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]

17 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

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.

They should. Lots of mechanics an umpire should do but don't or mind lapse, whatever. 

This is an instance that allows for correctable error NCAA & OBR. 

Not calling an IFF because of the judgment of what is/is not ordinary effort is not retro.

Most IFFs are obvious. 

The one in the World Series a few years ago does involve more judgment and it less obvious. 

What I believe the OP is asking or inferring is that since it wasn't verbalized, then it wasn't an infield fly. Not the case.

As described in the OP, this was an obvious IFF dictated by the scenario and the prerequisites in the rule, not the umpires' failure to verbally declare. (yes, we all agree that there should have been a verbal)

 

 

 

[beerguy55]

20 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

What I believe the OP is asking or inferring is that since it wasn't verbalized, then it wasn't an infield fly. Not the case.

I don't think he was inferring that.  I think he was simply suggesting that their position on the matter didn't make any sense.  ie. it wasn't about the validity of the ruling, but the validity of the mechanic as it applies to game management.    When a fielder catches a fly ball the batter is out - no one is claiming that the failure to say "out" negates the out.  The question was about the appropriate use of communication to serve the purpose of the rule, which is to alleviate a risk and disadvantage to offense has of falling into a cheap double/triple play.

Sure, this scenario the umps apparently made a signal (who knows which ump or how big), and I've been talking about no signal at all, but it's moot - I had a similar argument with an umpire in a game once who "verbalized" it by telling the catcher - didn't signal...just spoke, loud enough so F2 standing beside him could hear "batter's out".  And he claimed that was the extent of his obligation - to ensure "someone" knew the batter as out.

Too many people missing the point of the rule.  

[Senor Azul]

The OP said his game was in the MSBL which I am pretty sure uses OBR. However, the following is from the 2017-18 NFHS Baseball Umpires Manual and the FED case book--

When the hit ball is judged to be an infield fly, the infield fly signal is given. It is the right hand raised overhead, with your index finger pointing at the ball. At the same time yell, “Infield fly! If fair, batter’s out!”…

2019 FED Case Book Play 7.4.1 Situation G:  With R2 and R1 and one out, B4 hits a high fly to second base which could have been caught by F4. Neither umpire declares “infield fly.” F4 unintentionally drops the ball but picks it up and tags R1 who is off the base. RULING:  The half-inning is over as R1’s out is the third out. The infield fly out for the second out holds even though it was not declared. The situation determines the out, not the declaration. The umpires should always declare “infield fly, if fair” to lessen any confusion.

[johnnyg08]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Too many people missing the point of the rule.  

I'm certain we understand the point of the rule. 

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I'm certain we understand the point of the rule. 

I'm sure you do.   Everyone else I meet at a ball diamond is the problem

 

[johnnyg08]

11 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm sure you do.   Everyone else I meet at a ball diamond is the problem