Infield Fly Rule

Well, that's a had to be there one to really give an answer.

If the umpires judged that an infielder should have been able to get there with ordinary effort, they can call the infield fly. Basically can an infielder/pitcher/catcher camp under the ball? If somebody has to sprint to get there and catch it on the run - that's not an infield fly.

It should be remembered though that the infield fly is designed to protect the offense, not penalize them. 

Was the IFF called if so batter out, the runners can advance at their own risk. Even is the IFF was not called it is an IFF situation, batter out again runners can advance at their own risk !

POLOGREEN posted:

Was the IFF called if so batter out, the runners can advance at their own risk. Even is the IFF was not called it is an IFF situation, batter out again runners can advance at their own risk !

That's not supported at all by the OP.  The batter is not out just because of the situation. He may or may not be out if in the umpire's judgment the ball is an IFF or not. You can have necessary runners on base, and a ball in the air - but not have it be catchable with ordinary effort.  If the umpire watching the play did not feel the ball was catchable with ordinary effort, then the call stands as is.  There's a difference between his judgment that it shouldn't be an IFF and simply not verbalizing it.

A fielder's positioning can change whether or not you have an IFF.  Fielders playing in shallow to cut a run at the plate could have to turn and sprint to have a chance at a popup that would be easily fielded if they were playing back on the edge of the grass. Same ball - two different applications of the rule.

The call does not have to be verbalized for the rule to take effect - but it does not take effect merely because some of the requirements of it being applied exist. That would have the effect of penalizing the offense, which is not the intent of the rule. 

Rob T,

The infield fly rule isn't a reward or a punishment. It's an insurance policy the offensive team is required to buy every time it hits a pop fly that presents an opportunity for a double play they couldn't protect themselves against. As with most insurance policies, claims seldom get filed, but the premiums still must be paid, and there are no refunds after the policy expires.  

Unlike most insurance policies, however, coaches are usually unaware they're paying the premium because the ball usually gets caught. When it doesn't get caught, coaches often want their premiums refunded.  Umpires can't get wrapped up in second guessing the call and can't fall into the trap of believing the ball landing untouched is a prima facia case that the IFF shouldn't have been called.

Another problem with letting a desire to "protect the offense" affect your call is that the umpire never knows in advance who will be advantaged by the call or the non-call and never knows what the defense will do with the ball after it lands. Will they pick it up promptly and throw it to lead bases, or will they kick it around? 

I had a play this year in a high school varsity game with bases loaded, one out, late in a close game. Corners were way in; middle infielders were deep. 

Batter hit a pop fly on a trajectory that would have it land slightly behind and slightly to the second base side of the first baseman's normal position. 

The large, immobile, low energy first baseman took a couple half-hearted steps back and decided to let the second baseman take it. The second baseman realized late that the first baseman wouldn't make the effort and belatedly ran over to attempt to make the play. Despite his late start, he still got there in time get a glove on it but did not make the catch. Had he started earlier, ordinary effort would have permitted him to be there in plenty of time, and had the first baseman made the effort, he also could have been there. On a well coached team, two players would have been moving on contact and calling for that ball. 

I called IFF because either of two infielders could have made the play with ordinary effort, it wasn't apparent until the ball landed that it wouldn't get caught, and the runners needed to be protected against what might have happened if the ball dropped.  Once satisfied ordinary effort would be sufficient, I couldn't concern myself with whether the defense would intelligently put forth or coordinate that effort. 

As it happened, after not catching the ball, the second baseman accidentally kicked it with his next step and sent it into foul territory beyond the coach's box. Two runs scored, and R1 advanced to second base.

The offensive team's coach came out to discuss the call because he thought the same way you did. He thought he was being  punished. In fact, he was trying to get a refund on the premium for the insurance policy he turned out not to have needed--but could have been very grateful to have had if the second baseman had picked up the ball cleanly on the first hop and thrown home.

Swamp,

My point is this-

You evaluated that using ordinary effort that the ball should have been caught and made the call.  You didn't merely think - there are runners on and a ball in the air so it's an IFF.  That's the distinction I'm trying to point out.  I don't see the IFF as a punishment - it's to the benefit of the offense. My point on it becoming a penalty refers to the concept of any infield pop up with runners on being an IFF - as was implied in the comment I was responding to. 

My question really comes down to this;  should the "Infield Fly" be called if in the umpires judgement a pop fly in the infield "should" be able to be caught with ordinary effort?  Or, should he factor into his decision how the defense has reacted to such a pop fly?  In my OP, the defense reacted very poorly to the pop fly which made it a much more difficult play than it should have been.  The ball landed with no defender even close to making the play.  F4, F2 and F1 all probably could have made the play if they would have read the pop up better and made a commitment to get there.  Instead they all waited for someone else to make the play so no one was even close to camping under the ball.

I did not invoke the Infield Fly Rule because no fielder was close to making the play.  However, what I think I have learned by the input here is that the IFF should be called if in the umpires judgement the pop up "should be caught" with ordinary effort and not base his decision on how well the defense reacted to that particular play.  The runners did not take off until they were 100% sure the ball would not be caught.  They had to respect the defense and their ability to catch the ball and thus stay put for a while.  That is why they needed to be protected by the IFF call.  Does that make sense?  

JWC1022 posted:

My question really comes down to this;  should the "Infield Fly" be called if in the umpires judgement a pop fly in the infield "should" be able to be caught with ordinary effort?  Or, should he factor into his decision how the defense has reacted to such a pop fly?  In my OP, the defense reacted very poorly to the pop fly which made it a much more difficult play than it should have been.  The ball landed with no defender even close to making the play.  F4, F2 and F1 all probably could have made the play if they would have read the pop up better and made a commitment to get there.  Instead they all waited for someone else to make the play so no one was even close to camping under the ball.

I did not invoke the Infield Fly Rule because no fielder was close to making the play.  However, what I think I have learned by the input here is that the IFF should be called if in the umpires judgement the pop up "should be caught" with ordinary effort and not base his decision on how well the defense reacted to that particular play.  The runners did not take off until they were 100% sure the ball would not be caught.  They had to respect the defense and their ability to catch the ball and thus stay put for a while.  That is why they needed to be protected by the IFF call.  Does that make sense?  

Yes, it makes sense.

I believe umpires should factor in the positioning of the defense and the normal skill for the level of baseball but generally should not factor in the defense's reaction or lack of it.

However, I very seldom umpire games with players less than about 16 years old. I can understand why umpires in younger rec games where few plays are ever routine and where the defense doesn't have the skill to turn dropped pop flies into double plays would reserve the calls for completely unambiguous IFF situations. 

Rob T posted:

Swamp,

My point is this-

You evaluated that using ordinary effort that the ball should have been caught and made the call.  You didn't merely think - there are runners on and a ball in the air so it's an IFF.  That's the distinction I'm trying to point out.  I don't see the IFF as a punishment - it's to the benefit of the offense. My point on it becoming a penalty refers to the concept of any infield pop up with runners on being an IFF - as was implied in the comment I was responding to. 

OK, I think I understand better what you're saying now. Thanks.

I guess you had to be there but, where did the ball fall? You said the pitcher took two or three steps could he with reasonable effort caught the ball?

The ball fell on the infield grass about three steps in from the infield dirt almost equal distance between first and second base.  Just slightly more toward first.  It would have been a tough play for the pitcher.  It was really F4's ball or maybe F2's if he recognized F4 was playing deep and made a better read.  I think F4 makes the play 8 out of 10 times "if" he has a decent read off the bat.

Not sure but, whenever I am in the field I point to the ball as it reaches it's apex and declare IFF if I think a player can with reasonable effort catch the ball. I guess you would have to be in the situation to know !!!

Sometimes, we make better decisions when we aim for least worst outcome. For example, if I'm golfing (which I seldom do) and have a ball just off the green, I will generally choose my putter because my worst putt will almost certainly be better than my worst chip.

Applying that methodology to this situation:

If the ball is caught . . .

 . . . And you didn't make the call, the worst thing that can happen is a player trying to protect himself gets doubled off base.

. . . And you did make the call, the worst thing that can happen is nothing.

If the ball is not caught . . .

 . . . And you didn't make the call, the worst thing that can happen is an unfair double play or the chaos of surprised runners realizing late they're in jeopardy and panicking infielders throwing balls in unpredictable directions.

. . . And you did make the call, the worst thing that can happen is a coach second guessing you.

In both scenarios, making the call gives you the least worst outcome.

(Yes, I'm kidding)

Kidding or not it makes a lot of sense.  I would guess that almost everyone involved anticipated the IFF to be called in that circumstance.  Perhaps that contributed to why the defense reacted poorly and did not catch the ball.  I'm going to error on the side of good game management on that play in the future.

Thanks as always for all the input guys.