2-30

[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.

Rule 2-30 appears to leave room for the discussion. I come down on the side that says the purpose of the rule is to protect the offense from a deliberate miss that results in a double play.

[Lcubed48]

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.

Rule 2-30 appears to leave room for the discussion. I come down on the side that says the purpose of the rule is to protect the offense from a deliberate miss that results in a double play.

IMO, the rule that you quote allows for that possibility. Did you show or quote your colleague the rule? What was the basis for their position?

[DRJ1960]

A) Only balls playable by infielders can be considered for the IF rule.

B) Because he says so.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

A) Only balls playable by infielders can be considered for the IF rule.

B) Because he says so.

Playable by infielders, yes, even if caught by outfielder.
Not playable by infielder (reasonable effort), no.

[IRISHMAFIA]

It is the weak definition of infielders as position players by the NFHS which could remotely allow for discussion.

I agree with the other umpire. If the player is stationed in the infield, they should be considered infielders.

[IRISHMAFIA]

OTOH, the umpire could make the call, it would just be wrong

[DRJ1960]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

OTOH, the umpire could make the call, it would just be wrong

Mile high pop up just behind the SS. Easy play for SS but Outfielder clearly heard calling the ball as he comes in from Left Field......
LF attempts / makes the catch...

I am calling IF all the way regardless of who actually plays the ball...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If the player is stationed in the infield, they should be considered infielders.

Is this too obvious or too subtle or ... ??

Did Yogi ever say that?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is the weak definition of infielders as position players by the NFHS which could remotely allow for discussion.

Now I have to get my books out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Now I have to get my books out.

Unlike ASA definition which is based on the area which the player is covering, NFHS is specific to 3rd baseplayer (PC BS), 2nd, 1st and ss.

[RKBUmp]

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.

Rule 2-30 appears to leave room for the discussion. I come down on the side that says the purpose of the rule is to protect the offense from a deliberate miss that results in a double play.

This question is actually on this years FED test. It is question #62, "An infield fly cannot be ruled if an outfielder catches the ball." The correct answer is False.

[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.