Jump to content
  • 0

Infield Fly Rule


Guest Cone
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1771 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest Cone

Runners on first and second, no out. Batter hits an infield fly and the umpire calls the batter out, per the infield fly rule. The base runners attempt to advance before the ball is caught. The infielder drops the ball, then throws to first for the double play. Is the runner doubled off first? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

The fielder dropped the ball the runner from first does not need to tag up, nor does the runner from second.

Throwing to first means nothing.

Batter out on infield fly runners advance on the drop.  One out, runners on second and third.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It's been a while since I've heard this one - this is a myth (or just confusion) that some people believe, though it's been a number of years since I've run across it - some believe on an IFF the runners must "tag up" until the ball is touched or hits the ground.   Don't ask my why they come to that conclusion...all I know is I've heard it several times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

It's been a while since I've heard this one - this is a myth (or just confusion) that some people believe, though it's been a number of years since I've run across it - some believe on an IFF the runners must "tag up" until the ball is touched or hits the ground.   Don't ask my why they come to that conclusion...all I know is I've heard it several times.

Because go stand on the base is what runners should do and usually do and thus the fans think it's required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

It's been a while since I've heard this one - this is a myth (or just confusion) that some people believe, though it's been a number of years since I've run across it - some believe on an IFF the runners must "tag up" until the ball is touched or hits the ground.   Don't ask my why they come to that conclusion...all I know is I've heard it several times.

Common understanding of IFF among players and youth coaches in my area is that you treat it like the ball is caught, even if it isn't. This would require runners to tag up if it were true. I think it was just a simple way to explain it to kids and it stuck like 10,000 other rules people think they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

New blue here!  Greetings!

Here is more fun with the infield fly ... 8th grade softball regional, but nothing would be different from baseball ...

Bases loaded, no outs.  Batter pops it up on the infield.  All runners are running anyway.  My partner and I both point up, I call “Infield fly, if fair!”  Coaches are screaming “Get back, get back!”

The SS drops the ball.  R1 scores from third.  R2 advances from second to third.  R3 reaches second base safely from first.  The runners now stop to process all of the screaming.  R3 decides to listen and tears back to first base.  SS picks up the ball, fires to first where ... of course she throws the ball away.  R2 takes off for home and R3 turns around to return to second.  1B fires the ball home where R2 is safe.  R3 again reaches second base safely.

What do you have?

 

EDIT NOTE: I initially screwed up the labeling of the runners.  The runner starting on first base should be R3.  I have edited this post to correct the error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

New blue here!  Greetings!

Here is more fun with the infield fly ... 8th grade softball regional, but nothing would be different from baseball ...

Bases loaded, no outs.  Batter pops it up on the infield.  All runners are running anyway.  My partner and I both point up, I call “Infield fly, if fair!”  Coaches are screaming “Get back, get back!”

The SS drops the ball.  R1 scores from third.  R2 advances from second to third.  R1 reaches second base safely from first.  The runners now stop to process all of the screaming.  R1 decides to listen and tears back to first base.  SS picks up the ball, fires to first where ... of course she throws the ball away.  R2 takes off for home and R1 turns around to return to second.  1B fires the ball home where R2 is safe.  R1 reaches second base safely.

What do you have?

One out, bad base running, and bad defence. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Bases loaded, no outs.  Batter pops it up on the infield.  All runners are running anyway.  My partner and I both point up, I call “Infield fly, if fair!”  Coaches are screaming “Get back, get back!”

The SS drops the ball.  R1 scores from third.  R2 advances from second to third.  R1 reaches second base safely from first.  The runners now stop to process all of the screaming.  R1 decides to listen and tears back to first base.  SS picks up the ball, fires to first where ... of course she throws the ball away.  R2 takes off for home and R1 turns around to return to second.  1B fires the ball home where R2 is safe.  R1 reaches second base safely.

What do you have?

Exhibit A to why I stopped coaching rec ball and moved onto club ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

So here is what we had ...

After the play died, I called time and met with my partner.  

I asked “Did she touch second base?”  

My partner confirmed “Yes, she was standing on it before she went back.”

My response: “Well, this is going to be interesting.  If she legally reached second base and was entitled to it, she can’t go backwards.  We are going to rule R3 out and put R2 back on third base.  Do you agree?”  (He did.)

We made our ruling and almost got Aging Arbiter’s guess of an ejected coach or two.  I was fairly new at the time, or we would have gotten the HC and AC when they brought the rule book on the field to show us Rule 8, Section 3, Article 6:

ART. 6 . . . A runner shall not run bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game.

PENALTY: (Art. 6) The ball is dead and the runner is out.

HC’s argument was she didn’t do it on purpose.  I said it didn’t matter, it confused the fielder into making an unnecessary play and allowed the other runner to score.  Then he informed us that we were the ones making a travesty of the game.  I had thicker skin (or not enough experience yet) back then.  Not that it matters, but he was up 14-0 when it happened.

When I tell this story, the most common response seems to be Biscuit’s answer.  Just wondering what your logic was and why it seems many people are willing to allow the runner to run the bases backwards.

 

Edit to add: in NFHS baseball it would be 8-4-2(n).

Another edit: I just noticed I screwed up the labeling of the runners in the scenario ... the runner in question should be R3, the runner on first base. I am editing to make that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

So here is what we had ...

After the play died, I called time and met with my partner.  

I asked “Did she touch second base?”  

My partner confirmed “Yes, she was standing on it before she went back.”

My response: “Well, this is going to be interesting.  If she legally reached second base and was entitled to it, she can’t go backwards.  We are going to rule R1 out and put R2 back on third base.  Do you agree?”  (He did.)

We made our ruling and almost got Aging Arbiter’s guess of an ejected coach or two.  I was fairly new at the time, or we would have gotten the HC and AC when they brought the rule book on the field to show us Rule 8, Section 3, Article 6:

ART. 6 . . . A runner shall not run bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game.

PENALTY: (Art. 6) The ball is dead and the runner is out.

HC’s argument was she didn’t do it on purpose.  I said it didn’t matter, it confused the fielder into making an unnecessary play and allowed the other runner to score.  Then he informed us that we were the ones making a travesty of the game.  I had thicker skin (or not enough experience yet) back then.  Not that it matters, but he was up 14-0 when it happened.

When I tell this story, the most common response seems to be Biscuit’s answer.  Just wondering what your logic was and why it seems many people are willing to allow the runner to run the bases backwards.

Read it carefully.   " . . to confuse the fielders . . "   Did the runner do it to confuse the fielders?   Nope.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
36 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

So here is what we had ...

After the play died, I called time and met with my partner.  

I asked “Did she touch second base?”  

My partner confirmed “Yes, she was standing on it before she went back.”

My response: “Well, this is going to be interesting.  If she legally reached second base and was entitled to it, she can’t go backwards.  We are going to rule R3 out and put R2 back on third base.  Do you agree?”  (He did.)

We made our ruling and almost got Aging Arbiter’s guess of an ejected coach or two.  I was fairly new at the time, or we would have gotten the HC and AC when they brought the rule book on the field to show us Rule 8, Section 3, Article 6:

ART. 6 . . . A runner shall not run bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game.

PENALTY: (Art. 6) The ball is dead and the runner is out.

HC’s argument was she didn’t do it on purpose.  I said it didn’t matter, it confused the fielder into making an unnecessary play and allowed the other runner to score.  Then he informed us that we were the ones making a travesty of the game.  I had thicker skin (or not enough experience yet) back then.  Not that it matters, but he was up 14-0 when it happened.

When I tell this story, the most common response seems to be Biscuit’s answer.  Just wondering what your logic was and why it seems many people are willing to allow the runner to run the bases backwards.

 

Edit to add: in NFHS baseball it would be 8-4-2(n).

Another edit: I just noticed I screwed up the labeling of the runners in the scenario ... the runner in question should be R3, the runner on first base. I am editing to make that clear.

The logic is right there in the rule. Was there intent to do either of those things? Nope. Coach was right and you were wrong--and they could have protested based on your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Does a fielder intend to obstruct a runner?  Does a runner intend to interfere with a fielder?  I understand where that line of thinking comes in based on the archaic language in the rule, but in what other section of the game do we pretend to know (or care) what the player was thinking?  The end result was that it confused the fielder into making an unnecessary play and would have allowed a run to score. 

So, in your interpretation, a runner on second base could steal first base if she is just doing it for fun.

(I enjoy these types of discussions!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
17 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Does a fielder intend to obstruct a runner?  Does a runner intend to interfere with a fielder?  I understand where that line of thinking comes in based on the archaic language in the rule, but in what other section of the game do we pretend to know (or care) what the player was thinking?  The end result was that it confused the fielder into making an unnecessary play and would have allowed a run to score. 

So, in your interpretation, a runner on second base could steal first base if she is just doing it for fun.

(I enjoy these types of discussions!)

The difference is this rule specifies intent (in order to.) Some other rules do, some other rules don't.

Just for fun would fall under making a travesty of the game. My advice to you is if you are truly trying to learn, don't come off as being snarky, which your comment did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 5/20/2019 at 8:10 PM, The Man in Blue said:

EDIT NOTE: I initially screwed up the labeling of the runners.  The runner starting on first base should be R3.  I have edited this post to correct the error.

Your initial labeling was correct.  R1 starts at first; R3 starts at third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

When I tell this story, the most common response seems to be Biscuit’s answer.  Just wondering what your logic was and why it seems many people are willing to allow the runner to run the bases backwards

Because the rules allow it. (except when the INTENT is to confuse the runners)

So, let's say you have bases loaded and batter hits it to the gap...R3 scores easily...R2 trips over third base - gets up and dives back into third...R1 is halfway to third and realizes R2's in trouble, so stops and moves back to second.   B/R doesn't see anything and sails into second base standing up....then sees R2 heading back to third and R1 heading back to second...you honestly think the batter/runner isn't allowed to return to first, simply because he's touched second base?

Edit: in fact there are case plays that even account for this - eg. a forced runner reaches second, but believing the ball is caught returns to first...once he leaves second and heads back to first he becomes a forced runner again.

The only time the acquired base comes into play is time of pitch  - you may not go backwards from the base you have at TOP.   And yes, doing it for "fun", or "SH*#s and giggles", or "no reason at all", or "my neighbor's dog told me to" would all qualify as "travesty of the game".

Biscuit's answer is right - two runs score, one out, runner on second

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Does a fielder intend to obstruct a runner?  Does a runner intend to interfere with a fielder?  I understand where that line of thinking comes in based on the archaic language in the rule, but in what other section of the game do we pretend to know (or care) what the player was thinking?  The end result was that it confused the fielder into making an unnecessary play and would have allowed a run to score. 

So, in your interpretation, a runner on second base could steal first base if she is just doing it for fun.

(I enjoy these types of discussions!)

There are actually plenty of cases where we are required to judge intent. I have three off the top of my head: there are types of interference that require intent, calling a strike on a batter attempting to be hit by a pitch (NCAA only), and intentionally throwing at a batter. That's just three, but there are plenty more. 

There was a play a few years back in the majors where two men were on second, the trailing runner, thinking he was out, gets up and starts trotting back to the first base dugout. Once he realizes that he's is not out, he steps on first and stays there. This shows that yes, you can go back bases, it just almost always means the runner doesn't know what's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, yawetag said:

I'd argue check swings require us to determine intent as well.

I'd argue the opposite - because the batter's intent WAS to swing, and then he changed his mind, and tried to stop the swing - the batter's intent, in the end, was not to swing.   This is true in every check swing, whether you call a strike or not.  Batter wanted to swing, and then changed his mind and stopped his swing.  In the end, you don't care about his intent.   If you judged intent on a check swing you'd never call a strike, because the batter's intent on a check swing is ALWAYS to hold back....you're judgment is whether or not he changed his mind too late....did he cross that imaginary line where he can't change his mind.

It's counter-intuitive to the letter of the rule "struck at the pitch", which implies intent.

 

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 in what other section of the game do we pretend to know (or care) what the player was thinking?  

To discern intent is to attempt to discern what a player is thinking. A large chunk of the interference language differentiates between intentional and unintentional - batters, runners, retired runners, coaches all have different scenarios depending on whether the umpire judges there was intent.  Any (most?) Malicious Contact/Conduct call requires a judgment of intent.  Judging whether a batter permitted a ball to hit him is a judgment of intent.  There may be some judgment to a pitcher's intent on some balk calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...