2-30

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Not really a problem, given the bolded red. Yes, the ASA definition makes it simpler, but the definition does not justify the wrong opinion described in the OP.

But it is not wrong. Based upon NFHS rule and the fact the OP clearly stated the ball would be caught be an outfielder, IF is not the proper call.

Hey, it's their wording, not mine.

Q: Does the ASA definition exclude the "battery"?

I know you have an ASA book Actually, when they defined Infielders it required an adjustment to the IF rule to include pitchers and catchers.

[CecilOne]

I have often wondered why we expect an educational institution's publication to be clear and grammatically correct.

[RKBUmp]

2-30 says right in the rule, "The rule does not preclude outfielders from being permitted to make the catch."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But it is not wrong. Based upon NFHS rule and the fact the OP clearly stated the ball would be caught be an outfielder, IF is not the proper call.

No, the rule says that to be an IF, it must have been catchable by an infielder, not that it has to be actually caught by an infielder. The comment then backs this up.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No, the rule says that to be an IF, it must have been catchable by an infielder, not that it has to be actually caught by an infielder. The comment then backs this up.

But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.

It doesn't matter that it will be caught by an outfielder. The ONLY thing that matters is whether it could be caught by an infielder (and you're making this decision near the apex, of course). In other words, for all intents and purposes, the fact that NFHS chose (stupidly, imho) to delineate who is an infielder and who is an outfielder in the definitions section doesn't make the application of this rule any different than ASA or anyone else.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

I had an argument with another umpire at a clinic this am (not an instructor ) who is adamant that you cannot call an Infield Fly if the person who will make the catch is an outfielder.

At a clinic?? SOOOoooo, what did the instructor(s) say when you brought it up to him/her/them??

[DRJ1960]

My "opponent" took it to the top and got shot down.... said he plans to call Charlottesville (State Office / Interpreter) and talk to them.....

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

My "opponent" took it to the top and got shot down.... said he plans to call Charlottesville (State Office / Interpreter) and talk to them.....

Its already been covered in question 62 of the fed test.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Its already been covered in question 62 of the fed test.

It's also covered, specifically, in the comment after the rule... but apparently neither are good enough for that guy.

[strike4]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.

What is a batter ball?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But the OP is worded in a manner that states the ball WILL be caught by an outfielder. That isn't a may be or could be, but WILL. To me, that means it has been predetermined who will catch the ball. It seems many want to read into it with a "what if" scenario. That means the player had to start in the outfield at the pitch or, by rule, would have been considered an infielder.

That's almost like trying to read interfering with an IF because a runner was hit with a batter ball.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It doesn't matter that it will be caught by an outfielder. The ONLY thing that matters is whether it could be caught by an infielder (and you're making this decision near the apex, of course). In other words, for all intents and purposes, the fact that NFHS chose (stupidly, imho) to delineate who is an infielder and who is an outfielder in the definitions section doesn't make the application of this rule any different than ASA or anyone else.

I think I see what Mike is saying. The OP says "will be caught" not "is caught". I don't know if the OP meant it the way Mike seems to be reading it, but consider this situation...

The infield is in an extreme right shift, with F6 playing shallow center-right and F5 is playing in the nominal SS position, but shifted more toward 2B. F7 comes in to cover third, but still plays a bit deep. (You don't see defensive shifts much in fastpitch due to the small infield, but...) There is a pop up near 3B, F7 is the player who can catch the ball with ordinary effort, since F5 is in her shifted position, and F7 does make the catch. Taking the Fed rule literally, is this an Infield Fly?

[UMP45]

2 things. 1, I think some people argue just to hear their head rattle. 2, SS is positioned on the warning track. Deep fly ball and he catches it. What is your call?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by UMP45

... I think some people argue just to hear their head rattle...

Is that introspection on your part?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It doesn't matter that it will be caught by an outfielder. The ONLY thing that matters is whether it could be caught by an infielder (and you're making this decision near the apex, of course). In other words, for all intents and purposes, the fact that NFHS chose (stupidly, imho) to delineate who is an infielder and who is an outfielder in the definitions section doesn't make the application of this rule any different than ASA or anyone else.

I completely agree, but the OP doesn't state that. I'm taking the OP as fact and not reading anything into it. The OP has already determined the all to be caught by an outfielder, so lacking any additional information, I HAVE to assume the ball is in the outfield because the OP stated it as such, nor are there any indications that an infielder had the opportunity to catch the ball with normal/ordinary effort.

I have never disagreed that an outfielder "could" be the recipient of a batted ball ruled as an infield fly. After all, I was one of the first and few who defended the IF call in the NL series when the SS was under the all halfway to the fence. But at the time, that was a decision to be made.

In this case, the OP left little to the imagination to anyone who wasn't looking for a way around the argument.