if a double play can or can't be turned has no bearing on if an infield fly is called or notThat's the sole reason for the infield fly rule! The reason the infield fly rule was introduced was to prevent doubling up the runners on an intentional dropped pop up/shallow fly ball. In the Kozma situation a double play was never going to be turned on that. With zero chance of turning a double play it should have never been called. You are completely ignoring that the infield fly rule is there only to prevent a double/triple play.
Let's put another situation out there for an example. I see the shift implemented quite a bit. I see it where the shifted infielder is sometimes 50'+ deep in the grass when that happens. If he goes back a similar distance from his initial set up as Kozma did from his, he could easily be over 250' from home plate. So by your interpretation: Is he an infielder? Yes. Did he make the catch with ordinary effort? Yes. By only looking at that, and ignoring why the rule is in place, the infield fly rule should be called. By my interpretation: Is there a chance of turning a double or triple play by letting the ball drop? No. So it shouldn't matter if it's ordinary effort because the runners are never in jeopardy of being doubled up if dropped.
While situations like the Kozma play are rare and the rule probably doesn't need to be re-worded for such rare occurences, I think it should be in order to reflect why it is in place.
Ready to catch the ball or not, did he have to use extraordinary effort to get there?he is still ready to catch the ball with ordinary effort
noReady to catch the ball or not, did he have to use extraordinary effort to get there?
If he did not use ordinary effort to get to the spot where he settled under the ball then you have an infield fly. In my judgement (useful phrase), if an infielder has to turn his back to go get the ball then I deem it to be extraordinary effort. That's how I call it, and that's how I teach it.
interpretation of what? the "for the benefit of the runners" has nothing to do with if an infield fly is going to be called or not
if a double play can or can't be turned has no bearing on if an infield fly is called or not
where the fielder ends up has no bearing on if an infield fly is called or not
this is poor teachingIf he did not use ordinary effort to get to the spot where he settled under the ball then you have an infield fly. In my judgement (useful phrase), if an infielder has to turn his back to go get the ball then I deem it to be extraordinary effort. That's how I call it, and that's how I teach it.
to prevent the defense from taking advantage of the offenseSo why is there an infield fly rule?
to prevent the defense from taking advantage of the offense
in what situation?In what way would the defense be taking advantage of the offense in such a situation?
Thanksto prevent the defense from taking advantage of the offense
gtfo with your common sensei believe ed is misinterpreting "for the benefit of the runners." that phrase doesn't mean that the umpire analyzes the play and makes a guess as to what could happen. i think it means, because the runner may be following the play and not looking at the umpire's signal. i think that it just means the audible call is for the runner's benefit
In my judgement (useful phrase), if an infielder has to turn his back to go get the ball then I deem it to be extraordinary effort. That's how I call it, and that's how I teach it.
If he did not use ordinary effort to get to the spot where he settled under the ball then you have an infield fly. In my judgement (useful phrase), if an infielder has to turn his back to go get the ball then I deem it to be extraordinary effort. That's how I call it, and that's how I teach it.
I'm standing on 2B, runner behind me on 1B, nobody out. SS is playing a step and a half in front of the grass. Ball is hit ridiculously high into the air. SS turns his body rather than backpedal (I do the same thing when I play SS because I hate backpedaling over the dirt/grass transition), takes 3 steps into toward LF, so he's now a step and a half onto the grass. He camps under the ball, waits, and waits, and waits, and waits. To give an idea of how much time the ball was in the air, had I left on contact, I could have easily scored from 2nd before the ball was caught (and I'm not *that* fast any more). SS finally catches the ball, and I ask the BU why there was no Infield Fly called. "If I can read the number on the back of [the SS] jersey I will not call it."
How is it laziness on the part of the umpire? Because of his 'rule' of seeing the number != ordinary effort rather than actually watching the play and think, "yeah, even a 500lb shortstop could have made that play without struggling."
I had a short discussion with the PU after the 1/2 inning was over, and he seemed as confused as I did with his partner's explanation.
When a game is being officiated by multiple umpires, it is not the sole responsibility of any one umpire to call IFF. Even if the BU didn't call it, the PU was watching the same play & had the same opportunity to make the call. Hopefully that was part of your discussion with the PU.
I realize the rule doesn't define putting the runners in jeopardy, but it is the intention behind the rule. Feel free to blast me for not knowing the rule. I know the rule, but I also understand the intent. If Kozma is halfway out to left field , he can't turn a double play on a dropped ball.