IFF on a Windy Day

[sthomas13100]

I had an umpire tell me at the plate meeting that he was going to be calling IFF late.  He stated with this 40 mph wind that his definition of "caught with reasonable effort" will change due to the conditions.  I understand this is a judgement call and we had no issues regarding his interpretation.  However, for sake a better understanding this rule in the future, I would really like to hear some feedback from you guys.

 

JV game plus Oklahoma winds!

 

Thank you

 

[DVA7130]

This exact thing happened in my game yesterday. F6 camped under then a gust put the ball 30 feet in the grass. Still had the out.

[JaxRolo]

Only so much you can do. Can't delay the call to much. Preferably call it at apex. Make the call stick to it.

[grayhawk]

To answer your question - yes, the wind can be taken into account when judging ordinary effort.

[maven]

No problem with the interp.

Doesn't belong in the plate meeting.

[sthomas13100]

 

 

[sthomas13100]

_{Calling this too late could put the runners in jeopardy, which is the intent of the rule.  I always thought that reasonable effort had more to do with a sawed-off flare that an infielder would have little or no chance of catching it.  Never really thought of weather conditions to play a part in "reasonable effort".  Agree it is more difficult to catch a towering IFF on a windy day.  Just doesn't seem to be relevant in protecting runners, IMHO.}

[JaxRolo]

"Ordinary effort"

[Richvee]

Wind can certainly cause a routine pop fly to become much more than ordinary effort. Rule of thumb for me when calling IFF, especially on a windy day is to watch the fielder. If he's settled under the ball, or drifting a little and seems to have a bead on the ball, I'm calling the IFF. However, if I see F6 running one way, then backpedaling, then cutting left/right, or suddenly sprinting one way or the other, clearly the wind is playing havoc with the ball and I'm inclined NOT to call IFF.

 

Not something I'd be discussing at the plate meeting though.  

[Rich Ives]

_{Calling this too late could put the runners in jeopardy, which is the intent of the rule.  I always thought that reasonable effort had more to do with a sawed-off flare that an infielder would have little or no chance of catching it.  Never really thought of weather conditions to play a part in "reasonable effort".  Agree it is more difficult to catch a towering IFF on a windy day.  Just doesn't seem to be relevant in protecting runners, IMHO.}

 

Why would it put runners in jeopardy?  They're waiting on the base to see it it's caught. Are you suggesting that they're going to start advancing assuming it won't be caught? Not on my team.

[Rich Ives]

Wind is a factor in an IFF because it isn't predictable.  OTOH, the sun is essentially in a fixed position for the brief time a fly ball is in the air and thus the fielders are expected to work around it.

[sthomas13100]

Yes, If F6 is not settled under the ball that has drifted 10' from third base and you don't call IFF and the ball is not caught.  We have a potential double play at third and second because runners are holding tight.  If you call the IFF, then runners holding.  So, yes, I'm saying  that is why this rule was put place, to protect the runners. 

 

Jax, you're right "ordinary effort".  Effort and execution have completely different meanings.

 

It's not worth splitting hairs over, thank you for all your comments.

[grayhawk]

_{Calling this too late could put the runners in jeopardy, which is the intent of the rule.  I always thought that reasonable effort had more to do with a sawed-off flare that an infielder would have little or no chance of catching it.  Never really thought of weather conditions to play a part in "reasonable effort".  Agree it is more difficult to catch a towering IFF on a windy day.  Just doesn't seem to be relevant in protecting runners, IMHO.}

 

Don't get too hung up on when the call is made.  While we would all love to make the call at the apex and have it be right all the time, that's not the definition of an IFF. There are plenty of times that ordinary effort isn't established until the ball is well past the apex.  I call it when ALL of the conditions are met, including ordinary effort.  Offensive coaches get just as pissed when you call it too soon and then the conditions aren't met (and they suffer an out because of it).

 

Keep in mind also that under NFHS rules, it's the situation that dictates the IFF, not the call of the umpire.  Runners are responsible for knowing when the conditions are met for an IFF.  See casebook 10.2.3 Situation G.

[ALStripes17]

I would like to venture and say that we should be more likely to call IFF with windy conditions (all conditions still met of course).

IFF is there to protect the offense. Get the out, protect the runners.

[Mark Pepper]

 

_{Calling this too late could put the runners in jeopardy, which is the intent of the rule.  I always thought that reasonable effort had more to do with a sawed-off flare that an infielder would have little or no chance of catching it.  Never really thought of weather conditions to play a part in "reasonable effort".  Agree it is more difficult to catch a towering IFF on a windy day.  Just doesn't seem to be relevant in protecting runners, IMHO.}

 

Why would it put runners in jeopardy?  They're waiting on the base to see it it's caught. Are you suggesting that they're going to start advancing assuming it won't be caught? Not on my team.

 

It puts the runners at risk of being doubled up.  Without the IFF call, they have to either risk a partway advance, or stay on base and presume a catch. If it's not caught they're dead meat.  In the wind, a decent player could convincingly drop that ball if he didn't hear IFF.  Agree that wind can impact "ordinary effort" but we should err on the side of protecting runners as the rule intends.

[conbo61]

Wind and rain can definitely be considered when calling an IFF (sun cannot).  I recall back in the '08 WS (Marlins vs Phillies) there was some controversy in one of the games because an IFF was NOT called and the crew stated that due to the wind and the rain, the catch required more than "ordinary effort".

 

I agree with RichieVee - watch the infielder.  If he seems "stable" call it. And then stick with it even if there is a last minute "adjustment". In your judgement, at the time of the call ordinary effort was apparent.  You cannot wait until the "catch" is complete before making the call.

[noumpere]

All the "experts" agree that the wind can be a factor.  But then again the experts are associated with pro ball and you might have a different answer at some lower levels.  I don't.

[MRG9999]

I call IFF when all the conditions are met: base runners, # outs, position of fielder under the ball.  If some form of Nature is present, so be it.  Need to protect the base runners. 

 

Question that came up last year,  how high should the fly be on an IFF ?   I was coaching a 9/10 tournament game last year and the PU called IFF on a pop up barely 10 feet high.  No fielders able to get to the ball.  I voiced to the PU that call should not have been made on that pop up.  His response was it was a fly and 2 BR's and 1 out.

 

Needless to say, the head coach went to the District Tournament Director and District Administrator with the complaint.  The PU may have called his last game due to this call.

[Replacematt]

Question that came up last year,  how high should the fly be on an IFF ?  

 

Simple answer, with discretion: However high it needs to be for an infielder to catch it with ordinary effort. And no, I'm not saying that to be smart; if a fielder can ordinarily get himself into position for it, it's high enough.

[MRG9999]

 

Question that came up last year,  how high should the fly be on an IFF ?  

 

Simple answer, with discretion: However high it needs to be for an infielder to catch it with ordinary effort. And no, I'm not saying that to be smart; if a fielder can ordinarily get himself into position for it, it's high enough.

 

Thanks   The fielders never moved to the ball which to me says the call never should have been made.  It's water over the dam now, but going forward just wanted to know.

[Replacematt]

 

 

Question that came up last year,  how high should the fly be on an IFF ?  

 

Simple answer, with discretion: However high it needs to be for an infielder to catch it with ordinary effort. And no, I'm not saying that to be smart; if a fielder can ordinarily get himself into position for it, it's high enough.

 

Thanks   The fielders never moved to the ball which to me says the call never should have been made.  It's water over the dam now, but going forward just wanted to know.

 

Remember, it's there to protect the offense--if a double play is possible because the ball wasn't caught, it's probably IFF.

 

Also remember it's not if the fielders actually play it with ordinary effort--just that it is catchable if they do. So, the fact they didn't move is irrelevant.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

_{Calling this too late could put the runners in jeopardy, which is the intent of the rule.  I always thought that reasonable effort had more to do with a sawed-off flare that an infielder would have little or no chance of catching it.  Never really thought of weather conditions to play a part in "reasonable effort".  Agree it is more difficult to catch a towering IFF on a windy day.  Just doesn't seem to be relevant in protecting runners, IMHO.}

 

Why would it put runners in jeopardy?  They're waiting on the base to see it it's caught. Are you suggesting that they're going to start advancing assuming it won't be caught? Not on my team.

 

It puts the runners at risk of being doubled up.  Without the IFF call, they have to either risk a partway advance, or stay on base and presume a catch. If it's not caught they're dead meat.  In the wind, a decent player could convincingly drop that ball if he didn't hear IFF.  Agree that wind can impact "ordinary effort" but we should err on the side of protecting runners as the rule intends.

 

 

They had better stay on the base and presume a catch.

[BalkHawk]

If a fielder can benefit from dropping a fly on purpose, and he didn't need superhuman effort to catch it, call IFF.

[Larry in TN]

Question that came up last year,  how high should the fly be on an IFF ?

By rule (2.00), it is "a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt)..." So it must be a fly ball, not a line drive.

A FLY BALL is a batted ball that goes high in the air in flight.

A LINE DRIVE is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to a fielder without touching the ground.

The key in your example is that it could not be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

Question that came up last year,  how high should the fly be on an IFF ?  

 

Simple answer, with discretion: However high it needs to be for an infielder to catch it with ordinary effort. And no, I'm not saying that to be smart; if a fielder can ordinarily get himself into position for it, it's high enough.

 

Thanks   The fielders never moved to the ball which to me says the call never should have been made.  It's water over the dam now, but going forward just wanted to know.

 

Just cause the fielders don't move on a fly ball doesn't mean it's not an infield-fly.

[grayhawk]

 

Question that came up last year,  how high should the fly be on an IFF ?

By rule (2.00), it is "a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt)..." So it must be a fly ball, not a line drive.

A FLY BALL is a batted ball that goes high in the air in flight.

A LINE DRIVE is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to a fielder without touching the ground.

The key in your example is that it could not be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.

 

 

In Fed:

 

2-6-2:  A fly ball is a batted ball which rises an appreciable height above the ground.

2-6-3:  A line drive is a batted ball which travels parallel, or nearly so, with the ground through most of its flight.