infield fly rule question

[MRD]

the ONLY difference between an infield fly and a regular fly ball is that the batter is out

[johnnyg08]

And a key point that some umpires forget to understand is that once the batter is declared out on an infield fly, all plays on the bases are tag plays. Once the batter is out, all force outs are removed.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by MRD

the ONLY difference between an infield fly and a regular fly ball is that the batter is out

You forgot to mention there should at least be runners at 1B & 2B, and less than two outs.

Runners advance at their own risk.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MRD

the ONLY difference between an infield fly and a regular fly ball is that the batter is out

Not quite true. 7.08f

[tankmjg24]

I was umpiring a youth game recently (U11) and the coach for the defensive team was not only an umpire, but a board member and the assignor for his association. (Later was told over 30 years experience)

0 outs with R1 and R2. Fly ball hit between F5 and F6 and both start to merge to it. F6 is camped under it as my partner and I are signalling infield fly. At the last second F5 reaches over to catch the ball as is F6. Ball ends up dropping to the ground.

3rd base coach rightfully starts yelling to his players to stay put that it was an infield fly. R2 listens, but R1 does not and we end up having both standing on 2nd base. F5 picks up the baseball, tags third, then throws to F4 at second. F4 tags R2 who is on the base (so we have a safe call) and R1 starts running back to 1st. F4 then starts to chase R1 back to 1st and we have a run down. R1 is eventually called out heading into 1st for being out of the basepath.

3rd base coach calls timeout and I think he is going to argue runner out of the basepath but he just wants an explanation as the defense is yelling they just turned a triple play. I explain it to him, he says ok, then I have the defense come out. This is when our fellow umpire friend royally screws the pooch. He wants a triple play called as according to him the first out is the infield fly, the second out was the force at 3rd, then the 3rd out was the out of the basepath at 1st. Tried to explain it to him, but he was adamant that he was right. Then he becomes personal and can not figure out why he was ejected haha. Just goes to show you that some doing our profession do not know all they think they do.

[rcaverly]

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

…the communication between the umpires was HORIBLE …the infield fly was called

I don’t agree that the issue you make is “HORIBLE” umpire communications. A “No catch!” by the appropriate umpire would have been nice, but it is not required. The problem is that U2 called out an unforced runner without a tag.

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

Said runner gets up…thinking...

There may be no worse nightmare for a base coach.

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

Because the umpires failed to communicate properly said team lost A CHANCE to tie the game with the next batter

More correctly, because said runner no longer was in contact with his acquired base and was tagged with a live ball, “…said team lost A CHANCE to tie the game with the next batter.”

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

…we are being penalized because YOU(The umpires) screwed up.

We, too, are often wronged because YOU (the announcers) screw up.

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

I was broadcasting this game and took me until the drive home to figure out the very very basics of what happened.

I’ll hazard a guess that the umpires had it figured out sooner than that.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It wasn't the terminology he got wrong. It was the requirement. Significant difference.

YOU may know, or think you know, what he meant, but the lurkers will just see the wrong requirement. Not good.

You've been turing into a real something-or-other lately - feeling OK?

Yeah, I've been defending you on the boards for your vast knowledge of the rules, giving you many compliments, etc. I'm really turning into a something or other. Oh, I'm feeling pretty good considering I just had heart surgery last month.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tankmjg24

He wants a triple play called as according to him the first out is the infield fly, the second out was the force at 3rd, then the 3rd out was the out of the basepath at 1st. Tried to explain it to him, but he was adamant that he was right.

"Coach, how can R2 be forced if the BR is out on the IFF?"

Sounds like 1 year's experience 30 times to me.

[MRD]

you are correct. forgot about that

[JJ]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Yeah, I've been defending you on the boards for your vast knowledge of the rules, giving you many compliments, etc. I'm really turning into a something or other. Oh, I'm feeling pretty good considering I just had heart surgery last month.

Wasn't a transplant from a coach, was it?

JJ

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by rcaverly

I don’t agree that the issue you make is “HORIBLE” umpire communications. A “No catch!” by the appropriate umpire would have been nice, but it is not required. The problem is that U2 called out an unforced runner without a tag.



There may be no worse nightmare for a base coach.



More correctly, because said runner no longer was in contact with his acquired base and was tagged with a live ball, “…said team lost A CHANCE to tie the game with the next batter.”



We, too, are often wronged because YOU (the announcers) screw up.



I’ll hazard a guess that the umpires had it figured out sooner than that.

The arguement was by the coach. I pulled my OBR book(always carried one) and tried to figure out what in the blazes was going on.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JJ

Wasn't a transplant from a coach, was it?

JJ

HA! No, my body would have rejected it!

It was merely an aortic valve replacement. Now I have to get a pacemaker this week. The fun never ends. Once I recover from this, I should be back on the field by the September adult ball season.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It wasn't the terminology he got wrong. It was the requirement. Significant difference.

YOU may know, or think you know, what he meant, but the lurkers will just see the wrong requirement. Not good.

Rich, it seems to me that you misread nopachunts' post:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

No No! The tag-up must be at (or after) the time the ball is touched by the fuielder.

The phrase you highlighted needs to be read together with the part before it, especially, "the runner(s) can advance at their own risk after the ball is touched." No, it wasn't absolutely clear, but I'm pretty sure CT1 had it right:

Originally Posted by CT1

I'm sure he meant "tagged the base occupied at TOP."

[nopachunts]

To RI and CT1,
I did mean the base occupied at TOP and the base tagged after the IFF is touched. My bad for not making myself more clear.