IFF Interpretation II

[Umpire in Chief]

This thread was just recently brought to my attention again and I wanted to add a twist.

Here's the original post:

I received this in an email from a colleague and thought it was an interesting situation...

I have a question on the interpretation of the infield fly rule...

Here is the example...

We have runners on first and second with no outs, batter hits a pop fly to the second baseman just short of the fringe of the outfield. The second baseman darts off to cover second base on the hit. The first baseman darts off to cover the play at first and the ball drops on the infield just behind where the second baseman would have been had he not ran to second for the play. Do we have infield fly?

When the fielder does not attempt to catch the ball on an infield fly is it still considered and infield fly? I thought we always allow the ball to make its downward track first before we make the call so we can determine where the fielder is in relation to the play. This would constitute the ordinary effort- Correct.

Let me know what you think.

Unanimously we all said that this would still be an IFF.

Here's my twist...

Lets now imagine the infield is playing the "Big Pappi" defense. With runners on 1st & 2nd and less than 2 outs. Now I've never seen the shift in this situation, but let's just imagine for argument's sake.

In Case you're not familiar many times when big lefties come to bat the infield will shift where

F3

plays on the line,

F4

plays a shallow Right-Center Field,

F6

plays to where traditionally

F4

would be,

F5

plays close to where

F6

would traditionally play.

Situation 1:

So the shift is on and there is a pop up which would normally be an IFF to a spot, fair, just behind third base. F5 because of the shift is no longer in position to make the catch "routine." Would you call this an IFF?

Situation 2:

So the shift is on and there is a pop up which is hit to shallow right center where F4 now is. Do you rule this an IFF situation because the ball was able to be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, even though had the shift not been on it wouldn't have been an IFF situation?

[Replacematt]

This thread was just recently brought to my attention again and I wanted to add a twist.

Here's the original post:

Unanimously we all said that this would still be an IFF.

Here's my twist...

Lets now imagine the infield is playing the "Big Pappi" defense. With runners on 1st & 2nd and less than 2 outs. Now I've never seen the shift in this situation, but let's just imagine for argument's sake.

In Case you're not familiar many times when big lefties come to bat the infield will shift where

F3

plays on the line,

F4

plays a shallow Right-Center Field,

F6

plays to where traditionally

F4

would be,

F5

plays close to where

F6

would traditionally play.

Situation 1:

So the shift is on and there is a pop up which would normally be an IFF to a spot, fair, just behind third base. F5 because of the shift is no longer in position to make the catch "routine." Would you call this an IFF?

Situation 2:

So the shift is on and there is a pop up which is hit to shallow right center where F4 now is. Do you rule this an IFF situation because the ball was able to be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, even though had the shift not been on it wouldn't have been an IFF situation?

Let's look at this through the lens of the intent of the rule. If we remember that the intent of the rule is to prevent a double play by the defense (not to give them an automatic out,) these situations become quite easy to answer.

Situation 1: If IFF is not called, is the offense at risk for an easy double play? Probably not, given the wording of the situation. Keeping this in mind, we cannot call IFF and give the defense unwarranted outs.

Situation 2: The converse applies here. We have all the elements for IFF--the rule doesn't specify where the infielder or the ball must be, just that there be the ability for the catch to be made with ordinary effort. With runners at the appropriate bases, the defense would have the ability to turn the double play by allowing the ball to drop, defeating the purpose of the rule. Thus, this is an infield fly.

[Bigdog]

Hey all,

In Situation 1, I agree no IFF as long as the catch could not be made with normal effort.

In Situation 2, I would say, even though the rule doesn't state it, and as long as we are taking intent of the rule into account, depending how deep into the outfield the ball is hit would determine if I would call an IFF. The rule was written ASSUMING (I know, I know:shakehead:) that the infielder are in their NORMAL playing positions. If F4 moves to a spot in RC, in effect, becoming a fourth outfielder, potentially a 275-300 foot fly ball COULD be caught as an IFF under a strict interpretation of the rule. We can't overlook that the rule is named the Infield Fly Rule, NOT Infielder Fly Rule.

So, how far out would you stop considering F4 as an infielder?

Bigdog:cool:

[mstaylor]

I had a F4, starting from a normal position, go halfway to the fence, stop, turn and camp under a ball. That is an IFF and was called. The funny part of the play was right after we called it F9 calls F4 off, steps under it and catches the ball. Not a peep from the dugout.

As far as the shift is concerned, I would have to see it to make call. There many times

F4 and/or F3 start in the grass, although not usually in an IFF situation.

[LMSANS]

1 - No IFF

2 - Possibly - HTBT

[Hemibee]

1 - No IFF

2 - Possibly - HTBT

I agree.