of course, doesn't take into account his professional life.

It is impossible to respond to your second sentence. It just isn't constructed to make sense.

<b>There are only two. Not complicated. Don't get caught up in someone trying to sell you "their" rule book. Fed or OBR. That is all you need. Study it, live it.</b>

Only two?? I carry four and I know of at least three others.

<b>Good try Carl. Now explain to everyone how you are messing up their infield fly calls. </b>

How can one explain how they are doing something they are not doing? Is it similar to the sound of one hand clapping?

<b>And what is up with the big words? Do you use that on the diamond? Good luck!</b>

Aha...there's the problem. You don't understand big words. Let me simplify Carl's' message in three one-syllable (do you know what that means?) words:

You are wrong.

Again, the sound you are hearing is knee-slapping. You should be used to that.

What idiocy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

My credentials for Carl bashing are unmatched on the internet. (Just ask any of his "buttslappers" as you call them. We used to call them "buttsnufflers", a term invented by Yaworski.) Over the last few years, I have taken great pleasure in mixing it up with Carl.

However, your idiotic post causes me to put aside my pot stirring tendancies for a moment. To wit:

I first heard of Carl Childress in 1989, well before the internet became available for public use. He was a well establish baseball author at that point.

I first heard Carl Childress described as "the number one baseball rules expert in the world" in 1994. This was before there were any umpire internet boards that I am aware of. That's why, in all my flame wars with him, I never argued with him about the rules.

For myself, I first published in 1999 a long internet article on working the plate for the umpire.org website. It's still there, I believe, because I still get email from people thanking me for its insights.

So Mr. Whowefoolin, who are you fooling with your name? What are your credentials?

Several months ago, I wrote a series of articles for eumpire entitled "Third World Plays Only Happen to Third World Umpires". It was built around the following play which has a direct bearing on this discussion:

George Washington University (an NCAA D1 school) was playing a home conference game. At that time, GWU was coached by a man who was known for going crazy on the field. He may have set some kind of record for confrontations with umpires.

The game was being umpired by a three man crew, all of whom were senior, big, big, dogs. The biggest dog of all was the crew chief. The crew chief was known for being an a$$hole and liked to patronize people. He liked to put people in their place, the bigger the dog, the better. (At the time that I wrote the original article, a reader privately emailed me and asked rhetorically. "You mean he was like Carl Childress on the internet?")

Anyway, onto the situation. It was a very windy day (as is common in NCAA games in March) and the fielders were having trouble fielding fly balls. Bases loaded, 1 out. The a$$hole crew chief was in C position. (3 man crew) GWU and their maniac coach are on defense.

Pop up into the infield. The fielders are having difficulty getting under the ball. The big dog a$$hole crew chief decides to adopt "whowefoolin" mechanics and not call an in-field fly. The other two umpires decide to let the patronizing crew chief hang out to dry because they don't like him and so they say nothing. (Normally, in a well oiled crew, a real NCAA umpire would bail out a partner with a brain fart.)

The ball drops to the ground and is picked up by a fielder who throws home for what should be an easy play at the plate and a possible double play. The offensive coach is already headed out of the dugout at a full gallop and the play is not even over. However, the gods of little league are present that day, and the ball gets by the catcher. Run scores, and safe all around.

The offense coach does a 180 and quickly heads back to the dugout. He has just decided that the umpires made a great call. The maniacal GWU coach is headed to the field at a full gallop. He ends up getting ejected (DUH!)

One other fact that I left out. The NCAA umpire conference supervisor was sitting in the stands watching this abortion. He was totally pi$$ed. The super big a$$hole dog got a butt chewing after the game for not calling an infield fly. The NCAA umpire supervisor uses the offensive coach's initial perception of the play as his primary ammunition in his insistance that an infield fly should have been called. In the next meeting, the entire association got instructions on calling infield flies. Even though this was several years ago, no one has let this big dog forget his major foulup. The big dog a$$hole has become a much nicer person now. Humble pie serves medicinal purposes. I enjoy working with him.

By the way, in a side note to Carl, I have known some 12-13 year old boys who go out on dates with indecent intentions. That means that the infield fly should be called there as well.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Oct 21st, 2002 at 10:06 AM]

Tim C you are plain nuts!

Do you know anything about rules or are you just on this website to press your personal ignorance. I have not seen any portion of your responses (since I joined the discussion) that addresses the infield fly rule being discussed.

You send public notices poking fun at me and never address the issue of infield fly and the rules of baseball. You have inspired others to join in and let me know how critical and "insulting" I am... still never discussing the rules of baseball. Additionally, on the side, you send me a personal note trying to be my buddy - warning me to ease my way into the forum, and that you have been in the same position as the new guy to the forum, and then you close with the comment that your resume is surely more expansive than mine. Seems bold for someone that doesn't know me but ... Stroke stroke stroke yourself to degrade others; nice touch Tim.

I have not criticized anyone besides you. And this is only because you have completely ignored the issue of the baseball ruling and established a 'JUMP ON DTTB CLUB.'

The fact remains, Jerry said something in a public forum, that umpires are learning from, that potentially establishes interpretation of this rule across the nation, and that I felt was wrong. Given my experiences and knowledge (and you don't know what they are) I was compelled to further the discussion by saying that I thought what he was suggesting was wrong. It was at this point that you jumped me becasue I used the words "Jerry, I would say you are wrong." This was not intended to be critical; it was stated to justify my ensuing discussion... I want to talk about this some more...

Given that there has been no further discussion about the infield fly rule and interpretation of ordinary effort, I still feel what he said is wrong. The defense must be capable of catching the fly before it should be called an infield fly.

Additionally Tim, I have received half-a-dozen other "personal" e-mails saying they agree with my interpretation of ordinary effort. Perhaps they were unwilling to state their agreement given their familiarity with your "known" style of response? Perhaps your lack of focus on baseball rules is dissuading people from joining the discussions?

As I said earlier, "I never meant any offense to Jerry. I just felt he was wrong." For all I know he may be working the World Series.

I sincerely hope that any further discussion on this thread addresses the infield fly/ordinary effort issues.



[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Oct 21st, 2002 at 10:27 AM]

By now, the "new kid" must realize the interpretation of "reasonable effort" has nothing to do with a specific person or his/her position on the field. Using your definition, a shortstop could be ogling his (or someone else's) girlfriend, daydreaming about a vacation in Tahiti, looking at his/her shoes, clutching his chest because he's suffering a heart attack, etc. etc etc, and have a pop-up soar a mile high directly above his/her head, and make no "effort" whatsover to catch that ball. Of course it is NOT an Infield Fly! The fielder, because of his lapse of memory or inattention, has no reasonable opportunity at all. What if he comes to as soon as the ball hits the ground, though? You've got a mis-call and argument just waiting to happen, my friend.

Listen to the "old-timers" and interpeters . . . "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it." "If an Infield Fly is hit and there's no one around to catch it." is the same.

By the way, for arguments sake . . . all the infielders ARE lined up with their backs against the outfield fence . . . runners on 1st and 2nd or 1st, 2nd and 3rd with less than two outs . . . a high fly ball is hit to the warning track . . . all the fielders have a reasonable opportunity to catch the ball. What do you have?

Doesn't my argument . . . and Carl's . . . and Peter's . . . and Tim's . . . and many more "objective" arguments (who aren't doing World Series but do have a grasp of the rules) make much more sense than your "subjective" one?

Thanks for a germane response.

So, in your opinion and that of some umpires working the ultimate level of games , there is no such thing as ordinary effort. You have flatly said that "no effort" is acceptable, if not ordinary. SO BE IT.

From here on... all pop flies, with infield fly conditions are automatically outs.

Then let's get the words "ordinary effort" out of the rule books altogether. They obviously have confused a lot of us.

All sarcasm aside, it appears some of the umpires here can make those kind of rulings and live through it. I still have to work the game for high school and junior college kids and feel that I would be creating a controversy if I called an infield fly that no one could have caught.

I suppose I started all this conversation of sexual inuendo when I mentioned butt slapping. It does make for an interesting conversation.

I would have to call the infield fly in the situation that started this thread. I definitely feel that the defense was put at an unfair advantage over the baserunners. Now, I have question for Whowefoolin. Just what did you mean by your comment about butt-slapping from the knees?

Jackie

"No one could have caught."

Those are probably the operative words, my friend. The term "ordinary effort" in the rules is very akin to "reasonable and prudent person" in the legal world. It assumes certain "givens." I.E. The Infielder is playing in a physical location that would be normal for an Infielder. If a fielder (or his coach) chooses to position himself in a different location in order to gain some advantage, it is tacit acknowledgement that an Infield Fly could be called, absent the player from that normal/usual/accepted spot on the field. "Ordinary effort" also gives an umpire some leniency regarding a "popup" versus a "line drive" as it relates to the call of Infield Fly. Just because a fielder (from a usual and accepted position on the Infield) has the opportunity to backup a few steps to catch a ball that is beyond the Infield, for example, doesn't alter the proper call of "Infield Fly-Batter is Out." If however the ball is just a bit lower than a fly ball and would cause that same fielder to run heroically and dive at the "Texas Leaguer" attempting to catch a defined "fly ball", you'd probably not yell "Infield Fly".

That's the reason for the "ordinary effort" phrase. It's not there to give the defense the liberty or luxury of wandering all over the field in the hopes they can avoid having an Infield Fly called.

For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement with Papa C, Garth, T Alan, Peter, et al.

Oops!
 

Be careful when using legal definitions to support your point. When a person of diminished capacity that cannot fulfill the requirements of a "reasonable and prudent person" is involved, the legal requirement changes accordingly. This actually would support the opposing argument. This would mean that a player with diminished capacity (either ability or out of position) would not be able to make the play with ordinary effort, and, by definition, would cancel the infield fly rule. Are you sure this is what you meant?

HHH
 

Peter , great reading thank you for the smile, a lession in there some where, Who is C2? maybe the guy has written more
book's on baseball rules than you have fingers to pick naysal oysters with!!! Thats who

For what it is worth, I am in complete agreement with whoever has the most posts and has their own corner on a website and might be interested in publishing an article I plagarized...oops, wrote.

For what it is worth, I have known Carl since he was in diapers and I am behind him 100% and won't have anyone disagree with him, ever ever.

Guys...take a stand. "REASONABLE EFFORT" What does that mean to you? Take time out to stop worrying about how we look in the "Cyber mirror" and get a grasp of what is being asked!

We all love you either way guys. We will buy your books. We will go to your websites. You don't have to worry about ruffling feathers here.

I assume that you all side, during an arguement, with the coach that might be the most apt to be on this website or buy a writing, or visit a website? Come on now..."if you don't stand for something...you will fall for anything."

Downtown, keep these guys on their toes. You're doing good. If you want a professional opinion, other than the ameturistic ones here...give me a note at address below:)

Dave
officiating.dumb
dave@t/C2/holycowness.com

Hokey Smokes, Bullwinkle!
 

Youbefoolin and the DT guy have done the impossible!

They've posted such knee slappin' material that, for the first time I can remember in the past five years, HHH, Porter, T. Alan, Benham, Childress, and Fronheiser are in complete agreement on an issue!

Quick, someone get a camera. This is truly a Kodak moment.

I don't think Youbesmokinsomething or the guy with the DTs has any idea of the rarity of this situation. There is a better chance of Rosie O'Donnell winning the Betty Crocker Homemaker of the Year award than there is of this happening again.

Re: Hokey Smokes, Bullwinkle!
 

<i> Originally posted by GarthB </i>

<b> Youbefoolin and the DT guy have done the impossible!

They've posted such knee slappin' material that, for the first time I can remember in the past five years, HHH, Porter, T. Alan, Benham, Childress, and Fronheiser are in complete agreement on an issue! </b>

Garth regardless of umpire differencies, there is one thing we ALL share or I should say MOST of us Share in Common, and it is the most basic of umpire principals:

When we can get an out <b> TAKE IT. </b> Heck we have all done games in which we wanted (or maybe we even did (Grin) invoke the IF with 2 OUTS just to get the game over.

Pete Booth

Thanks gentlemen.

It has been an exciting conversation. I never expected to find this caliber of people in an internet forum.

It has been many years since I felt like "the kid" yet this conversation definitely angered me and yet humbled me.

Induction by fire.... I look forward to more informative discussions. Hope to hear from you all again.

Even More Amazing
 

Even more amazing would be if Warren Willson also agreed. Have you contacted him about making a me-too post? Then we can remember this event for all time. Even as is, it is not just a rare event, it is a unique event.

Peter

Gentlemen: (Most of you are, I'm sure)

Talk about a pissing match. Wow!

The IFF rule certainly appears to be much more controversial than it should ever be. I can't believe that so many of you cannot find common ground and provide guidance and understanding to those that seek you advise and counsel. A fly ball comes off the bat and you have probably less than 3 seconds (waiting for the apex) to determine and declare if its appropriate to call IFF. It's not automatic, if it were, then umpire judgement would not be necessary.

Peter (HHH) mentioned that he was involved in an NCAA game on a very windy day and still never hesitated declare an IFF. I too, have had the occassion to make this judgement (college game and very windy 20 - 40 MPH) and chose not to invoke the IFF rule. Both of us may have been correct in our judgements. When a towering infield fly started out over the third baseman's head (apex) and actually hit the ground between the second and first basemen, some 130 odd feet away, I knew that there was nothing "ordinary" about it. Even at this level of play, fly balls on this day were providing nothing but frustration for all players who were attempting to catch any fly ball. No objections, no arguments from either team.

While I believe that there will always be non-routine elements that come into play while applying the many rules of the game, I also understand that these rules are there in order to level the playing field. No advantage to the offense, and no advantage to the defense. When one considers the reason for a rule, then one can more equitably administer a rule. I have also called many an IFF with unskilled players out of position, that, in my judgement, should have been easily caught with ordinary effort.

Isn't judgement a question of balance? Circumstances, facts, conditions, etc. all need to be considered. I happen to think "NEVER" and "ALWAYS" are the greatest enemies of a good umpire. Some decisions are more difficult than others. All decisions, however, should be based on one principle - NO ADVANTAGE given to either the defense or the offense. In a word it's called being "fair" (npi). Be fair, work hard and give it your best shot, nobody has the right to ask for more.

You let a high popup in the Infield drop between the 1st baseman and the 2nd baseman and did not declare an Infield Fly???? I don't care if you had a monsoon blowing across the field . . . that's an "Infield Fly"! Why didn't you declare it AFTER it dropped? Nothing in the book of "fairness" prohibits you from doing that. Why limit yourself to "three seconds"; (your timetable). The correct call on that play is "Infield Fly".

And the rules of the game, or the umpire's judgement for that matter, speaks nothing of "fairness". We are to administer the rules of the game, regardless of what may or may not seem "fair". There are probably more examples of of "unfairness" (is that a word?) in the rules of baseball than there are of fairness. Think of another profession where a person can "fail" 2/3 of the time, and still be called a "superstar". Wouldn't you think a batter should be able to get on base at least 50% of the time, if the rules were "fair"?

</b></p>"So many" can't agree? Almost everyone (except WBFoolin' and you) agree. Call the infield fly (with the proper configuration of runners and outs) if the ball will fall on the infield grass.<br>

</p>I don't know where the game of "no objections" occurred, but you would not get that reaction in a "real" baseball contest anywhere I ever called. You are saying that a ball the third baseman looked to catch dropped on the other side of the infield where two other infielders should have looked to make the same catch. I hope you don't take offense, but the ordinary effort of any umpire would have resulted in a call of IF. Reason? On occasion, when you fail to make the correct call, the defense will benefit greatly. Then you'll be in a pickle. Talk about fairness....

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 28th, 2002 at 08:00 AM]

I never said I agreed. I just got tired of arguing the inane. I'm feeling refreshed today.

I really haven't learned anything new from our discussions about the Infield Fly but I have learned that some of you here have big enough voices (and professional clout) that you could probably push any call, no matter what the controversy, through the game/managers. And if the managers don't like your call, you eject them. That's our authority as umpires - used correctly or abused, that is our authority.

I sense that we are all arguing the same thing. Yet each of us has in our minds our own vision of a particular fly ball, that we likely called correctly, but are unable to portray that vision verbally in this forum so everyone will agree with our call. (I also realize there may be several contrarians with loud voices and professional clout, that will jump in and disagree with this paragraph. So be it.)

I personally will never call an infield fly that I don't feel could reasonably be caught. That is my condition of ordinary effort - the ball could be caught. Runners can, and do, make this decision too. The vast majority of the time my decision and the runner's decision will be the same. Runners are not going to wait for my decision; if they don't think the ball can be caught, they are going to be moving. That's what runners do. They know the difference between a hit and an infield fly nearly as well as I do. I just get to call the infield flies (or not). My call is the true determining factor and the runners must live with my call.

Don't misunderstand. My judgement is independent and final. I don't meet with the runners, while the ball is in the air, and hold a voting session discussing angle of trajectory, defensive positions, how many beers the shortstop drank the night before, which players have peg legs, what mit size they are using, wind speed and direction, where the sun is, color of uniforms, color of the ball, which bat was used... I just make the call... as do you. And that call is final... done and over with.

I can't possibly be alone, amongst this crowd, in recognizing there are balls hit, which land in the infield, and that were not catchable (a poorly/miss-hit ball that goes 25 feet up and lands 15 feet in front of home plate between the 1, 2, and 5 positions - it will probably roll foul anyway). Even if the entire defensive team is leaning against the outfield fence with their mits on the ground, smoking cigars and exchanging phone numbers with buxom blonde fans, I will not call that hit an infield fly. Neither should you. But, if you are loud enough and eject enough coaches, I think you could get away with it.

I still am immensely impressed with the caliber of people invovled in this thread. I am anxiously looking forward to their excited responses. Page 4 here we come!

PS. TimC, I have since realized that a great part of this thread is all in fun/comraderie.

I bet that last sentence is true. You're kidding, right? We're talking about games where the players shave, and a catcher can't get under a ball 15 feet in front of the plate? Whur you bean, keed?I'm interested in why you think seasoned (read good) umpires have to resort to ejections to get coaches and players to accept their decisions. In my career of over 400 NCAA D1 games, I ejected one coach. I ejected five Federation coaches in about 2000 games.Finally, you've said something I agree with: The "caliber of people involved" here in the Forum is very high -- with a few notable exceptions, of course.

<i> Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown </i>

Tony IMO, you are still missing the point. The IF has really nothing to do with the defense, but everything to do with the offense.

The bases are 90ft. and runners are stationary or at most maybe a foot or 2 off the bag depending upon where the ball is.

If you don't call the IF, one could resurrect a YOUNG and ALIVE Bob Hayes and the defense would still get an easy DP.

I'll agree it's amazing the IF took 3 pages and perhaps more.

If you are talking about kids who do not shave perhaps your argument holds more weight.

Pete Booth

To me, I've never taken into account the ability of the person on the field when deciding on ordinary effort. I feel that ordinary effort means that ANY infielder, not just the person trying to make the catch, can eaisly get themselves under the ball and make a catch. By easily I mean not going into a full out sprint and diving to reach it. It has always seemed like a pretty easy call for me to make and I've never had any complaints from a coach when I have or have not called it.

I'm with you GS23, even if it is your first post. There's not a whole lot of thought process that goes into the call. It's either an Infield Fly or it isn't. Period. Quite simply . . . it's high enough for someone to catch, if they were in the proper position to catch it. No judgement on ability; no judgement on position; no judgement on much about anything, except the height of the ball and whether it's gonna be fair or foul.

Nice post.

Jerry

Some Pro schools, like Jim Evans Academy, teach their umpires about making sure a fielder is "comfortably set" under the ball before calling an infield fly. Too many umpires take such advice too much to heart.

What they're really teaching you is a way to decide on infield flies that are out over the outfield grass. I do not believe they're talking about infield flies that are clearly over the infield.

Any pop-up that reaches an "appreciable height," as I believe Papa C called it, and which is clearly over the infield, can be easily caught with ordinary effort by more than one infielder! We do not need to wait for an infielder to become comfortably set under such a pop-fly in order to invoke the infield fly rule. To do otherwise is to invite misery and chaos upon your game.

Don't let that crap ruin a perfectly good game of baseball. It's really that simple.