Infield fly...ordinary effort?

[Dakota]

An IF does not have to land in the infield... "can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort" is the standard.

So, positioning of the infielders does matter. I will also adjust for the level of play, but not for the individual player, and certainly not for how the individual player reacts to the ball.

If the infielder has to turn and run out to catch the ball, it MAY not be ordinary effort.

But, in the end, it is your judgment.

And, the purpose of the IFR is to protect the offense, so the defense has no standing to complain how ever you call it, although usually when the defense complains it is when the IF was NOT called (they are looking for the cheap out), so I like youngump's response...

[wadeintothem]

Just call the ball. If its a play where the offense needs protecting, do it. If its obvious some spectacular thing needs to happen for a play to be made and crazy stuff is going on, dont call it. You see a fielder is under it or easily moving under it, call it. Dont call the skill level, get the out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

An IF does not have to land in the infield...

Sure it does (in ASA) assuming it lands!

"can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort" is the standard.

So, positioning of the infielders does matter. I will also adjust for the level of play, but not for the individual player, and certainly not for how the individual player reacts to the ball.

Why not? As Dave noted, if the fielders are playing up or charging, reversing direction and hauling *** to get the ball is most likely not ordinary effort. And if the fielder is camped, pounding his/her glove and calling the ball, there MAY be a good chance that you will rule an IF even if the ball comes down away from that player.

If the infielder has to turn and run out to catch the ball, it MAY not be ordinary effort.

That is often a great indicator.

But, in the end, it is your judgment.

Which is the hook as to why an umpire really shouldn't approach the IF call with any preconceived notions which may or may not have a bearing on the call. But you knew that, didn't you?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Sure it does (in ASA) assuming it lands!

OK, I'll play along...

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why not? As Dave noted, if the fielders are playing up or charging, reversing direction and hauling *** to get the ball is most likely not ordinary effort. And if the fielder is camped, pounding his/her glove and calling the ball, there MAY be a good chance that you will rule an IF even if the ball comes down away from that player.

True, I was thinking in terms of the OP situation, where we have Lucy playing F4...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

OK, I'll play along...

Because ASA defines the infield as the area of fair territory normally covered by infielders.

So, for a batted ball to qualify as an IF, it would need to be in an area where an infielder can make a play on it with ordinary effort. If ordinary effort by an infielder is there, then the ball must be in the area normally covered by an infielder which means if the ball is uncaught, it will land in the infield.

You may think I'm joking, but if you have ever worked the upper level of men's SP, some of the infield configurations can put a BU so deep it s/he could easily have a normal voice conversation with the outfielder. That makes for one BIG infield, but for the purposes of the rule, that is just what it is.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You may think I'm joking, but if you have ever worked the upper level of men's SP, some of the infield configurations can put a BU so deep it s/he could easily have a normal voice conversation with the outfielder. That makes for one BIG infield, but for the purposes of the rule, that is just what it is.

Which is why the ball can land in what I refer to as the "bermuda triangle," behind the pitcher's plate (for the PC police, I did not call it the rubber), going toward 2B and SS. When they are playing THOSE configurations, I only call an IFF if there is a phone booth on the field because Superman is the only guy who is gonna catch it.

'Course, half of these wannabes think they ARE Superman.

[aceholleran]

I use two criteria--and both must be met for an IF.

1) Is the fielder "camped out" under the abll AND

2) Is the fielder facing the dish? (possible exception for F2 here).

Ace in CT

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You may think I'm joking, but if you have ever worked the upper level of men's SP, some of the infield configurations can put a BU so deep it s/he could easily have a normal voice conversation with the outfielder. That makes for one BIG infield, but for the purposes of the rule, that is just what it is.

I can relate to that. I've worked our men's open league here in Omaha, and there are times I have to be about 5 feet deep into outfield grass because the 1B and 2B play that deep.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I can relate to that. I've worked our men's open league here in Omaha, and there are times I have to be about 5 feet deep into outfield grass because the 1B and 2B play that deep.

So then this begs the question... Why not adjust? Split the difference and either draw a line between F3 and F4 or between F4 and F6 and stay behind that line? Just make sure you stay on the 1B side of the field.

Does no one else do this?

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

So then this begs the question... Why not adjust? Split the difference and either draw a line between F3 and F4 or between F4 and F6 and stay behind that line? Just make sure you stay on the 1B side of the field.

Does no one else do this?

I asked about doing this once, and our local UIC said no, as well as did our local association president. They had asked the player reps (this league has its own board) if the players were ok with this adjustment. They all said no, because they feared not only for their own safety, but the umpires' as well.

[wadeintothem]

Strange.. to me it seems you would just position yourself in front of them.

Thats what they do in this foreign game known as baseball.

Why go hang out in the outfield? Thats not your priority.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Strange.. to me it seems you would just position yourself in front of them.

Thats what they do in this foreign game known as baseball.

Why go hang out in the outfield? Thats not your priority.

No, not at all. This year, the manual got all fouled up with all the re-writes, and the diagrams were omitted. However, last year's manual does address this very concept. Look on page 217 of the 2008 Umpire Manual, and find the "Note." It refers to a bases loaded situation, but I see no reason why this adaptation can't be applied with a sole runner on 1B, a sole runner on 2B, or runners on 1B and 2B.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Sure it does (in ASA) assuming it lands!

Actually, it doesn't need to land in fair territory. It just needs to be a fair batted ball that can be caught with ordinary effort by any infielder (including pitcher and catcher). It can land in foul territory and roll fair if it hasn't passed 1B or 3B.

[NCASAUmp]

Related to this, there's 10-2-A-8:

Examples of protests which will not be considered are... whether a batted ball was or was not an infield fly.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Actually, it doesn't need to land in fair territory. It just needs to be a fair batted ball that can be caught with ordinary effort by any infielder (including pitcher and catcher). It can land in foul territory and roll fair if it hasn't passed 1B or 3B.

I started to type "Nobody said it had to land in fair territory" and no one did. However, reading through the points, it could be presumed that by the definition of infielders and infield, there is an implication that the ball would have to land in fair territory, which as you have pointed out is not necessarily so.

Good catch.