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

[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.

[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...

[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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Not in my copy of 2-30. Citation, please.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Not in my copy of 2-30. Citation, please.

Books are not handy but google suggests this was the rule as of 2011. Has it changed?

SECTION 30 INFIELD FLY RULE
Infield fly rule is, when declared by the umpire, a fair fly (not including a line
drive or an attempted bunt) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort
when runners are on first and second or all three bases are occupied and before
there are two outs in the inning. Any defensive player positioned in the infield at
the time of the pitch shall be considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule.
The rule does not preclude outfielders from being permitted to make the catch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Not in my copy of 2-30. Citation, please.

The kicker is the definition of "infielder".

ART. 2 . . . Infielders. Infielders are usually the first baseplayer, second baseplayer, third baseplayer, shortstop, pitcher and catcher. The pitcher and catcher are also known as the battery.

Now, compare to ASA"

INFIELDER: A fielder who defends the area of the field around first, second, third or shortstop areas.

NFHS cites actual positions where ASA sites the area the fielder is defending. In NFHS, you can only have one F3, one F4, etc. In ASA, any fielder in the position to cover the areas noted is considered an infielder.

The OP clearly stated "person who will make the catch is an outfielder". I'm simply pointing out the ambiguity which permits the discussion The rule negates the definition since it states "Any defensive player positioned in the infield at the time of the pitch shall be considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule." However, since under that rule this defined "outfielder" is now considered an "infielder", how can an IF be ruled if the umpire has already determined the person making the catch will be an outfielder?

If you feel like this is going in circles it is because it is. When I said it "remotely" allow for discussion, I guess that was a misstatement as I was trying to convey my belief that it shouldn't call for discussion, if not for the wording of the definition and the OP.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The kicker is the definition of "infielder".

ART. 2 . . . Infielders. Infielders are usually the first baseplayer, second baseplayer, third baseplayer, shortstop, pitcher and catcher. The pitcher and catcher are also known as the battery.

Now, compare to ASA"

INFIELDER: A fielder who defends the area of the field around first, second, third or shortstop areas.

NFHS cites actual positions where ASA sites the area the fielder is defending. In NFHS, you can only have one F3, one F4, etc. In ASA, any fielder in the position to cover the areas noted is considered an infielder.

The OP clearly stated "person who will make the catch is an outfielder". I'm simply pointing out the ambiguity which permits the discussion The rule negates the definition since it states "Any defensive player positioned in the infield at the time of the pitch shall be considered an infielder for the purposes of this rule." However, since under that rule this defined "outfielder" is now considered an "infielder", how can an IF be ruled if the umpire has already determined the person making the catch will be an outfielder?

If you feel like this is going in circles it is because it is. When I said it "remotely" allow for discussion, I guess that was a misstatement as I was trying to convey my belief that it shouldn't call for discussion, if not for the wording of the definition and the OP.

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.

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