Understanding the Infield Fly

[IRISHMAFIA]

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

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.


And we wonder why people cannot get this extremely simple rule correct

[okla21fan]

'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

[Skahtboi]

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

[Welpe]

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?

[MD Longhorn]

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".

[KJUmp]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

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.
That is also why we find so much ambiguity in cases, RS, and rules themselves.


Also, why my wife has trouble understanding me.

[Skahtboi]

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.

[txtrooper]

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”.

[ChampaignBlue]

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."

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by ChampaignBlue

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!

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Welpe]

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!"

[ronald]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ronald

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?"