Infield Fly

Grass, dirt, player depth,etc. have nothing to do with the rule. If, in the umpire's judgment an infielder can catch a fair, fly ball with normal/routine effort, the BR shall be ruled out.

I never tire of watching this one

This is a good call and completely within the rule

quincy said:

What the heck is normal depth? Would have liked the umpire to define that for me.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference and is not part of the rule

Coach904 said:

My question is
Does the infield have to be a normal depth on the play in order for the rule to be inforced?

Click to expand...

The term in the USA rule book is "caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort ". Very similar wording in all other codes.

The players starting position really doesn't matter. If from their position they could make the catch with ordinary effort on a fly ball (not a line drive or bunt), it should be ruled an infield fly. (You all know there has to be less than 2 outs.) We've all seen blown IFF calls. Balls that no infielder could get to but still called an IFF. Just bad judgement sometimes. Had a somewhat opposite situation last year. Infield playing in for play at plate, low popup just a little beyond base path and toward 2nd base. 2nd baseman sprints back, lunges, and ball goes off her glove. I make no call. Coach comes out of dugout screaming IFF while play still live. After play: 1) Coach, don't ever do that again on my field. 2) your girl sprinted from the crack of the bat and barely got a lace on the ball....no way is that "ordinary effort".

MTR said:

Grass, dirt, player depth,etc. have nothing to do with the rule. If, in the umpire's judgment an infielder can catch a fair, fly ball with normal/routine effort, the BR shall be ruled out.

I never tire of watching this one

This is a good call and completely within the rule

Click to expand...

It says it was protested. What was the result? It certainly looked like the SS could have caught that with normal effort.

Big Daddy Michigan said:

It says it was protested. What was the result? It certainly looked like the SS could have caught that with normal effort.

Click to expand...

Call stood. It is pure judgment and cannot be protested regardless of what the talking heads said.

MTR said:

Call stood. It is pure judgment and cannot be protested regardless of what the talking heads said.

Click to expand...

I would say that this was not pure judgement but rather a rule interpretation. If the umpire said that he judged that the catch required more than ordinary effort then that would be a judgement call that could not be protested. But reading the original post, the umpire stated it was not an IFF because "the defense was not [at] a normal playing depth". It appears the umpire is citing a rule that does not exist. Protesting the umpire's interpretation of the rule should be allowed. That is challenging a rule interpretation, not challenging the umpire's judgement. There is no requirement in any softball code that requires the infielders to be at normal depth to invoke the infield fly rule.

jackfrost said:

I would say that this was not pure judgement but rather a rule interpretation. If the umpire said that he judged that the catch required more than ordinary effort then that would be a judgement call that could not be protested. But reading the original post, the umpire stated it was not an IFF because "the defense was not [at] a normal playing depth". It appears the umpire is citing a rule that does not exist. Protesting the umpire's interpretation of the rule should be allowed. That is challenging a rule interpretation, not challenging the umpire's judgement. There is no requirement in any softball code that requires the infielders to be at normal depth to invoke the infield fly rule.

Click to expand...

We were talking about the clip in the video, not the OP.

jackfrost said:

I would say that this was not pure judgement but rather a rule interpretation. If the umpire said that he judged that the catch required more than ordinary effort then that would be a judgement call that could not be protested. But reading the original post, the umpire stated it was not an IFF because "the defense was not [at] a normal playing depth". It appears the umpire is citing a rule that does not exist. Protesting the umpire's interpretation of the rule should be allowed. That is challenging a rule interpretation, not challenging the umpire's judgement. There is no requirement in any softball code that requires the infielders to be at normal depth to invoke the infield fly rule.

Click to expand...

AFA OP, that has already been stated. That is not part of the rule.