infield fly

[TheLegend]

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule. When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare "Infield Fly" for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare "Infield Fly, if Fair." The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul. If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly. On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately. When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05 (L). The infield fly rule takes precedence.

I don't see how anyone could argue that the ball that Nick hit today could've been fielded with ordinary effort when Peter (the closest fielder) was unable to field the ball at all.

Peter was positioned in such a way that Nick's fly had a legitimate chance of falling untouched for a hit.

so, for future reference: Hitting an infield fly in an infield fly situation DOES NOT mean that the infield fly rule should automatically be called.

[retep]

So, let me say what happened to me on that play.

I was pulled in to defend against slow rollers. When the pop up was hit, I sorta forgot where I was playing in relation to the field, and thought that it was well over my head. So, I had no first step, as I just sorta stood there.

Then I woke up, and tried to make up time, but looked over the wrong shoulder, making me need to adjust and correct. All of this led to the play appearing far more complicated that it really was. In truth, a decent first step (which I have said to many has been lacking from me) would have made that play possible. I could have, and should have made the play. I made it far more exciting, but not because it was hard.

We also need to think of the sprit of the rule: to keep cheap double plays from happening. That is a ball that could have been dropped on purpouse and fed to a double play.

Let's look at this pair of quotes from the rules:

"When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare "Infield Fly" for the benefit of the runners."

"The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately."

(to be fair: emphasis added)

Seems pretty clear to me. And it should be pointed out that the fault of the play was not the infield fly rule: the mistake was that Paul (sorry!) took off for third base, making him an easy target. As far as I understood, Paul heard the call.

[TheLegend]

Let's look at this pair of quotes from the rules:

"When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare "Infield Fly" for the benefit of the runners."

Before it can be apparent that it's an infield fly, it has to be apparent that the fielder has a play on it. Regardless of what could've been, or the reason it wasn't, there was no point on Nick's fly that it was apparent that you could field it easily.

Seems pretty clear to me. And it should be pointed out that the fault of the play was not the infield fly rule: the mistake was that Paul (sorry!) took off for third base, making him an easy target. As far as I understood, Paul heard the call.

Uh... if infield fly had not been (incorrectly, imo) called, then Paul's actions would've been completely reasonable. I was coaching firstbase and told my runner to go.

The fact that you guys got two outs on that play was completely bogus and is a seperate issue all together. At the very least the runners should've been allowed to return to their bases. Yes infield fly was called, but it wasn't called loudly (i was standing at firstbase and I didn't hear it) and (imo) was called incorrectly. For you guys to say "he should of known, he's out"... on a play like that... is rather sketchy.

[retep]

You're still not dealing with this quote:

"The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately."

Then again, I know how you can feel you can justify anything. What is significant is that the play must be called immediately.

Also, i did forget to add that once infield fly was called, I was still trying to get the ball, but was focused on getting the second out, and so I didn't try 100% to get it, since the out had been called.

I won't re-post again untill some more voices come into this discussion. We've each spoken twice.

[tallguy]

I heard the call, and fucked up by deciding to go anyway. It was a mental error, I forgot that the call meant I did not have to go.

Since the call cannot literally be made "immediately", we must think about what this means in practical terms. I think we should take it to mean "as soon as it is clear from the initial trajectory of the ball that an average infielder in normal position can easily make the play". So if Peter was playing shallow, that doesn't matter. Ken, I don't think you can really wait to see if the fielder has a play, as that depends on where he positioned himself.

That said, this is another issue that would be greatly reduced by having an umpire. Peter, since we don't have one, you can't dismiss Ken's appeal. With an umpire you'd be right, but since we don't have one, appeals become necessary and unavoidable.

[TheLegend]

You're still not dealing with this quote:

"The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately."

This is irrelevent due to the fact that we don't have umpires. If you are using this portion of the text to suggest that it is more important that the call is made quickly than that it is made accurately, then I think you are simply taking it out of context. It seems to me that this section is saying that a manager cannot (after the fact) argue that an infield fly call should or should not have been made (which again, is irrelevent in our group becuase we don't have an official ump and safe/out calls are made by concensus)

Then again, I know how you can feel you can justify anything. What is significant is that the play must be called immediately.

"When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare "Infield Fly" for the benefit of the runners."

That seems to state very clearly, that the call should not be made until it is clear that it is, in fact, an infield fly situation (which it cannot be if it is not clear that a fielder will make a play on the ball)

Since the call cannot literally be made "immediately", we must think about what this means in practical terms. I think we should take it to mean "as soon as it is clear from the initial trajectory of the ball that an average infielder in normal position can easily make the play". So if Peter was playing shallow, that doesn't matter.

I disagree with this statement strongly, and I actually think this is the major point of contention. The fielder has to be able to make a play on the ball for the infield fly rule to be invoked. The fact that Peter was positioned poorly (or took a bad angle... or the combination of the two) is completely relevent. Let's say for example it wasn't Nick who hit the ball, but Will. If the ball was hit at the same trajectoty down the thirdbase line, there would not have been any chance of a defender making a play on it. Do you guys think that that would be an infield fly as well? The obvious answer is no.

[tallguy]

Hmm. Upon closer reading of the rules section in question, I now agree with you, Ken. The fact that an outfielder playing way shallow on the infield can be the one for whom the play would be "normal effort" does show that the position the fielders take does need to be taken into account. But, I do not think a bad step or bad route should be considered.

Which means that, despite agreeing with you, Ken, I think the call was correct, it was a fairly easy play for Peter, even in the position he was at. His bad step or whatever do not matter.

[retep]

This normal effort issue is buggin me. Normal effort would have made the play. The only extraordinary effort was my poor job. The ball landed 8 feet behind me! Not a big deal!

[Southpaw Slim]

Peter, I think Ken is saying that because the ball landed 8 feet behind you, you didn't have time to set up under it due to the short arc, therefore it isn't an infield fly.

Right off the bat, I thought it was going to be caught. However, I think the infield fly rule was controversial. I saw the path Peter took to the ball, and I thought it was an error. At the time, I agreed with the infield fly rule because I thought it was based upon where the fielder should normally play. The fact that it was unneccesarily difficult doesn't change that fact. What does change it is the fact that Peter was playing shallow and had less time to read the ball than if he had been playing at the outfield grass. If the rule is based upon the player's positioning in the field (and not his normal positioning) then I have to side with Ken. As he said, if Will had the same hit down the 3rd baseline, he'd be standing on first and it wouldn't even be an issue.

Also, because the ball landed in the outfield grass, one could argue that it wasn't an infield fly. I, however, saw the play and upon further thought (based upon my knowledge of the rule at the time) came to the conclusion that it was the correct call. In fact, Ken was the only person on the field who disagreed.

[retep]

No, Nick. it landed in the dirt, and I landed right next to it.

[Joe shmoe]

and thats almost as good as landing under it

[Southpaw Slim]

Oh. Then, nevermind.