STL-ATL IFF Call
 

my question is - all of the analysts keep saying the ump made the IFF call too late ........ what does that have to do with it? if its an IFF then its an IFF, making the call "late" has no impact on the BR's responsibilities/options.

what am i missing?

You're missing the fact that the talking heads often are clueless as to certain rules.

I guess they dont get to attend the meetings where we get preached at(at least in Fed HS) to hold off the IFF as long as possible, especially on windy fields and we have till the next pitch to call IFF.

I thought maybe the timing DID matter in MLB ...

Based on what I was taught and is still used as indicators:
The SS never turned his back to the IF
The SS stopped under the ball, squared himself to the infield and raised his arms as to "call" for the ball

I understand why the call was made. In this instance, the extra set of eyes on the LF line offered a different perception than what is normally seen by a crew of 4 or less.

Thing the TH, fans and many players/coaches do not understand or appreciate about the rule is that it has nothing to do with the location of the ball or the fielder.

It should also be noted that the physical signal is usually secondary to a verbal declaration, so no one except those on the field actually know when the umpire made the call.

Now, in a tournament I worked today, there was a similar play, but the umpire judged it was not normal effort. Of course, all the AA started screaming infield fly like they really had a clue.

Nope. The rule is essentially the same in virtually every code I'm familiar with in both baseball and softball. The only differences I know of is when an IFF should have been called but wasn't. Some codes will allow the IFF to be retroactively enforced (especially when a force-play DP is turned), and others will allow for the play to stand, given that runners and coaches should know when the IFF should be called.

Many clinics I've been to teach that the IFF should be called when the ball reaches its apex. Yeah, that's going to be the case when the pop-up is routine and the infielder doesn't have far to move to make the ordinary effort catch.

But, like in this play, the infielder may have to move a significant distance to get under the ball, and by the time that happens, the ball could be pretty close to the end of its travel. So an IFF call could be late, even though it's appropriate.

I have no problem with the call here. F6 did have to go pretty far, but he was in position to make a catch, and the moment that happened, LFU made the call. It was immediately afterward that F6 decided to bail to give F7 the play.

I think we, as fellow umpires, should alos be mindful that the crew worked 6 man last when??

Any chance the LFU hesitated wondering if it was his call to make, mechanics wise?

That said, and YES, I am a disappointed Braves fan ....... righteous call.

It's hard to imagine that any mechanics manual for six man (if such a thing exists) makes an IFF the call of the outfield umpires, since most IFFs are called within easy calling distance of one of the four infield umpires. But then I'm just guessing since I've never worked six man.

I was listening to the game on the radio as I was driving home from work when the play happened. The radio guys were sure that IFF was not called and it should have been. They even seemed to have a grasp of the rule.

It wasn't until I got home later and saw it on Sports Center that I know it was exactly the correct call.

Then I heard the game was being played under protest...exactly what was protested? That's a judgemnt call all the way and not subject to protest.

How is the MLB rule phrased as far as "ordinary effort", if at all?

Huge Braves fan..more pissed about the errors than the call

Don't really know if MLB has a specific assignment for that call, but I believe the unique view that umpire had from his position offered a completely different perspective than what is usually available to umpires at any level.

I think the hesitation, assuming there was a hesitation (remember, we are only seeing a hand signal & not privy to any verbal which may have been offered), may be attributed to the umpire waiting on assurance the SS was going to reach the area to catch the ball. I know that isn't what WE are taught, but if you are going to rule an IF at this point, you damn well be sure.

I read this part a half dozen times and for some reason I kept reading "I am disspointed in the Braves fans".

As the crew chief, I may have wanted to get the crew off the field into the dressing room until everything was cleaned up. Yes, it needed to be discussed, but they certainly were not going to do that on the field, nor should they have.

As I remember, MLB invented the IFR and others just copied, so should be the same.

BTW, my belief is the rule should be about proximity to bases (ability to double up runners if not caught); not "ordinary effort" judgements.

How would you define that and make the rule better? Huge potential for making this rule a whole lot worse if you're not careful.

It was a technically correct call that should not have been made. JMO.

F.Y.I - Softball Rules, 1936
 

Rule 19 - WHEN BATSMAN IS OUT
Section 8. Infield Fly. If, before two are out, while first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, he hits a fair fly ball, other than a line drive, that is handled or, in the opinion of the umpire, would have landed with or near the base lines.

Okay, you think some of ASA's wording is off or vague.

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.

"...within XX feet..." is a non-starter.

Trying to fix things that ain't broken.

And the "not hearing it" is a load if the umpires provide the appropriate signal and, NO, the runner doesn't have to see it, s/he has coaches who are there to see it for them and direct accordingly.

Again, to protect the offense from the defense, not their own ignorance or ability to perform in accordance with the rules of the game THEY chose.

Just conversation. :cool:

Just a story, not a complaint. :rolleyes:

Hard to! :p :)

In rec ball, happens all the time. First off, infielders often fail to catch routine fly balls. And when they drop one after I've called IFF, the runners don't understand that they do not have to try to advance. And fielders don't realize that tags of runners are required to retire them. And the coaches are equally clueless.

^^^That, exactly. +1

Had one like that a couple weeks ago in 12-U Rec.
Bases loaded 1 out.
B hits a soft pop up where F3 had to run in and make a shoe string catch to which she fell down and her glove fell off. Obviously not a catch with ordinary effort.

I sold "NO CATCH" and signaled SAFE.

Well, nobody knew what to do, and there were at least three or more throws to in rundowns between 2nd and 3rd where they chased R2 back to 2B, and then between 3rd and Home, when F2 inadvertently stepped on Home with the ball, R1 OUT and then back to 3B to force out R2 who was still standing on 2B.

Had a rookie partner who wasn't sure what took place, so I had to make the Out call at 3B. :eek: