Understanding the Infield Fly
 

Really? This is from the title page. Anyone else have a problem(s) with this statement?

'untouched'?

'if fair?' (omission)

'wait' till the ball touched the ground before make the verbal IF?

I guess 'routine' is synonymous with 'normal effort' though :D

What is the source of this "knowledge," Mike?

This is from the home page of officiating.com.

Officiating.com

I didn't realize anyone actually read those articles. Do any of the contributors there post in these forums?

Wow, that's bad in so many ways.

(Not mentioned yet is the unclear grammar in the parentheses... one could read their statement to mean that if it was just runners on 1st and 2nd, it didn't matter how many outs there are, but if bases loaded there must be less than 2 outs)

Need to retitle the article or link to "Misunderstanding the Infield Fly".

I don't know if she's still active but the author of the piece, Becky Davidson, was an NCAA umpire working DI conferences, this goes back 5-10 years ago.

Sometimes those who know it best are the worst choice to explain, because so much is obvious to them. :rolleyes:
That is also why we find so much ambiguity in cases, RS, and rules themselves. :)


Also, why my wife has trouble understanding me. ;)

Okay. I clicked on the link and read the article, at least as much as I could without a membership, and let me tell you, there was nothing in the article that would ever make me think of getting a membership to officiating.com. Not only does it contain the factual errors already mentioned, but it is also poorly written.

If you are trying to sell people on parting with money for a membership, you really need to feature articles that have, at the very least, been edited for grammar, style and content.

When a "routine" fly ball is hit to the infield (with runners on first and second or first, second, and third with fewer than two outs) and drops untouched to the ground, the plate umpire should declare "Infield fly, batter's out" loudly enough so that the runner(s) can hear him.

IRISH, I agree that we should rename this article appropriately as: “Misunderstanding the Infield Fly Rule”.

This has been added

"Noted added, 10 AM CDT: NY coach Richard Ives emailed to say: "The teaser included the phrase 'and drops untouched to the ground,' which makes it sound like you don't call the IFF until it hits the ground. This impression is shared by others on your softball forum. Is this really what you want?"

We certainly do not want that. The infield fly call – "Infield fly, the batter's out!" –should be made closely to the time the batted ball reaches its greatest height. To wait to make that call until the ball falls untouched to the ground is to defeat – in spades –the purpose of the rule. Whoever is arguing to the contrary is probably named Old Smitty."

Yeah. I saw that. Even more reason for me to not want to join the organization. Not a real professional answer!

What an absurd answer. An infield fly is an infield fly, regardless of whether it's caught or drops to the ground untouched. To put that into their "explanation" of the rule both misleads the uneducated reader and proves they've got no clue what they are talking about.

That response makes it look like whoever "interpreted" that is an idiot.

"Please don't take what I say to mean what I actually intended to say!" :rolleyes:

That note added by Dickinson, I assume, states that Richard Ives asserts that we share the impression that IFF is called when the ball hits the ground.

hogwash. moderator. write a letter to the ... at officiating.com and have them do a better job. this is unacceptable.

No - it asserts that my impression is shared by others. It does NOT say that this interpretation is shared by others. The note was added by or at the behest of Carl Childress who "got it" when I e-mailed him, and is why it was added to the teaser.

"The teaser included the phrase 'and drops untouched to the ground,' which makes it sound like you don't call the IFF until it hits the ground. This impression is shared by others on your softball forum. Is this really what you want?"

I think I missed one
 

I umpired a Fall Ball game last Saturday and there was a quick pop-up that probably went no more than fifteen feet up in the air and to the left of the pitchers mound. There was one out and there were runners on first and second with one out. The pitcher bobbled the ball and then the bases were loaded. The coach of the defensive team came out of the dugout pissed off that I didn't call the infield fly. He actually yelled why isn't that an infield fly in a demanding way. If he had called time and then asked me why I didn't call it I would have gotten both coaches together and then maybe would have called it. I asked the offensive coach between innings how far he thought it went in the air and he said no more than twelve feet. Its the first time that I have been called out on not calling and infield fly since I started umping two years ago. Generally on an infield fly the ball would go alot higher in the air that way you have plenty of time to call it and you see all of your surroundings better to do with runners on base even though I know your suppose to know that before the pitch. Do you think sometimes on such a quick pop-up that doesn't go that high that it always has to be an infield fly.
It all happend so fast I really didn't have much reaction time, I guess live and learn on this one. Could anyone give me some input on this one.

The height (other than it cannot be a line drive) and the pitcher's handling of the ball is irrelevant.

You call it as soon as you can. If not calling it places any of the runners in jeopardy, you should enforce the rule after the fact even if you didn't call it.

Height goes to ordinary effort. Wouldn't you agree that a 12' pop not hit directly at a fielder will typically not qualify for ordinary effort?

Of course it's a HTBT, but...

Two awful things here. First and foremost - the demeanor of the coach should never ever play a role in your decision making (other than the decision to announce his ejection, I suppose). Second - you don't ask for coach input and then make a call.

If YOU thought this was an infield fly (and only you can decide this, we weren't there) and failed to call it, then fix it after the fact. If YOU did not, tell the coach it was not easily caught with normal effort, as the rule requires.

To me, it seems likely that a ball 12-15 feet and not directly at the pitcher could easily be judged to be not easily caught with normal effort. The fact that she didn't catch it shouldn't affect your judgement, but it may have validated that judgement.

Remember, the rule is there to protect the OFFENSE from the defense getting an easy double play. Not to protect the defense from having to play defense.

Nope. Absolutely nothing to do with the rule and wouldn't even consider mentioning the height. That is just as ridiculous as saying a player cannot block the base without the ball when doing so has zero to do with an obstruction call.

I agree that in practice, and in front of the coach, no mention of the height of the ball should be made.

However, here, on the board, when you're trying to get your audience to "see" the play for themselves, it is relevant.

To the coach, simply use the terminology that is actually in the rule.

Not unless the audience can also "see" the position of the fielders, have observed their abilities and, if need be, relative reaction to the ball being hit. Even then is can be confusing since the ONLY relevance to a batter ball in an IF situation is whether the infielder, pitcher or catcher can fielder that ball with ordinary effort.