Infield Fly Rule
 

[ASA Mens Slow Pitch] Infield Fly is correctly called by the umpire. The runners take a few steps off their bases and the flyball is dropped. Do the runners have to return to their base before advancing?

No different than any other uncaught fly ball, no need for the runners to retouch the base and may advance at own risk. Only difference is the batter is out and any possible force play is removed.

The point of the rule is protecting the runners from double plays if the ball is NOT caught.

what? the point is proecting runners if the ball is intentially not caught

Correct, see editing. :o

Thank you. Is this in the rulebook?

At mlb.com, they define it this way:
"An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.
When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield Fly, if Fair.”
The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul.
If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly."

My interpretation of the MLB rule is that the batted ball is treated like a caught flyball whether the ball is caught or not, so the runners must "retouch" their base before advancing. ASA rules could be different but I cannot find it in the book.

I think " retouch and advance after the ball is touched" assumes a catch.

There is nothing in the SOFTBALL rules that says the runners must retouch/tag up after a non-catch. So they do not have to.

Your interpretation of the MLB rule is incorrect.

This rule is the same for all baseball and softball rule sets. With respect to the runners tagging up or advancing, it is exactly the same as on any other batted fly ball.

You might not find a special rule that says when or how the runners can advance on an infield fly, because that is covered in the usual rules of when runners may advance on fly balls. In other words, there's not a special rule that's any different just because an infield fly was declared.

The important part of the rule you quoted, and the reason your interpretation is incorrect, is the words "the same as on any fly ball." Do the runners have to retouch on any other fly ball, if it's touched but not caught? No? Well, the IFF works "the same as on any fly ball."

Your interpretation is wrong.

EXACTLY! On any other flyball, the runners do not have to retouch their base after the ball is touched (and dropped) by the fielder. But in the case of the IFF, they do. Otherwise, why would MLB say "retouch and advance after the ball is touched?"

Something you highlighted is key--"the same as on any fly ball."

There's only one thing different concerning an IFF compared to other fly balls, and that's that the batter is out regardless if the ball is caught. Otherwise, it's a fly ball. No need for runners to tag up if the ball is dropped.

Trust me, you're hearing from umpires who have done this for many years. Give up the argument.

Do you agree that as soon as the batted ball reaches its apex in MLB, that the IFF rule is in effect? Of course you do. Now, carefully go back and read what you, yourself, posted:

"The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught...."

The ball is alive and the runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught. Notice there is no mention of tagging up or anything at this point, yet the IFF is already in effect. The rest of your citation in bold from the post I copied this from goes on to explain how a runner may advance if the ball is caught, which is, at first touch, if the runner has tagged up, they may now advance.

No need to complicate things.

If the ball isn't caught, the runner doesn't have to retouch. If the ball is caught, the runner must retouch on the TOUCH preceding the catch, which is what the rule is trying to say.

Point #1. This isn't a baseball board, just saying.
Point #2. Doesn't make any difference, to the best of my knowledgethe rule and it's application is universal.
Point #3. The portion in RED is reliant upon the first half of the sentence prior to the comma, the ball being caught.
Point #4. Again, ttbomk, in all cases, the IF ruling affects only two portions of the rules: a) it declares the batter-runner out, and b) instructs participants & umpires alike to ignore the Intentionally Dropped Ball rule. No other rule or the application of the rule is affected by an IF call.

You can either be an umpire, and get this simple concept ... or you can be a lawyer, and try to lawyerese this into meaning something it doesn't mean. But if you're going to be a lawyer, you need to take into account the ENTIRETY of this rule, and not just pluck one partial sentence and use it out of context.

Either way, you're interpretation is wrong. You're being told so by people who would know. Believe us... or don't. Your call, really.

OK, I guess I was not clear, hoped the brief version would be; but I'm not re-explaining what others have covered so well. :rolleyes:

Isn't this thread something like you can give a horse water but your can't make it drink it?

Part of learning the rules of baseball and softball is learning how the rules are read.

I and the other umpires have told you: Except for the fact that the batter is out on an IFF regardless of whether or not the ball is caught, it is just like ANY other fly ball.

What that means is, that a runner does not need to retouch if the ball is not caught.

It's as simple as that.

Rita

"LEAD a horse to water......" :cool:

Just for grits and shins, let's assume the ruleswriters wanted us to take the literal interpretation of the IFF rule that the OP is using. He (I assume male) argues that runners have to retouch their bases after the infield fly ball is first touched.

Ok, so suppose the infield fly ball falls to the ground, completely untouched. By that narrowly-restricting language in the IFF rule--"or retouch and advance after the ball is touched"--you could argue that the runners have to stay anchored to their bases until a fielder finally goes over and physically touches the ball!

That's the problem you can get into by, as MD alludes, lawyerizing the rules. No way in hell are we going to make the runners maintain contact with their bases until a fielder picks up that ball, even though that's what the rule, by strict interpretation, tells us has to happen.

Yeppers. Look what "lawyerizing" (love that new word) has done for this country. :eek: If you take a good look, you would be running to burn down every law school in the country. :rolleyes: So what do you think it would do to a game of softball? :confused: :(

I appreciate everyone's response. I'm not a lawyer; I'm just trying to understand the rule as it is written. After re-reading that sentence, it still doesn't make sense to me. It would be better if MLB would simply remove "retouch and advance after the ball is touched," then it would eliminate a possible exception to "as in any flyball."

Or you could just join us in the real world. There are numerous discrepencies and contradictions in the MLB rule book. By going with the intent of the rule as accepted by interpretations, umpires, players, coaches; you will do just fine. Don't nitpick where there is no need to.

If you removed that, the rule would no longer mean what it's supposed to mean.

It amazes me how often we see similar posts like this... "I misunderstand this one word here in a rule ... we should change it to this other thing", yet if we made the change being suggested, it would create bigger logical holes in the rule.

cf 9 is kind of new to the forum, so let's be gentle.