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.

[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.

[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?