Second guessing myself on a non-call of Infield Fly Rule (ASA)

[sbatten]

ASA Men's Slowpitch. Recreational level of play -- some stars mixed in with Bubba from the bar.

No outs, R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. B3 hits a high pop that off the bat looks like it's going to medium-depth left field, but in fact F6 is able to run back about 20-30 feet into outfield grass and get under it as F7 is charging in for the catch.

As the ball is coming down, I'm thinking to myself, "This is not routine effort, I'm not calling Infield Fly Rule." F6 did get under it, but he had to travel a long way, and he wasn't looking super secure as it was coming down.

Though F6 was under it, the ball dropped untouched, possibly because F6 was distracted by the approach of F7. (In retrospect, F7 probably would have been able to make that catch with routine effort because he was not starting deep and it was a can of corn.) The ball bounced, F7 picked it up and fired toward 3B, but F5 didn't make the catch. Everyone advanced one base, everyone safe.

As I'm getting ready for the next batter, F6 asks why I didn't call Infield Fly Rule. I explain that in my judgment at the time, I didn't think it was a ball that was catchable with routine effort by an infielder (i.e. him). He complains that he was camped under it and should have been given the benefit of my assuming it was an easily catchable ball, but I told him that I didn't see it that way.

Now I'm wondering if I should have called IFR, either when I saw that F6 was able to get under it, or after the fact.

I know IFR is to protect the offense, not give the defense an automatic out on any popup in the vicinity of the infield. But I'm asking for a second opinion because maybe you experienced umpires have run across similar situations and felt comfortable making a different call than I did.

This is an umpire judgment -- and you had to be there -- but I would appreciate any thoughts, including constructive suggestions for how to improve.

Scott

P.S. I also remember the famous IFR call on an analogous situation in an MLB wildcard game a few years ago, and that might have even been on my mind when I stuck with my original no-call despite F6 making his best case that I should have called it.

[robbie]

Based on my visual from your description:

Now I'm wondering if I should have called IFR, either when I saw that F6 was able to get under it, or after the fact.

Yes, and Yes.

[chuck chopper]

I'm with Robbie. If you misjudged it in the beginning, no big deal. Make the correct call once the play had stopped & I think the players & you can live to see another day :-)

[IRISHMAFIA]

This guy went a long way, too.

http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...aves+Cardinals

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by sbatten

ASA Men's Slowpitch. Recreational level of play -- some stars mixed in with Bubba from the bar.

No outs, R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. B3 hits a high pop that off the bat looks like it's going to medium-depth left field, but in fact F6 is able to run back about 20-30 feet into outfield grass and get under it as F7 is charging in for the catch.

As the ball is coming down, I'm thinking to myself, "This is not routine effort, I'm not calling Infield Fly Rule." F6 did get under it, but he had to travel a long way, and he wasn't looking super secure as it was coming down.

Though F6 was under it, the ball dropped untouched, possibly because F6 was distracted by the approach of F7. (In retrospect, F7 probably would have been able to make that catch with routine effort because he was not starting deep and it was a can of corn.) The ball bounced, F7 picked it up and fired toward 3B, but F5 didn't make the catch. Everyone advanced one base, everyone safe.

As I'm getting ready for the next batter, F6 asks why I didn't call Infield Fly Rule. I explain that in my judgment at the time, I didn't think it was a ball that was catchable with routine effort by an infielder (i.e. him). He complains that he was camped under it and should have been given the benefit of my assuming it was an easily catchable ball, but I told him that I didn't see it that way.

Now I'm wondering if I should have called IFR, either when I saw that F6 was able to get under it, or after the fact.

I know IFR is to protect the offense, not give the defense an automatic out on any popup in the vicinity of the infield. But I'm asking for a second opinion because maybe you experienced umpires have run across similar situations and felt comfortable making a different call than I did.

This is an umpire judgment -- and you had to be there -- but I would appreciate any thoughts, including constructive suggestions for how to improve.

Scott

P.S. I also remember the famous IFR call on an analogous situation in an MLB wildcard game a few years ago, and that might have even been on my mind when I stuck with my original no-call despite F6 making his best case that I should have called it.

20-30 feet onto the grass for adults is ordinary effort all day.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Maybe it was extraordinary effort to get to where the ball was going to come down.

But if that is the case, and the guy was begging for the call to get an out because he claimed he was camped out under it, I'd suggest that it couldn't have possibly been that easy of a play because he didn't catch it after all.

[sbatten]

Thanks for the feedback! It is helpful.

[MD Longhorn]

I have some questions about your description. "20-30 feet." "Ran Back". "A long way".

20-30 feet is not running back a long way. Not even close, and definitely not potentially mid-depth left field. Less than 10 yards / 4-5 running steps or 10-12 backpedal steps. And if LF could have made this play where F6 did not ... was LF closer? Were these two fielders beginning the play less than 60 feet from each other? They began the play closer together than the distance between bases? I find this hard to believe.

Are you sure you don't mean 20-30 yards? 10-15 running steps?

If this was really 20-30 feet, yeah, call IFF when you realize it.

OTOH ... IFF is not meant to bail the defense out of a misplay, it's meant to prevent the defense from letting a ball drop on purpose and turning two. I can't imagine entertaining the DEFENSE asking for you to retroactively rule this an IFF. Normally it's the OFFENSE asking you to retroactively rule an IFF ... when the defense lets it drop and turns 2.

And, in retrospect - if it was catchable with ordinary effort, why wasn't it caught with ordinary effort?