A's-Rangers Double Play - Infield Fly or Ordinary Effort?

[Lindsay]

Oakland turned an inning-ending double play against Texas when Rangers batter Jared Walsh's soft infield pop fly evaded diving A's second baseman Zack Gelof near the pitcher's mound, with 2B Umpire Tom Hanahan initially appearing to signal an infield fly, before declaring the batter safe, electing not to invoke the infield fly rule because none of the Athletics infielders could have caught the batted ball with ordinary effort.

With one out and runners on first and second base in the bottom of the 7th inning, Walsh's quasi-fly ball initially attracted speculation that the infield fly rule would be invoked, but as second baseman Gelof slid in an unsuccessful attempt to catch the batted ball, Oakland recovered and turned the inning-ending double play when umpires ruled the infield fly rule did not apply.

Gelof's slide may have tipped the scales against ruling this play an infield fly, as pitcher Austin Adams would have had to range backwards, off the mound to field the ball and Gelof was the other closest infielder, meaning that according to the umpire, no infielder was in a place where this ball could have been caught with ordinary effort.

This might be the infield fly counterweight to LF Umpire Sam Holbrook's infamous postseason infield fly call in Atlanta, when the umpire ruled that a shortstop deep into left field could have caught a fly ball with ordinary effort because he was camped under the ball before suddenly vacating that position.

Although formally termed an "infield fly" the definition and rule may more accurately be deemed the "infielder fly rule."

An infield fly is defined as "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," and the infield fly rule results in the batter being declared automatically out while the ball itself remains live.

When Walsh's batted ball fell to the ground and the infield fly rule was not invoked, that forced both preceding baserunners R1 and R2 to advance, allowing pitcher Adams to turn a double play when both R1 Adolis García and R1 Jonah Heim didn't advance.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Infield Fly Rule doesn't mean every infield fly automatically qualifies

View the full article

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Lindsay said:

Oakland turned an inning-ending double play against Texas when Rangers batter Jared Walsh's soft infield pop fly evaded diving A's second baseman Zack Gelof near the pitcher's mound, with 2B Umpire Tom Hanahan initially appearing to signal an infield fly, before declaring the batter safe, electing not to invoke the infield fly rule because none of the Athletics infielders could have caught the batted ball with ordinary effort.

 

With one out and runners on first and second base in the bottom of the 7th inning, Walsh's quasi-fly ball initially attracted speculation that the infield fly rule would be invoked, but as second baseman Gelof slid in an unsuccessful attempt to catch the batted ball, Oakland recovered and turned the inning-ending double play when umpires ruled the infield fly rule did not apply.

 

Gelof's slide may have tipped the scales against ruling this play an infield fly, as pitcher Austin Adams would have had to range backwards, off the mound to field the ball and Gelof was the other closest infielder, meaning that according to the umpire, no infielder was in a place where this ball could have been caught with ordinary effort.

 

This might be the infield fly counterweight to LF Umpire Sam Holbrook's infamous postseason infield fly call in Atlanta, when the umpire ruled that a shortstop deep into left field could have caught a fly ball with ordinary effort because he was camped under the ball before suddenly vacating that position.

 

Although formally termed an "infield fly" the definition and rule may more accurately be deemed the "infielder fly rule."

 

An infield fly is defined as "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," and the infield fly rule results in the batter being declared automatically out while the ball itself remains live.

 

When Walsh's batted ball fell to the ground and the infield fly rule was not invoked, that forced both preceding baserunners R1 and R2 to advance, allowing pitcher Adams to turn a double play when both R1 Adolis García and R1 Jonah Heim didn't advance.

 

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Infield Fly Rule doesn't mean every infield fly automatically qualifies

View the full article

I'm confused. The rule says "can be caught". It does not say "was caught by ordinary effort". Humpback liners no ordinary effort. This seemed to be an ordinary effort catchable infield fly. MLB infielders are smart. Will we now see them running around in circles under a fly ball to get a double or triple play? Do you wait till the infielder butchers the play? U2 had his hand up because it was a fly ball that could (can in the moment of his putting his hand up) be caught by ordinary effort.

[The Man in Blue]

I know we don't expect precious professional prima donna pitchers to do much, but at the level I work, YES, I expect the pitcher to make that play.  I have IFF all day and twice on double-header days.

I disagree that F4 sliding in to make that play is indicative that NO fielder could have made that catch with ordinary effort . . . it was just indicative that THAT fielder needed extraordinary effort.

[beerguy55]

 

On 4/11/2024 at 8:35 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I know we don't expect precious professional prima donna pitchers to do much, but at the level I work, YES, I expect the pitcher to make that play.  I have IFF all day and twice on double-header days.

I'm not expecting the pitcher to make that play at any level.  I'll go further to say that that arc around the back of the mound is probably the most likely area for such a ball to need extraordinary effort to make a catch.  This is harder for the pitcher than you think it is...yes, he delayed a couple of seconds, but tracking that little fly ball, whether he backpedals or tries to make an over the shoulder play, navigating the rubber and the downslope of the mound, surpasses ordinary effort IMO.   He might make that play, but it would not be easy.

I don't think anybody complains if you call IFF here, because the purpose of the rule was met (ie. an easy DP was avoided), but I do see many umpires that are too quick to call IFF, when all the infielders fail to reach the ball even from a dead sprint.  It worked out for Oakland this time, but if he had kicked the ball all the way to the back wall on his dive attempt it would be Oakland complaining about the lack of an IFF call.  You win some you lose some.

 

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

I'm not expecting the pitcher to make that play at any level.  I'll go further to say that that arc around the back of the mound is probably the most likely area for such a ball to need extraordinary effort to make a catch.  This is harder for the pitcher than you think it is...yes, he delayed a couple of seconds, but tracking that little fly ball, whether he backpedals or tries to make an over the shoulder play, navigating the rubber and the downslope of the mound, surpasses ordinary effort IMO.   He might make that play, but it would not be easy.

I don't think anybody complains if you call IFF here, because the purpose of the rule was met (ie. an easy DP was avoided), but I do see many umpires that are too quick to call IFF, when all the infielders fail to reach the ball even from a dead sprint.  It worked out for Oakland this time, but if he had kicked the ball all the way to the back wall on his dive attempt it would be Oakland complaining about the lack of an IFF call.  You win some you lose some.

 

 

While I will agree there are potentially some problem areas on the infield, I would contend that 99% of the time multiple infielders on a dead sprint are indicative of the one guy who could make the routine play not making his play.

[beerguy55]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

While I will agree there are potentially some problem areas on the infield, I would contend that 99% of the time multiple infielders on a dead sprint are indicative of the one guy who could make the routine play not making his play.

I'm picking up what you're putting down, I just don't think it's 99%...many umps see the fly ball in the infield part and immediately make the call, forgetting the ordinary effort part.  F4/F6 playing back and that little fly ball ten feet in front of second base that doesn't get high enough for someone to camp under.(more than a humpback, less than a can of corn)

The other one I've seen is the one to shallow center field that falls in between F4, F6 and F8...IFF...wtf?!?!?!   A close cousin to this is when a 60 foot basepath game is being played on a 90 foot infield, and the ump figures anything over the dirt is "the infield" and therefore catchable with ordinary effort by any infielder.

Yup, sometimes someone isn't doing their job...usually it's imply not an easy catch.  And give the pitcher a lot less credit to make any catch behind them.

[urout17]

On 4/11/2024 at 10:24 PM, Jimurray said:

I'm confused. The rule says "can be caught". It does not say "was caught by ordinary effort". Humpback liners no ordinary effort. This seemed to be an ordinary effort catchable infield fly. MLB infielders are smart. Will we now see them running around in circles under a fly ball to get a double or triple play? Do you wait till the infielder butchers the play? U2 had his hand up because it was a fly ball that could (can in the moment of his putting his hand up) be caught by ordinary effort.

Just to clarify....OBR, Definition of Terms...

[dumbdumb]

18 hours ago, urout17 said:

Just to clarify....OBR, Definition of Terms...

i think i would include the below from the definition of terms section in the mlb rules

Definition of Terms

ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill
at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit
on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and
weather conditions.
(Ordinary Effort) Comment: This standard, called for several
times in the Official Scoring Rules (e.g., Rules 9.05(a)(3), 9.05(a)
(4), 9.05(a)(6), 9.05(b)(3) (Base Hits); 9.08(b) (Sacrifices);
9.12(a)(1) Comment, 9.12(d)(2) (Errors); and 9.13(a), 9.13(b)
(Wild Pitches and Passed Balls)) and in the Official Baseball
Rules (e.g., Definitions of Terms, Infield Fly), is an objective
standard in regard to any particular fielder. In other words, even
if a fielder makes his best effort, if that effort falls short of what
an average fielder at that position in that league would have made
in a situation, the Official Scorer should charge that fielder with
an error.

in the old days i am not so sure the fielder of average skill at a position in that league was in the book

so it was more individual to individual

an infield fly to Ozzie Smith had a wider interpretation than to other shortstops, since Ozzie had a much wider range than other shortstops.

P.S. (added later)

think of that atlanta infield fly in the playoffs. if Ozzie was the shortstop, that was a can of corn for Ozzie. nobody would have moved. it was all Ozzie and everyone on the team, ballpark and the umps would know it and signal infield fly, without the 'average fielder' part (much less the weather and field conditions part) that is now defined in ordinary effort.

 

 

[beerguy55]

13 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

P.S. (added later)

think of that atlanta infield fly in the playoffs. if Ozzie was the shortstop, that was a can of corn for Ozzie. nobody would have moved. it was all Ozzie and everyone on the team, ballpark and the umps would know it and signal infield fly, without the 'average fielder' part (much less the weather and field conditions part) that is now defined in ordinary effort.

Not sure what you're getting at here...the shortstop in question in that game was camped under the ball - Pete Kozma was a fine shortstop in an era that didn't really have many standout defensive shortstops - he held his own against the likes of Tulowitzki and Andrus, but you could fairly say he was a decidedly typical MLB shortstop in 2013, and certainly not getting any HOF votes any time soon -  and he was indeed camped under the "can of corn", which is why IFF was called correctly.   The only reason it wasn't caught is he heard something - perhaps the umpire calling IFF, perhaps someone in the stands yelling, and he thought he was being called off by the outfielder.