Infield fly rule

[boldfacesun]

I would like clarification on a rule that I also thought I understood from a coaches perspective.

Bases were loaded, 1 out. Hitter pops up just over second base, umpire yells "infield fly". The runner on 3rd base had taken off with the hit and she was trotting back to 3rd to tag back up. The SS, who caught the ball, then threw to 3rd before the hitter got back and the umpire called the runner out. I always thought that until the runner tagged back up, they couldn't be called out. Please clarify.

[greymule]

You thought what?

[mick]

Originally posted by boldfacesun
I would like clarification on a rule that I also thought I understood from a coaches perspective.

Bases were loaded, 1 out. Hitter pops up just over second base, umpire yells "infield fly". The runner on 3rd base had taken off with the hit and she was trotting back to 3rd to tag back up. The SS, who caught the ball, then threw to 3rd before the hitter got back and the umpire called the runner out. I always thought that until the runner tagged back up, they couldn't be called out. Please clarify.

boldface,
The stating of "infield fly" by an umpire informs the base runners that they will not be subject to a possible force play at their next base.
It does not protect the runner from the runner's own screw-ups.
This was a very young age group I gather.
During such an infield fly, the batter is out, but the ball remains in play, whether it is caught or dropped.
mick

[Dakota]

Exactly, mick.

boldfacesun, the call of "infield fly - batter out" does nothing with respect to how the runners should treat the fly ball. All it does is remove the force in the event the fly ball is not caught, so the runners are not forced to advance into a dead-duck double play.

The runners still have to tag up to advance if the ball is caught, and are still in jeopardy of being out on a live ball appeal if they do not tag up, just like any other fly ball.

The infield fly rule does not protect the runner from the appeal for leaving early on the caught fly ball.

[bluezebra]

"I always thought that until the runner tagged back up, they couldn't be called out."

By what rule, or misguided reasoning, would a runner be called out AFTER returning to the base?

Bob

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by bluezebra
"I always thought that until the runner tagged back up, they couldn't be called out."

By what rule, or misguided reasoning, would a runner be called out AFTER returning to the base?

Bob

I was wondering that exact thing, Bob.

Scott

[nickdangerME]

I am surmising that boldfacesun misunderstood the IF rule as applying to runners in a way akin to a foul ball - only live. That is, perhaps he or she was thinking the runner could make his or her way back to the base without jeopardy of being put out, but once back on the bag the runner could be tagged out if they risked advancing.

Hey, I give boldfacesun credit for asking the question. It's a nice way to learn. But boy, wouldn't be a better world if coaches and players actually sat down and made their way through a rule book, at least to prime themselves for common plays like IF calls?

[Martin T.]

I have met a few coaches who believed that the ball was dead when IF called - and argued the point when their runner was tagged out before returning to base.

[greymule]

Once as PU I had my partner tell me that as soon as IF was called, the batter was out, so that was akin to a catch. The runners could tag up and run at that point. They didn't have to wait until the ball was caught.

The guy had recently been a college baseball hero, too. Only game I ever did with him.

He had similar "interesting" opinions on several other rules, too.

I have seen umps call the IF dead, too, after it drops and the fielders advance.

[Dakota]

Not quite the same thing, but recognizing that the intent of the rule is to protect the offense, I have at times not called the IF at 12U rec because:

1) Hardly anything could be caught with "ordinary effort" for some of these teams, and

2) Teams are unlikely to intentionally let the ball drop for a double play attempt - they just want the out.

3) The resulting confusion of calling the IF is more likely to reward the defense than the offense.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dakota

3) The resulting confusion of calling the IF is more likely to reward the defense than the offense.

Good one!

[greymule]

Yes, at lower levels, it has to be the textbook example of the IF. If it's not obviously IF, I don't call it.

Been burned by calling it, never burned by not calling it. If it's not the obvious call and they still catch it, the runners are safe. If it's not the obvious call and they drop it, they won't get a double play anyway, and you can always say it wasn't ordinary effort, because if all it took was ordinary effort, they'd have caught it.

[SamNVa]

I once had a coach tell me that the runners had to tag up wheneve an infield fly was called even if the ball was not caught!. His argument was that by calling the infield fly the catch was implied so the runners could not leave their bases until the ball was touched or hit the ground.

SamC

[mick]

Originally posted by SamNVa
I once had a coach tell me that the runners had to tag up wheneve an infield fly was called even if the ball was not caught!. His argument was that by calling the infield fly the catch was implied so the runners could not leave their bases until the ball was touched or hit the ground.

SamC

Sam,
Yeah, it's great to get that type of intellectual input.
I guess we learn to expect it.
mick

[greymule]

Yes, that coach should meet the ump who thought that the announcement of the IF immediately constituted a catch, i.e., runners could legally tag and run upon the announcement, even with the ball still in the air. I'm sure those two could run a great clinic.