What do you think?

[mstaylor]

Think of your example of the F6/F4 sitch. Did they not move because the couldn't find it, lost it in the sun or some other reason? The fact remains that ordinary effort for a HS infield most should be caught. Now if they are pulled way out on the grass and they couldn't get there easily then no IFF. By the same token they are way in then going out is going to change. On a fielder going out on a ball in the outfield, I use the rule of thumb of once they turn and stop then it's an IFF. If they are going away or even catch it over the shoulder standing still then it's not an IFF. You can take wind into account but not sun or cloud cover.

The fact remains that whether they try for it or not is irrelavent, if they could have caught it with ordinary effort then call the IFF. As to how long you have, you should call it just past the apex of the arc so you have that long to judge the arc of the ball, position of the players and any other factors that you put into it.

Once past U13s there shouldn't be much on the infield that isn't an IFF with a normal infield. Once you start figuring being pulled in, pushed out or shifted then it can change.

[Mr Umpire]

I still think it comes down to realizing what the infielder's "ordinary" effort is. One F6 isn't as fast as another's. Even on the example I gave, if 1 team's F6 has a hard time to get to a ball even directly in front of him and the other team's doesn't, I am only calling IFF on one of them. B/c only one was able to exhibit "ordinary" effort on the same exact hit.

Definitely a HTBT b/c I may be imagining the whole play differently. Mainly, on the parts of where the ball is and how the fielders reacted. Too many factors for me to just say it was IFF. Plus, I don't know the individual players' ability and what is "ordinary" effort for those players.

A blanketed "based on the level" makes it too broad b/c "ordinary" effort for one isn't for another.

And, I agree Nova with preventing a cheap DP.

[jjb]

Agree with all y'all. The IFF Rule was not designed to give the defense a cheap out, or to punish the batter for not hitting one to the outfield. it was designed to do one thing: Protect the Runners. Therefore, when in doubt, I'll call the IFF...

[carolinablue]

The IFF is desinged to protect the offense and at times by not calling it we could be screwing the offense. For example, change the situation just a little and add an R3. Now the bases are loaded. The pop up is hit and the catcher is lost and F1 comes running in late. No IFF is called and the ball drops in front of the plate and dies. F1 picks it up, steps on the plate and fires to F5 for a DP. IMO, we have screwed the pooch if we didn't call it. If I see a ball popped up on the infield that should be caught, I've got an IFF and I have enough things to worry about out there besides trying to determine the athletic ability of any individiual player.

[noumpere]

Think of your example of the F6/F4 sitch. Did they not move because the couldn't find it, lost it in the sun or some other reason? .

Losing the ball in the sun (and also not seeing the ball in the sun) is NOT a factor in calling an infield fly.

In the OP, I think it's a safe assumption that F1 could have caught the ball with reasonable (or ordinary) effort if he hadn't assumed that F2 was going to catch it and not "lose it".

The rule is "could have been caught...". Just because a team chooses not to exhibit ordinary effort doesn't mean that the ball couldn't have been caught.

[mstaylor]

noumpere:

If you read my whole post I said the same thing.

MrUmpire:

An individual player's ability will come into play when he is gooing back or off to a side. This you can read his effort. If the infield is playing normal depth then most anything on the infield should be catchable. This isn't a difficult concept but some try making it more difficult than needed.

[poppyfor3]

Guys, thanks for the input. I probably overthought this situation regarding "ordinary effort" as the play developed. Lesson learned, mistakes down another notch.

[Mr Umpire]

noumpere:

If you read my whole post I said the same thing.

MrUmpire:

An individual player's ability will come into play when he is gooing back or off to a side. This you can read his effort. If the infield is playing normal depth then most anything on the infield should be catchable. This isn't a difficult concept but some try making it more difficult than needed.

True and I understand that. But, from the OP, they only got 1 out. It still doesn't sound like an IFF but it is HTBT. It doesn't truly sound like a "should have" been caught. That's just how the OP sounds to me.

[Aging_Arbiter]

The reason for the post is this: IFF requires "ordinary effort" by fielder. Since it was obvious that no one could make the catch with ordinary effort, do we still have an IFF. Does location or fielder opportunity take precedence?

My bad, I thought the definition included ".....which could be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort". Can someone point me to the part that says "requires" ordinary effort if caught by another player? Maybe I'm not looking at a Federation definition (insert sarcasm here). By the way, it doesn't say an "infielder" is required to catch it either. An outfielder could catch it. In this case, right in front of the plate satisfies the "requirements" by definition. IFF if fair, batter out, force removed, runners may advance at their own peril and must be tagged to be put out since force was removed.

Poppy........It's the location of the ball that determines your infield fly..... If it COULD be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, it is still an Infield fly even if it is not caught.

[mstaylor]

I acytually had that happen once. F4 went way out in RF, turned and camped under the ball. The PU called the IF and then F9 called him off and caught it. He had to be forty feet out in the grass but got there in plenty of time for it to qualify. Not a word from the dugout.

[mstaylor]

I'll bite, don't know.

[HokieUmp]

For me, to determine minimal effort of a player, I have to see how he is approaching the fly ball. If he can't find it, how can I judge if it would be minimal effort for the player. F2 may not be able to move fast enough even for one right in front of the plate. He may have a hard time getting out of his crouch which would not be minimal effort since he has to use maximum effort just to stand up.

I have to disagree. F2 being either fat or incompetent or arthritic isn't the criteria; it's "ordinary effort." Any F2 should be able to lumber from a couple feet behind the plate to a couple feet in front of it, if the ball acquired any height on it at all. (And if the guy you used in the paragraph above has to work that hard to get up, why would he even be an F2 in the first place?)

That's the only way I'd save the F2 from himself - if the ball was flaring off the bat. Him not knowing where to look for it, and having a group of bad teammates that won't TELL him, isn't my problem.

[catoblue]

I have IFF. "COULD" be caught with ordinary effort... is the key to me. F2 losing the ball doesn't mean he couldn't have caught it with ordinary effort, it means he didn't see where it went. If he had seen it, the fact that he was able to back peddle to the backstop before F1 realized f2 was out of position and made that mad dash, tells me that had f2 had more than ample time to catch the ball with ordinary effort. He simply could not find it.