infield fly "if fair"

[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.

[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.