On an infield fly ruling, does "ordinary effort" refer to the average player, or the players currently on the field?

In a men's slow-pitch game last night, there was a pop-up between the plate and the pitcher that would normally be caught. The problem is the pitcher is a big slow ball-of-something and the catcher doesn't know his glove from a hole in the ground. Another team's players could have caught the ball no problem, but this one dropped after I called infield fly.

Did I pull the trigger too early, should I have waited to see if it was going to be caught for sure? Or did I call it right and it's their problem if they can't catch? Obviously the offense was upset because their batter was out.

Thanks,

Don't know if you pulled the trigger too quickly... when did you pull the trigger?

If you did so at or near the apex of the flight of the ball, you should have had a decent chance at judging that the slow piece of whatever and the man who didn't know what this glove was for were not going to get to this ball. If, at the apex of the ball, you thought they were going to catch it, then even though they didn't get it, you probably called it right.

If you called it before that, then yeah - you probably pulled the trigger too early.

Remember that IFF is in place to PROTECT the offense from the purposeful drop and double play. And to answer your other question, the abilities of the actual players on the field and their positions on the field DOES factor into the decision of "ordinary effort"

Aaah, OK. I called it near the apex, but I was watching the ball and not where the players were moving to or how fast they were moving after the ball was hit. I falsely assumed that they were going to get there in plenty of time. I have to do a better job of keeping an eye on everything at once, but that comes with experience I guess.

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate this forum. I've learned a lot here.

It will. As the ball approaches the apex, you're looking back down to see if it will be caught. Waiting until it reaches the apex does you no good if you just continue looking at the ball.

I'm sure you'll get it next time. :)

I dont think the rook blew the call.. just call it, thats the rule. Using mccrowders interpretation it could be said that 90% of 10U IFF should not be called as I doubt they would intentionally drop a ball to make a double play that they probably cant make anyway.

It says ordinary effort, it doesnt say "ordinary effort" "ordinary effort considing the skill of players involved"

I was using his own description of the play to determine whether it may have been wrong. If he saw it at the apex, checked the fielders, and saw that there was no way they were going to get the ball, IFF should NOT be called. This was not "my" interpretation - it is the rules in the book.

I should note, however, that my words were not intended to say "if you don't think they can turn a DP, don't call it", and if it was interpreted that way I apologize. I was just describing the INTENT of the rule.

And yes, 90% of the IFF in 10U should not be called. Maybe 100%. But not because they can't turn the DP - more because many popups hit by 10 year olds don't actually reach a fielder (excluding the pitcher, I suppose), and said fielder will not, using ordinary effort, get to the ball.

I'll add this - an actual sitch where calling IFF early or not checking the fielders would have resulted in a mistaken IFF call.

12U game. Ball hit reasonably high, directly to where F4 was set up. Immediately I'm ready to call IFF - it's a no-brainer. But due to habit, my brain won't let me say it until I watch the ball near it's apex. As it does, I look down and the words are literally almost out of my mouth.

F4 had, for some reason, hustled to 2nd base, and was looking toward the shortstop, who was approaching 2nd base and looking back at her. Pitcher was pointing up and looking at 1st base. F3 was on first base.

Luckily, I had the wherewithal to NOT call IFF. R1 actually scored on the play, R2 made it to 3rd and scored when the ball was retrieved by a hustling F9 and then thrown over 2nd base as BR tried for 2nd.

And this was a NORMALLY decent team, who just had a brainfart on this play.

I think we have a different opinion of the definition of ordinary effort.

To me your definition is "ordinary effort considering the skill of players" or "whether the SP catcher is eating his Fruity Twist at the time of the play so couldnt get to the ball" .. Certainly at any adult level (conceding the 10U was probably a poor example) .. and ordinary fly ball that could be caught is a IFF.

The book says "...caught by an infielder with ordinary effort..".

A catcher who cant catch is not "ordinary effort" at all.. its rather extraordinary :) .

Re Your described situation is more of a ball not in the reach of an infielder and no effort could have caught the ball - and was probably the correct call... but even then maybe not. Why are you changing a call based on whether the ordinary effort was made?

What about this.. you know the catcher cant catch..

a)F2 gets under the ball and bobbles the catch and it drops to the ground...
or..

b) He is 1/2 blind and sets up for the catch and you can tell he is out of position and wont make the catch..

Do you not call the IFF because he cant catch?

I think you are reading too much into the rule and especially with a newer umpire expecting him to consider to many things..

When I'm working .. me and the partner do the IFF signal when its on .. and its called.. end of story. IMO, at any regular skill level virtually any IF is IFF, barring something really unusual like wind or sand storm, UFO distracting the player, or whatever.

Even then it would probably be called and reversed if necessary.
---------------------------------
A fair fly that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort..

F3 picking her nose and missed the play did not make ordinary effort, but had they, they could have.. its IFF IMO.

Ordinary effort is not affected by whether they made ordinary effort .. the IF that CAN be caught by ordinary effort is the key to IFF.

[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 1st, 2006 at 11:01 AM]

mc, setting this situation aside, where probably the players never even heard of IFF, would you at least concede that at any decent level of play IFF is the expected call by players and coaches alike when its on.. and you just call it - and is a much easier sell than telling a coach "well I thought your SS cant catch so I didnt call IFF" or even "well I thought your SS couldnt really get to the ball since she injured her knee running bases so ordinary effort would not have made the catch"

The whole IF is covered by players and at any real level of play the O and D know the call is coming and expect it, reacting accordingly, and you are picking boogers to not call it due to some nuance you read into the rule IMO.



[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 1st, 2006 at 10:59 AM]

I see your points.

I guess my point is that "ordinary effort" should not be judged at the moment the ball is hit. It should be judged when the ball is at or nearing it's apex. (If I'm wrong, then what is the intent of our clinicians who advise us to wait until this point to make the call --- what are we looking for at this point that we were not able to discern earlier?)

Forget 10U because I think we're kind of on the same page there.

If, at the apex of the ball, there is a fielder poised under (or nearly under) the spot where the ball is going to land, it's an IFF. No - I'm not taking into account the fact that the catcher is awful or half blind... but this goes hand in hand with the INTENT of this rule. If F2 is in position, but not likely to make the catch, then F2 IS in position to start an unearned double play - which is what the rule was supposed to protect. Regarding the booger-picking first baseman (or the adult F3 who happens to be peering at the hottie in row 1 when the ball reaches the apex) - there's no reason to assume that F3 will not become aware of the situation by the time the ball gets there - you still have IFF there too.

In the long-winded play I described, at the moment the ball was hit, it appeared to be a no-brainer IFF. But at the moment the ball was at it's apex, I was able to see that not only would this ball drop with ordinary effort, but in fact there was no way in Hades this ball was going to be caught. Why penalize the offense by calling an out here - that was not the intent of the rule.

I know this goes strongly against the grain of the "Need an out call an out" or the "I'm going to call an out in every possible situation so I can leave earlier" factions. But I don't believe the wording of the rule or the intent of the rule is to call an out in either the OP or the sitch I described.

And regarding newer officials, I don't believe this makes things complicated. OP obviously new how long to wait before making the call... but not why he was waiting that long. I think this is easy to train. Wait until the apex - look back down to see if the ball, to the best of your knowledge at that moment, is likely to be caught (or at least fielded) with normal effort, and call the IFF if it is.

PS - you can call me Mike.

"Ordinary effort" is a variable. The umpire must take into consideration the players and their ability.

It would be different for a 12U game than that of an 18U.

If you haven't seen the upper levels of SP lately, it is quite possible a pop-up could literally land on 2B and not be an IF. The middle infielders routinely play 40-50 feet behind the baseline, sometimes farther.

There is no set-in-stone standard an umpire can use. Each possible IF situation must be evaluated individually based on the position and ability of the players and their attempt to make the play. If not, what would you do as a single umpire when F4 realizes that there is no way any of his/her teammates is going to get to the ball, so just stands there, pounding the glove and screaming, "I'VE GOT IT"? Before you ask, no, I would not consider that verbal obstruction.

As far as I know, waiting for the apex to call IFR is to confirm where the ball will come down because on the way up is subject to optical illusions, wind, etc.

The intent of the rule has always been to protect the runners from a cheap DP, so the interpretation, if not the wording, should be based on whether the ball will come down where an infielder could make the cheap DP and get rid of the "ordinary effort" factor.

The 12 year old example
 

Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a bit. IFF is determined if the player could catch the ball with reasonable effort. But from what point do you make that determination? Should it be from where the IF was at the point the ball was batted or at the time you are getting ready to make the call?

In the example of the 12 yr old the 2nd baseman misplayed the ball. It actually sounds as if this ball would have normally been caught by the fielder, but do to an uncommon misjudgement the player went to cover 2nd. Why wouldnt the batter be out if the IF could have made the out using ordinary effort?

Nah just kidding........... I would have and have done the same thing. However, I have had a coach ask me about this possibility.

Ordinary effort is completely subjective...

That regional clinic in DC is really looking like a good idea.

Which topic do you want me to present? :D

ok, BECAUSE:
1) I wrote what I've been taught about the apex timing
OR
2) I understand the rule, but want it changed?

Just because the defensive team had a brain malfunction does not mean the IFF is not in effect. Please explain to me why this was not an IFF. I am sorry but I think you blew this call.

MTD, Sr.

How can you determine ordinary effort if no effort at all was made?

The rule states that it is based on the closest infielder. If all the fielders leave the area where the umpire anticipates the ball to land and there is no one situated where they can catch the ball, why should the offense be denied the BR reaching base safely?

While the IF rule is meant to prevent the runners from being placed in a no-win situation, it is not meant to give the defense and automatic out just because the batted ball doesn't leave the infield.

I agree with your assessment mike, it is not meant to be an automatic out, player position is certainly considered.. but the point is MUCH too much is being judged IMO in the scenarios given.

I wonder how many would disagree with NFHS Case play 2.30.b

Kinda paraphrasing..but you'll get the idea

IFF is on.. popup between home and first with F3 losing sight of the ball because of the sun.. the ball lands without being caught...

Ruling Even though IFF not called its still in effect and B3 is out.

You start judging on players ability, sun, wind, wounds received in previous games, color of mit, etc.. and thats too much into the rule..

Player position.. yeah if no one can catch it at all.. its not IFF.. but doubtless many would normally argue that the ball was not catchable with ordinary effort due to sun, wind skill.. whatever in the NFHS case play presented.

Losing it in the sun or blown away by the wind, I agree. You don't not call it just because there is such an indication (you grammar hounds gotta love that sentence). However, if it is apparent the fielder just cannot find the ball, that would be another story.

I'd rather error on the side of giving the play a chance than declaring an automatic out. Need to remember, not calling it at it's apex does not excuse the rule. The IFR can be applied after the play. OTOH, the IF call cannot be undone.

What is the worse case scenario if you do not call it? You rule the BR out and move the runners back to where they were at the TOP and you are a little embarrassed. However, how embarrassed would you be if you do make the call, the infielders never even come close to the ball and all runners are safe without a play?

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 2nd, 2006 at 07:35 AM]

Am I reading this right? No effort on the part of the defense negates an IFF?

No, Tom. You're not reading this right at all. No effort doesn't negate anything.

I was only trying to make the point that we should not make the decision about whether a ball will be catchable until it reaches the apex. Not just because it gives us a better read on where the ball will actually land, but also because it gives us a better read on whether the fielders will be in position to make a play with "ordinary" effort.

I think a lot of people are reading more into my comments that I intended. I ask you to reread the above paragraph. I don't mean to say we should assume a non catch because the fielder sucks. If the fielder is (or can reasonably be expected to be) at or near where the ball is going to land, call the IFF. In the initial post, the ball was landing somewhere that original poster might not have expected the fielders to get to if he'd checked their actions and positions at the time of the ball reaching the apex instead of just at the time of the hit.

But if no fielder will be able to catch the ball, based on the information available to you when the ball is reaching it's apex, don't give them the free out.

I think most of us have moved to more or less the same page.. which brings me back to the OP ... who was questioning his call based probably more on some guys complaining who are rather clueless as to the rules in general and wouldnt know an IFF if it landed on their face -- as opposed to arguing specific nuance as to apex, ordinary effort .. etc.


This to me reads.. effort was made of some type .. since he said "was going to be caught for sure" and "their problem they cant catch" but the players suck so bad, they didnt catch it.

So the concern of the Umps here probably is whether there was a free out doled out by our man in blue.

According to him, reading a little into it.. a catchable pop up with IFF on, effort was made, but was uncaught.. he called IFF.. BR out.

While with 20/20 hindsight, since it was uncaught (or intentionally "accidently uncaught"/no chance in hades of a double play by this enept team) his call is probably outside the intent of the creation of the rule, he was definately within the rule, case plays, and proper mechanic and enforcement of the rule.. so IMO..

He did not blow the call.. and if the same exact thing happened tonight, he should make the exact same call.



[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 AM]

STRICTLY speaking I agree its better not to call it when its questionable than to call it... but its pretty darn close..

I have no clue why you would be moving players back.. the force is off but they CAN go, and calls are made accordingly.. its the players responsiblity as well to know the situation and know IFF...

This is where you get into trouble not calling it though, and the "error on the side of not calling it" is closer than one might think..

when the criteria of the written rule is met, you can call it and not have to eat as much crow as your scenario IMO.. We know as umpires some of the ends and outs of IFF enforcement.. but the written rule is clear and making the call when IFF criteria met is a done deal .. and IMO much less likely to cause problem/griping when dealing with players that know the rules .. than not calling it, eating crow from both sides, looking enept, moving players around (for whatever reason you would do that), and generally making a mess of a BIG mess of the play.

In fact, as I write that.. while it might be good for discussion fodder.. if I was behind the plate I would almost rather error on the side of calling the BR out and thinking on it for next time.. much less hassle..

Hey coach, catchable IFF R1 & R2 BR out blah blah play ball.. than wandering around the infield moving players and looking like a big schmuck.

[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 2nd, 2006 at 10:45 AM]

Tony,

Not necessarily, but think about it. If the team refuses to try and catch the ball, why give them an automatic out?

I'm not talking about a ball that is going to land at an infielder's feet, but something where the player must go after the ball at the outset of the play.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility that a pop-up could literally fall in fair territory between the P, C & 3B 12yo players and not be caught with ordinary effort

RE: the OP... I actually didn't say he blew the call. I wasn't there. He asked if he pulled the trigger too early. If he called IFF at the apex without checking the locations of the fielders, then I still think he pulled the trigger too early.

However, it's entirely possible that he STILL made the correct call. There's not a heck of a lot of room between pitcher and catcher - even the crappiest and slowest should have either A) caught the ball, or B) having flubbed the catch still had enough time/ability to attempt a DP.

RE: why did Mike return his runners? You say that in that sitch they CAN run... the problem is, if you didn't call what SHOULD have been called in retrospect, the runners have to assume that they HAVE to run. Thus putting themselves at risk. I would likely return the runners as well if I retroactively call an IFF.

bah, you can always fall back on "its your job to know IFF".. but that IS THE trouble with not calling it when its an ify call... you have to work through a bunch of crap.. not just say.. "hey IFF, BR out .. now let me go eat my hotdog and shawdup"

why give them an automatic out?

Because a fly ball on the infield should be an out. It is what the defense deserved for successful pitching. When we start getting judgmental about fielders positions, directions of movement, athletic ability, wind conditions, etc. we lose track of the fact that a ball may fall to the ground and still give the defense a chance for two outs. Runners are still going to be trapped at their bases by the fly ball. Defenders can recover from bad positioning and throw to two bases fasters than runners can cover that distance.

Our “apex” judgment should not limited to whether or not the ball can be caught, but to whether or not an uncaught ball can be turned into a DP. If we are going to judge where defenders are located, then we must also judge how far the runners are off base, how fast they are, and how close defenders are to taking a throw at a base.

I understand the technical nit-picking that is going on here, but I am more inclined to call an infield fly an out – period – rather than risk a DP.

WMB

Could be a deliberate attempt to sucker the offense by appearing to be brain-dead, knowing they are going to get the out anyway, why not test the wits of the offense?

Hard to tell what is going on in the mind of a player.

I just couldn't figure out how you could [i]not[/] give them the automatic out.

Really?? Just how high does the ball have to be to qualify for an infield fly? Is it possible that the ball just isn't high enough for the players to get to it?

Yes, it is. There you go, a fly ball in the infield that is not an IF.

Call it or not, I don't care, it is YOUR judgment.

Quote:

Our “apex” judgment should not limited to whether or not the ball can be caught, but to whether or not an uncaught ball can be turned into a DP. If we are going to judge where defenders are located, then we must also judge how far the runners are off base, how fast they are, and how close defenders are to taking a throw at a base. I understand the technical nit-picking that is going on here, but I am more inclined to call an infield fly an out – period – rather than risk a DP. WMB

You don't risk ****. If it is a deke by the defense, you can always apply it after the fact if you messed up. If the ball was not caught and a runner advances safely, leave them there. If the ball is not caught and the runners are doubled up, apply the IF and return the runners.

If the ball is caught, it doesn't make a difference, does it? If a coach doesn't like it, tough, that's the rule.

This is one of the easiest rules in the book. Why do so many over-think the issue by trying to prove there is a problem. The only problems with this rule are those of confidence.

Is it in the ASA rulebook that the IFF can be applied after the play has completed? I can already see the argument from the defense when I overturn their "accidental" doubleplay.

Is a runner who was put out by five steps safe because the umpire doesn't call him/her out?

The rule is not abandoned just because the umpire doesn't call "infield fly."

It's more of an interp or you can apply 10.6.C.

It is in the ASA casebook.

That would be play 8.2-35. The play sites rule 8.2.I and 10.6.C