Lots of discussion and arguing and insulting each other over on the baseball board about this call...pretty much par for the course on that board.

Somebody did post the MLB wording of the rule...does not define "ordinary effort".

About a 50-50 split over there on the call being correct or not.

At least I don't see anyone over there putting down people on the Softball board.

Then you are either VERY new or haven't been paying attention....insulting softball umpires is a pasttime over there.

Count again... I don't see 50-50 at all. And if you weight it a little more heavily for those posters we know not to be idiots, and less for those we know to be trolls, it's even heavier in favor of it being the right call. I'd say there might be close to 50% who say that THEY would not have called it, but at least after the initial flurry, once the rule was brought into the discussion, most are saying it's the right call, whether or not they would have called it.

Personally, I'd have called it. But I also would not have faulted any partner for not calling it.

My 2 cents.

I think the original rule was written in the day when players did not have the range they do today; and that it wasn't meant to address that particular sitch. It is the Infield Fly Rule, not the Infielder Fly Rule. :D

Suppose F6 did let the ball fall to the ground intentionally (as one might in the infield). Does anyone think there would have been a double or triple play? It would have probably just been a close play at 3B for one out, and as a stretch, possibly not even getting the out.

If F6 even considered it, he probably would have gone to second initially to get the force of R2, and then they could have made a tag play on R1 going to third or back to second.

Of course, the chance of forcing R2 at second would be slim. He would have to be less than halfway for any chance of getting thrown out.

F6 did let the ball fall to the ground. Not only was there no chance for a double play, there was no play at all. R1 and R2 each moved up one base.

The problem there is the "what ifs" do not figure into the rule or application, but the "what couldas" do.

I think about the only way to satisfy the naysayers on this rule, other than get rid of it, is to make us mindreaders and bring intent into the rule.

There, fixed that for ya! :D

We had the "Atlanta play"
 

Well, not exactly.
Bases loaded, one out, high fly just behind 2nd, F6 in position for catch, PU calling IFR.
F6 yields to charging F8 who muffs the catch. R1 & R2 try to advance, throw goes to 3rd, easy out for F5, but she just steps on base and steps away, BU rules safe, offense all confused.
Needed to explain, but no real dissent except runners & base coach saying they did not know it was IFR play, did not hear PU call, even though BU heard it. Just another "being aware" example.

Do you see this often?

How about wording from 1936 updated?

If, before two are out, while first and second (or first, second and third) bases are occupied, the batter hits a fair fly ball, other than a line drive, that is caught or lands within the diamond or within XX feet of the diamond.

Diamond and XX to be defined.

Hate it.

Do you intend to leave out the "attempted bunt" clause?

If, before two are out, while first and second (or first, second and third) bases are occupied, the batter hits a fair fly ball, other than a line drive or attempted bunt, that is caught or lands within the diamond or within XX feet of the diamond.

Diamond and XX to be defined.