Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest KayB

Infield Fly With a Shift

Question

Guest KayB

With the proliferation of infield shifting and even some infielders playing on the outfield grass in some shifts, who is defined as an infielder under the definition of this rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
9 hours ago, Biscuit said:

The problem is, sometimes if you interpret the rule book as written, 100% literal, it is either clearly not what was intended, or in contradiction with some other rule. In this case, clearly they don't want it based off of the number written next to the name. If you have any suspicion that the way it reads is intended to be enforced that way, then by all means, read it literal, that is safer, but in cases where the rule book is clearly wrong... It doesn't make sense to read it literal.

While I agree that cross reading interpretations of rules in other rule sets can be dangerous, especially when FED is the set being cross read to, it can help determine intent of the rule, which effects how you read the rule. Take it with a grain of salt, but certainly consider it.

 

I understand what you are saying and I understand why you are saying it.  The problem with that logic is “Who gets to determine when a rule is “wrong” versus when that person just doesn’t like the rule?”  If the rule is “wrong” it should be fixed.  If it isn’t being fixed, it must not be wrong.  It is what the people controlling the book (or who wrote that rule) wanted.

You say “in this case, clearly they don’t want ...”. That just is not true.  Clearly they did want that because that is the way they wrote it.  The problem occurs when the particular rule does not completely mesh with another rule OR, in some cases, directly contradicts another rule.  How do you know which one was the proper one?

In my experience in “the real world/my day job” I work with this type of stuff routinely (client processes, municipal ordinances, training procedures, etc.).  Until you can get the client/customer/person in charge of the process to fix the discrepancies/contradictions, you regress to the most basic level.  You start at the beginning and essentially “first in/first actual” takes precedence.  So in this case, the definition of the infielder takes precedence over the lack of a proper definition in the infield fly rule.

Before you say “So you would let the coach swap his F5 and F6 with F8 and F9 and then allow a “cheap” double play?” ... If I saw a coach moving infielders behind outfielders, I would clarify the position change as exactly that: a POSITION CHANGE on my lineup card.  Now the problem is solved.  If I didn’t catch it, I’m going the route of an unreported sub: a change to the lineup that is accepted after the fact.  Am I adding some of my own personal interpretation to get there?  Yes, but I have a (hopefully) logical process to justify it.

My point is, provide the logic of your process.  Sometimes the answer you received wasn’t wrong just because it isn’t the answer you arrived at.  Every rule was written for a specific purpose and we cannot always know the intent.  You cannot just declare “That rule is clearly wrong.”

My biggest criticism is at the sanctioning bodies.  Quit slapping band aids on things with other sources.  The purpose of a case book or rule interpretation is to help us develop that ability to understand and apply rules.  It is not to fix problems ... fix the rule.  It’s the same thing I tell clients/customers.  If you don’t do process XYZ this way anymore, why do your manuals say that?  Change it, fix it, keep it current.  The point of the rule book/training material/process manual is so that the next person can pick it up, read it, and do the job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, noumpere said:

No one is saying "do it to make it easy."  And you are right that the books aren't perfect -- Evans identified some 234 errors in OBR (some of those might have been corrected).

 

Since we're on the topic of infield fly -- here's a "literal" interp, based on the OBR rules:

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.

An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

The infield shall be a 90-foot square.

So, if the bases are loaded and F3, F4, F5, F6 are playing at normal depth, the only players who can be considered to catch the ball with ordinary effort are F1 and F2 (and the latter only because he is specifically mentioned in the rule.  In fact, since they specifically mentioned F2, it only makes sense that they would have included F3-F6 if they wanted to include them.)

 

 

Agreed!  :cheers:

 

Although, it doesn’t say where that 90-foot square is located.  Is there a definition of “infield” provided in OBR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
29 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

My biggest criticism is at the sanctioning bodies., and do the job.

 

That isn't (generally) going to happen.  OBR is written specifically for MLB and sanctioned MiLB -- they just let other groups "use / borrow" the code.  To change ti requires approval from the union, which will require giving something up.  So, unless the rule causes a big problem, it's not going to be changed -- and, for the most part "everyone" in MLB knows how it's supposed to be interpreted.

For FED, well, there's a process in place to suggest rules changes.  Go ahead and use it.

 

FOREWORD
This code of rules governs the playing of baseball games by professional
teams of Major League Baseball and the leagues that are members of the
National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues.
We recognize that many amateur and non-professional organizations play
their games under professional rules and we are happy to make our rules
available as widely as possible. It is well to remember that specifications as
to fields, equipment, etc., may be modified to meet the needs of each group.

 

25 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Agreed!  :cheers:

 

Although, it doesn’t say where that 90-foot square is located.  Is there a definition of “infield” provided in OBR?

Well, I *think* this is the only reference to anything that could be a 90-ft square:

When location of home base is determined, with a steel tape measure
127 feet, 33⁄8 inches in desired direction to establish second
base. From home base, measure 90 feet toward first base; from second
base, measure 90 feet toward first base; the intersection of
these lines establishes first base. From home base, measure 90 feet
toward third base; from second base, measure 90 feet toward third
base; the intersection of these lines establishes third base. The distance
between first base and third base is 127 feet, 33⁄8 inches. All
measurements from home base shall be taken from the point where
the first and third base lines intersect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Right there is a great example of the maddening ambiguity of so much of the rule book. 

1. If they mean a 90foot square, just say a 90' square and let the people constructing the field figure out how best to make it. 

2. 33/8? Really?

3. They aren't lines you're making, they are arcs.

4. After all that, it doesn't tell me where the bases go. What part of the base goes at those 90' corners? They use all that verbiage and still don't give you all the information you need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

Right there is a great example of the maddening ambiguity of so much of the rule book. 

1. If they mean a 90foot square, just say a 90' square and let the people constructing the field figure out how best to make it. 

2. 33/8? Really?

3. They aren't lines you're making, they are arcs.

4. After all that, it doesn't tell me where the bases go. What part of the base goes at those 90' corners? They use all that verbiage and still don't give you all the information you need. 

1.  The way they describe is the way to properly make a square.

2. It's 3 and 3/8 inches.  It's a copy-and-paste issue

3.  You scribe the arcs, then put the intersection of the arcs.  HS geometry.

4.  The "base" is the POINT in the ground.  The "bag" marks the base (although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably later in the rules  <--- look, another error)   Plus, there are more instructions and a diagram -- open the rule book to read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
36 minutes ago, noumpere said:

1.  The way they describe is the way to properly make a square.

2. It's 3 and 3/8 inches.  It's a copy-and-paste issue

3.  You scribe the arcs, then put the intersection of the arcs.  HS geometry.

4.  The "base" is the POINT in the ground.  The "bag" marks the base (although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably later in the rules  <--- look, another error)   Plus, there are more instructions and a diagram -- open the rule book to read them.

Technically you will not have a square using the instructions in the rule. It would be a rhombus with angles fractionally less and more than 90 degrees. But these days most likely the base points were located  with CAD or  surveying tools and the infield will be an exact square. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
26 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Technically you will not have a square using the instructions in the rule. It would be a rhombus with angles fractionally less and more than 90 degrees. But these days most likely the base points were located  with CAD or  surveying tools and the infield will be an exact square. 

Given what I assume were the measuring limitations when the rule was established (I think in the 1800s, but I'm too lazy to try to look it up), I think 127' 3 3/8" is close enough to the hypotenuse of a right triangle with 90' sides.

 

Unless you are referring to the fact that the bags marking first and third base are no entirely within the infield, while the bag at second base is centered on the base point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, noumpere said:

Given what I assume were the measuring limitations when the rule was established (I think in the 1800s, but I'm too lazy to try to look it up), I think 127' 3 3/8" is close enough to the hypotenuse of a right triangle with 90' sides.

 

Unless you are referring to the fact that the bags marking first and third base are no entirely within the infield, while the bag at second base is centered on the base point.

It's close enough but not exact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 minutes ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

:sarcasm:

I've always heard it referred to as a baseball "diamond"......not a baseball "square".

:confused:

 

And here I thought I was the baseball square.  :lookup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

That isn't (generally) going to happen.  OBR is written specifically for MLB and sanctioned MiLB -- they just let other groups "use / borrow" the code.  To change ti requires approval from the union, which will require giving something up.  So, unless the rule causes a big problem, it's not going to be changed -- and, for the most part "everyone" in MLB knows how it's supposed to be interpreted.

For FED, well, there's a process in place to suggest rules changes.  Go ahead and use it.

 

:sarcasm: I have used the process ... and by that I mean everybody just knows what I think and should just go ahead and do that since that is what was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
18 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

It's close enough but not exact.

Whoops ... didn’t realize this was the automated strike zone thread.  :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...