Infield fly rule?!?!

[CHSUmp97]

I am confused.

I am not saying any results should be overturned, but I think there is merit in a coach (respectfully of course) indicating to a PU that a verbal call should have been made. It really should be part of the rules/mechanics whatever you like to call it. not having it in their is just a CYA thing for when it is not verbalized.

and having volume enough to reach OF has nothing to do with base coaches, they are not responsible for OF, they are responsible for coaching the offense.

Geez, are you reading clearly what I wrote? I never said anything about base coaches being responsible for the outfield! I said when I make the IFF verbal call, I make it loud enough that it can even be heard by the outfielders.

Look, it’s not a CYA thing. Umpires didn’t write the rules. The rulesmakers felt that both teams are responsible to know when an IFF call should have been made. Sorry that you don’t agree with that, but that’s the way it is. I’m not thrilled when a colleague fails to call it either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bmakj]

my issue is that opinions can differ on when it should be made, but ONLY HPU knows if the call is actually made, so they should verbalize it, so that eveyrone (defense, coaches, baserunners) can react appropriately

and I just realized, reading the way it is written, why is it only if 1st and 2nd are occupied, could not a lone runner at 1B be subject to the same kind of jeaopardy?

 

[canyonjoe]

my issue is that opinions can differ on when it should be made, but ONLY HPU knows if the call is actually made, so they should verbalize it, so that eveyrone (defense, coaches, baserunners) can react appropriately

and I just realized, reading the way it is written, why is it only if 1st and 2nd are occupied, could not a lone runner at 1B be subject to the same kind of jeaopardy?

The reason that it's not a rule with just a runner on 1st is that although the runner is in jeopardy, the defense should only be able to get one out assuming the batter runs. With 1st and 2nd they can turn a double play by not catching the ball and that's why it was put in.

 

[bmakj]

The reason that it's not a rule with just a runner on 1st is that although the runner is in jeopardy, the defense should only be able to get one out assuming the batter runs. With 1st and 2nd they can turn a double play by not catching the ball and that's why it was put in.

OK, makes sense, did not think of it that way. thanks

 

[Gags]

The number of times I've read the rule, and the number of discussion threads I've read on it - for some reason re-reading this today finally made it click for me, as I came to the same conclusion a few minutes before reading canyonjoe's explanation. We'll see if it click a little sooner for the 10U's this evening.

 

[A's dad]

If you can get 10u baserunners to understand, recognize situation, and look to HPU for signal, and recognize this, then that coaching staff is probably the best I have ever seen, or the girls are the future US Olympic team. recognizing it in practice, when it is being coached, is a long way from recognizing it in game situation.

Well neither is true. However our girls understand what it means and how it works, but the most important part is having first and third base coaches that understand and recognize when infield fly is in effect. They should be communicating and helping their baserunners with game situation before the ball is in the air. I believe that's what base coaches should be doing although I've seen plenty of first bases coaches who think their only job is collect elbow guards and chit chat with the other dugout.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I am confused.

I am not saying any results should be overturned, but I think there is merit in a coach (respectfully of course) indicating to a PU that a verbal call should have been made. It really should be part of the rules/mechanics whatever you like to call it. not having it in their is just a CYA thing for when it is not verbalized.

and having volume enough to reach OF has nothing to do with base coaches, they are not responsible for OF, they are responsible for coaching the offense.

I think we are on the same page, just different views of it.

It is in the rules and the mechanics. The rules say an umpire’s gaff on the mechanics does not change the situation — coaches and players are expected to know the situation and play accordingly.

 

[The Man In Blue]

If you can get 10u baserunners to understand, recognize situation, and look to HPU for signal, and recognize this, then that coaching staff is probably the best I have ever seen, or the girls are the future US Olympic team. recognizing it in practice, when it is being coached, is a long way from recognizing it in game situation.

That’s all.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Well neither is true. However our girls understand what it means and how it works, but the most important part is having first and third base coaches that understand and recognize when infield fly is in effect. They should be communicating and helping their baserunners with game situation before the ball is in the air. I believe that's what base coaches should be doing although I've seen plenty of first bases coaches who think their only job is collect elbow guards and chit chat with the other dugout.

I really like this. That is what I have been driving at all along. Why is anybody waiting until a ball is in the air?

 

[bmakj]

I really like this. That is what I have been driving at all along. Why is anybody waiting until a ball is in the air?

my point is there is no way for anybody but the HPU to know for certain IFR is in effect, except for the call by the HPU. Everyone (coaches, BR, fans, hot dog man, etc.) may all believe it is in effect, but without call by HPU, cannot be certain.

it is correct that results cannot be overturned based on failure of umpire to do something, but it is also not out of line for someone to point out to a HPU "hey, did you call that IFR out", and for PU to admit, "you know, I dont think I did, sorry about that one"