ASA - Infield Fly Rule

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Maybe what you're stating is regional. The assumption your teams seem to be making is certainly not in play here. If IFF is not called VERBALLY by one of the umpires, then the offense should assume the judgement of the umpire(s) is that it's not an IFF. If it turns out the umpires simply failed to call it when they should have (and in THEIR judgement they should have), it's fixable.

Maybe - I'll ask around

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Maybe what you're stating is regional. The assumption your teams seem to be making is certainly not in play here. If IFF is not called VERBALLY by one of the umpires, then the offense should assume the judgement of the umpire(s) is that it's not an IFF. If it turns out the umpires simply failed to call it when they should have (and in THEIR judgement they should have), it's fixable.

I do agree with the BU pointing and I do that.

However, don't we use signals because everyone might not hear us; especially with all yelling at the fielders and 2 runners and a BR?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I do agree with the BU pointing and I do that.

However, don't we use signals because everyone might not hear us; especially with all yelling at the fielders and 2 runners and a BR?

Out of curiosity, how often has the BU pointed and the PU not called the IFR (assuming the situation is correct).
Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

Never too old to learn (and boy sometimes I feel old), but I always treated the IFR as any umpires call. Not only that, but somewhere along the line, I thought it was a call that was to be (or could be) echoed by other umpires (unlike a foul.. )
I've never heard a post game comment when I called it as a BU.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Out of curiosity, how often has the BU pointed and the PU not called the IFR (assuming the situation is correct).
Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

Never too old to learn (and boy sometimes I feel old), but I always treated the IFR as any umpires call. Not only that, but somewhere along the line, I thought it was a call that was to be (or could be) echoed by other umpires (unlike a foul.. )
I've never heard a post game comment when I called it as a BU.

It has happened to me twice in the last few months. In both cases, I was BU.

1. JC game, cold and very windy. IFF situation, high pop fly hit to F6, she takes a step or two backward, and catches the ball. Because of the high winds, I did hesitate before I pointed up. My PU partner did not call the IFF. After the catch, he loudly announces..."There is no such thing as ordinary effort today" referring to the windy conditions.

2. Men's FP, IFF situation, high pop fly hit toward F6. When the ball was hit, I saw F6 playing a bit deeper than normal and even though the ball would have landed past him, I judged that he only had to back up a bit to make the play, so I pointed upward. My PU partner did not call the IFF. We talk about it later...what I didn't see was that F6 misjudged the ball and basically did about two and half twists trying to find and get under the ball. He did end up catching it though.

In both cases, I was working with very good and very experienced partners.

Thoughts?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Out of curiosity, how often has the BU pointed and the PU not called the IFR (assuming the situation is correct).
Not trying to be argumentative, just curious..

Couple of times a year, perhaps. BU, when pointing, is merely giving help on depth (it's often a LOT easier to see how deep the ball is going to be from B or C than from the plate). PU still has to decide if it should be caught with ordinary effort. I remember one that was to PITCHER that BU pointed up for me and I didn't call. Why? Because when I looked at pitcher I saw she had looked up, then back down with deer-in-the-headlights eyes and her hands apart as if to say, "Where did it go?" It landed untouched and everyone advanced rather easily (no, no one helped her or went after the ball as well).

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by Andy

It has happened to me twice in the last few months. In both cases, I was BU.

1. JC game, cold and very windy. IFF situation, high pop fly hit to F6, she takes a step or two backward, and catches the ball. Because of the high winds, I did hesitate before I pointed up. My PU partner did not call the IFF. After the catch, he loudly announces..."There is no such thing as ordinary effort today" referring to the windy conditions.

2. Men's FP, IFF situation, high pop fly hit toward F6. When the ball was hit, I saw F6 playing a bit deeper than normal and even though the ball would have landed past him, I judged that he only had to back up a bit to make the play, so I pointed upward. My PU partner did not call the IFF. We talk about it later...what I didn't see was that F6 misjudged the ball and basically did about two and half twists trying to find and get under the ball. He did end up catching it though.

In both cases, I was working with very good and very experienced partners.

Thoughts?

1. I think that is a little silly. I, too, have experienced some nice Arizona wind blasts in my day. But what if the wind eases up in the later inninngs-does he now announce "ordinary effort" is in play today ?

2. Vaguely similar to what my opening thread was about, except I was the PU. BU in my game -who called IFF, very quietly, wanted me to honor his call. I didn't think I should....

Is there anywhere in the book or somewhere that says BU can also make that call? Because I only found the reference on page 244. PU has the respnsibility for call.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

Is there anywhere in the book or somewhere that says BU can also make that call? Because I only found the reference on page 244. PU has the respnsibility for call.

Is there anywhere that says BU can make the out call on a line drive to shortstop? No... but what do you do if he DOES make that call, and you see it differently?

I'd treat the OP the same way.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Couple of times a year, perhaps. BU, when pointing, is merely giving help on depth (it's often a LOT easier to see how deep the ball is going to be from B or C than from the plate). PU still has to decide if it should be caught with ordinary effort. I remember one that was to PITCHER that BU pointed up for me and I didn't call. Why? Because when I looked at pitcher I saw she had looked up, then back down with deer-in-the-headlights eyes and her hands apart as if to say, "Where did it go?" It landed untouched and everyone advanced rather easily (no, no one helped her or went after the ball as well).

This relates to my situation #2 that I posted. It sounds as if this ball COULD HAVE BEEN caught with ordinary effort by an infielder.

Does the fact that she lost it in the sun or, in my play, F6 made it harder than it had to be, negate the fact that it could have been caught with ordinary effort? I realize that conditions like wind can have a definite effect on what is considered ordinary effort and that the skill level of the player is taken into account as well.

[MD Longhorn]

Yes, you take ability into account.

Also, I think there's a subtle difference between "could be caught" with ordinary effort and "should be caught"... - and it's the latter that we should go by.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I remember one that was to PITCHER that BU pointed up for me and I didn't call. Why? Because when I looked at pitcher I saw she had looked up, then back down with deer-in-the-headlights eyes and her hands apart as if to say, "Where did it go?" It landed untouched and everyone advanced rather easily (no, no one helped her or went after the ball as well).

How would you have handled this if the BU called the IFF, even though you didn't ?

Just honor his call and play on..or have a discussion with partner?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

How would you have handled this if the BU called the IFF, even though you didn't ?

Just honor his call and play on..or have a discussion with partner?

Have a discussion with partner, just like I would if we had a double call for whatever reason. Your decision to not call it is still a decision, even though there's no signal. He has out, you have safe. This is "officially" your call, but you still have to get together to discuss. And fix if necessary.

[shipwreck]

I have been instructed that if the sun gets in the fielder's eyes that is not a reason not to call IFR but to take into consideration if the wind is making it more difficult to catch with ordinary effort, you may not need to call it. Never exactly understood the reasoning since they are both weather related. I just still call it that way. Dave

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

I have been instructed that if the sun gets in the fielder's eyes that is not a reason not to call IFR but to take into consideration if the wind is making it more difficult to catch with ordinary effort, you may not need to call it. Never exactly understood the reasoning since they are both weather related. I just still call it that way. Dave

You can do something about the sun in a fielder's eyes: shield eyes with glove or non-gloved hand, wear sunglasses, turn body so sun is not directly in eyes, etc. As a fielder, you can't do much to control the wind.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

BU, when pointing, is merely giving help on depth (it's often a LOT easier to see how deep the ball is going to be from B or C than from the plate)

Pardon me for coming late to this party, but this comment struck me as odd. I've never heard this before. I always thought that the BU's pointing was just a signal to remind his/her PU partner that the fly ball may warrant an IFR call.

Frankly, depth has little to do with the IFR. A ball can be hit pretty far beyond the infield, but because the infielder was playing deep, the IFR is still in effect. And even if the infielder is playing a more natural position, she may still be able to get to the ball and catch it with ordinary effort if it's hit high enough. So I would expect my BU partner to put up his/her hand regardless if the ball is going to land inside or outside the dirt.

That said, I'm not really looking at my BU partner when the IFR situation is on and the batter hits a fly ball. I'm watching the fielders. So whether or not my BU partner is holding his/her hand up is immaterial to me.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Pardon me for coming late to this party, but this comment struck me as odd. I've never heard this before. I always thought that the BU's pointing was just a signal to remind his/her PU partner that the fly ball may warrant an IFR call.

Frankly, depth has little to do with the IFR. A ball can be hit pretty far beyond the infield, but because the infielder was playing deep, the IFR is still in effect. And even if the infielder is playing a more natural position, she may still be able to get to the ball and catch it with ordinary effort if it's hit high enough. So I would expect my BU partner to put up his/her hand regardless if the ball is going to land inside or outside the dirt.

That said, I'm not really looking at my BU partner when the IFR situation is on and the batter hits a fly ball. I'm watching the fielders. So whether or not my BU partner is holding his/her hand up is immaterial to me.

Depth is not relative to the "dirt", but to the fielders.