infield fly call

[dbias]

18U ASA.
Bases loaded with one out.
Big hitter comes to bat and hits a moon ball to mid left center.SS runs out and sets up about25 feet into the grass with glove above head blocking sun. Outfielders give up on ball and it lands about 20 feet behind SS in between the three of them. plate umpire screams infield fly batters out just as ballhits ground. WT heck?

 

[riseball]

Sounds like an epic fail.

 

[Comp]

The rule actually says nothing about the ball having to be in the infield. It just says catchable by an infielder with normal effort. Couple of years ago there was an infield fly called in and MLB game where the SS was well out in LF when he caught the ball. That being said, Im not sure I agreed with the call in the MLB game, nor in the play described here. Weather, wind, sun etc all need to be taken into account when the umpire is determining normal effort by a fielder.

 

[JAD]

It is my understanding that the infield fly rule was designed to prevent an infielder from intentionally dropping a routine fly ball in order to turn a double play with runners on base. Therefore, it is a judgement call by the umpire and it sounds like the umpire used poor judgement in this case.....

 

[Bugab00]

It should be called "infielder fly rule". It has nothing to do with where the ball will be caught and everything to do with by whom the ball should be caught.

 

[Josh Greer]

Just ask the Atlanta Braves about how they feel about infield fly. Same situation. Very subjective with fuzzy boundaries. (I'm a Cardinal fan, so of course I have a different take on it)

 

[Umpire]

It should be called "infielder fly rule". It has nothing to do with where the ball will be caught and everything to do with by whom the ball should be caught.

Unfortunately, the reference "by whom" is completely wrong in every softball and baseball organization I can think of. If you understand the purpose of the infield fly, you'd understand why "by whom" is incorrect.

 

[MTR]

Just ask the Atlanta Braves about how they feel about infield fly. Same situation. Very subjective with fuzzy boundaries. (I'm a Cardinal fan, so of course I have a different take on it)

Well, Josh, like it or not, that call was in accordance with the rules and accurate. Not saying it would or should be called every time, but in this case you had an extra umpire in the OF on the line that had nothing else to do than watch the SS and how he was reacting to the batted ball. If the SS doesn't "hear footsteps", he catches the ball and it is a non-issue.

In this case, having extra umpires work the game was actually detrimental to the offense.

 

[MTR]

It should be called "infielder fly rule". It has nothing to do with where the ball will be caught and everything to do with by whom the ball should be caught.

As long as your "by whom" reference is an "infielder" as opposed to an "outfielder", that is correct, but only a part of the rule.

 

[CoogansBluff]

It should be called "infielder fly rule". It has nothing to do with where the ball will be caught and everything to do with by whom the ball should be caught.

Agree, although I would use the word ''could'' instead of ''should.'' It's not the umpire's business to determine who ''should'' catch a ball (that's a strategic matter that is up to the coach and players), but rather who ''could'' catch it. It's possible for a ball to be hit so high that both an infielder and an outfielder could catch it with ordinary effort. That would qualify as an infield fly, although the outfielder might be the one who ''should'' catch it.

re: Braves-Cardinals. I'm a Braves fan. As much as I like to disagree, the umpire's call was a fair judgment within the rules. I could argue that it was not ordinary effort (the shortstop was still on the move, and outfielders were closing in and perhaps calling him off). The umpire, from what I understand, made the call kinda late. Which doesn't make it a bad call. The umpire must make an immediate call, but immediate doesn't apply to when the ball is struck, or when it reaches its apex, but rather immediately upon recognizing that an infielder can catch it with ordinary effort. But fact that it took the umpire so long to make that determination is evidence perhaps that it was not routine.

It was not a bad call, but I do think the umpire could've called it the other way and defended it. ''Ordinary effort'' is pretty subjective. Same call in 18U travel ball might've been viewed differently.