Infield Fly in Wild Card Game

[RPatrino]

Here is a question for debate.

The MLB comment states: The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. .

My question is, if the outfield is playing shallow and an outfielder makes a catch in a spot that 'in the umpires judgement' could have been easily handled by an infielder, does an infielder even have to make an attempt to catch the ball?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Here is a question for debate.

The MLB comment states: The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. .

My question is, if the outfield is playing shallow and an outfielder makes a catch in a spot that 'in the umpires judgement' could have been easily handled by an infielder, does an infielder even have to make an attempt to catch the ball?

No.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Just a question: If a coach asked you why it wasn't an infield fly when his F6 was waiting for the ball to come down when his fielder was 40' in the grass?

I honestly don't know too many coaches who would even think of this (the play in the MLB video) as an IFF. Most of them would be questioning why it was called.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by asdf

And when the coach asks you to show him where in Rule 2-19 it says anything about 10-20 feet, are you going to show him the rule, ignore him, or are you going to just make something else up?

If you want to call an IFF with an infielder 40 to 50 feet out, go for it. I will not. I think you are picking up the $hitty end of a rotten stick by calling this. I do not see the intent of the rule (prevent the unearned DP) being served with the infielder so far out. If you want to have $hit on your hands and a coach in your face, by all means, enjoy it.

Remember, I never said it was wrong, I simply said I will not call this under these conditions. Were I evaluating an umpire and he made this call, I would not mark him negatively as long his explanation for the call so far out was in line with the rule. In other words, as long as the umpire knew why he called this, I would have to accept it as a correct call in the evaluation.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I honestly don't know too many coaches who would even think of this (the play in the MLB video) as an IFF. Most of them would be questioning why it was called.

that's because they don't know the rules. They do now!

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I do not see the intent of the rule (prevent the unearned DP)

That's not the only reason. Swapping runners is another option that a savvy defense will exploit if this is not properly called. But you're right, that is the main reason

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I honestly don't know too many coaches who would even think of this (the play in the MLB video) as an IFF. Most of them would be questioning why it was called.

That may be. But, I was just wondering if the answer would be in line with the rule. If an umpire "judges" it to not be in line with the rule, by all means, don't call it. Too many are saying b/c it was "too deep" or the level of play. Both are weak arguments and protestable. Also, if a HS could go out this far and get set to catch it without being "on the run", I think he deserves credit for the effort even if he drops it. Besides, the rule somewhat states the same thing.

[GA Umpire]

I think one thing that is being overlooked is the possibility of F7 coming in on the run and catching it to throw to 3B. And, that would not change the fact that F6 still got to it with ordinary effort. If the runners were tagging instead of having a lead, this would very well be a "cheap DP". That is the main goal of the rule, right? It could have been done at this level and possibly HS, definitely college. Just b/c this one hit the ground and the runners had a "lead" does not change the concept or application of the rule.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Here is a question for debate.

The MLB comment states: The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. .

My question is, if the outfield is playing shallow and an outfielder makes a catch in a spot that 'in the umpires judgement' could have been easily handled by an infielder, does an infielder even have to make an attempt to catch the ball?

What about the reverse of this? Left handed pull hitter at the plate. The shortstop is swung around to the first base side of second and the second baseman is playing shallow right field. Is it IFF if the second baseman can, with ordinary effort, catch the ball that is 80 feet behind the baseline? 120 feet? How far back is too far, or is there a limit?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

If you want to call an IFF with an infielder 40 to 50 feet out, go for it. I will not. I think you are picking up the $hitty end of a rotten stick by calling this. I do not see the intent of the rule (prevent the unearned DP) being served with the infielder so far out. If you want to have $hit on your hands and a coach in your face, by all means, enjoy it.

Remember, I never said it was wrong, I simply said I will not call this under these conditions. Were I evaluating an umpire and he made this call, I would not mark him negatively as long his explanation for the call so far out was in line with the rule. In other words, as long as the umpire knew why he called this, I would have to accept it as a correct call in the evaluation.

Lets see... Under the same cirsumstances...... (infielder waves off outfielder then both have a brain fart)

I have a coach in my face when I call the IFF 40-50 feet out. The fact that I call an IFF means that I have ruled ordinary effort. He tells me that the fielder is 40-50 feet into the outfield and that's way too far. When I respond that distance is of no consideration and he asks to see written rule to back that up..........

I can back that up.

You, on the other hand do not call the IFF because the fielder is 21 feet into the outfield and the ball drops. The coach is in your face and you tell him that there cannot be ordinary effort due to the fact that the infielder is too far out into the outfield. The coach knows that distance is of no consideration and asks you to show him in the book.

You cannot back that up.

I've got a coach in my face that in the end, will respect the fact that I know the rule.

You've got a coach in your face that in the end, will know that you don't know the rule.

Somebody pass Ozzy the Charmin...................

[GA Umpire]

All I would say is for those who will not call this an IFR call, just make sure you defend the call with actual rule book support. Saying it is "too deep" or "that is not what I consider ordinary effort for this level" is protestable and should be rightfully upheld.

I know just about every rule in the book can be headed off with the word "judgment". Just make sure you are "judging" the correct thing according to the rules and not some made up excuse for not calling it by the rules.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

What about the reverse of this? Left handed pull hitter at the plate. The shortstop is swung around to the first base side of second and the second baseman is playing shallow right field. Is it IFF if the second baseman can, with ordinary effort, catch the ball that is 80 feet behind the baseline? 120 feet? How far back is too far, or is there a limit?

Section 2 (definitions) An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

This should be sufficient for you to answer your own question.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Section 2 (definitions) An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

This should be sufficient for you to answer your own question.

But it's not, as you'll find if you look up the definition of "infield."

The rules were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers, and sometimes that gets us into trouble.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Section 2 (definitions) An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

This should be sufficient for you to answer your own question.

The rule book also defines the infield as just the 90 foot square, so that doesn't really work either..

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

But it's not, as you'll find if you look up the definition of "infield."

The rules were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers, and sometimes that gets us into trouble.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The rule book also defines the infield as just the 90 foot square, so that doesn't really work either...

If the 2nd baseman is "playing in shallow right field", he's not an infielder for the purposes of this rule in my opinion. Your opinions may vary.