Infield Fly Rule when the shift is on.

[Guest weniger866@comcast.net]

With the shift on and there are runners on 1st and 2b or 1st , 2nd, and third and the second baseman is now in short right field. If a pop up is hit to short right does the umpire call the Infield Fly rule ?  In a normal situation the second baseman is not in short right field and might not be able to catch that pop up. I would think the umpire does not call an infield fly rule. 

[noumpere]

Yes

[The Man in Blue]

 

[Mudisfun]

The qualification for IFF is fly ball which can be caught by an infielder using ordinary effort. Nothing in the rule implies that the fielders need to be in their traditional setup.

Call the IFF provided the conditions are met.

[beerguy55]

44 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

The qualification for IFF is fly ball which can be caught by an infielder using ordinary effort. Nothing in the rule implies that the fielders need to be in their traditional setup.

Call the IFF provided the conditions are met.

But what is an "infielder"?   It's not solely defined by the position on the lineup card is it?  Isn't it defined by where they're actually positioned on that play?

Otherwise it seems a little silly - some of these shifts are four across outfielders where F4/F5 is not in short outfield/deep infield, but is, for all intents and purposes, an outfielder.  Closer to the warning track than the infield dirt.

Are we really basing IFF provisions on the player's noted position on the lineup card?  Let's play this to its logical conclusion -  If you want to get really ridiculous, with R1/R2 simply switch F456 with F789...now, no infielder can catch a fly ball in the infield with ordinary effort...because they're all 200 feet away.  Easy DP all day long...AND, any fly ball to the outfield is now an IFF...no errors on dropped fly balls now.

Isn't the same principle applied to which player can wear the first baseman's trapper/glove.  It's not necessarily the guy who says 3 on the lineup card...it's the guy most likely actually playing first base on that play.

 

Edit: if all rumors are true, this will be moot next year in MLB.

[ousafe]

14 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

But what is an "infielder"?

OBR (from the definition of terms section):

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

(So yes you are correct.)

[noumpere]

15 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

But what is an "infielder"? 

 

An infielder is defined in OBR as someone who plays in the infield.  The infield is defined as the (more-or-less) square marked by the bases.  So, unless the fielder is within the square, he's not an infielder and there should be no infield fly.

 

Or -- since an outfielder who is "playing in" can be considered for the infield fly rule, then an infielder who is "playing out" should NOT be so considered.  For me, it whether the filder as positioned could let the ball drop and turn a double play.  That seems to meet the spirit of the rule

 

 

[beerguy55]

10 minutes ago, ousafe said:

OBR (from the definition of terms section):

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

(So yes you are correct.)

Careful here  

OBR defines the infield as the 90 foot square within the bases.   At the upper levels 95% of the time there's only one player positioned there at the beginning of a play.

I suspect next year MLB/OBR rules will:

• define a boundary between infield and outfield (eg. the dirt, or some measured line)
• require three players in the outfield TOP
• require four players in the infield TOP (not counting pitcher and catcher which already have their defined requirements)
• require two infielders on either side of second base

[umpstu]

On 6/11/2022 at 4:38 PM, The Man in Blue said:

 

Kozma was camped out underneath that ball with ordinary effort. These are top of the line athletes.  Good call.

[beerguy55]

46 minutes ago, umpstu said:

Kozma was camped out underneath that ball with ordinary effort. These are top of the line athletes.  Good call.

Kozma also started the play positioned in a traditional shortstop location - he was an infielder in all practical senses of the word and rule requirements - the video doesn't really apply to the OP question.

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

But what is an "infielder"?   It's not solely defined by the position on the lineup card is it?  Isn't it defined by where they're actually positioned on that play?

Otherwise it seems a little silly - some of these shifts are four across outfielders where F4/F5 is not in short outfield/deep infield, but is, for all intents and purposes, an outfielder.  Closer to the warning track than the infield dirt.

Are we really basing IFF provisions on the player's noted position on the lineup card?  Let's play this to its logical conclusion -  If you want to get really ridiculous, with R1/R2 simply switch F456 with F789...now, no infielder can catch a fly ball in the infield with ordinary effort...because they're all 200 feet away.  Easy DP all day long...AND, any fly ball to the outfield is now an IFF...no errors on dropped fly balls now.

Isn't the same principle applied to which player can wear the first baseman's trapper/glove.  It's not necessarily the guy who says 3 on the lineup card...it's the guy most likely actually playing first base on that play.

I understand what you are saying, but I was taught this about the IFF when I was at Wendelstedt.

The guidance was provided by Brent Rice, former lead instructor at Wendelstedt. When considering an IFF, he said this, "Could it have been caught, by an infielder, with ordinary effort?" Not if it's going to be caught, if it's caught, or who catches it. Certainly outfielders can catch an IFF. If F4 is playing in deep right, and a fly ball is hit to him, it doesn't matter what his position title is, or that he caught the ball or not, that particular fly ball doesn't meet the requirements of an IFF.

Agree with @Mudisfun, if it meets the IFF requirements, call it. 

[Catch18]

Let’s look at the opposite for an answer that applicably makes sense.

Defense pulls an OF in to play either hole on the INF. A ground ball is hit to him and he airmails it into the dugout - anyone gonna award 2 bases from the time of throw? Nope.

I don’t care who he is, I care where he is….good example from the post above.

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, Catch18 said:

Let’s look at the opposite for an answer that applicably makes sense.

Defense pulls an OF in to play either hole on the INF. A ground ball is hit to him and he airmails it into the dugout - anyone gonna award 2 bases from the time of throw? Nope.

I don’t care who he is, I care where he is….good example from the post above.

Corollary that actually happened, in MLB I believe: Defense adds a third defender to the right side of the infield, but moved the existing F3 further from the base than the new fielder. They were not allowed to use their 1B mitt in their new position.

[beerguy55]

52 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

I understand what you are saying, but I was taught this about the IFF when I was at Wendelstedt.

The guidance was provided by Brent Rice, former lead instructor at Wendelstedt. When considering an IFF, he said this, "Could it have been caught, by an infielder, with ordinary effort?" Not if it's going to be caught, if it's caught, or who catches it. Certainly outfielders can catch an IFF. If F4 is playing in deep right, and a fly ball is hit to him, it doesn't matter what his position title is, or that he caught the ball or not, that particular fly ball doesn't meet the requirements of an IFF.

Agree with @Mudisfun, if it meets the IFF requirements, call it. 

I don't disagree with the guidance, and ultimately my position is the same as yours...an infielder is defined by where he is playing...not the position written on his Topps card.  I think that's where people get tripped up.  If all seven fielders are on the infield dirt at TOP, then they should all be considered infielders for the purpose of an IFF, no?

 

I think Rice's guidance could use some clarification.  Does he mean "caught by an infielder as positioned on that particular play" or "caught by an infielder if they had been properly/traditionally positioned"?   If the first, then young umps need guidance on what makes an infielder...if the second...well, I just don't think that adheres to the spirit of the rule...but it's probably easier to manage.

 

[BCBrad]

I don't know if this can be helpful in this discussion, but here are some quotes from 2015 Wendelstedt.

1. (pg. 5) "The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who positions himself so close to the infield as to easily benefit from the ball falling in, shall be considered infielders for the purpose of the play.
2. (pg. 133, foot note 368) "Where the ball is hit in relation to the grass dirt lines makes no difference as to whether the fly ball is an infield fly or not. A ball could be hit into the outfield and still be an infield fly. Likewise, a ball could be hit in the middle of the infield and not be an infield fly."

I do not know about other folks here, but I like this from above: "so close to the infield as to easily benefit from the ball falling in." I think the rest is judgment.

I think with the Braves-Cards example, if the shortstop had not thought the leftfielder called him off and let the ball drop in front of him, could he have gotten the runner at 3rd base? This is just my judgment and you may differ, but I would  say the shortstop would benefit from the ball falling in front of him and be able to achieve a force out at 3rd base.

[JonnyCat]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I don't disagree with the guidance, and ultimately my position is the same as yours...an infielder is defined by where he is playing...not the position written on his Topps card.  I think that's where people get tripped up.  If all seven fielders are on the infield dirt at TOP, then they should all be considered infielders for the purpose of an IFF, no?

According to what BCBrad quoted from Wendelstedt, then yes, if the outfielders are playing so far in they are considered infielders.

 

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I think Rice's guidance could use some clarification.  Does he mean "caught by an infielder as positioned on that particular play" or "caught by an infielder if they had been properly/traditionally positioned"?   If the first, then young umps need guidance on what makes an infielder...if the second...well, I just don't think that adheres to the spirit of the rule...but it's probably easier to manage.

I think it would be as properly/traditionally positioned. That makes the most sense to me, and you're right, easier to manage. But that's a very good question.

Food for thought. Say you have bases loaded with one out. Shift is on with F5 close to second base, and F6/F4, positioned between 1B and 2B. (I don't know if you would ever see this, but just for arguments sake). If a pop up went high enough, was declared an IFF, and landed and settled untouched where F5 would normally be playing.

Would you still have an IFF?

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I think it would be as properly/traditionally positioned. That makes the most sense to me, and you're right, easier to manage. But that's a very good question.

Food for thought. Say you have bases loaded with one out. Shift is on with F5 close to second base, and F6/F4, positioned between 1B and 2B. (I don't know if you would ever see this, but just for arguments sake). If a pop up went high enough, was declared an IFF, and landed and settled untouched where F5 would normally be playing.

Would you still have an IFF?

Funny you mention that...I had that scenario in my original response to you and cut it out, to keep it shorter...but now that you ask...

For me, I'm judging the infielders where they are currently positioned...could that ball be caught by one of those infielders, on that play, with ordinary effort.  I'm likely judging, while the ball is in the air of course, that it's not an IFF - assuming I determine that neither F5 nor F1 could get to the ball with ordinary effort.   I think that meets the letter of the rule, and also the spirit of the rule...it wouldn't be an easy DP, especially if the runners are paying attention.   But, maybe I'm wrong.

I would use the same judgment on a fly ball to shallow right field.  If F4 is "traditionally" set up, then it's likely an IFF...but if all the infielders are on the inner grass to cut off the runner at the plate, I'm likely judging it not an IFF.   Again, I think that meets both the letter and spirit of the rule.

Here's where it gets funny for me...like you mentioned before, there are IFF's that could be also caught by an outfielder - I think we've all seen cases where F4, F6 and F8 are all camped under a ball, and F8 calls it...that's an IFF regardless of who calls it or who makes the play.  It meets the letter of the law...and PROBABLY the spirit of the law, though I think a DP would be difficult from there. However, same play, but F4 and F6 are playing in and have no godly chance of making the catch, but F8 can, we have a potential scenario where F8 could let it drop and maybe get a DP - I'd like to call an IFF here...and maybe looking at that Wendelstedt quote, I can.

Because that quote specifically mentions the pitcher or catcher, who are always by default positioned to catch a fly ball in/near the infield (at TOP), I now take it to mean that "positions himself" means DURING the play, not before the play.      In that case, even if F8 positioned himself as a traditional outfielder TOP, AND then was able to easily get to a high and shallow fly ball just behind second base, and for whatever reason F4/F6 could not make the play with ordinary effort, it would still be an IFF.  Otherwise, why mention pitcher and catcher in that context?

16 hours ago, BCBrad said:

I think with the Braves-Cards example, if the shortstop had not thought the leftfielder called him off and let the ball drop in front of him, could he have gotten the runner at 3rd base? This is just my judgment and you may differ, but I would  say the shortstop would benefit from the ball falling in front of him and be able to achieve a force out at 3rd base.

I get what you're saying, but the "benefit" referenced is a double play...not giving up a sure fly ball out to simply exchange it for a force at third  (though, yes, there are scenarios where you MIGHT want to exchange a fast R2 for a slow R1 (new R2))   Regardless, it qualifies for an IFF because it could be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder.  And, in the spirit of the rule, if there's any chance the defense could get an easy DP, don't allow it.

 

[aaluck]

21 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

"caught by an infielder as positioned on that particular play" or "caught by an infielder if they had been properly/traditionally positioned"? 

I would say the former. If you have a shift with F4,5,6 all on the left side of second and there is a lazy fly ball hit to where F4 would 'normally' play I have nothing there.

I like what @JonnyCat was taught.  In my scenario above F4, in his current infield position, cannot make that catch with ordinary effort.

19 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Food for thought. Say you have bases loaded with one out. Shift is on with F5 close to second base, and F6/F4, positioned between 1B and 2B. (I don't know if you would ever see this, but just for arguments sake). If a pop up went high enough, was declared an IFF, and landed and settled untouched where F5 would normally be playing.

Would you still have an IFF?

 In that situation I would not, because it cannot be caught by and infielder with ordinary effort.  I would say if you do you are rewarding the defense with an unearned out.

[BCBrad]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Funny you mention that...I had that scenario in my original response to you and cut it out, to keep it shorter...but now that you ask...

For me, I'm judging the infielders where they are currently positioned...could that ball be caught by one of those infielders, on that play, with ordinary effort.  I'm likely judging, while the ball is in the air of course, that it's not an IFF - assuming I determine that neither F5 nor F1 could get to the ball with ordinary effort.   I think that meets the letter of the rule, and also the spirit of the rule...it wouldn't be an easy DP, especially if the runners are paying attention.   But, maybe I'm wrong.

I would use the same judgment on a fly ball to shallow right field.  If F4 is "traditionally" set up, then it's likely an IFF...but if all the infielders are on the inner grass to cut off the runner at the plate, I'm likely judging it not an IFF.   Again, I think that meets both the letter and spirit of the rule.

Here's where it gets funny for me...like you mentioned before, there are IFF's that could be also caught by an outfielder - I think we've all seen cases where F4, F6 and F8 are all camped under a ball, and F8 calls it...that's an IFF regardless of who calls it or who makes the play.  It meets the letter of the law...and PROBABLY the spirit of the law, though I think a DP would be difficult from there. However, same play, but F4 and F6 are playing in and have no godly chance of making the catch, but F8 can, we have a potential scenario where F8 could let it drop and maybe get a DP - I'd like to call an IFF here...and maybe looking at that Wendelstedt quote, I can.

Because that quote specifically mentions the pitcher or catcher, who are always by default positioned to catch a fly ball in/near the infield (at TOP), I now take it to mean that "positions himself" means DURING the play, not before the play.      In that case, even if F8 positioned himself as a traditional outfielder TOP, AND then was able to easily get to a high and shallow fly ball just behind second base, and for whatever reason F4/F6 could not make the play with ordinary effort, it would still be an IFF.  Otherwise, why mention pitcher and catcher in that context?

I get what you're saying, but the "benefit" referenced is a double play...not giving up a sure fly ball out to simply exchange it for a force at third  (though, yes, there are scenarios where you MIGHT want to exchange a fast R2 for a slow R1 (new R2))   Regardless, it qualifies for an IFF because it could be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder.  And, in the spirit of the rule, if there's any chance the defense could get an easy DP, don't allow it.

 

We are not disagreeing. I am saying that this is an IFF. I trying to tie the play into the Wendelstedt interpretation to help in, hopefully, clarifying for some when we have an IFF with fielders in differing positions. As noted in the second footnote I quoted, the location of the flyball does not define the IFF, the location of the "infielders" and their ability to catch a flyball with ordinary effort does.

I think what is interesting is the part where an outfielder say comes in to the "infield," they would be considered an "infielder" for this rule.

You would know better than I how a runner is coached on a play like this, but I would assume they are going half way, then upon seeing an infielder camped under the fly, start returning to the base to tag up. If so, they are increasing the change of being forced if the ball drops and increasing the chance of a double play.

[beerguy55]

30 minutes ago, BCBrad said:

You would know better than I how a runner is coached on a play like this, but I would assume they are going half way, then upon seeing an infielder camped under the fly, start returning to the base to tag up. If so, they are increasing the change of being forced if the ball drops and increasing the chance of a double play.

They shouldn't really be moving in any direction at the time of the catch/drop...on their toes at some point between the bases ready to move one way or the other - "halfway", but in reality, the closer the fielder is to you, the closer to the previous base you should be, so you don't get nailed on an appeal for leaving early.   You have to assume catch whether IFF has been called or not, so protect yourself from that...you always must return to the previous base.  Whereas you only need to advance if the ball is dropped and if IFF was not called.    If the ball drops in the shallow outfield, and for some reason IFF hasn't been called, the runners still have a chance to make their forced base...you're probably going to get R2 forced out at third, but it will be difficult for a properly coached R1 to also get forced at second for the DP (but not impossible) - and it would be ridiculously lazy base running if you got the B/R at first...if an easy DP is turned here that should be Clue One that IFF should have been called.  If they end up only getting R2 (or R1) then it was probably right to not call IFF.   I know you can't wait for the results to rule IFF...but I think you can use the results to help you learn when IFF should be called.

In the end, as a coach, I have rarely cared if the ump didn't call IFF when he should have if the end result was one out...was never that worried which out...99% of the time the play ends with R1/R2 and an additional out...exactly what happens when IFF is called (usually).  Sure, I'd like him to get that right in the long run, especially as the offensive coach to avoid cheap DP's.   As a defensive coach, can't really argue it - if ump didn't call IFF and my fielder didn't catch it, then I guess it couldn't be caught with ordinary effort...my team screwed up...it's ballsy to ask to be bailed out using a rule designed to protect the offense.  I'll ask, but it will be half-hearted.

 

[TopHat64]

To confuse the issue a bit more, are any of these applications different under FED? The reason I ask is because the OBR definition of an infielder has been said, but FED's definition is:

"2-13-2: The players who play left field, right field, and center field are outfielders.

2-13-3: The others are infielders."

It would seem as though this includes a listed second baseman playing in short right as an infielder, unless you could argue that by 2-13-2, all players who happen to be in left, center, or right field are defined as outfielders, regardless of how many of them there happen to be.

Any thoughts?

[Senor Azul]

Mr. TopHat64, we have discussed this question at least twice before. Here is what I posted then that answers your current question and links to those previous threads. From the 2016 BRD (section 279, p. 180):

FED:  Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  A player throws a ball to DBT. It is the first play following the batted ball. He is: (1) an outfielder stationed in the infield; or (2) an infielder stationed in the outfield. In (1), award two bases from the time of the pitch. In (2), award two bases from the time of the throw.

2009 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 19: Having scouted the opposing team, the defensive coach brings the left fielder in to assume an infield position between the second baseman and the first baseman. The batter hits a ground ball to the "additional" infielder who throws the ball into the dugout on the first play. RULING: Two bases will be awarded to runners on base from the time of the pitch. The left fielder is considered at the time of the play to be an infielder. (8-3-5, 2-13-3) 

SITUATION 20: Having scouted the player coming to bat, the defensive coach moves the second baseman to the outfield, thereby having four fielders equally spaced in the outfield. The second baseman, now playing in the outfield, takes a batted ball on the bounce and throws it into a dead-ball area. RULING: Two bases will be awarded to the runners from the time of the throw. The second baseman is considered at the time of this play to be an outfielder. (8-3-5, 2-13-3)

https://umpire-empire.com/topic/73163-infield-fly-with-a-shift/

https://umpire-empire.com/topic/69717-defensive-shift-and-nfhs-question/