Infield Fly

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

You can't make a ball hit to the warning track an infield fly by positioning your infielders against the wall. The definition for an infielder is someone who covers the ground normally covered by infielders.

Correct, but I don't believe teebob was saying anything remotely like what you inferred from his post.

If someone's playing OUTFIELD, he's an outfielder. Deep infield is still infield. And it's not unheard of to have 5 outfielders (or 7 infielders for that matter ... or even 10 infielders in low level co-ed slowpitch)

And if you're wondering exactly where the line is between one and the other, sometimes you just have to umpire ... but with respect to this rule I would keep in the front of my mind the purpose of this rule.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Correct, but I don't believe teebob was saying anything remotely like what you inferred from his post.

If someone's playing OUTFIELD, he's an outfielder. Deep infield is still infield. And it's not unheard of to have 5 outfielders (or 7 infielders for that matter ... or even 10 infielders in low level co-ed slowpitch)

And if you're wondering exactly where the line is between one and the other, sometimes you just have to umpire ... but with respect to this rule I would keep in the front of my mind the purpose of this rule.

Yeah, I agree completely with the call and how you got there. I just don't agree with how TeeBob got there.

[Linknblue]

Thanks for the quick replies. I'm with the guys who still call the infield fly rule here as long as an infielder can settle under it and catch the ball with routine effort......and I use my umpiring skills to determine if the fielders are infielders or outfielders. If I think and infielder went to the outfield to play then he's an outfielder.

I'm doing a "Tip of the Week" for our in house umpires and I want to make sure they don't take the stance that an infield fly is determined by geographics (has to be on the infield) rather than infielders fielding the ball within their territory.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Linknblue

Thanks for the quick replies. I'm with the guys who still call the infield fly rule here as long as an infielder can settle under it and catch the ball with routine effort......and I use my umpiring skills to determine if the fielders are infielders or outfielders. If I think and infielder went to the outfield to play then he's an outfielder.

I'm doing a "Tip of the Week" for our in house umpires and I want to make sure they don't take the stance that an infield fly is determined by geographics (has to be on the infield) rather than infielders fielding the ball within their territory.

Sent you a PM.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

... but with respect to this rule I would keep in the front of my mind the purpose of this rule.

Which is to protect runners from double plays.
Hence, my contention that the ordinary effort part is wrong and it should be proximity to the bases.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Which is to protect runners from double plays.
Hence, my contention that the ordinary effort part is wrong and it should be proximity to the bases.

Nope. You think an infielder cannot throw the ball 60-70 feet quicker than the runners can cover the same distance?

The primary point to this call is that it is a routine play for the infielder. And remember who starts the chain of events, the batter who couldn't do anything more than hit a pop up in the infield. But at the same time, that batter's teammates are given protection due to the poor performance.

Nope, the rule has been as it is for decades and there is no valid reason to change it other than to enable the inept. At least, now the rule requires that the ball be routinely handled by an infielder. It used to be that the ball just needed to land in or near the baselines.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

At least, now the rule requires that the ball be routinely handled by an infielder. It used to be that the ball just needed to land in or near the baselines.

Not exactly true.

The rule requires that the ball CAN BE routinely handled by an infielder. Should that be true - and an outfielder comes in, calls him off, and flubs the catch --- it's still an infield fly.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not exactly true.

The rule requires that the ball CAN BE routinely handled by an infielder. Should that be true - and an outfielder comes in, calls him off, and flubs the catch --- it's still an infield fly.

Mike, my point was that the older rule did not require any handling, routine or otherwise, by any fielder.

Originally Posted by Andy

The ASA rule book (Rule 1) defines infielder as a fielder that defends the area of the fielder near first base, second base, third base, or shortstop. An outfielder is a fielder that plays where the left fielder, left-center fielder, right-center fielder, and right fielders normally play.

That definition leaves it to the umpire to determine who is an infielder and who is an outfielder. If you have a shortstop playing so deep that you would consider him an outfielder, than he is an outfielder for purposes of the infield fly rule.

Andy, it depends on the relative location of all the players. An infielder playing deep is still an infielder if there is another layer of defense behind him/her. I've worked the bases on some games where staying behind the infield, I could easily have a conversation with the closest outfield at a speaking voice level.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Mike, my point was that the older rule did not require any handling, routine or otherwise, by any fielder.

Does that mean the old rule only required proximity to the infield/bases?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Does that mean the old rule only required proximity to the infield/bases?

Rule 19 - When Batsman is out.

Sec. 8 (Infield Fly). "If, before two are out, while first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, he hits a fair fly ball, other than a line drive, that is handled or, in the opinion of the umpire, would have landed within or near the base lines."

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Nope. You think an infielder cannot throw the ball 60-70 feet quicker than the runners can cover the same distance?

The primary point to this call is that it is a routine play for the infielder.

Nope, the rule has been as it is for decades and there is no valid reason to change it other than to enable the inept.

What about a SS coming from a deep position or playing in to cutoff a run, making an amazing grab with back to the plate, right at 2nd base.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about a SS coming from a deep position or playing in to cutoff a run, making an amazing grab with back to the plate, right at 2nd base.

What....

When, exactly, are you calling IFF? How could you possibly know he was going to make an amazing grab near 2B? You call IFF at it's apex --- all the rest of that is after the fact.

(And if he caught it ... who gives a flying flip whether we called IFF or not ... it's a caught fly ball. Are you arguing just to argue now?)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Are you arguing just to argue now?

No, I don't do that, but I will try to re-do more succinctly.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Y'all trying to find issue where there is none.

If you look for boogers, try that cavern just above you upper lip.

Otherwise you are only asking for trouble on the fielder.

Either way, you may end up eating it

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about a SS coming from a deep position or playing in to cutoff a run, making an amazing grab with back to the plate, right at 2nd base.

That doesn't sound like ordinary effort.