Any Umpires - how do YOU define 'ordinary effort' ?

[EdFred]

As an umpire do you have any benchmarks that you use to determine ordinary effort? Do you think a benchmark should be used, or would you consider using a benchmark laziness on the umpire's part instead of taking in the whole play and making a judgement?

I'd like to hear some opinions on how you determine ordinary effort before relaying what I saw and was told this weekend.

 

[ichiromoco]

And as an add on question as an umpire do you take skill level into account ie. low level coed game?

 

[Joker]

laziness on the umpire's part? what does that have to do with the effort of a player?

 

[ureout]

As an umpire do you have any benchmarks that you use to determine ordinary effort? Do you think a benchmark should be used, or would you consider using a benchmark laziness on the umpire's part instead of taking in the whole play and making a judgement?

I'd like to hear some opinions on how you determine ordinary effort before relaying what I saw and was told this weekend.

I have no idea what you are asking....

 

[EdFred]

laziness on the umpire's part? what does that have to do with the effort of a player?

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.

 

[Country469]

its about "routine play" in that situation.........if the in the umpires judgement turning around to run and get a really high pop up, is not a routine play, then no infield fly

 

[EdFred]

Which is why I am asking the umpires here what they consider routine/ordinary. I wanted a data point of more than 1.

 

[Joker]

this is a complain about an ump thread

 

[Country469]

Which is why I am asking the umpires here what they consider routine/ordinary. I wanted a data point of more than 1.

personally, just turing around to get ball doesn't make it routine or not routine........however on a really windy day when guys are struggling I also let normal high pops ups go without the call if I see guys struggling to get camped under them. IMO ere on the side of not calling IF Rule.

 

[EdFred]

this is a complain about an ump thread

No, that would have been the ump we had in the previous game. This play also zero bearing on the outcome of game - but the 2nd craziest explanation I've ever heard from an umpire on why a call was made.

As I already stated, I'm trying to get more than 1 data point.

 

[NCASAUmp]

For some reason, Justice Potter Stewart's words come to mind.

"I know it when I see it."

 

[EdFred]

For some reason, Justice Potter Stewart's words come to mind.

"I know it when I see it."

So would I be safe in assuming that you would take everything into consideration before making a snap call/non-call?

 

[BretMan]

I've heard a lot of umpires say something like "if the fielder has to turn his back to the infield, it's not ordinary effort".

Using that as a blanket "every time, for all situations" guideline is, to me, total BS. Sure, if a fielder has to turn and run and try to make an over the shoulder catch, then his effort might not be "ordinary".

But if he turns, runs a bit, then has time to turn around and get camped under the ball, waiting for it to come down, I'm probably going to call that ordinary effort.

There's no list of what entails ordinary, or extra-ordinary, effort. As a practical matter, anytime an infielder is camped under the ball, such that a catch is imminent and reasonably expected, that should satisfy the requirement of the rule.

 

[NCASAUmp]

So would I be safe in assuming that you would take everything into consideration before making a snap call/non-call?

I take everything into consideration. Does that look ordinary to me? Yes? Okay, then that's ordinary.

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

I don't think you can apply one "reason" to call or not call IFF. Each one can be different.

 

[irishmafia]

Good and appropriate call

 

[EdFred]

Good and appropriate call

I can go either way on that one. The point of an infield fly call is to prevent the defense from getting a cheap double play. I personally don't think a double play could have been made on that if Kozma purposefully let the ball drop in front of him, so if the call wasn't made I'd be OK with that as well.

 

[Joker]

kosma was parked under it until he heard footsteps. the call was correct

 

[EdFred]

kosma was parked under it until he heard footsteps. the call was correct

Our opinions differ on parked. Stopped, yes, parked, not so much. To me it doesn't appear he ever 'set' (define that however you want, our opinion may differ on that as well) and waited under the ball.

 

[Joker]

he is still ready to catch the ball with ordinary effort

 

[EdFred]

he is still ready to catch the ball with ordinary effort

Is that the only requirement?

 

[Joker]

what other requirement is in the rules?

 

[EdFred]

Rule 2.00

"...for the benefit of the runners..."

In the Kozma situation, there was no way a double play was going to be turned, so no benefit to the runners on calling it. They may have gotten a force at 3rd or 2nd but not both, and if you watch the runner on 2nd, he was not going to get doubled up on a live ball appeal for leaving early if caught.

If you truly believe a DP would be turned on that play, then that's fine, call the IF. I am 100% certain a DP would not have been turned had Kozma purposefully let it drop in front of him.

 

[Joker]

cite the whole rule, not 6 words with no context

 

[Joker]

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.

When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield Fly, if Fair.”

The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul.

If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly.

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.
When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05(l). The infield fly rule takes precedence.

see when you give the context, the 6 words you quoted are about the signal made by the umpire not any requirement for the rule to be implemented

 

[EdFred]

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.

When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the
umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the run-
ners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield
Fly, if Fair.”

The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being
caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on
any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul.

If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground,
and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a
declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline,
and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly.

(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 deci-
sion should be made immediately.
When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their
own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally
drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions
of Rule 5.09(a)(12) (Rule 6.05(
l
)). The infield fly rule takes
precedence.
If interference is called during an Infield Fly, the ball remains
alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If
fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the bat-
ter are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the bat-
ter returns to bat.

******************************************************************
With no benefit to the runners, it shouldn't be called. With the Kozma call, there was no benefit to the runners in calling it, my opinion.

 

[EdFred]

I disagree with your interpretation of declaring = signaling, and interpret it as to whether it shall be called or not. Since it says declare, not signal.

I've been dealing with Federal Law and regulations for 2+ decades. While this is not Federal Law, the basis for construct is similar. My point is that declaring is not necessarily a synonym for signaling.

 

[Joker]

read it again. infield fly has already been determined and then the signal is given "for the benefit of the runners"

 

[Joker]

When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners.

the key words here in bold. it has to be an apparent infield fly before any benefit is given to the runners by giving a signal or declaration.

 

[EdFred]

I've read it multiple times. We disagree on our interpretations.