Infield Fly Rule

[Guest Pecosbill]

When first and second, or first second and third are occupied and there’s less than two out and the batter hits an infield pop up, easily catchable:  is the umpire required to VERBALLY announce the “Infield fly rule, batter’s out” or can he just signal it by put in his hand in the air?  I always thought it was the former, but when the situation happened in our MSBL league the umpires insisted that they are not required to verbally announce the rule applicable. But without the umpire verbally announcing it, how are the players, who are keeping their eyes on the ball, supposed to know what has been called?

[johnnyg08]

6 minutes ago, Guest Pecosbill said:

When first and second, or first second and third are occupied and there’s less than two out and the batter hits an infield pop up, easily catchable:  is the umpire required to VERBALLY announce the “Infield fly rule, batter’s out” or can he just signal it by put in his hand in the air?  I always thought it was the former, but when the situation happened in our MSBL league the umpires insisted that they are not required to verbally announce the rule applicable. But without the umpire verbally announcing it, how are the players, who are keeping their eyes on the ball, supposed to know what has been called?

The umpires were correct. The players are responsible for knowing the situation. The players should listen to their coaches. The situation dictates IFF, not the call. 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2019 Definitions of Terms in the Official Baseball Rules--

An INFIELD FLY is… 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.”

From the 2016 BRD (section 277, p. 178):

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  If an umpire does not declare an infield fly because he is unaware that it is an infield fly situation, that is a correctable umpire error. The error can be corrected by calling out the batter-runner and placing runners where they would have ended up had the infield fly been declared immediately. That will usually result in placing the runners back on the bases where they started. However, if an umpire does not declare an infield fly because, in his judgment, it could not be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, this cannot be changed after the play has completed.

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2019 Definitions of Terms in the Official Baseball Rules--

An INFIELD FLY is… 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.”

But whether anyone would hear the declaration is debatable. So a point by the umpire and a “stay on your base” declaration by the coach is what should happen. 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 54): After determining that a batted ball is an infield fly the umpire should point vertically and shout “infield fly, the batter’s out” (or “infield fly if fair” if the ball will fall near a foul line). He need not make such signal if there is no chance of the ball becoming fair.

[johnnyg08]

Good posts @Senor Azul & @Jimurray

While that is the case, it's not necessarily interpreted in the manner that somebody might think...if the requirements for IFF are met and IFF is not declared it does not mean that it's not an IFF.

Wendelstedt states the following:

R1, R2, one out, no count. The batter hits a high fly ball over the pitcher's mound. As the pitcher moves to get out of the way, the remaining infielders come charging in attempt to make a very difficult catch. The ball falls in and then the defense turns a double play at third and second. Following the play, the umpires realize that all of the requirements of Infield Fly had been met.

Ruling: The umpires may correct this error. The BR is called out, and all other runners return to their bases at the time of the pitch. 

 

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, Guest Pecosbill said:

, how are the players, who are keeping their eyes on the ball, supposed to know what has been called?

The rule is to protect the offense, not give a cheap out to the defense.  So, to over-simplify, the defense doesn't really need to know this (yet) -- just keep the eyes on the ball and catch it.  The offense has plenty of time to look at the umpire / listen to the base coaches, etc.

[catsbackr]

10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Good posts @Senor Azul & @Jimurray

While that is the case, it's not necessarily interpreted in the manner that somebody might think...if the requirements for IFF are met and IFF is not declared it does not mean that it's not an IFF.

Wendelstedt states the following:

R1, R2, one out, no count. The batter hits a high fly ball over the pitcher's mound. As the pitcher moves to get out of the way, the remaining infielders come charging in attempt to make a very difficult catch. The ball falls in and then the defense turns a double play at third and second. Following the play, the umpires realize that all of the requirements of Infield Fly had been met.

Ruling: The umpires may correct this error. The BR is called out, and all other runners return to their bases at the time of the pitch. 

 

Is "make a very difficult catch" ordinary effort?

[beerguy55]

11 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The umpires were correct. The players are responsible for knowing the situation. The players should listen to their coaches. The situation dictates IFF, not the call. 

Sorry johnny, that is not only wrong, but a complete shirk of your responsibility.

There is a difference between knowing the situation and knowing the umpire's judgment.   Just because it's an IFF situation, and just because it looks like an easy pop fly catchable by the infielder, that doesn't mean the umpire thinks that.   If the umpire doesn't signal anything - or makes a really innocuous out signal that is not  seen by the players or coaches (eg. BU does nothing, PU makes a little out fist behind home plate), they're stuck in no man's land if the ball drops. 

The offense doesn't know if they are forced to run - but if they don't hear an out they're assuming they do.  Even the defense doesn't know if they need to tag that runner, or if it's a force.

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

The rule is to protect the offense, not give a cheap out to the defense.  So, to over-simplify, the defense doesn't really need to know this (yet) -- just keep the eyes on the ball and catch it.  The offense has plenty of time to look at the umpire / listen to the base coaches, etc.

 

Players are looking at the ball, as they should.  Coaches are looking at the players.  Sure, one coach is probably looking at both umps trying to see if one made, or is going to make, the call.  Doesn't mean he saw the signal, depending on how big it was...or if he made it at all.   And the defense does need to know, because they need to know what they need to do if the ball drops - whether it's a force or not makes a huge difference here.

Without knowing the umpire's judgment, it's a CF. 

I've seen too many "no brainer" IFF's ruled nothing by umps, and IFF's called on hits that would not have been caught with extraordinary effort - it didn't matter that I knew it was an IFF situation - it only mattered what the umpire judged about the fly ball.   My judgment as a player or coach didn't, and doesn't, matter.

If the players always judged plays exactly like the umpires did then we wouldn't really need the umpires.

[beerguy55]

1 minute ago, catsbackr said:

Is "make a very difficult catch" ordinary effort?

The pitcher could have caught it with ordinary effort - his decision to vacate the area and let another player take the play, making it difficult for them doesn't change that.

[catsbackr]

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The pitcher could have caught it with ordinary effort - his decision to vacate the area and let another player take the play, making it difficult for them doesn't change that.

Yeah, no.  

 

You're assuming.  The OP basically states all the pitcher was doing was getting out of the way.  The pitcher had no intention of catching the ball.

[beerguy55]

3 minutes ago, catsbackr said:

Yeah, no.  

 

You're assuming.  The OP basically states all the pitcher was doing was getting out of the way.  The pitcher had no intention of catching the ball.

The rule doesn't require the umpire to judge a player's intent to catch a ball - just that it could/should be caught with ordinary effort.  The pitcher could have caught it with ordinary effort - doesn't matter that he didn't want to.    Otherwise, you create a neat little loophole to help the defense get a cheap DP.

[johnnyg08]

4 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Sorry johnny, that is not only wrong, but a complete shirk of your responsibility.

There is a difference between knowing the situation and knowing the umpire's judgment.   Just because it's an IFF situation, and just because it looks like an easy pop fly catchable by the infielder, that doesn't mean the umpire thinks that.   If the umpire doesn't signal anything - or makes a really innocuous out signal that is not  seen by the players or coaches (eg. BU does nothing, PU makes a little out fist behind home plate), they're stuck in no man's land if the ball drops. 

The offense doesn't know if they are forced to run - but if they don't hear an out they're assuming they do.  Even the defense doesn't know if they need to tag that runner, or if it's a force.

 

Players are looking at the ball, as they should.  Coaches are looking at the players.  Sure, one coach is probably looking at both umps trying to see if one made, or is going to make, the call.  Doesn't mean he saw the signal, depending on how big it was...or if he made it at all.   And the defense does need to know, because they need to know what they need to do if the ball drops - whether it's a force or not makes a huge difference here.

Without knowing the umpire's judgment, it's a CF. 

I've seen too many "no brainer" IFF's ruled nothing by umps, and IFF's called on hits that would not have been caught with extraordinary effort - it didn't matter that I knew it was an IFF situation - it only mattered what the umpire judged about the fly ball.   My judgment as a player or coach didn't, and doesn't, matter.

If the players always judged plays exactly like the umpires did then we wouldn't really need the umpires.

It's just not the case. There are many case plays that detail that the situation dictates the infield fly. Not the actual call itself. 

Yes, we agree on what is supposed to happen.

There is nothing that says the umpire must project at a certain volume so that everybody can hear it. 

The rules also allow for this to be a correctable error. 

The OP is asking if it's a requirement to verbalize IFF...While the rule book reads "shall declare," a failure to verbally declare does not change the situation if the prerequisites are met. 

An IFF is an IFF. 

If the defense turns a cheap double play, the umpires have rule support to call outs and place runners where appropriate per professional interpretation. 

[johnnyg08]

11 minutes ago, catsbackr said:

Is "make a very difficult catch" ordinary effort?

In this case, yes. "Could the ball have been caught by an infielder with ordinary effort?" 

 

[catsbackr]

1 minute ago, johnnyg08 said:

In this case, yes. "Could the ball have been caught by an infielder with ordinary effort?" 

 

So you believe making a catch with ordinary effort and making a very difficult catch are the same thing?  No.

 

One thing contradicts the other.

[noumpere]

12 minutes ago, catsbackr said:

Is "make a very difficult catch" ordinary effort?

As a practical matter, (almost) any "high fly ball in the infield" will meet the criteria -- especially at the MLB level (and probably in NCAA and all HS levels).  If the fielders act such that the catch then becomes "very difficult" -- that's on them.  And, again, the rule still protects the offense.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, catsbackr said:

So you believe making a catch with ordinary effort and making a very difficult catch are the same thing?  No.

 

One thing contradicts the other.

They're exclusive statements. 

The case play was written that way intentionally. 

[catsbackr]

OK, we'll just disagree.  No big deal.

[beerguy55]

Just now, catsbackr said:

So you believe making a catch with ordinary effort and making a very difficult catch are the same thing?  No.

 

One thing contradicts the other.

No, you're ignoring the facts.   An easy catch for F3 is a difficult catch for F5.   In this case, an easy catch for F1 was turned into a difficult play for F2/3/4/5.  

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

 And, again, the rule still protects the offense.

The most important piece of the entire thread. ^^

[beerguy55]

Just now, johnnyg08 said:

The most important piece of the entire thread. ^^

Which is why, IMO, umpires should be specifically and categorically instructed to verbalize their IFF call.  What is required and what is right are often two different things.  To positively reinforce, and defend, an umpire who did not verbalize an IFF call does a disservice to the game.  This is about game management.   And simple communication.   Any umpire who thinks that a hand signal is enough in this situation doesn't understand the purpose of the rule.

Yes, I agree and know - it can be corrected, and a lack of call doesn't mean it's not an IFF.  An IFF is an IFF as long as the umpire judged it - even if that judgment was only in his mind.

I just get touchy when umpires want to encourage coaches to start telling their players it's an IFF, or for players to decide for themselves it's an iFF, when, in fact, it's possible that the umpire hasn't judged it that way, no matter how "obvious" it seems.

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Which is why, IMO, umpires should be specifically and categorically instructed to verbalize their IFF call.  What is required and what is right are often two different things.  To positively reinforce, and defend, an umpire who did not verbalize an IFF call does a disservice to the game.  This is about game management.   And simple communication.   Any umpire who thinks that a hand signal is enough in this situation doesn't understand the purpose of the rule.

Yes, I agree and know - it can be corrected, and a lack of call doesn't mean it's not an IFF.  An IFF is an IFF as long as the umpire judged it - even if that judgment was only in his mind.

I just get touchy when umpires want to encourage coaches to start telling their players it's an IFF, or for players to decide for themselves it's an iFF, when, in fact, it's possible that the umpire hasn't judged it that way, no matter how "obvious" it seems.

Among all of this, I think we're reaching some common ground. We agree on the proper way to teach/drill it.

The big takeaway must be for the offense and defense to know the situation. Yes...there is some judgment on certain batted balls and yes, ideally there should be a gesture and a verbal. 

If an umpire properly, but erroneously declares(gesture and verbal) IFF when the prerequisites are not met that does not make it an IFF, nor is that a correctable error...any outs on the play would stand because the teams (offense) are responsible for knowing the conditions. 

While the umpires in the OP did allegedly misspeak about what is/isn't required from the umpires on an IFF situation, if the runners took off on what was described as "hits an infield pop up, easily catchable" that is the fault of the offense, not the umpires. 

 

[noumpere]

47 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Which is why, IMO, umpires should be specifically and categorically instructed to verbalize their IFF call. 

They are (at least I never attended or taught anywhere that an umpire need not do this).  I thought the thread was about "what if, despite the instruction / best practice, the umpire fails to do so."

[maven]

1 hour ago, catsbackr said:

Is "make a very difficult catch" ordinary effort?

You're not thinking of the rule correctly.

The condition for IFF is that the ball CAN be caught with ordinary effort. That judgment should take level of play and general weather conditions (esp. wind) into account, but not individual player ability.

Sometimes, fielders make poor choices (take a bad route, wrong fielder plays the ball, etc.) or have bad conditions or luck (trip or lose the ball in the sun, etc.) in ways that prevent them from ACTUALLY catching the ball with ordinary effort. Such a batted ball can still be an IFF.

I'm sure we've all seen fielders make a routine pop up an adventure.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

if the runners took off on what was described as "hits an infield pop up, easily catchable" that is the fault of the offense, not the umpires. 

This is where I respectfully disagree.   I'll run through the exact scenarios I've been in.

R1/R2/R3, one out - let's say I'm R2.  OK, it's an IFF situation.  I know that.   All the boxes checked, and I know what I need to do.  On the ground I'm going.  In the air I'm holding up.  If the ump calls IFF, I'm sticking close and then watching what happens if the ball drops.  Because I know it's live.

Pop fly hit to F5...no umpire says or signal anything.   I tag up.  Now I'm going "wtf?"  I "think" it's an IFF.  If I was an umpire I'd rule it an IFF...but I'm not the umpire.  So, is the umpire not saying anything because he's frozen up, forgotten his duty, or does he think it's not "catchable with ordinary effort"?    The ball drops five feet behind F5, who just completely misjudged it...now what do I do?

1. I run - no ump called the batter out...I have to assume I'm forced.  Ball bounces to F6 who tags me out.   Then ump rules it was an IFF, calls batter out, and calls me out, even though the only reason I ran was I had no indication except my own judgment that I wasn't forced.   So, it's my fault for running on such an obvious IFF.

2. I stay put. It's gotta be an IFF, right?   R3 stays put.  R1 stays put.   It's that "obvious".  Ball bounces around, but nowhere far enough to risk running to third, and F5 finally gets it...looks around in confusion.  And then tags R3, steps on third base to force me out - end of inning.  Umpire's judgment is it wasn't catchable with ordinary effort, so no IFF.   He didn't signal anything, so it's my fault for not running when the umpire didn't call the batter out. I should have known I was forced.  Doesn't really matter if I thought it was an easy pop fly.

Is it really the runner's fault in EITHER of those situations, let alone both of them?

In scenario 1, I think the rules would let you correct things, but would you?  I know many umps would not.  I scenario 2, there's nothing to correct - bad judgment, but he administered the rules correctly.   

So, should I run as a rule of thumb or not?

 

Edit: in the end, IMO, the runners in scenario two are the ones acting wrongly, for imposing their judgment in place of the umpires.  The correct thing to do if the umpire says nothing is to run.   Even though it's the lower percentage scenario (assuming it is THAT "obvious"), the word, or lack of word, of the umpires it what is paramount.  At the very least, Scenario 1 has some chance of being corrected to avoid more than one out.  Running is the only hope of avoiding more than one out in Scenario 2.  And I think it's hypocritical for umpires to expect players/coaches to act on what is "obvious".  Obvious doesn't matter.  It only matters what the umpire sees.   Not what a player thinks the umpire should see.

[grayhawk]

15 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The umpires were correct. The players are responsible for knowing the situation. The players should listen to their coaches. The situation dictates IFF, not the call. 

This is only the case in Fed.  In OBR and NCAA, the umpires need to make a call, which is why this is a correctable error in those rules sets, but it's not correctable in Fed.

To answer the OP, the umpires absolutely SHOULD give a verbal signal when calling IFF.  Doing otherwise is foolish and lazy, and serves no purpose.