Infield Fly No Call Cubs-Brewers

[Gfoley4]

https://x.com/talkinbaseball_/status/1976034298043199513?s=46&t=EJ-LhZOEHgaptik22rIwIA

No ordinary effort? I thought sun is not supposed to be a factor? 

[jimurrayalterego]

34 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

https://x.com/talkinbaseball_/status/1976034298043199513?s=46&t=EJ-LhZOEHgaptik22rIwIA

No ordinary effort? I thought sun is not supposed to be a factor? 

That's the last interp I have known. Per BRD, Jaska-Roder has wind as a factor but sun in a fielder's eyes is not.

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

https://x.com/talkinbaseball_/status/1976034298043199513?s=46&t=EJ-LhZOEHgaptik22rIwIA

No ordinary effort? I thought sun is not supposed to be a factor? 

I think it's one thing to be camped under it and lose it in the sun. On this one, nobody can even find it until it's way too late to get to it.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I think it's one thing to be camped under it and lose it in the sun. On this one, nobody can even find it until it's way too late to get to it.

The Cubs are not guilty of acting like nobody could find it to let it drop and get a DP or TP but F1 and F2 had a shot. But if you don't point IFF with a ball in that area because smart MLB players do a goatrope and want to let it drop to get a DP or TP do you then call IFF?

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The Cubs are not guilty of acting like nobody could find it to let it drop and get a DP or TP but F1 and F2 had a shot. But if you don't point IFF with a ball in that area because smart MLB players do a goatrope and want to let it drop to get a DP or TP do you then call IFF?

I think we can easily judge that, in this case, nobody was faking it or acting. This is just a unique play that was correctly officiated, IMO.

[jimurrayalterego]

12 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I think we can easily judge that, in this case, nobody was faking it or acting. This is just a unique play that was correctly officiated, IMO.

The question is if the ball is in the air on what should be an IFF and the Cubs actually faked it can you call the IFF after the fact because you judged they faked it? But what if the cubs got a DP or TP on this one that was not faked but had two infielders that could have caught it with ordinary effort. Do you negate the DP/TP because the IFF was not called and should have been. That's been our guidance before. Luckily the Cubs totally screwed up. 

[grayhawk]

50 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The question is if the ball is in the air on what should be an IFF and the Cubs actually faked it can you call the IFF after the fact because you judged they faked it? But what if the cubs got a DP or TP on this one that was not faked but had two infielders that could have caught it with ordinary effort. Do you negate the DP/TP because the IFF was not called and should have been. That's been our guidance before. Luckily the Cubs totally screwed up. 

Yes, it can be fixed after the fact. But nobody could have caught this one with ordinary effort, which is what the crew on the field judged.

[TheLovejoy]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The question is if the ball is in the air on what should be an IFF and the Cubs actually faked it can you call the IFF after the fact because you judged they faked it? But what if the cubs got a DP or TP on this one that was not faked but had two infielders that could have caught it with ordinary effort. Do you negate the DP/TP because the IFF was not called and should have been. That's been our guidance before. Luckily the Cubs totally screwed up. 

I'm going to find this one, but yes. I read in a case book before that if you don't call the IFF, and the defense takes advantage of that, you can indeed say, 'yes, that was IFF', and correct it. However, if you call IFF, and in hindsight it wasn't, you can't correct it because the defense is awarded the out immediately, regardless of how they play the ball.

[dumbdumb]

i think this would be hard to justify in the old days. if you justify the overhead conditions like sun, then you would have to justify lights. there has been the justification of a wind driven situation only. the rule says if any infielder. and that is 6 people could catch the ball with normal effort, and normal effort because you can't find the ball in the sky does not count IMHO. and dont leave pitchers out of the equation just because they tell them to run away from the ball. looks like the pitcher could have handled this with normal effort if they were allowed to do so. now if they rule the wind carried it where no player has been before, that, has been the one opening in the equation, on this mile high infield fly.

[Velho]

13 hours ago, TheLovejoy said:

I read in a case book before that if you don't call the IFF, and the defense takes advantage of that, you can indeed say, 'yes, that was IFF', and correct it.

from older thread https://umpire-empire.com/topic/77135-infield-flyafter-the-fact/

TLDR:

OBR per MiLBUM - Yes "the umpires should consult and correct the situation"

NCAA - Not explicitly but an uofficial interp says follow OBR

NFHS - Yes (though the cited case plays could benefit from the crisp OBR language imo)

LL - Yes "Make the belated call and get the situation corrected."

[BigBlue4u]

The interesting thing here is that neither the first base umpire nor the second base umpire indicated infield fly.  I find this strange since it seemed obvious the ball would land somewhere within the infield.

[Velho]

49 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

The interesting thing here is that neither the first base umpire nor the second base umpire indicated infield fly.  I find this strange since it seemed obvious the ball would land somewhere within the infield.

You've hit on the two schools of thought I've heard on calling IFF. They are to call it:

A) at the time the ball is hit in a location that the given level of play should catch with ordinary effort (sub-schism on whether that is to consider pre-pitch player positioning or not)

or,

B) Once it's clear these infielders are able to catch this ball with ordinary effort.

[dumbdumb]

we do know that Chicago is called the windy city for a reason.

[johnnyg08]

I don't like it, but ultimately it is a rule to protect the offense. 

I think that an MLB player could have handled that batted ball with ordinary effort. 

[johnnyg08]

I was intrigued so I started looking. Here's one from July 2025 where the umpires did rule ordinary effort by an infielder. 

 

[johnnyg08]

From the 2021 MLBUM: "...the umpire must consider the effort that a fielder of average skill should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions (e.g., rain, wind, etc.). The sun is not a factor when determining ordinary effort."

[dumbdumb]

j08. i am with you on IFF, especially since baseball did not have the exception years ago. but, they put etc in your definition above, which means there could be other causes, so why does that eliminate the sun.

it is their fault that that they put the etc clause rather than getting rid of etc just listing all the possibilities including the sun, or putting sun and wind and then the etc, and letting rain be the in the unlisted etc category. once again, no etc, just put all the ones in the definition, and then add to the rule when off the wall ones need to be added. or keep the etc as an escape 901c in the old days but add sun in with the wind and rain. if they dont want sun or lights in the etc, they should say so. what is and isn't. then add or subtract as needed.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

j08. i am with you on IFF, especially since baseball did not have the exception years ago. but, they put etc in your definition above, which means there could be other causes, so why does that eliminate the sun.

 

The sun and natural darkness are not “weather” conditions. MLB has ruled that way at least from the 90s when Jaska and Roder were writing interps for MLB. 

[Velho]

On 10/9/2025 at 5:24 PM, johnnyg08 said:

From the 2021 MLBUM: "...the umpire must consider the effort that a fielder of average skill should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions (e.g., rain, wind, etc.). The sun is not a factor when determining ordinary effort."

So IFF is callable once it's clear these infielders are able to catch this ball with ordinary effort?

[jimurrayalterego]

31 minutes ago, Velho said:

So IFF is callable once it's clear these infielders are able to catch this ball with ordinary effort?

A popup in that location, depending on height would be ordinary effort for MLB F3s. This ball was foul and IFF if fair didn't seem to be called because it was obviously foul but it is an example of extraordinary effort by F1 but would have been ordinary effort by F3. https://www.mlb.com/video/denzer-guzman-pops-out-to-pitcher-aj-blubaugh-in-foul-territory?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share

[Velho]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

2 hours ago, Velho said:

So IFF is callable once it's clear these infielders are able to catch this ball with ordinary effort?

A popup in that location, depending on height would be ordinary effort for MLB F3s.

So do we think it doesn't get called because of misapplication of the rules/interps or calling it and a ball dropping without a fielder settled under it avoided due to the associated angst?

[Jimurray]

18 minutes ago, Velho said:

So do we think it doesn't get called because of misapplication of the rules/interps or calling it and a ball dropping without a fielder settled under it avoided due to the associated angst?

Council bought whatever that crew told him and said it was the right call after the game. The crew will be along shortly to give you their explanation. Meanwhile most everyone thought it would have been ordinary effort except for the sun. 

[dumbdumb]

at exactly what point are umpires suppose to wait and call verbally and point the infield fly rule, as learned at the umpire schools, since many of the instructors are MLB. is it suppose to be when the ball reaches the apex of its parabola, or shortly thereafter. or is it suppose to be called when the ball is at the halfway point of its apex going up or halfway on its descent. just where is that point for it to be called when it is called.

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

at exactly what point are umpires suppose to wait and call verbally and point the infield fly rule, as learned at the umpire schools, since many of the instructors are MLB. is it suppose to be when the ball reaches the apex of its parabola, or shortly thereafter. or is it suppose to be called when the ball is at the halfway point of its apex going up or halfway on its descent. just where is that point for it to be called when it is called.

It's called when ordinary effort is determined. While it's ideal to call it at the apex, if ordinary effort has not been established at that point, then it should not be called. 

[Velho]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

It's called when ordinary effort is determined. While it's ideal to call it at the apex, if ordinary effort has not been established at that point, then it should not be called. 

🚨 Pedantic alert because I find it fascinating 🚨

Ordinary effort for the defenders reacting to that batted ball on that play at that moment? Or ordinary effort for the average fielder on a ball batted like that with that days weather?

Extreme example, popup that an average (or below average) F4 would get easily - say mile high ball, 10 feet to their right. F4 is pissy and makes no effort, just watches it bounce. Calling IFF?