Infield(er) Fly

[CecilOne]

For years, I have said and applied this about "infield fly":

The prime factor should be whether an uncaught fly ball would put the fielder playing it in a position for an easy force, because of the runners holding. That is the purpose and spirit of the rule and should be used to understand and apply it. If it CAN BE caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, then it should be an infield(er) fly; even if the play-making fielder is listed in an outfield position or comes from an outfield position to make a catch that an "infielder" could have made with ordinary effort. The origin, concept and point of the rule is to protect the runners.

---------------------
Another very knowledgeable umpire said: "I have always called the rule the way you have descirbed it."

----------------
And another: "Purpose of Infield Fly Rule is to protect runners - it is called in favor of the offense. IT IS NOT A CALL MADE TO PENALIZE THE OFFENSE (CALL AN OUT). The rule is to keep the defense from getting an opportunity (by intentionally not catching a fly ball) to create a double play situation. It protects the runners by saying "YOU DO NOT NEED TO RUN - STAY ON YOUR BASE."

The infield is not bounded by grass or any other marking. It is the area that an infielder can cover (during the flight of the ball for this particular hit, by this particular fielder, from their particulr positioning for the hit). In the case of an infield fly, it is the area an infielder can cover with ORDINARY effort. What is important is that the fly ball must be hit (into this area) such that this particular group of infielders can catch it. ANY DEFENSIVE PLAYER may place themselves within that area to make a catch or not make a catch (Whether the ball is caught, or not, is not important - the batter has been declared out just as if the ball had already been caught.) An outfielder may call off an infielder and catch the ball. Runners leave their bases at peril of being played on and being put out. Even if the ball is not caught, they do not need to advance. The batter has been declared out; there is no forced advance."

----------------
In spite of all that, a partner recently argued that a play should not have been an "infield fly" because the SS had to turn and reach to make the catch, even though she was only about 30 feet from 2nd base. Even if that was true, the call should be made long before the SS's maneuvers.
How do I get through to this person?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
For years, I have said and applied this about "infield fly":



----------------
In spite of all that, a partner recently argued that a play should not have been an "infield fly" because the SS had to turn and reach to make the catch, even though she was only about 30 feet from 2nd base. Even if that was true, the call should be made long before the SS's maneuvers.
How do I get through to this person?

That partner may have been correct. The distance from 2B is irrelevent. There are too many questions. Where was the player positioned prior to chasing the ball? At what age level does this girl play? That may have been an amazing play by a girl playing at a level where that play is much more than routine.

Just being a pop-up in the infield doesn't make it an infield fly. The player's ability can be a determining factor.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Thanks, I recognise the larger portion of your quotes.

The discussion comes in the area of "What is ORDINARY effort?" If the catch was made I'm going to rule that the effort was ordinary (unless the fielder was running full speed and had to dive to make the catch, etc.) And as the rule is intended to protect the runners, I'm going to error on the side of protecting those runners by calling their teammate OUT on the INFIELD FLY. If the situation is present and the batter makes a poor hit, call the out.

As a sidelight, I have a rule-of-thumb that I regularly employ: NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CALL AN OUT. An infield fly situation is a great opportunity to make an out call.

I fully recognise that there are infield fly hits that cannot be caught. (There are some very well known umpires that will argue this point.) I would not call these hits good on the part of the batter and I would not call them an infield fly either. Play on. This type of hit is relatively uncommon.

If I have time to take off my mask, look up and find the ball, recognise that a fielder is moving into position for the catch, and I can do all of that before the ball reaches its apex (or very near to that time), I'm thinking that this is going to be caught with ordinary effort and I will sing the infield fly song.

If the ball is already well on its way down, or no one is going to be in position, or all the runners are off because they think no one is going to catch it, I'm not going to call it.

How do you get through to your partner? He's got to be willing to learn. Then discuss it. In my opinion, rare is the pop-up to the infield that cannot be caught with ordinary effort. The infield fly should be called much more often than not.

[KentuckyBlue]

Speaking ASA slow....
I've had lots of variations on the IF rule. I try to invoke it especially if I see that an infielder has moved to catch a pop fly in such a way as to give him or her time to glance around and obviously start thinking, "Could I pull some tricky stuff on the runners and get a double or triple play?" (With most of my players, it's pretty obvious on their faces when they start trying to think.)

I'm glad to read Mike's assertion that the skill level of the infielder is a factor we can legitimately consider. I always wondered. What constitutes "ordinary effort" for an only-moderately-skilled 14-year-old who lets the ball drop two feet in back of him or her after legitimately losing track of it could affect whether you call the IF or not.

And, WHOSE ordinary effort might make a difference too. I'm thinking here of the pop-up to deep 2nd base in maybe a co-ed game, where 2B is an unqualified (let's say female just this once) player, and the macho guy SS makes a heroic run about 70 feet to try to make the play in shallow right field and just barely can't. I'm inclined not to call that an IF if 2B had any real chance at the ball at all (but you HTBT, because wow, are we getting into Madame Cleo territory here).

BLUE IGNORANCE: I'd understand players not knowing all the IF ramifications, but I swear to the Blue Gods every one of these are real-life true situations from UMPIRING PARTNERS who swear to me in the pre-game they know the IF rules backward and forward and then...

* never give or return the very useful infield fly signal, EVER;

* merrily give the signal with runners on first and third;

* call a 15-foot-high humpbacked liner an IF, even if it clears the nearest running outstretched infielder;

* remove the IF call if the infielder drifts back onto the outfield grass (not an INFIELD fly any more, don't you know);

* kill the play immediately if the IF isn't caught;

* will stop runners saying they can't advance after the ball falls or is caught;

* will call runners out on appeal saying they left their bases before the untouched IF fell;

* will reverse the IF call if a legitimate catch effort results in a drop;

* won't call the IF under any circumstances. This is usually the big slumberer who figures that the fewer controversial calls he makes, (a) the less of his ignorance shows and (b) the earlier he gets to go home. (A maximum two seasons after a crucial game-changing infield fly non-call blows up in his face, he changes careers into rec basketball where he truly belongs.);

* And one memorable moment from a former partner who was PU of a game in which I wore my coaches' cap. A called IF fell untouched in front of the 3B's shallow position, and everybody's attention went to the runners. The ball hit with spin and, untouched and somehow unnoticed by everybody but me, was allowed to trickle into foul ground in front of the 3B bag, thus going foul a full 15 seconds after PU's call. PU amazingly refused to take off the IF out call after I, offensive coach, pointed out the newly foul status of the batted ball and noting that an IF by definition only happens when it's a fair ball. (Thus the call "infield fly if fair"; a foul can't be an IF.) But, I wasn't about to protest his error, and sure didn't want to get all heated up and then get tossed. Still, I let my former partner know privately and quietly that I was disappointed in his rules knowledge.
____

PS: I have to respectfully disagree with Tony's axiom "never miss an opportunity to call an out." This despite my being known around my city as the only blue who calls flying starts, failure to keep base contact, and batter's-box violations.
I'll call every out I see and hope I'd never miss or shrink from an opportunity to do that (and if that's what Tony means, I'm solidly with him), but I'm not going to hang an out on every questionable play assuming the rules will back me up somewhere. Maybe Tony will go into more detail about what he means in another post. -- KyBlue

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Thanks, I recognise the larger portion of your quotes.

The discussion comes in the area of "What is ORDINARY effort?" If the catch was made I'm going to rule that the effort was ordinary (unless the fielder was running full speed and had to dive to make the catch, etc.) And as the rule is intended to protect the runners, I'm going to error on the side of protecting those runners by calling their teammate OUT on the INFIELD FLY. If the situation is present and the batter makes a poor hit, call the out.

As a sidelight, I have a rule-of-thumb that I regularly employ: NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CALL AN OUT. An infield fly situation is a great opportunity to make an out call.

I fully recognise that there are infield fly hits that cannot be caught. (There are some very well known umpires that will argue this point.) I would not call these hits good on the part of the batter and I would not call them an infield fly either. Play on. This type of hit is relatively uncommon.

If I have time to take off my mask, look up and find the ball, recognise that a fielder is moving into position for the catch, and I can do all of that before the ball reaches its apex (or very near to that time), I'm thinking that this is going to be caught with ordinary effort and I will sing the infield fly song.

If the ball is already well on its way down, or no one is going to be in position, or all the runners are off because they think no one is going to catch it, I'm not going to call it.

How do you get through to your partner? He's got to be willing to learn. Then discuss it. In my opinion, rare is the pop-up to the infield that cannot be caught with ordinary effort. The infield fly should be called much more often than not.

Here is an example of what I mean about skill level:

About 4 years ago, I was working the bases on the 12U State Championship Game. Bases load with 1 out.

For some reason I still haven't figured out, the infielders were playing back. There was a pop-up in the infield, 25'-30' high toward the 3B side of the circle. The pitcher couldn't recover from the pitch to make a play and F5 & F6 both moved toward the ball. However, we both recognized that no one was going to get to this ball and did not call the IF. The ball bounced twice before F5 got to it and threw out the runner from 3B at the plate on the force.

Despite the offensive scenario was the same as what would have happened had the IF been called, the offense's coaches and parents went crazy because we did not call the IF. We both talked to the manager and told him that, in our judgment, none of the infielders were going to be able to make the play with normal effort which proved to be true.

He didn't like it, but returned to the dugout. However, it must have been one of my lucky nights 'cause one of the parents (who apparently had an adult beverage or two) screamed at me, "Hell, even I could have caught that one." I could not resist responding to this idiot, "As an adult playing against a group of 12 year old girls, I would hope so, but I would still have to see it before making that call." That was enough, the other parents got all over him to the point that he was embarrassed into silence.

Don't like responding to fans in general, but sometimes they open this enormous door that is just too irresistable to bypass

[CecilOne]

"As an adult playing against a group of 12 year old girls, I would hope so, but I would still have to see it before making that call."
That might be the funniest thing I've ever read in this forum!

[CecilOne]

Of course, I'll concede that skill level makes a difference, but as in IM's fine example it affects the "ordinary effort" factor, not whether it is infield(er) or not. But I think it has to be rather obvious that no one can make the play or not make the play and then double up the runner(s). My example above was HS Varsity. Ordinary effort at that level includes more than it does for 12&U.

I don't agree that "The distance from 2B is irrelevent". My saying 30 feet was to emphasize obvious proximity to the infield, not a specific distance. The difference between an "infield(er) fly" and any other fly ball is being near the bases. That is why an outfield fly or a foul ball presumably does not require protecting the runners from being forced out if it's uncaught. Yes, 30, 40 or 50 feet might not matter, but the rule is about removing the force to prevent giving the defense a chance to give up the catch in exchange for a double or triple play.

The "He's got to be willing to learn" point is very relevant this time, because that is the problem I'm trying to solve.

Also, I was talking about softball, not slow-pitch which is more likely to require "discretionary outs".

BTW, this is roughly the 50th anniversary of this rule (give or take a couple years), so it's time to get it right, in spite of KyB' so-called partners.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
Also, I was talking about softball, not slow-pitch

Yikes! Look out! Incoming!

[DownTownTonyBrown]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I fully recognise that there are infield fly hits that cannot be caught. (There are some very well known umpires that will argue this point.) I would not call these hits good on the part of the batter and I would not call them an infield fly either. Play on. This type of hit is relatively uncommon.

From Mike:
The pitcher couldn't recover from the pitch to make a play and F5 & F6 both moved toward the ball. However, we both recognized that no one was going to get to this ball and did not call the IF. The ball bounced twice before F5 got to it and threw out the runner from 3B at the plate on the force.

Despite the offensive scenario was the same as what would have happened had the IF been called,

This is the somewhat uncommon play I spoke of... that despite it looking like this could be an infield fly, there was no one that could catch the ball with ordinary effort.

And in my opinion, Mike did it correctly by waiting. Offensive coach screams that it should have been called despite the fact that he has the same situation. The bases would still be loaded and he would still have one more out if Mike had called the IF.

This is a little more evidence that coaches do not understand this rule. The offensive coach! Would he have yelled if his runner hadn't been asleep and had managed to be safe at home? Probably not. Wouldn't you think that it would be the defensive coach screaming for both the IF and the tag-out at home? Some things just make you smile.

KyBlue, Never miss an opportunity to call an out does not mean to create situations so you can call an out but rather don't create situations so you don't have to, or can't, call an out. It is not that you are looking to call outs but rather that you are trying to ensure that the lack of calling an out is justified. It is similar to a good No-call in basketball. It is a subtle difference but I feel a valid one. The axiom isn't really mine; I was given the idea by Div I baseball official that taught a National ASA clinic I attended several years back. I have promulgated the concept ever since. By the way, his corollary was: never miss an opportunity to call a strike. I haven't quite as thoroughly adopted the corollary.

I see the game of baseball/softball as that the offense must excell beyond the defense (e.g. the runner must beat the throw to first - not tie). I feel this axiom supports that concept - if the offense has not excelled enough to make the play and their success unquestionable, then call an out.

As for pitches/strikes, I feel the greater onus is on the pitcher (defense) and I personally want to be sure the ball is in the zone before I ring a strike. Perhaps it is this attitude that has kept me from adopting his corollary. For an iffy pitch, I put the onus on the pitcher and give the batter the benefit of the doubt.

Food for thought, Tony

[CecilOne]

I assume we have all been taught what I was, which is never to guess an out and never to guess a strike. That means if there is doubt, the call is safe or ball.

Also, the rule book says "fielder contacts the base ... before the runner reaches the base", that is, the defense must beat the offense.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
[B]


I don't agree that "The distance from 2B is irrelevent". My saying 30 feet was to emphasize obvious proximity to the infield, not a specific distance. The difference between an "infield(er) fly" and any other fly ball is being near the bases. That is why an outfield fly or a foul ball presumably does not require protecting the runners from being forced out if it's uncaught. Yes, 30, 40 or 50 feet might not matter, but the rule is about removing the force to prevent giving the defense a chance to give up the catch in exchange for a double or triple play

Of course, it is irrelevent. For as much as you told us, the player could have been set up inside the diamond a the TOP and this could have very much been a great, over-achieving play for this girl. Or for that matter, the player could have been set up 28' and the play could have consisted of a simple turn and grab. Remember, I'm only working with the information offered and the player's position in relation to the infield at the time of the play means nothing. The rule is based on THAT player's ability to make the play with ordinary effort. And the player must have been stationed in a position which would normally cover the infield area at the start of the pitch.

Also, I was talking about softball, not slow-pitch which is more likely to require "discretionary outs".

Well, you just as well open the window and jump out. See if you can catch your credibility on the way down.

I certainly hope you are not one of these umpires who believe slowpitch SOFTBALL is just a lazy, beer-bellied man's game. The English game from which BASEBALL was developed (sorry, it wasn't Abner's game), ROUNDERS, resembled slowpitch SOFTBALL more than any other game which includes a bat, ball and four stations.

I started umpiring baseball at the age of 14. After 20 years or so, I got so bored with the game, I moved over to SOFTBALL. Now, one would think that a baseball guy would prefer the fastpitch game of SOFTBALL. I gave it a shot and found it to be more boring than baseball, so I stayed with the slowpitch discipline of SOFTBALL. Why, you ask? Because that is where the action is! There is absolutely no disputing that there is more action in the SP discipline of SOFTBALL than FP. On any given pitch, the ball can be put into play and usually to any part of the field and guess what? The players actually make athletic moves in making the play or run the bases.

BTW, WTF is a "discretionary" call? Are you referring to a FYC? I have no idea what you are talking about because in my games, if the player is out, they're called out. If not, they are called safe. Those are the only options.

Give me a break!

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Mar 28th, 2003 at 06:41 AM]

[CecilOne]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA


Of course, it is irrelevent. For as much as you told us, the player could have been set up inside the diamond a the TOP and this could have very much been a great, over-achieving play for this girl. Or for that matter, the player could have been set up 28' and the play could have consisted of a simple turn and grab. Remember, I'm only working with the information offered and the player's position in relation to the infield at the time of the play means nothing. The rule is based on THAT player's ability to make the play with ordinary effort. And the player must have been stationed in a position which would normally cover the infield area at the start of the pitch.

I agree and as said, the 30 feet was to emphasize the proximity. There was no "great, over-achieving play", but I guess I wasn't clear about describing it. I literally meant "turn and reach" to make the catch although there were a few backward steps involved. But we seem to disagree on whether the primary concern is if making the catch requires ordinary or extraordinary effort; or whether within the ordinary effort guideline the fielder would be in a position for an easy double play when the ball is not caught.


Well, you just as well open the window and jump out. See if you can catch your credibility on the way down.

Come on, lighten up a bit. Just a little needling, following where someone else inferred that some games need more attention to strict interpretation than others. It's kind of a joke, as intended.


I certainly hope you are not one of these umpires who believe slowpitch SOFTBALL is just a lazy, beer-bellied man's game. ... snip ...

Another tease, but the games are different.


... snip ... slowpitch discipline of SOFTBALL. Why, you ask? Because that is where the action is! There is absolutely no disputing that there is more action in the SP discipline of SOFTBALL than FP.

Depends on your definition of action.


in my games, if the player is out, they're called out. If not, they are called safe. Those are the only options.

Yeah, me too, but see above.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
[B]

Well, you just as well open the window and jump out. See if you can catch your credibility on the way down.

Come on, lighten up a bit. Just a little needling, following where someone else inferred that some games need more attention to strict interpretation than others. It's kind of a joke, as intended.

Actually, I glided right over the comment until that trouble-maker Tom sounded the alarm


I certainly hope you are not one of these umpires who believe slowpitch SOFTBALL is just a lazy, beer-bellied man's game. ... snip ...

Another tease, but the games are different.

I don't believe there is that much of a different once you leave the pitching differences


... snip ... slowpitch discipline of SOFTBALL. Why, you ask? Because that is where the action is! There is absolutely no disputing that there is more action in the SP discipline of SOFTBALL than FP.

Depends on your definition of action.

To me, action is runner's running, fielder's fielding constantly throughout the game. FP has become too much a pitcher's game (in my opinion).

I have even played a SP game that was a no-hitter for 6 2/3 innings and that was far from as boring as a pitching duel.


in my games, if the player is out, they're called out. If not, they are called safe. Those are the only options.

Yeah, me too, but see above.


That's a good thing.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Actually, I glided right over the comment until that trouble-maker Tom sounded the alarm

Always looking for ways to help out!

[CecilOne]

As long as (a) everyone realizes it was a tease and (b) someone, somewhere learned something about infield(er) fly, even with our apparent disagreement on the primary factor for judging it.