IFF and the Shift

[kylejt]

We're seeing more and managers, at all levels, use some sort of shift when dead pull hitters come up. Which begs the question, at what point do infielders become outfielders?

 

[basejester]

I have this question, too.  

 

[Rich Ives]

They don't.

But then it does alter "ordinary effort"

[basejester]

[noumpere]

43 minutes ago, kylejt said:

Which begs the question, at what point do infielders become outfielders?

 

When they aren't in the infield.  And, the infield is defined as the space bordered by a line between the bases, 

 

Hmm -- seems like there should be very few infield flies.

[basejester]

12 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

They don't.

But then it does alter "ordinary effort"

You're being deliberately obtuse.  

The question is, what determines whether a particular fielder is an infielder or not?  Is that sufficiently literal for your parser now?

 

 

 

[maven]

23 minutes ago, basejester said:

You're being deliberately obtuse.  

The question is, what determines whether a particular fielder is an infielder or not?  Is that sufficiently literal for your parser now?

FED 2-13-3 seems plausible: any fielder who is not playing in left, center, or right field is an infielder.

One way to interpret that: in addition to F1 and F2, if a fielder is intentionally positioned so as to be able to make a routine play on the BR at 1B after an ordinary ground ball, then he's an infielder.

 

[basejester]

35 minutes ago, maven said:

FED 2-13-3 seems plausible: any fielder who is not playing in left, center, or right field is an infielder.

This seems pretty vacuous.  Fielders who are not outfielders are infielders?  Surely if I group all those guys on one side of the line through home and second base, they're all still outfielders.   Does it mean that the always exactly three outfielders, regardless of where they are positioned?        

35 minutes ago, maven said:

One way to interpret that: in addition to F1 and F2, if a fielder is intentionally positioned so as to be able to make a routine play on the BR at 1B after an ordinary ground ball, then he's an infielder.

I think this is an excellent answer.  

 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, basejester said:

 

2 hours ago, maven said:

FED 2-13-3 seems plausible: any fielder who is not playing in left, center, or right field is an infielder.

One way to interpret that: in addition to F1 and F2, if a fielder is intentionally positioned so as to be able to make a routine play on the BR at 1B after an ordinary ground ball, then he's an infielder.

 

Which is done routinely by the shallow right second baseman.  The shift never positions an infielder in a place where he cannot make play at first.

[Senor Azul]

OBR Rule 9.03(a) Comment:  When a player does not exchange positions with another fielder but is merely placed in a different spot for a particular batter (for example, if a second baseman goes to the outfield to form a four-man outfield, or if a third baseman moves to a position between the shortstop and second baseman), the official scorer should not list this as a new position.

[maineump]

But ... an outfielder can catch an IFF.    Never thought about the IFF with the big shifts they use - good thread

[ALStripes17]

I think this is an excellent answer.  

 

You say that it's vacuous yet a 'ball' is defined nearly the same way. And that's one of the four most important calls we consistently make in a game.

If a pitch is not a strike, then it's a ball. (Paraphrased 2-4-1)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[basejester]

10 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

You say that it's vacuous yet a 'ball' is defined nearly the same way. And that's one of the four most important calls we consistently make in a game.

If a pitch is not a strike, then it's a ball. (Paraphrased 2-4-1)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The definition of "ball" as "not a strike" works because "strike" is well-defined.

[ALStripes17]

The definition of "ball" as "not a strike" works because "strike" is well-defined.

You have a lineup card. Outfielders are 7, 8, and 9... Seem pretty defined to me.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[basejester]

15 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

You have a lineup card. Outfielders are 7, 8, and 9... Seem pretty defined to me.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I'll concede that Fed doesn't include this clause, but OBR explicitly (but rather awkwardly, in my opinion) contradicts what you are saying.

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted
bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or
first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any
outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for
the purpose of this rule.
 

[ALStripes17]

I'll concede that Fed doesn't include this clause, but OBR explicitly (but rather awkwardly, in my opinion) contradicts what you are saying.

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted

bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or

first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any

outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for

the purpose of this rule.

 

I made my argument for FED anyway, but now that you've cited the OBR clause, what is your issue with that statement? So an outfielder comes in as an infielder, typically with bases loaded and trying to cut a run down, he counts as one that could catch a fly ball with ordinary effort.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[basejester]

2 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

I made my argument for FED anyway, but now that you've cited the OBR clause, what is your issue with that statement? So an outfielder comes in as an infielder, typically with bases loaded and trying to cut a run down, he counts as one that could catch a fly ball with ordinary effort.

You can't, at least in OBR, use their fielding positions on the line-up card to determine whether or not they are infielders.  I'm refuting your assertion that the outfielders are well-defined by the line-up card. 

I think it would be absurd to do so in fed but don't have any specific rule in mind that contradicts it.

 

[ALStripes17]

You can't, at least in OBR, use their fielding positions on the line-up card to determine whether or not they are infielders.  I'm refuting your assertion that the outfielders are well-defined by the line-up card. 

I think it would be absurd to do so in fed but don't have any specific rule in mind that contradicts it.

 

I understand what you're saying and I'm playing more devil's advocate than anything else.

I know we could pick it apart for centuries but the purpose of the rule is to protect the offense (as you know). Protect the offense from a potential double play.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[calablue]

 So, if an outfielder is playing way in and would be considered an infielder for the purpose of the infield fly rule, how would it be determined whether base awards should be according to TOT or TOP if the ball fell un-caught  and this same player picked it up and threw it out of play as the first play? 

[ALStripes17]

 So, if an outfielder is playing way in and would be considered an infielder for the purpose of the infield fly rule, how would it be determined whether base awards should be according to TOT or TOP if the ball fell un-caught  and this same player picked it up and threw it out of play as the first play? 

Whether or not all runners including BR had advanced at the time of the throw. But if it was an infield fly, then I would doubt TOT or TOP would be different anyway.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

15 minutes ago, calablue said:

 So, if an outfielder is playing way in and would be considered an infielder for the purpose of the infield fly rule, how would it be determined whether base awards should be according to TOT or TOP if the ball fell un-caught  and this same player picked it up and threw it out of play as the first play? 

For these two rules (IFF and base awards) it makes sense to me to use the same criteria for 'infielder'.

Note that not all rules use the same definition: the rule for a runner being struck by a batted ball behind an infielder, for example, do NOT count F1 as an infielder.

[calablue]

22 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

 

Whether or not all runners including BR had advanced at the time of the throw. But if it was an infield fly, then I would doubt TOT or TOP would be different anyway.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 Yeah, well I had a brain fart here. I forgot about the fact that the batter would've been out on the IFF and was trying to figure what will be done if he was past first base at time of throw  . 

[kylejt]

This is an age old question. What defines either the infield, or an infielder.

 

 

[ALStripes17]

This is an age old question. What defines either the infield, or an infielder.

 

 

In FED, any player that is not an outfielder

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

16 minutes ago, kylejt said:

This is an age old question. What defines either the infield, or an infielder.

 

 

In OBR, both are defined (in Rule 2, I think).  Don't use the definition literally.