infield fly "if fair"

[Little Jimmy]

This got me thinking this weekend. USSSA game but all rulesets appreciated. Runners at 1st and 2nd, no outs, infield fly potential. Batter hits a towering fly straight up and then drifting toward the backstop fence. Backstops are at least 15 -20 feet back. Catcher fades back and camps out directly under the ball as it starts coming down. As she reaches out to touch the fence she momentarily looses sight of the ball, and it drops straight down, missing the catcher and the fence by inches. The ball takes a big kick back toward fair territory and would have went beyond the foul line into fair territory if the 3rd baseman, who was also in, hadn't have reached down and picked it up before it crossed the line. Basically a foul ball.

But here's where I started thinking (after the game of course). If the ball would have crossed the foul line into fair territory would I have had an infield fly? Wouldn't this have been the same as if the catcher was right on the line and the pop up would have landed a few inches foul before it rolled fair? In that scenario I would have called "infield fly, if fair...". In the actual play I did not use those terms because the ball was 15-20 feet in foul territory and I thought the "if fair" wouldn't apply. But it almost did.

As I was looking for some guidance, I ran across this info. The Umpires Handbook of Softball Rules Differences 2011 seems to draw a difference between Utrip and Fed interpretations. It states that an infield fly must be declared by the umpire (USSSA 8:17 H) ( as well as NCAA 1.68). Fed 8-2-9 (note) leaves a situation for declaring the infield fly after the fact even if it was not declared at the time.

My questions are...

1. Mechanically speaking, should an umpire use the phrase "if fair" even if the ball seems to be much too far over foul territory to ever roll back in (even though it almost did in my scenario)? Should the words "infield fly" even be used when the ball is that far over foul territory?

2. NCAA 11.18 note 1 speaks of when to use the words "if fair". Does any other organization have have that addendum written down? I use it for all the ball I do but don't really know where else it is stated.

3. In my original scenario, would that play have resulted in in an infield fly being declared if the ball would have indeed crossed the foul line and then was touched or stopped moving?

Thoughts from any ruleset would be appreciated.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

This got me thinking this weekend. USSSA game but all rulesets appreciated. Runners at 1st and 2nd, no outs, infield fly potential. Batter hits a towering fly straight up and then drifting toward the backstop fence. Backstops are at least 15 -20 feet back. Catcher fades back and camps out directly under the ball as it starts coming down. As she reaches out to touch the fence she momentarily looses sight of the ball, and it drops straight down, missing the catcher and the fence by inches. The ball takes a big kick back toward fair territory and would have went beyond the foul line into fair territory if the 3rd baseman, who was also in, hadn't have reached down and picked it up before it crossed the line. Basically a foul ball.

But here's where I started thinking (after the game of course). If the ball would have crossed the foul line into fair territory would I have had an infield fly? Wouldn't this have been the same as if the catcher was right on the line and the pop up would have landed a few inches foul before it rolled fair? In that scenario I would have called "infield fly, if fair...". In the actual play I did not use those terms because the ball was 15-20 feet in foul territory and I thought the "if fair" wouldn't apply. But it almost did.

As I was looking for some guidance, I ran across this info. The Umpires Handbook of Softball Rules Differences 2011 seems to draw a difference between Utrip and Fed interpretations. It states that an infield fly must be declared by the umpire (USSSA 8:17 H) ( as well as NCAA 1.68). Fed 8-2-9 (note) leaves a situation for declaring the infield fly after the fact even if it was not declared at the time.

My questions are...

1. Mechanically speaking, should an umpire use the phrase "if fair" even if the ball seems to be much too far over foul territory to ever roll back in (even though it almost did in my scenario)? Should the words "infield fly" even be used when the ball is that far over foul territory?

2. NCAA 11.18 note 1 speaks of when to use the words "if fair". Does any other organization have have that addendum written down? I use it for all the ball I do but don't really know where else it is stated.

3. In my original scenario, would that play have resulted in in an infield fly being declared if the ball would have indeed crossed the foul line and then was touched or stopped moving?

Thoughts from any ruleset would be appreciated.

I'd defer to the experts on this one. But my thought is that I would rule that in my judgment that ball that close to the backstop couldn't have been caught with ordinary effort and not have an infield fly.

All infield flies are only infield flies if fair regardless of the declaration. But not all fly balls are infield flies just because they are fair and end up in the infield.

[BretMan]

That's an odd one.

Do you consider a catcher going from a squat, running back 15-20 feet, stationed right next to the fence and, apparently, having to reach out to "feel" the fence to gauge where it is as "routine effort"? Sight unseen, I'd tend to say it's not.

If you do, then you don't really have any other choice but to call this an infield fly if the ball does eventually become fair, as all requirements of the rule would have been met.

Admittedly, this probably isn't the sort of situation they had in mind when the infield fly rule was crafted. But if it did roll fair, wouldn't the runners already on base deserve the protection that the infield fly rule is designed to afford them?

Here's one on the other end of the spectrum. Infield fly situation. Batter hits high pop up toward F4. F4 is camped under it waiting for it to come down. Umpire calls the infield fly. Ball lands a foot behind the fielder, then shoots out into centerfield. Batter keeps running and winds up on second base.

You're probably going to get some sort of argument from the offensive coach, who thinks that you just robbed his batter of "a double". But all the requirements of the rule were met and you don't really have any choice other than to enforce the out and remove the retired batter from the bases.

This play and your play are at two opposite ends of the spectrum. There is a vast array of possible infield fly scenarios in between...most of them that actually resemble plays that the rule was designed to cover. On the fringes, you get this kind of "Twilight Zone" stuff.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by youngump

i'd defer to the experts on this one. But my thought is that i would rule that in my judgment that ball that close to the backstop couldn't have been caught with ordinary effort and not have an infield fly.

+1

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That's an odd one.

Do you consider a catcher going from a squat, running back 15-20 feet, stationed right next to the fence and, apparently, having to reach out to "feel" the fence to gauge where it is as "routine effort"? Sight unseen, I'd tend to say it's not.

If you do, then you don't really have any other choice but to call this an infield fly if the ball does eventually become fair, as all requirements of the rule would have been met.

Admittedly, this probably isn't the sort of situation they had in mind when the infield fly rule was crafted. But if it did roll fair, wouldn't the runners already on base deserve the protection that the infield fly rule is designed to afford them?

Here's one on the other end of the spectrum. Infield fly situation. Batter hits high pop up toward F4. F4 is camped under it waiting for it to come down. Umpire calls the infield fly. Ball lands a foot behind the fielder, then shoots out into centerfield. Batter keeps running and winds up on second base.

You're probably going to get some sort of argument from the offensive coach, who thinks that you just robbed his batter of "a double". But all the requirements of the rule were met and you don't really have any choice other than to enforce the out and remove the retired batter from the bases.

This play and your play are at two opposite ends of the spectrum. There is a vast array of possible infield fly scenarios in between...most of them that actually resemble plays that the rule was designed to cover. On the fringes, you get this kind of "Twilight Zone" stuff.

And when the offensive coach comes out to argue, that's when I inform him the rule is designed to protect his team from becoming the victim of a cheap double play. Can't have it both ways, coach.

[tcannizzo]

I only call "if fair" if the play is near a foul line. Would probably be considered OOO to call it near the back-stop.

This is probably a great case to use an example when discussing that IFF can be applied "retroactively" when it was not verbalized in real time.

[Little Jimmy]

BretMan said..."Do you consider a catcher going from a squat, running back 15-20 feet, stationed right next to the fence and, apparently, having to reach out to "feel" the fence to gauge where it is as "routine effort"? Sight unseen, I'd tend to say it's not".


In this case, the catcher was was giving quite an ordinary effort. She popped up, located the ball, and was camped out under it for 2-4 seconds, waiting for it to come down. Something about her reaching out to touch the fence made her loose sight of the ball for a second. She had been quick to get up all game long.

How about the question where in NCAA and USSSA the infield fly needs to be declared. Is that other people's understanding? No retroactive declaration? Even if "forgotten".

[MD Longhorn]

If you, the umpire, rule that the catcher (an infielder) could and should make this play with ordinary effort, then it's an IFF.

My question - what happened with the runners during all this time?

Also - given the spin that accompanies a ball hit high and slightly back, it seems very odd it would bounce forward - are you sure it didn't hit the backstop at all.

[Little Jimmy]

Definitely sure the ball didn't hit the backstop. The ball came down parallel to the fence and hit the ground where it was sloping toward the infield. Also the field was quite hard.

As far as the runners, I don't really know what they did. I was watching the ball until the 3rd baseman picked it up in foul territory, rendering it a foul ball. After that we all basically reset.

[MD Longhorn]

Sounds like one of those situations where you just have to umpire.

By strict letter of the rule... if in your judgement this was playable with ordinary effort, and it rolled fair ... it's an IFF.

Keeping in mind the intent of the IFF though ... which is to prevent the defense from getting an easy DP... if it rolled this far I might be inclined to believe the ball - this close to the fence - was not catchable with ordinary effort. Any catch right up on a fence is tougher than the same catch without a fence in the way.

The other thing to consider, this far from the foul line --- would defense be likely to let it drop on purpose in an attempt to get a DP? No - probably not, as the ball rolling fair is probably not on their radar screen at all.

[LIUmp]

Though this is definitely a HTBT moment, my quick rule of thumb is not only all that has already been stated, but also this: the catcher, who had to turn and set herself near a fence in FOUL territory to make a catch on a ball and then loses the flight of the ball is not ordinary effort and I wouldn't call IFF. In ASA and PONY (of those that I have officiated for), the rules ask you to call IFF at the ball's apex. In this case, I don't think I can make that decision at that time. Of course, ASA and PONY does allow for you to make the call after the fact. I know you had a question about NCAA and USSSA and the timing of this call - I can't answer those rule sets for you. Maybe someone else can.

Bottom line, HTBT, but no IFF on this one if I'm picturing it correctly. However, I don't think it could be argued either way you choose to call it as long as you can substantiate your call with the letter of the rule.

[RadioBlue]

I can find nothing in the NCAA rules book which indicates an umpire cannot subequently rule an IFF when not called initially. Note 2 in 11.18 indicates that the ruling is to be made when the batted ball reaches its apex. However, I interpret that to be a guide to the umpire to use as a timing tool in determining whether or not a batted ball is indeed an IFF. I could be wrong and would love to hear other intrepretations/opinions.

NF 8-2-9 note specifically allows for a "retroactive" IFF to be called. Just because NCAA does not specifically allow for it, I believe it is understood to be allowed.

For instance, if an umpire fails to declare an IFF on a clear-cut IFF and the infielder drops the ball and then gets a double-play, should those outs be allowed to stand just because the umpire failed to declare an IFF when the ball was at its apex? Of course not. That is a misinterpretation of the rule and clearly correctable. I believe the same holds true for a ball which was foul and subsequently makes a funky kick into fair territory. It wasn't an IFF until it became "fair." An umpire still needs to protect the offense from an undeserved double-play in this instance.

Just my 2 cents.