Infield Bloop

[CecilOne]

The IFR excludes line drives (and bunts).
1) What is your criteria on an infield bloop for deciding line drive or fly?

2) Has anyone considered that a maybe-line-drive, aka infield bloop, presents more need to protect the runners as they have less time to return?

[teebob21]

1. My criteria: An infield fly needs to be an obvious fly ball that an infielder can field with ordinary effort. Height doesn't matter, but it can't be a driven ball. The IFR (and intentional drop) rule exists to prevent cheap double plays...if I see a little bloop hit that sends fielders sprinting and may or may not be caught, no way is that an infield fly. A bloop hit directly at a fielder, now maybe that IS an infield fly, as it could be dropped to earn a cheap double play on the forced runners.

2. While they may have less time to return on a bloop, they have even less time to return on a line drive, and almost none on a perceptible-arc foul out caught by F2! They deserve no protection. They took a risk when they left their base before a batted ball was touches or hit the ground. They are at their own jeopardy. Pick 'em off.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The IFR excludes line drives (and bunts).
1) What is your criteria on an infield bloop for deciding line drive or fly?

2) Has anyone considered that a maybe-line-drive, aka infield bloop, presents more need to protect the runners as they have less time to return?

For me these are HTBT plays. I need to see the play to be able to determine if it is a line drive, or a bloop, or a pop up. As with Teebob, if the defense has to start sprinting to make a catch, it isn't a IFF (in all likelihood), but if it is blooped to a defensive player, I am more likely to call it. Again, these are HTBT plays in my opinion.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

2) Has anyone considered that a maybe-line-drive, aka infield bloop, presents more need to protect the runners as they have less time to return?

No. The infield fly rule doesn't protect runners that have to return. It protects them from being forced to go FORWARD if the ball is not caught.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No. The infield fly rule doesn't protect runners that have to return. It protects them from being forced to go FORWARD if the ball is not caught.

Of course, didn't say that. Not being forced to go forward means returning if they started to run.

[MD Longhorn]

Then I'm confused by what you're asking.

If the ball is caught (regardless of whether it's a bloop or a high fly), the runner is in exactly the same jeopardy if IFF is called as they would be if IFF was not called. Calling IFF on a liner that's caught doesn't get them back any quicker.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Then I'm confused by what you're asking.

If the ball is caught (regardless of whether it's a bloop or a high fly), the runner is in exactly the same jeopardy if IFF is called as they would be if IFF was not called. Calling IFF on a liner that's caught doesn't get them back any quicker.

What is your criteria on an infield bloop for deciding line drive or fly?
IOW, differentiating, what makes you decide a batted ball in the air to/near an infielder is a line drive (not an IF) or a fly ball (an IF and call it)?

Not a question about runners, just about the flight of the ball.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What is your criteria on an infield bloop for deciding line drive or fly?
IOW, differentiating, what makes you decide a batted ball in the air to/near an infielder is a line drive (not an IF) or a fly ball (an IF and call it)?

Not a question about runners, just about the flight of the ball.

If it looks like a bloop, it's a bloop. If it looks like a line drive, well, there you go. This is why I get the big bucks.

Edit to add: I think I get what you are asking on the runner's "protection". A bloop hit may be called an IFF, meaning the runners are not forced, and on a bloop there is less time for us to read, process, react and communicate with the game participants. I say no, it needs no consideration. The players should just play...run if it's dropped, tag up if it's caught, and keep an ear open for the umpire to make a call.

[teebob21]

I thought of this post last weekend...and I believe I made the proper non-call.

Bases loaded, 0 out. Infield bloop hit just over the pitcher's head to drop into the infield in front of 2B. F4 and F6 charging but no play on the batted ball in the air. Not sure which infielder picked up the ball, but fired it to HP, then 3B, then 2B for a triple play. Like I said in my past post: if it looks like a bloop, it's a bloop. I like triple plays.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Look at it this way.

What are the two exceptions to an IF? As you noted, a bunt or line drive.

So the only question prior to determine the effort required by an infielder to catch the batted ball is if it was a bunt or line drive. If the answer to both is "no", then it is possibly an IF

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I thought of this post last weekend...and I believe I made the proper non-call.

Bases loaded, 0 out. Infield bloop hit just over the pitcher's head to drop into the infield in front of 2B. F4 and F6 charging but no play on the batted ball in the air. Not sure which infielder picked up the ball, but fired it to HP, then 3B, then 2B for a triple play. Like I said in my past post: if it looks like a bloop, it's a bloop. I like triple plays.

Did you not rule IFR because of effort not "reasonable" or because a "line drive"?

[teebob21]

Catching that ball on the fly would have required superhuman reaction time and speed. I couldn't call it ordinary effort. It was one of those weird poorly hit balls with a lot of backspin that look like they should be moving through the air faster, but don't.