Infield Fly Rule and bunting

[Telemark]

I was at the Red Sox - Angels game on Friday night (&#$@ Gange) and saw a play that confused me. With a runner on first and one out the batter bunted. It popped up and the pitcher, catcher, and 3rd baseman all could have easily caught the ball. Lowell (3rd base) called them off, let the ball drop on purpose, and threw to second base for the force out. I think he was hoping the batter would slack off on the run to first and he could have gotten a DP.

Wouldn’t the IFR have been in play anyway? Or does it not come into play on a bunt?

[Stratocaster]

@Telemark

I was at the Red Sox - Angels game on Friday night (&#$@ Gange) and saw a play that confused me. With a runner on first and one out the batter bunted. It popped up and the pitcher, catcher, and 3rd baseman all could have easily caught the ball. Lowell (3rd base) called them off, let the ball drop on purpose, and threw to second base for the force out. I think he was hoping the batter would slack off on the run to first and he could have gotten a DP.

Wouldn’t the IFR have been in play anyway? Or does it not come into play on a bunt?

From here (emphasis added):

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.

[Jas09]

Also, since you said there was only a runner on first, the IFR would not have been called in this instance even if it wasn’t a bunt. It is designed to prevent the fielders from getting an “unearned” double play (which can’t happen with only first occupied if the batter/runner is running hard to first).

[Telemark]

Right, you need two runners for the IFR to be in affect. But even so, the bunt attempt would have ruled that out. Thanks.

[What_the]

@Telemark

Right, you need two runners for the IFR to be in affect. But even so, the bunt attempt would have ruled that out. Thanks.

I haven’t read the rule book for about 30 years but I seem to recall that the infield fly rule used to be based on whether the fielder was set under the pop-up and facing home plate.

Is it possible that the rule has been re-written since then?

[Jas09]

@What the .... ?!?!

I haven’t read the rule book for about 30 years but I seem to recall that the infield fly rule used to be based on whether the fielder was set under the pop-up and facing home plate.

Is it possible that the rule has been re-written since then?

From the link upthread:

Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder—not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately.

Nothing in there about facing home - just has to be “easily handled”.

[KidScruffy]

@Telemark

I think he was hoping the batter would slack off on the run to first and he could have gotten a DP.

Another conceivable motivation for the play is if the batter was a much slower runner than the current runner.

[Telemark]

@KidScruffy

Another conceivable motivation for the play is if the batter was a much slower runner than the current runner.

As it turns out the batter ran hard to first and it was a non-issue. They never even made the throw to first