Verbalizing the Infield Fly ule

[DFDUmpire]

In reserching the verbage of the Infield Fly Rule from MLB rules, I am interpreting to mean they MUST verbalize it once either the field or plate umpire (in his judgement) meets the criteria for the call.  Pony League umpire last night said all he had to do was "indicate" he was calling an Infield Fly" by raising a pointed finger after the pop up was hit and not say anything.  That call had an affect on the outcoem of the game.  I argued it had to be verbalized.  Do I have some crow to eat?

[Mike Prince]

It should be verbalized, but it is also the responsibility of the offense to be aware of the situation.  When it is verbalized often no one hears it.

 

Not sure if you have crow to eat as you are not specific how this impacted the outcome of the game.

[plateumpire]

I would always verbalize it.

[Guest Patrick Mullins]

It is not a requirement, but it "SHOULD" be verbalized. As Mr. Prince indicated, it is the responsibility of the offense to know the situation.

[KLAH316]

I had one earlier this year..... http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/52921-do-you-verbalize-infield-fly/

[DFDUmpire]

I argued that one of them HAD to verbalize it and they both were adament that they did not have to.  Bases were loaded with one out. and all the runners knew it was pop up, but when nothing was called , they took off as the ball dropped between the pitcher and first baseman untouched.  The pitcher threw home to get the runner from 3rd.  Both umpires conferred after the play, said they did not have to verbalize the call and the runner was out advancing on his own.  Are you required to verbalize?  I have always verbalized it.

[SoCal Lurker]

I argued that one of them HAD to verbalize it and they both were adament that they did not have to.  Bases were loaded with one out. and all the runners knew it was pop up, but when nothing was called , they took off as the ball dropped between the pitcher and first baseman untouched.  The pitcher threw home to get the runner from 3rd.  Both umpires conferred after the play, said they did not have to verbalize the call and the runner was out advancing on his own.  Are you required to verbalize?  I have always verbalized it.

 

There are two distinct questions here.  (1) Is the umpire required to verbalize.  (2) If he is, what happens if he doesn't?

 

Seems to me the answer to (1) is yes -- under the OBR definition of IFF, it says 

 

When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall

immediately declare “Infield Fly†for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the

baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield Fly, if Fair.â€

 

Since it says "declare" and gives words to say, that seems to mean that he should verbalize.

 

But what you really care about is question (2) -- what happens when the umpires don't?  IIRC, Fed rules are specific that it's not the calling but the facts that make it an IFF.  OBR doesn't, so far as I can tell, have an answer to the question within the rules themselves -- and I don't know what the official interpretations are.

[Mike Prince]

Verbalizing is put forth as a courtesy to the runners.  Even though the language around this in rule definitions is "shall", the infield fly is still in effect if not verbalized.  The verbal is not required.

 

Most will verbalize it.  But lack of verbalization doesn't mean it didn't happen.  It is still on the offense to know what it going on; you are arguing the mechanics of the call but the out(s) still stand.  I don't agree with the umpire's explanation, but they didn't run into the subsequent out at home.  There's shared blame here and more of it is on the offense in my opinion.

 

This is like the D3K that does not get properly signaled or verbalized with first base occupied with less than 2 outs.  All hell breaks loose but the outs (or advancements) still stand and the batter is out.  Should that be verbalized?  Absolutely (and there are plenty of threads on here that say that), but what happens as a result is not un-done. 

[Aging_Arbiter]

A 6 beer marinade and then cook over a low flame with a slow turning rotisserie.  Add seasoning to your flavor.  ANYTHING goes down good then......CROW.....or not.

 

 

As indicated in the OBR reference, SHALL DECLARE.   that means VERBALIZE for those who aren't so sure.

 

I had a preacher going through our little league class was asked.........What does "Shall" mean.  His immediate response was "WILL".  He used commandments as examples and losely translated a few, "Thou WILL not kill", etc.

 

However, I will also agree that it is their responsibility to know the situation, as runners may advance at their own peril.

[maven]

 

I argued that one of them HAD to verbalize it and they both were adament that they did not have to.  Bases were loaded with one out. and all the runners knew it was pop up, but when nothing was called , they took off as the ball dropped between the pitcher and first baseman untouched.  The pitcher threw home to get the runner from 3rd.  Both umpires conferred after the play, said they did not have to verbalize the call and the runner was out advancing on his own.  Are you required to verbalize?  I have always verbalized it.

 

There are two distinct questions here.  (1) Is the umpire required to verbalize.  (2) If he is, what happens if he doesn't?

 

Seems to me the answer to (1) is yes

 

*SNIP*

 

But what you really care about is question (2) -- what happens when the umpires don't?  IIRC, Fed rules are specific that it's not the calling but the facts that make it an IFF.  OBR doesn't, so far as I can tell, have an answer to the question within the rules themselves -- and I don't know what the official interpretations are.

 

 

I think your post is exactly on the right track, both in what you're saying about the OP and what you're saying about the rules.

 

An IFF is what it is whether the umpires say or do anything. That's true in all codes. Newer umpires, like newer players, will make mistakes. C'est la vie.

 

There is no remedy if the umpires fail to verbalize IFF. The batter is out, and other runners may advance at their own risk. If the ball is caught, then they must retouch; otherwise, their advance is legal. The batter is STILL out.

[pnewton]

I say think of it like a "don't do that rule" - you know the ones that are rules but don't have any penalty for violating it.  Yes the umpires should verbalize, but there is nothing that can be done about it if they don't.

 

Umpires can't just say that the rule doesn't apply, because all of the criteria are met.  If they try to "fix it" it is open to protest.  Offensive team is just SOL as they are expected to know the situation.

[mstaylor]

The OP has been answered but my take is about the umpires themselves. It sounds like they are saying they just don't announce an IFF as a matter of course. That is patently incorrect, they should be announcing it and showing the mechanic. If they braincramp and forget, the players still need to know the situation. So you are correct that they should, they are correct that it isn't essential. I would say you are more correct than they are. 

[dmills]

What if the umpire judges it to be ordinary effort and the runners don't think it will be ordinary effort. The umpires do not verbalize the IFF. How are the runners to know if it was JUDGED to be ordinary effort without knowing the call and now advance because they think they are forced. I suppose if it is signaled they could look at the umpire and know the call but the verbalization makes things so much easier.

[Aging_Arbiter]

The basic premise of the IFF rule is to prevent the defense from getting the cheap double play.  If missed, this is one of those things that we can fix.  Call it however you want. If the runners determine whatever they do, that's fine.  but their won't be a cheap double play on my field.

[basejester]

The basic premise of the IFF rule is to prevent the defense from getting the cheap double play.  If missed, this is one of those things that we can fix.  Call it however you want. If the runners determine whatever they do, that's fine.  but their won't be a cheap double play on my field.

Are you "fixing" the original poster's play?  If so, how?

[Thunderheads]

why is there 15 posts about this.

 

don't be lazy, verbalize the IFF ..... done .......

[Mike Prince]

why is there 15 posts about this.

 

Well...the forum is called "Ask the Umpire" and 15 umpires were nice enough to reply to a guest's question...

[Thunderheads]

 

why is there 15 posts about this.

 

Well...the forum is called "Ask the Umpire" and 15 umpires were nice enough to reply to a guest's question...

 

I know, ....but it's going un-necessarily away from the topic ...... not off topic so to speak, but veering away from the OP's question

[Aging_Arbiter]

 

The basic premise of the IFF rule is to prevent the defense from getting the cheap double play.  If missed, this is one of those things that we can fix.  Call it however you want. If the runners determine whatever they do, that's fine.  but their won't be a cheap double play on my field.

Are you "fixing" the original poster's play?  If so, how?

 

 

Was merely stating that "WE" in general can fix this, and use the spirit of the rule for what it was intended, preventing a cheap double play.  I don't care how YOU fix it.  Call time, reset with bases loaded and just add an out.

 

I have ZERO problem whatsoever on my games, because I am not lazy and apply this rule AS IT WAS INTENDED.  After 11 years in the Corps, I learned to project my voice very well.  When I call infield fly, THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY KNOWS IT.  The runners freeze all the while wondering what in the world just happened.

 

As thunder posted, lack of verbalizing it is lazy.  Fixing the UMPIRE in this case, will fix the play.

[maven]

why is there 15 posts about this.

 

don't be lazy, verbalize the IFF ..... done .......

 

There are 15 posts because the point of the OP is not (only) whether to verbalize IFF, but what remedy teams have if the umpires do not do so.

[Thunderheads]

 

why is there 15 posts about this.

 

don't be lazy, verbalize the IFF ..... done .......

 

There are 15 posts because the point of the OP is not (only) whether to verbalize IFF, but what remedy teams have if the umpires do not do so.

 

No ...that's not a part of the OP

[Mike Prince]

Jeff - it's a healthy discussion - the initial question has been answered and there is further IFF discussion which has relevance, so if you don't have any input related to the subject at hand, how about letting it continue?

 

And I disagree with Aging_Arbiter that we can "fix" anything here.  There is no rule support to have a "do-over" or reset anything here.

[Thunderheads]

Jeff - it's a healthy discussion - the initial question has been answered and there is further IFF discussion which has relevance, so if you don't have any input related to the subject at hand, how about letting it continue?

 

Uhmmm...  I did give input, and I answered the OP

 

Letting it continue??  Did I lock this topic accidentally?

 

ON EDIT:

NOPE ...it's not locked ....I don't see anything stopping it from continuing

[Aging_Arbiter]

Jeff - it's a healthy discussion - the initial question has been answered and there is further IFF discussion which has relevance, so if you don't have any input related to the subject at hand, how about letting it continue?

 

And I disagree with Aging_Arbiter that we can "fix" anything here.  There is no rule support to have a "do-over" or reset anything here.

And a healthy society that we live in......it is. 

 

So Mike, just to twist your words a bit.......does that mean that in an IFF situation, you WOULD allow a cheap double play?

[Mike Prince]

 

Jeff - it's a healthy discussion - the initial question has been answered and there is further IFF discussion which has relevance, so if you don't have any input related to the subject at hand, how about letting it continue?

 

And I disagree with Aging_Arbiter that we can "fix" anything here.  There is no rule support to have a "do-over" or reset anything here.

And a healthy society that we live in......it is. 

 

So Mike, just to twist your words a bit.......does that mean that in an IFF situation, you WOULD allow a cheap double play?

 

 

I'm not looking for the cheap double, but if the offense screws up that's their mess, not mine.  If it had been verbalized but no one claims to have heard it, what do you do?  Remember from the OP that the IFF was indicated, just not verbalized.  It seems like that crew was looking for the cheap double and had a flimsy explanation of why it was not verbalized.

 

I will twist this a bit to a D3K like I did in a previous post here.  If we have R1 and less than 2 outs and you have a D3K, the BR takes off for first and R1 takes off too and gets tagged, are we calling time there too?  I don't think you can kill it, all you can do is verbalize the D3K and call the batter out (and then R1 too).  Even if you do this, all hell breaks loose because the offense doesn't acknowledge the rule.

 

All I am saying is that the offense has culpability here and blaming verbalization (or lack thereof) for their screw-up is the easy way out.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Noted.  Agreed.  However, that does not allow us to shirk our responsibilities.   SHALL declare......means just that.  And to mention a previous post, maybe it's that crew that needs fixed.