ASA In-field fly?

[karas3434]

guys on 1st and 2nd no outs... batter hits pop up about 6 feet in front of the plate (ball was fair the whole time) catcher is under it but muffs it. catcher ends up throwing to third and then second for a double play. When questioned about in-field fly ump says it wasnt "a routine play" so there is no in-field fly rule. Says in-field fly call is at umps discretion. Is that true?

 

[beernbombs]

Yes. Umpire's judgement as to whether it fits the rule.

However, it sounds as though your situation should have been called an IFF. How high was it hit?

 

[Joker]

yes its umpire judgment if its a play that can be made with normal effort

 

[karas3434]

It wasnt a moon shot, but catcher had enough time to get under it and set his feet. He also had time to call off the pitcher for the catch. I didnt know it was a judgement call rule so I guess i learned something today.

 

[karas3434]

Wow I didnt even see the sticky on this topic... sorry guys

 

[beernbombs]

Sounds like ordinary effort to me.

 

[karas3434]

Sounds like ordinary effort to me.

I woulda said yes but it being a judgement call not much you can do about it, just glad it didnt affect the outcome of the game... just an inning killer. I didnt know it was a judgement call which is why I asked.

 

[Loso54]

Was this a one umpire system or 2 umpire system? I only ask because if it were a 2 umpire system and neither umpire called infield fly then it probably wasn't or they both missed it. Either way it is in the umpires judgement if he or she thinks they can make the catch with ordinary effort but you would really need to know height of the ball as well also if the catcher had missed a couple pop ups previously in the game he may not get that call of infield fly right away as well.

 

[ureout]

Was this a one umpire system or 2 umpire system? I only ask because if it were a 2 umpire system and neither umpire called infield fly then it probably wasn't or they both missed it. Either way it is in the umpires judgement if he or she thinks they can make the catch with ordinary effort but you would really need to know height of the ball as well also if the catcher had missed a couple pop ups previously in the game he may not get that call of infield fly right away as well.

whether the catcher dropped any balls before should have no bearing on the call ...if the ball can be caught with normal effort IFF should be called...the call is to protect the base runners not the ability or inability of a fielder catching the ball

 

[FatBoy28]

Sounds like ordinary effort to me.

ordinary effort would have been the OP reading the damn sticky!

 

[joncon]

Sounds like ordinary effort to me.

Depends on the catcher. Sometimes the catcher is not the most proficient player on the team. If it was coed, multiply it by 100.

 

[BigSam]

Quite often in IFF situations the hit + fielder never quite line up for "routine catch" and I don't call IFF. Then everyone looks at you like "do you know about the IFF rule?" Yes, I do. Almost certainly better than you do, so why don't we just move along? I ump coed rec and there's no such thing as a routine catch for our catchers. Still though, if that happens and the catcher sets up under the ball, you should probably have IFF regardless of catch/no catch. Just like the gypsie woman said.

 

[EAJuggalo]

Was this a one umpire system or 2 umpire system? I only ask because if it were a 2 umpire system and neither umpire called infield fly then it probably wasn't or they both missed it.

Irrelevant. In a two umpire system the Plate ump has the responsibility for calling IFF. He always has the option of going to his partner to see if his partner saw anything differently, bu it is still the plate ump's call to make.

 

[rhound50]

[/U][/B]
whether the catcher dropped any balls before should have no bearing on the call ...if the ball can be caught with normal effort IFF should be called...the call is to protect the base runners not the ability or inability of a fielder catching the ball

Totally disagree with this, ordinary effort is totally different based on the player, a ball 10 feet into the grass might be ordinary effort in a major tourney, the same ball an infielder wouldn't get within 20 feet of it in rec coed. The knowledge that the catcher dropped two pop flys in a previous game is totally relevant to what ordinary effort is. The rule is to protect the offense but it is also not meant to punish them. If the catcher can't catch fly balls than he/she likely isnt skilled enough to drop one to start a double play either, more likely that they will drop it, not be able to make a play and all the runners are safe.

 

[B-radical]

Catcher did it on purpose for the double. Hell I drop them on purpose when playing 2nd and usually get runners sleeping every time.

 

[FatBoy28]

Totally disagree with this, ordinary effort is totally different based on the player, a ball 10 feet into the grass might be ordinary effort in a major tourney, the same ball an infielder wouldn't get within 20 feet of it in rec coed. The knowledge that the catcher dropped two pop flys in a previous game is totally relevant to what ordinary effort is. The rule is to protect the offense but it is also not meant to punish them. If the catcher can't catch fly balls than he/she likely isnt skilled enough to drop one to start a double play either, more likely that they will drop it, not be able to make a play and all the runners are safe.

I think he means that a players skill at catching objects falling from the sky once in position should not factor into determining ordinary effort. Standing still or moving slightly with your glove extended while the ball is descending should be "ordinary effort" regardless of the players ability to actually complete the catch. It is ordinary EFFORT, not ordinary skill.

 

[rhound50]

I think he means that a players skill at catching objects falling from the sky once in position should not factor into determining ordinary effort. Standing still or moving slightly with your glove extended while the ball is descending should be "ordinary effort" regardless of the players ability to actually complete the catch. It is ordinary EFFORT, not ordinary skill.

Ordinary effort refers to making the catch not just camping under the ball.

 

[irishmafia]

Ordinary effort refers to making the catch not just camping under the ball.

"Ordinary" effort is just that, the effort to make it possible to catch the ball is ordinary as in not extraordinary. If the player had time to camp under the ball, the is ordinary effort. The players ability to actually make the catch is irrelevant.

 

[TonyB]

It wasnt a moon shot, but catcher had enough time to get under it and set his feet. He also had time to call off the pitcher for the catch. I didnt know it was a judgement call rule so I guess i learned something today.

If "ordinary effort" isn't clearly defined in the rule book, then it's going to be a judgement call.

Quite often in IFF situations the hit + fielder never quite line up for "routine catch" and I don't call IFF. Then everyone looks at you like "do you know about the IFF rule?" Yes, I do. Almost certainly better than you do, so why don't we just move along? I ump coed rec and there's no such thing as a routine catch for our catchers. Still though, if that happens and the catcher sets up under the ball, you should probably have IFF regardless of catch/no catch. Just like the gypsie woman said.

It's not about the catch as much as it is about the fielder getting to the ball with ordinary effort.

Ordinary effort refers to making the catch not just camping under the ball.

Are you sure about that?

 

[joncon]

The players ability to actually make the catch is irrelevant.

Because?

It seems like your judgement should change according to the players.

If a girl catcher on a low level coed team stepped up to attempt a catch on a high fly, 10' in front of the plate, it would be extraordinary if she somehow managed to catch it. At that level, she's probably not going to turn a DP. She will be lucky to make one out.

A more skilled catcher of either gender playing at an upper level would be much more likely to take advantage of the situation if the IFR was not called. They have a clear view of the runners in front of them and the ball will likely spin right back to their glove after hitting the ground.


I would assume that he seemingly routine infield flys hit between are probably the toughest ones to call. Sometimes the players assume someone else will make the play and it ends up as a last second 3 way scramble.

 

[Joker]

Because?

It seems like your judgement should change according to the players.

If a girl catcher on a low level coed team stepped up to attempt a catch on a high fly, 10' in front of the plate, it would be extraordinary if she somehow managed to catch it. At that level, she's probably not going to turn a DP. She will be lucky to make one out.

A more skilled catcher of either gender playing at an upper level would be much more likely to take advantage of the situation if the IFR was not called. They have a clear view of the runners in front of them and the ball will likely spin right back to their glove after hitting the ground.


I would assume that he seemingly routine infield flys hit between are probably the toughest ones to call. Sometimes the players assume someone else will make the play and it ends up as a last second 3 way scramble.

this has nothing to do with the rule

 

[u234bob]

Always up to the ump. No sense whining now.

 

[joncon]

this has nothing to do with the rule

Sure it does.

I am making the claim that ordinary effort is defined differently for different players.

 

[Joker]

Sure it does.

I am making the claim that ordinary effort is defined differently for different players.

no it doesn't. ordinary effort only applies to the catch, not to what could happen if its not caught or if IFF is not called

 

[rhound50]

Sure it does.

I am making the claim that ordinary effort is defined differently for different players.

Well its a judgement call so the umpire can define it however they deem ordinary effort. That said a good umpire should understand that ordinary effort in a major game vs a rec coed game are two very different things. The reason the rule exists is to protect the hitting team. If the umpire is calling IFF on a play where there is zero chance of turning a double play, then they are not using the rule for its intended purpose. Joker can split hairs all he wants saying it just says "ordinary effort". There is a reason this is left up to the umpire judgement instead of having an infield fly rule line, because a good umpire uses the rule to protect the hitting team without hurting their chances of positive offensive outcomes.

 

[Joker]

its not splitting hairs. the rules says:

INFIELD FLY: A fair fly ball, not including a line drive or an attempted bunt which can be caught by an infielder, pitcher or catcher with ordinary effort when first and second or first, second and third bases are occupied with less than two outs.

if they can turn a double play or get an out other than catching the ball doesn't even factor into the "ordinary effort" part of it

 

[joncon]

:



if they can turn a double play or get an out other than catching the ball doesn't even factor into the "ordinary effort" part of it

That didn't make sense to me. ^

All I'm trying to say is is that ordinary effort differs with the individual attempting to make the play. I'm not sure if you agree or not.

 

[Joker]

if you don't understand then i can't help you. its very simple. ordinary effort only applies to the players ability to make the catch, nothing else

 

[irishmafia]

That didn't make sense to me. ^

All I'm trying to say is is that ordinary effort differs with the individual attempting to make the play. I'm not sure if you agree or not.

An individual does not even have to attempt to make a play for it to be an infield fly.

 

[BretMan]

I think somebody's confusing a player's "effort" with a player's "skill".

Can an infielder get to the area where the ball will land in time to make a routine catch? Then the catch could be made with ordinary effort.

After getting there, can the infielder actually catch it? That speaks to the individual player's skill, not their effort.

The way I've always had this explained to me is that we can take into account the level of play when judging the "ordinary effort" on an infield fly (for instance, a game for eight year olds versus an adult game) but we shouldn't try judging the skill level of individual players within the game.