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

[Joker]

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

 

[EdFred]

That'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.

 

[hitless45]

The umpire’s judgment ...

This is what it all boils down to (judgment) so no use in arguing complaining etc with the ump..

The (judgment) call can be/are the most frustrating when it does not go in our favor..ijs

 

[Joker]

That'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.

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

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

he is still ready to catch the ball with ordinary effort

Ready to catch the ball or not, did he have to use extraordinary effort to get there?

 

[Joker]

Ready to catch the ball or not, did he have to use extraordinary effort to get there?

no

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

no

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.

 

[jazlar]

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

I agree with this. It is clear that "for the benefit of the runners" is strictly so the runners are informed of the ruling so they can advance/stay based on the ruling. It has nothing to do with the actual ruling.

 

[EdFred]

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

So why is there an infield fly rule?

 

[Joker]

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.

this is poor teaching

 

[Joker]

So why is there an infield fly rule?

to prevent the defense from taking advantage of the offense

 

[EdFred]

to prevent the defense from taking advantage of the offense

In what way would the defense be taking advantage of the offense in such a situation?

 

[Joker]

In what way would the defense be taking advantage of the offense in such a situation?

in what situation?

 

[EdFred]

And with that response I can tell you have zero intent on having an actual discussion and any further responses would be a waste of my time.

 

[Joker]

well you've given multiple situations, how can i give an answer without you specifying?

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

to prevent the defense from taking advantage of the offense

Thanks

 

[etnstudios]

i 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

 

[Joker]

i 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

gtfo with your common sense

 

[etnstudios]

sorry. i meant to ask who the umpire thought he was

 

[NCASAUmp]

Are we still on this?

 

[Joker]

i don't know, how far off the bases are the runners when the ball is caught? can they be doubled up?

 

[Hiltz]

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.

So if I turn around on a fly ball, jog to where it's going to land, and make a lazy catch without setting my feet, I'm extraordinary? Can't wait to tell my rec-league buddies, they all think I'm just slightly above average.

 

[Sully]

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.

MLB defines ordinary as "ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions.".

While your interpretation of ordinary is yours, I don't agree. So if a fielder turns his back, takes a few steps and realizes it isn't carrying but is camped under the high pop fly, it's not an infield fly? Wouldn't that allow the fielder to drop the ball and turn an easy double play? That is the intent of the rule to prevent a dropped routine ball becoming a double play. Those runners aren't going far from the bag if the SS is camped under the ball, even if he turns his back for a second.

I do like your definition because I didn't like the IFF called against the Braves in this playoff game. If you were umping it, it wouldn't have been IFF, not because it didn't put the runners in jeopardy but because Kozma turned his back for a few seconds even though he turned back and it would have been a routine catch if he didn't try to avoid the outfielder.

 

[Sully]

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.

 

[Joker]

Well that's not the rule

 

[MaverickAH]

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.

 

[EdFred]

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.

Yes it was. My take away from the discussion was that for this game he was deferring all IF calls to the BU, but he said thank you for addressing it because it was a good question. Whether they subsequently revisit their game mechanics or not, I don't know. What I do know is that any time I get that BU again and I have any pop up hit to me, I'm going to pirouette, let it drop, and turn two.

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

I'm simply going to turn over my king and fold my hand. This nonsense will just go on forever.

 

[Joker]

nonsense like saying if a player turns their back its not ordinary effort

 

[irishmafia]

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.

Simply not necessarily true. You don't know that if there is a true bounce, two throws cannot occur quicker than the runners can advance 90 feet.

But it is all irrelevant, the rule is clear and is based upon what the defense "can" do, not what may or may not happen if they don't.