Flyballs in the seam between infielders and outfielders

I like this.

While it is more difficult to catch a ball going backwards, it is even more difficult to catch a ball while also looking backwards.

It's usually only an issue with MI's, and they should be really good glove men.

What level do you coach?  As the father of an IF who has had a couple of bad, unnecessary collisions, I'm okay with your approach in theory, but in practice all your players will have been told their entire lives that the OF calls off the IF if he has a play, and it's going to be hard for them to re-learn that esp. in the heat of the moment. If you're coaching the highest level these kids will ever play, fine. But if you're passing them on to a HS or college coach, then won't the players will have to relearn  again at the next level?

JCG

What level do you coach?....I'm okay with your approach in theory, but in practice all your players will have been told their entire lives that the OF calls off the IF if he has a play, it's going to be hard for them to re-learn that esp. in the heat of the moment. If you're and coaching the highest level these kids will ever play, fine. But if you're passing them on to a HS or college coach, then won't the players will have to relearn  again at the next level?

 

HS level.

You make good points.

In my experience, our system works better in terms of both goals:  ball-pursuit and collision avoidance.

In other words, the conventional approach--"OF calls off the IF if he has a play"--creates a gray area that works better in theory than it does in practice, in terms of pursuit and avoidance.

Will the IFs and OFs revert to "OF calls off..."  in "the heat of the moment"?  I can only say,  our approach has worked well for us.  Maybe because I repeatedly verbally reinforce. And I verbalize loud. ... according to my ex-wife....

Will the IFs and OFs successfully relearn "OF calls off..." at the next level?   I think they will,  because "OF calls off..." is "normal" to them.

And if one of them disregards the rule then have them on the bench for the rest of the game..makes the point effectively...too much chaos going on with these plays on all levels up to MLB..wasn't like that years ago.

Timing is also a big issue.  When to call for the ball?  I have rarely heard it coached.  

Funny you should mention this....we just had a play in my son's college game that 1) almost resulted in a serious collision....and 2) resulted in a dropped ball, though we did throw the runner from 1B out at 2B because he didn't know if the ball was caught.

In this situation, our RF clearly should have made the play.  2B got to the ball, but was turned around and looking up and back.  I have no idea why the RF didn't take it.  As parents, we talked about this during the fall.  On a pop up behind 2B, but in front of 2B, it was common to hear at least 5 voices calling out who's ball it was.....even the 3B and SS were sometimes involved.  We commented at the time that it was the most ridiculous thing we had ever seen....but it happened MULTIPLE times in the fall.   Can't say for certain on the play this past weekend, as we were on the 3B line and the play was in RF.  I'll have to ask my son what they are being taught/told

In HS, especially at a small HS like ours, my son was the SS.  If he could get to it, typically it was his ball.  Our 2B and RF weren't either one very mobile, so balls hit on that side of the diamond were a crapshoot.

Here's another situation.  Son's freshman year in college, there were at least a half dozen dropped pop ups by the catcher, 1B or 3B, either fair or foul.  My son was a 3 year HS starter at SS.  After the 6th or 7th one, where the 1B called him off on a ball that was just inside the line.....and then missed it and ended up with a black eye...and also let the runner reach first.....son went into the dugout after the inning and said "If I can get it, I'm taking it".   Coach didn't argue....and it hasn't been an issue since

game7 posted:

Here is our defensive approach for who gets priority on a flyballs in the seams--50/50 balls--that threaten to land in between an infielder and an outfielder.

1.  Our infielders are strongly, repeatedly instructed that they have 100% priority on 50/50 balls. 

2.  Our outfielders are strongly, repeatedly instructed to pursue 50/50 balls aggressively, but  that they have 100% responsibility for collision avoidance.

In my experience,  this black-and-white approach on 50/50 balls increases catches while reducing the chance of collision.

Again, with this system, the instructions to IFs and OFs must be strong and must be repeated multiple times during the season.  If not, you're jeopardizing the health of your infielders.

I don't like gray areas.  

 

Game7, interesting approach.  In many areas, there are more than one ways to coach successfully.  For me personally, I can't buy into your #1 but I really like the added emphasis on #2 (particularly making them responsible for collision avoidance) and, just as important, your statement that instruction must be strong and must be repeated multiple times during the season.  

I can't buy into #1 because I am 100% sure that the reason the traditional teach is for OF's to have priority is correct - fly balls are much easier to catch coming in than going out and catching over the shoulder or something close to it. 

This game situation in general is difficult in many ways.  It is difficult because the consequences with failure (or even a successful catch) are potentially more significant.  It is more difficult to practice (you have to be really good with a fungo to have a high success rate where each rep is a last second call on who will take it).  It is difficult to devote the time necessary to a situation that doesn't seem to come up more than once or twice a game.  And, Real Green, to address your comment, how do you coach timing when the occurrences that are difficult don't allow for timing?  Sure, you coach "call it as soon as you know you can get it", but the reps in question are the ones where you don't know until last second or never really do know.  And, no one is OK with the direction to let it drop if it's last second.

For heavy reps, I used to take a tennis racquet and tennis balls out around the perimeter of the mound and shoot reps left and right alternately with two guys at each position (at least up the middle).  Some years, we had a guy that was actually that good with the fungo, but not usually.  Tons of reps with guys in the right positions affords familiarity with language, timing, speed and abilities.  When a player at a particular position is better/faster, they tend to take charge and call it earlier - so you don't have to change the proper teach to account for this.  When you work it a lot, it often makes the tough ones look easy and the casual observer has no idea what a disaster the play could have been otherwise.  I do think instructing the "collision control responsibility" emphasis is a great one to add.  I have also put some responsibility on the SS or CF (when they are not directly involved) to help steer traffic.

Priorities are key.  

cabbagedad posted:

And, Real Green, to address your comment, how do you coach timing when the occurrences that are difficult don't allow for timing?  Sure, you coach "call it as soon as you know you can get it", but the reps in question are the ones where you don't know until last second or never really do know.  And, no one is OK with the direction to let it drop if it's last second.

One of my sons coaches taught to call for the ball at the apex.  It worked really well tied to priorities and solid communication.  Ball, ball, take it, take it.  On a twiner, OF has priority, if IF doesn't call for it, at or about the apex, than the priority calls for ball leaving plenty of time for IF peel off.  They are priorities for a reason.  It's an easier play.  If no one has a solid bead, I want the priority to takeover at or about apex.  Also, if you are not priority you should have a bead before calling ball.  

cabbagedad,

I hear what you're saying,

I don't expect to convince anybody that it's best.  Only that it works for us.

Routine 50/50 balls are... routine.  But how do you get maximum ball pursuit on the tough ones while minimizing collisions?  IME, the normal method breaks down on the tough ones.

I  dropped the ball when  I said we give IFs "priority" on 50/50 balls.  We expect our OFs to call off our IFs whenever they can, because it's an easier catch.

I should have said, we give the IFs "protection" on 50/50 balls....our OFs are prohibited from colliding with the IFs...

I think our OFs catch nearly all the 50/50 balls they'd "normally" catch, but our IFs catch considerably more of the tough ones that would "normally" not get caught by either fielder.

I think it's safer because we specify individual responsibility (the OF'er) for collision avoidance rather than divided responsibility.

Btw, I started doing this a number of years ago as a way to get our IFs to pursue flyballs like a maniac.  In other words, as a skill-builder for IFs.  

I guess I'm not sure how you make it anyone's priority to avoid collisions.  If you play enough games, it's gonna happen.   Sure you'd hope it doesn't happen, but I'd much rather have two guys who are willing to give anything to catch a ball that sometimes a collision may happen....instead of two guys who are both looking to avoid a collision and balls drop between them.  It's even a bigger deal as they get older...and bigger.  We have  had a couple since my son's been to college...and in both cases, they were two good sized, well built kids.  No serious injuries....and nobody blames anyone....in fact, both guys get high fives from their teammates for doing whatever it takes to make a play.  

Concussions are a serious issue. 

Buckeye 2015 posted:

I guess I'm not sure how you make it anyone's priority to avoid collisions.  If you play enough games, it's gonna happen.   Sure you'd hope it doesn't happen, but I'd much rather have two guys who are willing to give anything to catch a ball that sometimes a collision may happen....instead of two guys who are both looking to avoid a collision and balls drop between them.  It's even a bigger deal as they get older...and bigger.  We have  had a couple since my son's been to college...and in both cases, they were two good sized, well built kids.  No serious injuries....and nobody blames anyone....in fact, both guys get high fives from their teammates for doing whatever it takes to make a play.  

In theory I agree.  BUT how many times does a collision create the dropped ball?  Also, true abandoned caution from two or more players to get a ball would cause so many more collisions.  I would prefer one player have 99% confidence that he wont fly into another player.  I want that player to be the priority because in theory he has the best angle and approach which leads to greater success.  Which should generate more outs.  

Recently I watched a HIGH fly ball to left field.  A tweener the LF called off SS at apex ended up blowing back towards infield and LF had to dive to catch while SS was standing.   Even though SS would have had an easier play priority called him off and SS cleared allowing LF to play it care free and got the out.  

Good discussion...  maybe there is a simple solution...  

Our coaches teach outfielder slides feet first. Sure, there can still be a collision, but not head on.

Good breakdown here:

http://probaseballinsider.com/.../pop-fly-priorities/