IFF?

[BRUMP]

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=29095373
I think this was a good call. Would like to hear others opinions.
And as usual the announcers are clueless. "A lot of times the umpires will call this a sacrifice fly????????"

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=29095373

[grayhawk]

You beat me to it.  Can't believe this wasn't called an IFF.  Frieri could have caught that with ordinary effort - he waited for it to come down with his arms out and let it drop.  Classic example of why IFF was put into the rules - cheap DP.

 

And I'm an Angels fan...

[basejester]

I see the runner on second also tagged, so the defense could have made force outs at 3rd and 2nd.  (That's the cheap double the infield fly rule is designed to prevent.  A rule designed to prevent the double play they made would be in effect with a runner on first.)  

 

It wasn't very high.  The BR didn't run hard.  SH*# happens? 

[JHSump]

The pop up did not go very high --- like a pop up at 12U or 10U.  That would be an IFF all day in 12U or 10U.  You just have to be on your toes to call it quickly at those age levels, once it's obvious.

 

Were they caught off guard by the low level of the pop up?

 

And, watch U1.  He seems to raise his right hand, as if he is going to call an IFF, but then he brings it back down.

[BigUmpire]

Flatfooted umpires.

[Umpire in Chief]

IMO it didn't get enough height to be called an infield fly.

[grayhawk]

IMO it didn't get enough height to be called an infield fly.

 

Stop the video at 00.42.  It wasn't a bunt.  It sure as heck wasn't a line drive.  This is a fly ball, albeit a weak one, that is probably 30-35 feet in the air.  F1 would be expected to make this catch 100 times out of 100.  He had time to back off and spread his arms and WAIT for the ball to fall to the ground.  No question that he could have camped under it to make an above the head catch.

 

U1 thought it was an IFF, but he chickened out because he thought it was too late (my interpretation of his action of raising his hand, and then trying hide the fact that he did).  The Angels got a cheap DP out of it, though it was a little backward.  F1 could have thrown to third and then second for both force outs, but made the easier throw to first.

[BRUMP]

IMO it didn't get enough height to be called an infield fly.

Stop the video at 00.42. It wasn't a bunt. It sure as heck wasn't a line drive. This is a fly ball, albeit a weak one, that is probably 30-35 feet in the air. F1 would be expected to make this catch 100 times out of 100. He had time to back off and spread his arms and WAIT for the ball to fall to the ground. No question that he could have camped under it to make an above the head catch.

U1 thought it was an IFF, but he chickened out because he thought it was too late (my interpretation of his action of raising his hand, and then trying hide the fact that he did). The Angels got a cheap DP out of it, though it was a little backward. F1 could have thrown to third and then second for both force outs, but made the easier throw to first.

Hawk I respectfully disagree. I'm with UIC on this one. I'd say it was more of a broken bat flare then a fly ball.

[Boredcravens]

F1 is not included as a fielder who can catch with ordinary effort.

[mstaylor]

F1 is not included as a fielder who can catch with ordinary effort.

Huh?

[BRUMP]

F1 is not included as a fielder who can catch with ordinary effort.

Not true. For the purpose of the IFF F1 and F2 are considered infielders.

[Lindsay]

Ted Barrett: "That one definitely had enough arc, but the fielder has to get comfortably underneath the ball to catch it. That's the criteria that wasn't met."

[grayhawk]

Ted Barrett: "That one definitely had enough arc, but the fielder has to get comfortably underneath the ball to catch it. That's the criteria that wasn't met."

 

Frieri CHOSE to not get comfortably underneath the ball to catch it.  He COULD have, but didn't.  He got away with one here.

[Lindsay]

Frieri CHOSE to not get comfortably underneath the ball to catch it.  He COULD have, but didn't.  He got away with one here.

Which was nearly word-for-word Gardy's counterargument post-game.

[carolinablue]

Ok. So your crew is slow to react but you realize it should have been called. The runners are already running because it hasn't been called, what should you do ? Eat the call and let the play stand, kill it and send runners back, or let it play out and fix it ?

[JaxRolo]

F1 is not included as a fielder who can catch with ordinary effort.

Can you cite the rule that says that???? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Thunderheads]

I diasgree w/ Barrett's comments .......

 

EASILY could have been caught, ...Grayhawk has it down,....he CHOSE not to catch it.....

[bam]

I don't think it would have mattered if IFF was called.  R1 was confused and would have gone anyway. 

[maven]

Hawk I respectfully disagree. I'm with UIC on this one. I'd say it was more of a broken bat flare then a fly ball.

"Flare" is not one of your options. Your options for fair batted balls are "ground ball," "bunted ball," "line drive," or "fly ball." The first 3 cannot be IFF, but this batted ball was clearly none of the 3.

[BRUMP]

 

Hawk I respectfully disagree. I'm with UIC on this one. I'd say it was more of a broken bat flare then a fly ball.

"Flare" is not one of your options. Your options for fair batted balls are "ground ball," "bunted ball," "line drive," or "fly ball." The first 3 cannot be IFF, but this batted ball was clearly none of the 3.

 

 

I use the word flare to show it was in between "line drive" and "fly ball".....in this case I believe it is closer to the former which is why I agree with Barrett.

[JaxRolo]

 

Hawk I respectfully disagree. I'm with UIC on this one. I'd say it was more of a broken bat flare then a fly ball.

"Flare" is not one of your options. Your options for fair batted balls are "ground ball," "bunted ball," "line drive," or "fly ball." The first 3 cannot be IFF, but this batted ball was clearly none of the 3.

 

^^^THIS^^^^

 

It was a fly ball

[BigUmpire]

 

 

Hawk I respectfully disagree. I'm with UIC on this one. I'd say it was more of a broken bat flare then a fly ball.

"Flare" is not one of your options. Your options for fair batted balls are "ground ball," "bunted ball," "line drive," or "fly ball." The first 3 cannot be IFF, but this batted ball was clearly none of the 3.

 

^^^THIS^^^^

 

It was a fly ball

 

Damn Chief-

I thought the hat picture was bad!

You look like my first wife's lawyer!

[johnnyg08]

That ball was certainly not a "flare" nor is that an accepted option by rule. 

 

Crew kicked it.  U1 was going to call it.  There's no other reason his hand would've been where it was.

 

I've seen Gardy get tossed for dumber arguments.  This was a huge play.  He must have been happy with 2/3 from the series.

[noumpere]

Ok. So your crew is slow to react but you realize it should have been called. The runners are already running because it hasn't been called, what should you do ? Eat the call and let the play stand, kill it and send runners back, or let it play out and fix it ?

Depends on the rules.  In HS, the IFF is in effect and the players are expected to know that so the batter is out and the rest of the play stands as if the infield fly had been called.

 

In pro, if the defense gets zero or one outs the play stands, but if the defence gets two outs then fix it with the most likely result which is that the batter is out and the other runners return.

[BRUMP]

That ball was certainly not a "flare" nor is that an accepted option by rule. 

 

Crew kicked it.  U1 was going to call it.  There's no other reason his hand would've been where it was.

 

I've seen Gardy get tossed for dumber arguments.  This was a huge play.  He must have been happy with 2/3 from the series.

 

 

Flare was bad wording by me. I still contend that it was closer to a line drive than a fly ball.