Infield Fly - ordinary effort

[dweezil24]

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,

[mcrowder]

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"

[dweezil24]

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.

[mcrowder]

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.

[wadeintothem]

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"

[mcrowder]

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.

[mcrowder]

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.

[wadeintothem]

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]

[wadeintothem]

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]

[mcrowder]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

"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.

[CecilOne]

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.

[baldgriff]

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...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
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.

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

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

Which topic do you want me to present?

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