I know enough about the rule to get by, but I had a… disagreement… with an umpire last night at our softball game, and I came away feeling shafted. Here’s the recap.
One out, runners on first and second. Pop fly to short, which carried him to the outfield grass. Shortstop dropped the ball, and it kicked off his foot, far enough away to allow our runner on second (speedster) to score, with runners still on first and second and one out. The umpires did not call “Infield Fly Rule” during the course of the play. After the play unfolded, they had a discussion, called the batter out, and sent our runners back to first and second. He claimed that they had the ability to invoke Infield Fly after the fact, despite the dropped ball and run sored. I strongly disagreed (kept it clean, because I was already at his line for arguing a missed call earlier in the game), claiming that Infield Fly cannot be assumed, that it must be called out loud. His call stood. No run scored, first and second, two outs, possible rally killed.
Who interpreted the rule correctly?
As far as I can recall from my days as an umpire (was carded but by no means anything close to a full time proffessional) , the infield fly call cannot be assumed and must be verbally called by the umpire to be invoked. It does not matter whether or not the fielder catches the ball or not, the batter is automatically out, and the runners have to tag up. Admittedly I never ran across a situation such as yours where the umpire did not call the rule and then applied it later. In my experience, umpires love calling this rule because it is so strange, and they get to yell out something beside safe/out/ball/strike/foul.
Hope this helps, but not sure if it does, I’m just wasting company time
So your disagreement is that the rule was not invoked, out loud, while the ball was still in the air? I don’t see how it makes a difference whether it was called in the air, or after the fact. There is an infield fly rule, which apparently applies to this situation, right? To me, the only fair way to handle it is to call it that way, even after it was played out as an outfield hit.
Under the infield fly rule, the batter is immediately out and baserunners may stay put or advance “at their own risk”. Since, in this case, the ball was dropped the runner needn’t even tag up. If he crossed the plate the run should have counted. Even in light of the delayed call the situation should have been:
runner on 1st (assuming he did not advance), 1 run scored and 2 outs.
I have seen the “silent” infield fly invoked before, especially in rec league softball. The umps there are not always the best. They’re generally just guys looking to make a buck or two to supplement their income. The ump should loudly call “Infield fly, the batter is out!” but even if he doesn’t the rule is still in effect. The runners have to be aware of the situation as well. All in all, a poor job by the ump in not calling “infield fly” compounded by resetting the runners afterward.
My disagreement is that there was no way to know if the ball was, in fact, staying in the infield. If he had called “infield fly” during the play, there’s no beef. I disagreed with the fact that it was not called during the play, but was invoked after everything played out.
The following applies to baseball rules. I believe it also applies to softball, but I’m not positive. Use at your own risk.
Umpires do not have to signal an infield fly situation immediately. The call can be made retroactively. They had better, however, have a darn good reason for doing so. The only good reason I can think of is if their failure to call an IFF allowed the defense turn a cheap double play – which is exactly what the IFF rule is meant to prevent. In your case I’m not crazy about your umpires’ rationale, but hey, I wasn’t there. They may have seen things differently.
That being said, they did screw up one thing. Play remains live on an IFF. (Like I said, this applies to baseball rules. Softball may be different on this point.) Even if they applied the IFF rule retroactively, your runner from second should have been permitted to score, and the runner from first should have been permitted to advance to second, both at their own risk. The batter would be called out.
Are protests allowed in your league? If so, learn about them and use them. Protesting an incorrect application of the rules is waaaaay lower stress than arguing with an umpire.
Weighing in as an amateur umpire and professional scorer…
Cdnguy is absolutely correct, and the umpires in **Casey’s ** game don’t know the rules. Section 2.00 of the official rules states:
**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. **
The whole point of the rule is that it must be invoked while the play is in process. Whne the umpire calls “Infield Fly”, the batter is immediately out and the runners are not obligate to advance. Invoking it after the fact defeats the whole purpose of the rule, which is to prevent fielders from intentionally dropping pop flies to double off the runners.
Further, while this is a judgement call by the umpire, the rules say that an infield fly should only be called on a ball “which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.” At the professional level, I have only seen the infield fly called on high pop ups where the fielder is standing stationary, waiting for the ball to come down. Didn’t see the play in question, but if the shortstop was on the run, ithe umpire made a horrible judgment call, too. Could the shortstop have intentionally let the ball fall, then throw to third to force the runner on second? If not, the rule doesn’t apply.
Irrelevant. What matters is whether or not an infielder can make the catch with normal effort. The fly does not need to remain in the infield for the infield fly rule to kick in.
They are, but not worth it. $30 to lodge the protest and returned if upheld. I’ve never seen an appeal other than one involving an illegal player (used in playoffs w/o playing the required # of regular season games–50% +1) upheld. We’d rather spend the $30 on a couple of post game cases.
And furthermore, the runners are allowed to advance when an infield fly has been called. All that the rule does is state that they are not obligated to advance. In this case, even if the retroactive invocation of the rule was kosher, that should only affect the batter, not the runner who scored.
Why is dropping the fly ball and turning a double play “cheap”?
The fielder takes a risk deliberately missing a ball. No double play is
guaranteed.
A line drive to the shortstop could be “deliberately” dropped and turned
into a DP yet there’s no rule to prevent that. It’s just stupid to single out
the infield popup.
I wish MLB would consider removing this albatross from the rule book.
Amen. It’s not a rule to penalize a batter for not hitting it hard enough, it’s to give the runners on base a fighting chance. Without the rule, the runners are damned if they wait and tag up (because the fielder can drop the ball intentionally and probably get a DP, and they’re damned if they start running, because the fielder can catch the ball and double them up.
BwanaBob- I see your point, but without the IfFR, the runners are hung out to dry, no matter what they do. Line drives are different because a runner can only do and think so much in the second or two before the play is made. On infield flys, all of the baseball training we receive since we (as runners) were in Little League starts blowing out the gears in our head, and we don’t know what to do, because, in fact, there is nothing we can do.
Retroactive infield fly. What kind of bull is that?
Seems to me that calling him an outfielder answers the question. The rule applies to a ball playable by an infielder. By the way, I’ve twice heard popups near the foul line called by umpires, “If fair, an infield fly.” I wonder why they make that statement, since a dropped foul would be no play. Why not just call it an infield fly? If it’s caught, runners would be unwise to advance anyway, fair or foul. Is that just an ump’s idiosyncrasy? Am I missing something here?
That is against the rules and no good umpire would allow it.
Rule 6.05(l): A batter is out when - An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases; APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies.
So if your buddy is actually dropping line drives, the umpire should be calling the batter out and the ball dead. You will notice that major league infielders never do this - because they’d be called on it if they did.
It’s not an idiosyncrasy, it’s good umpiring. As has already been established, if an umpire is going to call an infield fly, he should do his best to do it while the ball is in the air. But applying the infield fly rule means that the batter is automatically out – no matter the “actual” result of the play. If an umpire were to call “infield fly” even on foul (or potentially foul) balls, it might be unclear that the batter is out only if the ball lands fair, or if a fielder catches the ball. In essence, “infield fly if fair” is short hand for “if the ball lands fair, the batter is out on the infield fly; if the ball lands foul, it’s just a plain ol’ foul ball.”
The alternative is having umpires wait to call an infield fly (or not) after the fair/foul status of the ball has been established. By that point it’s too late to help the runners determine whether or not they want to stay at their bases to avoid giving up an easy double play.
Just like in basketball, when the shot is released as the horn sounds or if the shooter was fouled, often the official will call “Good if it goes”, meaning that the shot was released in time, and will count if made.
IIRC, it does not matter the actual position of the player, as if you wanted to, you could bring all 3-4 outfielders into the infield at any point and vice versa. Therefore your 4th outfielder could catch the ball, and the infield fly rule would still apply. It is up to the umpire’s discretion as to what consitutes normal effort, however, inthe majors, I believe that is the point of the white line extending from foul line to foul line behing the bases. It is the point at which the infield ends and the outfield begins.
This isn’t just good umpiring, it’s the rule. The rulebook specifically says the umpire must say this.
Rule 2.00:
I also agree with cdnguy’s point. The rule is that it’s an infield fly if it can be caught with normal effort by an infielder. Rule 2.00 also states that an infielder is “a player who occupies a position on the infield.” If you bring your outfielder in to play as a fifth infielder, he is an infielder as far as the rulebook is concerned.
