The Infield Fly Rule is the only exception in baseball, to the principle that the outcome of a play is dependent on the execution by a player. A batter who legally puts the ball in play is automatically out.
There is no real reason for it. Ostensibly, the reason was to deny a situation in which the defense could make an automatic, indefensible double play. But isn’t that what happens on a sharply hit ground ball to the shortstop with a runner on first? Besides, I have no doubt that at least half of all popups in the IFR situation would not result in a double play at all. An uncaught popup behind the first baseman would require a throw all the way to third, and then to second, to make the DP, and runners could learn to station themselves to improve their chances of staying out of a DP.
And there is already a rule that if an infielder intentionally drops a linedrive, the umpire can rule it a catch to negate a trick DP.
There is a simple solution. Just rule the infield fly to be a foul ball, to be called in the air the same way the umpire calls a IFR. That would not require a convolution of rules. There are already a variety of situational rules that govern foul balls, such as whether it passes the base line on the fly or on the bounce, and an otherwise fair ball is declared to be foul it it hits the batter still in the batter’s box. So just expand the definition of foul to include the infield fly. in the IFR situation.
So, if there is a popup with runners on first and second with less than two outs, the ump just says “Foul ball”. The batter is out if the ball is caught,and it is in play, and runners may advance at their peril, same as it is for any other foul ball. If it’s not caught, it’s just a foul ball and runners return to bases.
How simple is that? And it preserves the inviolability of the baseball principle that execution is required for all outcomes of legal plays.
I was all ready to jump down your throat on this one, but actually… I kinda like your solution. No reason for the automatic out of if you can avoid the potential for the double-play while also forcing the fielder to make the play (which your approach does).
So, as someone who thinks the “auto IBB” is stupid and will die a little bit inside when the NL adopts the DH, sign me up.
I’ve had a solution that I’ve put forward for decades, and it goes just a bit beyond yours. It is based on the premise that the batting team should get rewarded if the fielding team cannot field a pop fly. And that is that all runners, including the batter, advance one base if a pop fly is dropped in an infield fly situation. What wrong with that?
If they get rid of the infield fly rule, how will I impress the other dads on the Little League field with my knowledge of baseball rules? I’ll just be left with the one about runners advancing two bases when the ball is thrown out of play (everyone gets this one wrong; I have to stop games to explain it) and the one about advancing three bases if a fielder throws his glove at the ball and hits it (if the ball would have been a home run, all runners including the batter runner, score).
Good Lord, no. The last thing baseball needs is more foul balls, the game moves too slow as it is. In fact, I’m still lobbying for a rule where three straight foul balls is an automatic out.
OK, I am not convinced this is a great idea, but let’s be honest; the rule has NOT worked fine since forever. That’s just not true. Even at the highest levels of baseball, the infield fly rule is not well understood and the manner in which it is called and enforced is not consistent or clear. Just five years ago a playoff game was played under protest because of a disagreement over what constitutes an infield fly, and in 2015 I am still quite unclear as to why Josh Donaldson wasn’t called out for what appeared to be an infield fly in the infamous seventh inning of Game 5 of the ALDS. At every level of baseball people don’t get the rule. Try being an umpire for one season. It’s a rare call, but when it does happen there’s a fifty-fifty chance someone will yell at you about it.
The infield fly rule was created out of a sense of necessity, to prevent the unsportsmanlike act of deliberately making a misplay to get a cheap double play. I’m fine with that; it’s a compromise and I think one that makes enough sense to keep it. But let’s not pretend it’s not a compromise, and a compromise always has problems.
Would this rule change really affect much? It’s rare that an at-bat isn’t decided long before 3 consecutive fouls, and when that situation does come up, it’s usually because you have a master of control at bat fending off a plate-nibbling pitcher. Why reward the pitcher in that situation?
That’s not an infield fly. The infield fly rule is for popups that, in the umpire’s judgment, should be easily caught by an infielder. That popup probably should have been caught but it wasn’t an easy catch. By my count Odor took seven or eight steps back trying to get to the ball. That many steps on a high popup might be negligible but on a blooper those steps take it out of the realm of “easy play”.
This was my first thought, too, but if you consider the batter is still out if the ball is caught, maybe it’s not that big of a deal. But you’re still going to run into the problem of subjectivity on what’s an infield fly. I get where the OP is coming from, and it’s not a terrible idea, but at the end of the day I probably just leave the IFF rule alone.
The IFR and the proposed Foul Ball Rule (FBR) both have to be called by the umpire.
If the ball is caught, it’s an out in either case.
If the ball isn’t caught, it’s an out with the IFR, but not with the FBR. However, since the IFR is only supposed to apply to pop-ups/fly balls that are pretty much gimmes for the defense, I’m not seeing a big difference here.
With the IFR, everybody holds their base, period. But with the FBR, the runners could advance after the catch. But this would only be a meaningful difference if the ump called the IFR on a fly of sac-fly depth. And if it’s that deep, the runners don’t really need the protection of the IFR, so presumably the umps aren’t calling it.
First, on point #4, runners can advance at their own risk on an IFF. IFF is not a dead ball.
Second, the OP’s idea is to eliminate an outcome that was not the direct result of a play being made. Rather, with IFF rule, the batter is out no matter what subsequently happens on the field of play.
But Odor only had trouble making the catch because he made a mistake; he inexplicably broke IN when Donaldson made contact. He takes a few stutter steps backwards, not full steps, and then misses the ball. To my eyes the ball was absolutely catchable by Odor with an ordinary effort. He failed to make an ordinary effort, he made an inept, terrible effort, but that’s not how the rule is supposed to work.
The fact we’re having this discussion illustrates why the rule is not ideal, not a compromise; we’re engaged in an argument over what constitutes an ordinary effort.