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

[fitzpats]

Now. Here is the ordinary effort part. He took, in the end, about 10 total steps. Half of them he had his back to me while sprinting out. Yet once he got there he waited and waited for that monster pop fly to come down into his glove. Just for the sake of this discussion, he took 10ish total steps. Ordinary effort play? Some could argue he turned his back while sprinting. Therefore infield fly should not be called. Others would say he got out there so quick and had to wait for the ball to come down that it ended up being a VERY routine catch, even while a few steps on the grass. Therefore infield fly should be called.

The issue being argued is what I have bolded in your response. The OP stated that the BU said because of the turn, even with being able to camp, ordinary effort was removed because blue saw the numbers on the back. That's also what DeputyUIC has stated he is teaching in clinics. Like you said, sometimes turning your back can make it a very routine catch and using ordinary effort, but because the fielder turned, the IFF (Infield is shortened to IF to start, so it is 3 letters) is removed even though the base runners are still in jeopardy of the multiple outs. In ASA, allowing a ball to fall to the ground to get additional outs is allowed by the rules, and the play could continue. There's now discussion of what is ordinary effort, and it seems foolish to many here that turning your back to be able to make a routine play becomes more than ordinary effort, which would put the offensive team in greater jeopardy.

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

if he is saying that it's not an absolute that turning your back is an automatic no IF call, then yes

Joker, it is a teaching tool....it is a way to aid an umpire in making a judgment call. It its not an absolute.

So let me ask you this hypothetical question: If a batted ball that lands out near the outfield fence is judged by the umpire as able to be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort is it still an infield fly?

 

[Joker]

Yes

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

Yes

Joker,

How would you justify that call to the offensive coach?

 

[Joker]

by explaining that the position of the fielder at the time of the catch has nothing to do with an IFF

 

[ureout]

Joker, it is a teaching tool....it is a way to aid an umpire in making a judgment call. It its not an absolute.

So let me ask you this hypothetical question: If a batted ball that lands out near the outfield fence is judged by the umpire as able to be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort is it still an infield fly?

I agree with joker on the part that it should not even be a teaching tool.... BUT to say that a catch by the outfield fence would be considered an IFF.... wow.... that's a good one... and I would like to see you call it in a tournament and then explain to your UIC your ridiculous reason " that the position of the fielder at the time of the catch has nothing to do with an IFF "

 

[Joker]

he provided a hypothetical that would happen maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 games. it is not a ridiculous reason, the location of the fielder at the time of the catch has nothing to do with an IFF. no where is that a stipulation of an IFF being called in the rules.

 

[fitzpats]

I agree with joker on the part that it should not even be a teaching tool.... BUT to say that a catch by the outfield fence would be considered an IFF.... wow.... that's a good one... and I would like to see you call it in a tournament and then explain to your UIC your ridiculous reason " that the position of the fielder at the time of the catch has nothing to do with an IFF "

he provided a hypothetical that would happen maybe 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 games. it is not a ridiculous reason, the location of the fielder at the time of the catch has nothing to do with an IFF. no where is that a stipulation of an IFF being called in the rules.

It's also following the letter of the rule. In order to call the infield fly, the ball must be caught by the INFIELDER with ordinary effort. That said, if it was ordinary effort for the infielder to get to the fence and make the catch, then why wouldn't it be considered an infield fly?

ASA defines an Infield Fly as "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." Every other organization (USSSA, NSA, ISA, SSUSA) defines it in much the same way.

Also, remember that an infielder is a fielder that would typically defend the area known as the infield, though an infielder could line up in the grass. There is no set number of players that could be considered infielders. Such as the 5-man infield vs. the 4-man.

 

[ureout]

It's also following the letter of the rule. In order to call the infield fly, the ball must be caught by the INFIELDER with ordinary effort. That said, if it was ordinary effort for the infielder to get to the fence and make the catch, then why wouldn't it be considered an infield fly?

ASA defines an Infield Fly as "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." Every other organization (USSSA, NSA, ISA, SSUSA) defines it in much the same way.

Also, remember that an infielder is a fielder that would typically defend the area known as the infield, though an infielder could line up in the grass. There is no set number of players that could be considered infielders. Such as the 5-man infield vs. the 4-man.

well I would never consider a play that has an infielder running out to the outfield fences to catch a fly ball as "ordinary effort".... and as far as the ball having to be caught by an "infielder" you are incorrect on your above post as far as SSUSA ...their rule is that any fielder can catch an infield fly

 

[Joker]

no one in their right mind would, but that was the hypothetical given

 

[ureout]

no one in their right mind would, but that was the hypothetical given

exactly my point....yet your answer to UIC Houston was you would call IFF.... hypothetical or not you must have been "out of your mind" with that answer

 

[NCASAUmp]

Are we STILL on this?

 

[fitzpats]

well I would never consider a play that has an infielder running out to the outfield fences to catch a fly ball as "ordinary effort".... and as far as the ball having to be caught by an "infielder" you are incorrect on your above post as far as SSUSA ...their rule is that any fielder can catch an infield fly

You're right. I missed a couple words in my post. It should have read, "Must be able to be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort." My bad.

 

[Joker]

exactly my point....yet your answer to UIC Houston was you would call IFF.... hypothetical or not you must have been "out of your mind" with that answer

it was based on the rules as they are written. sorry you can't understand that

 

[Joker]

Are we STILL on this?

some stupid people still don't understand it

 

[ureout]

some stupid people still don't understand it

as with every rule that is written there is a certain amount of "common sense" used when interpreting it....but, it's ok I understand you hate to admit you were wrong in your answer on UIC's hypothetical question and as always you lash out...try therapy it could help have a great day

 

[Joker]

as with every rule that is written there is a certain amount of "common sense" used when interpreting it....but, it's ok I understand you hate to admit you were wrong in your answer on UIC's hypothetical question and as always you lash out...try therapy it could help have a great day

explain how i was wrong and cite where in the rule

 

[Joker]

you're misguiding your anger. the hypothetical situation was dumb, the answer was correct

 

[JackoDaddy5]

This is so awesome, I'm reviving it as a Coach, not as a player or umpire. My problem with Deputy, and some of the other umpires ( I know it's not an absolute), using this teaching tool as a reference in seeing a players back, is the coaching tool taught to players. We teach children literally to take a crossover step, turn their hips, sprint to where the ball is, turn around, and wait for it. So, on every ball not in front of them, they should be turning their back to the ball, sprinting 5, 10, 15 feet to where they think the ball will be, and get under it from there.

These two things kinda fight against each other. This thread was awesome though. I <3 you all.

 

[wolfeman]

I umpire, no umbrella for me for every IF play. I take into consideration the level of play, weather conditions. Just my 2 cents