I have a question about something that happened during the Cubs-Astros game on Sunday, September 11. Let me set the scene for you:
Cubs have runners on first and second, with one out (or maybe zero). With an 0-1 count, the Cubs batter hit a high pop fly that started veering off toward the seats behind first base. Astros third-baseman runs after it and catches in in foul territory, with his face toward the crowd and his back to the field. The Cubs runners, seeing that the Astros fielder is turned around, tag up and then break for it. The throw to third was late, and both runners advanced.
Not for nothing, the next Cubs batter hit a single and scored the two runs.
First of all, since when can the runners advance on a catch in foul territory? To me it seems ridiculous to allow it: it puts the fielder in the position of having to decide if he’d rather have the out and risk the runners advancing, or let it drop. If he lets it drop, the worst-case scenario is strike two on the batter. If he catches it, he’ll get the out but he risks letting the runners advance.
Am I missing something here? I did not know until last night that it was even possible for the runners to advance on a catch in foul territory.
This does become important in some big parks with foul territory far away from the bases. It’s pretty rare when a runner can advance after a fly out in foul territory but it can happen. Other fielders should take cut off positions when this looks like it could happen.
That play is part of baseball since forever. What is wrong with making the fielder decide in a situation like that? It’s situational baseball, and very exciting.
Not really. The fielder knows the score, who is on base and how fast they are, and what chance he has to throw the runner out if he catches it. Sometimes the correct play is to let it drop and hope for a strikeout or more favorable batted ball to handle.
As mentioned, it’s certainly something all fielders should keep in mind in those situations. But why shouldn’t players be called on to make difficult decisions? That’s what makes the game exciting.
The underlying philosophy is that when the ball is caught, it’s in play (aka ‘alive’) - it would have been ‘dead’ if it fell into foul territory. And whenever the ball is in play, base runners may advance, at their own risk.
It’s no different from the case of a runner attempting to steal a base while the pitcher holds the ball.
Being an outfielder for many years, the hardest decision is often knowing whether you’re in fair or foul territory. For example, if the ball is deep and the tying or go-ahead runner is on 3rd base with less than 2 outs, you might decide to let the bounce foul. But sometimes you can’t tell if it will bounce fair or foul since you have your eye on the ball in the air.
I always thought the rationale behind the Infield Fly Rule was that they didn’t want to put a fielder in a situation where it was to his advantage to not make a play that he otherwise could and should. Seems to me that the catch in foul territory is quite similar; there’s a feeling that the rules shouldn’t reward a player for deliberately letting a ball drop. Add in JJ’s reason and it becomes even more difficult; don’t want a player looking at the foul line when he should be looking at the ball (and while he’s very likely running toward the crowd or the wall).
Has anyone ever seen this happen, when a fielder has deliberately let the ball drop for a strike rather than getting the out?
I remember a case a few years back when JD Drew playing on the Red Sox caught a foul ball that he should have let drop since it let a go ahead run score late in the game. He received a lot of criticism for not knowing the game situation. I can’t find the video of that play.
The rationale behind the infield fly rule is that the fielder could let the ball drop and then he could make an easy double play. Rather than allow that double play, the rule awards the fielder a put out whether or not he catches the ball. This way the runners can stay on their bases (though they don’t have to) and can’t be tricked into a double play.
Welcome to the major leagues. Well, actually, this is something that comes up in all levels, but one can forgive a kid for making the wrong decision (if the correct play is to let the ball drop, that should be clearly communicated BEFORE a pitch is thrown.) As Jackknifed points out, this can become a tough call for an outfielder near the foul line.
A ball caught in foul territory is by definition a live ball, so play continues. The ball is dead only if it *lands *foul. To change that would be to rather dramatically change the rules of baseball.
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
always thought the rationale behind the Infield Fly Rule was that they didn’t want to put a fielder in a situation where it was to his advantage to not make a play that he otherwise could and should. Seems to me that the catch in foul territory is quite similar; there’s a feeling that the rules shouldn’t reward a player for deliberately letting a ball drop.
[/QUOTE]
The difference between these plays is twofold.
First, the infield fly rule is designed to prevent cheap DOUBLE PLAYS, not cheap non-plays. A fielder who lets a foul ball drop is letting the batter off the hook to prevent a runner from advancing, and in so doing is taking a risk; the batter might swat the next ball into the second deck, for all you know. A fielder who lets an infield fly drop is doing so to get a double play the runners are completely doomed to suffer; the whole point of the infield fly rule (and the lesser known line drive rule) is that in such a situation, baserunning is impossible, and a double play is inevitable. If you didn’t have that rule the infielder would always turn a double play. And it would happen a lot.
Fielders dropping foul balls on purpose are relatively rare occurrences - I can’t remember the last time I saw it happen.
It doesn’t matter where you are. What matters is where the ball is. You can have both feet in fair territory, but if the ball is in foul territory when you catch it it is a foul ball. Conversely, you can have both feet in foul territory and catch a ball which is in fair territory. That is a fair ball. The position of the ball relative to the foul lines and the bases determines whether it is fair or foul. The fielder has nothing to do with it.
I think the point was that when running towards the foul line and keeping your eye on the ball you can’t easily determine where you are, ie, whether the ball will drop in fair or foul ground. You’re saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
If there’s any question whether or not a ball will hit the ground in foul territory the fielder will assume it won’t. If it’s clearly foul the fielder knows it and can choose to let the ball drop if there’s a possibility of runners tagging up and advancing, but if he’s got any doubt he has to catch it, otherwise the runners will already have a lead and if it hits the ground in fair territory they will definitely advance. In the rare cases where it is an issue the whole team has to be at work, cut off men in the field, bases covered and backed up, and coaches and players ready to tell the fielder to let it go.
It is the responsible infielder’s job - usually the first or third baseman, depending on the field - to be SCREAMING to the outfielder “foul, foul, foul” if the ball is clearly foul but the outfielder might make the play.
