Infield Fly No Call Cubs-Brewers

[grayhawk]

8 minutes ago, Velho said:

Or ordinary effort for the average fielder at that level on a ball batted like that with that days weather?

This one.

[The Man in Blue]

3 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. 

Being me . . . the rule says nothing about "when ordinary effort is determined."  It says the ball " . . . can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort . . . "

What the fielder actually does and when he does it is not a factor.

[dumbdumb]

so when the ball goes up, just have the whole infield yell at each (like the walton family good night), i can't find/see it, i can't find/see it, while stumbling around,  then when it drops, grab the ball and start a double play. acting school at its best other than jeters, it hit me, it hit me, hand fake out.

i think the old days did it better and this would have been IFF and nobody would have argued. just the batter being called out and runners staying at their base (unless they wanted to gamble on the fielder not catching the ball), and you could use each players fielding abilities rather than the average, so you had to know your personnel. Ozzie Smith got a wider birth for ordinary effort versus the average player ordinary effort. what was ordinary for the Oz, would not have been ordinary for others and that was taken into account. and i believe what i just put above was not written in the book but that was how the old guy that went to the ump school explained it back then. you only had ordinary effort, there was nothing about of the average player at their level part. 

oh well the mlb response. and the supervisor in the article won a NASO award if i remember right from reading back in the day articles here and there.

https://www.mlb.com/news/why-the-infield-fly-rule-was-not-called-for-cubs-brewers-in-nlds

[jimurrayalterego]

4 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

so when the ball goes up, just have the whole infield yell at each (like the walton family good night), i can't find/see it, i can't find/see it, while stumbling around,  then when it drops, grab the ball and start a double play. acting school at its best other than jeters, it hit me, it hit me, hand fake out.

i think the old days did it better and this would have been IFF and nobody would have argued. just the batter being called out and runners staying at their base (unless they wanted to gamble on the fielder not catching the ball), and you could use each players fielding abilities rather than the average, so you had to know your personnel. Ozzie Smith got a wider birth for ordinary effort versus the average player ordinary effort. what was ordinary for the Oz, would not have been ordinary for others and that was taken into account. and i believe what i just put above was not written in the book but that was how the old guy that went to the ump school explained it back then. you only had ordinary effort, there was nothing about of the average player at their level part. 

oh well the mlb response. and the supervisor in the article won a NASO award if i remember right from reading back in the day articles here and there.

https://www.mlb.com/news/why-the-infield-fly-rule-was-not-called-for-cubs-brewers-in-nlds

“It could be wind, it could be the sun, could be just misjudging it, but we don't make that determination until it reaches the apex. That's why we wait."

Larry needs to talk to the guys that affirmed the sun is not a factor in the 2021 MLBUM.

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Larry needs to talk to the guys that affirmed the sun is not a factor in the 2021 MLBUM.

I'm here for him!  😇

[Velho]

IFF from last night. U2 is only one in frame so others may have grabbed it but, imo, U2 solely looking for F6 to have a good play with ordinary effort - which is in line with the hearsay from Counsell.

All discussion above to the contrary, that's how I see it called and almost always trained.

Whether it's a misinterpretation of the rule or done to avoid drama, idk.

 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

28 minutes ago, Velho said:

IFF from last night. U2 is only one in frame so others may have grabbed it but, imo, U2 solely looking for F6 to have a good play with ordinary effort - which is in line with the hearsay from Counsell.

All discussion above to the contrary, that's how I see it called and almost always trained.

Whether it's a misinterpretation of the rule or done to avoid drama, idk.

 

 

IFF if fair called here: https://www.mlb.com/video/ramon-laureano-pops-out-to-first-baseman-vladimir-guerrero-jr-in-foul-ter?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share

IFF called as F5 has ordinary effort to get there: https://www.mlb.com/video/josh-donaldson-pops-out-to-third-baseman-evan-longoria-on-the-infield-fly-rule?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share

 

[Velho]

 

23 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

IFF if fair called here: https://www.mlb.com/video/ramon-laureano-pops-out-to-first-baseman-vladimir-guerrero-jr-in-foul-ter?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share

IFF called as F5 has ordinary effort to get there: https://www.mlb.com/video/josh-donaldson-pops-out-to-third-baseman-evan-longoria-on-the-infield-fly-rule?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share

Thanks. Good examples of fielder still on the move. Slowly and obviously dialed in by Vladdy Jr. At a decent pace on second one.

Since we're trained to watch the fielders and not the ball, it's a fine line.

[BLWizzRanger]

I once had a OHC (freshman team) come out and complain that I called an IFF on his BR.  I told him that I call it on the flight of the ball and the expected effort on the fielder.  I couldn't consider the 'Jeffy' path the fielder took to the ball...

 

he said 'Thank you' and returned to his dugout without further comment.

[grayhawk]

21 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Being me . . . the rule says nothing about "when ordinary effort is determined."  It says the ball " . . . can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort . . . "

What the fielder actually does and when he does it is not a factor.

I think the umpires in the play that started this thread would disagree with you. As do I.

[Velho]

22 hours ago, grayhawk said:

22 hours ago, Velho said:

Or ordinary effort for the average fielder at that level on a ball batted like that with that days weather?

This one.

 

42 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

22 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

What the fielder actually does and when he does it is not a factor.

I think the umpires in the play that started this thread would disagree with you. As do I.

 

On the face of it, these two things feel inconsistent to me.

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, Velho said:

 

 

On the face of it, these two things feel inconsistent to me.

 

They are 100% consistent. Ordinary effort for a 10 year old is worlds apart from ordinary effort of an MLB player, but you still have to determine if an infielder, based on the average ability for a player at that level, could make the catch on THAT fly ball, under THOSE conditions.

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

They are 100% consistent. Ordinary effort for a 10 year old is worlds apart from ordinary effort of an MLB player, but you still have to determine if an infielder, based on the average ability for a player at that level, could make the catch on THAT fly ball, under THOSE conditions.

 But nothing in that statement say they have to make that effort, just that it needs to judged ordinary effort if they did.

I see my statement you agreed with as saying it doesn’t matter if the fielder exerts the effort or not but rather solely judging that hit as ordinary for that level. (Which is MITB’s position)

I interpret your response to MITB as you are looking at the fielder efforting is a consideration in making the judgment of ordinary or not.

To go extreme scenario that puts the differing views to the test: a level appropriate no brainer to be caught pop-up but nobody moves and the ball falls untouched. You calling IFF?

[johnnyg08]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

Since we're trained to watch the fielders and not the ball, it's a fine line.

That's what happened in the 2nd video I posted. They watched the fielder "camp" but the camp was no where near the ball. I do think that ball was ordinary effort by an MLB infielder though

[grayhawk]

52 minutes ago, Velho said:

To go extreme scenario that puts the differing views to the test: a level appropriate no brainer to be caught pop-up but nobody moves and the ball falls untouched. You calling IFF?

I umpire games on this planet.

[Velho]

1 minute ago, grayhawk said:

56 minutes ago, Velho said:

To go extreme scenario that puts the differing views to the test: a level appropriate no brainer to be caught pop-up but nobody moves and the ball falls untouched. You calling IFF?

I umpire games on this planet.

Ha! And you don't do the lower levels where this (directionally) does happen...

But it goes to the point of the rule being solely as batted vs some consideration given to the fielders actions.

[grayhawk]

25 minutes ago, Velho said:

Ha! And you don't do the lower levels where this (directionally) does happen...

Then that goes to ordinary effort at that level. If they're young enough to not know to move to the ball, then it's not an IFF.
 

27 minutes ago, Velho said:

But it goes to the point of the rule being solely as batted vs some consideration given to the fielders actions.

Again, the OP shows that 5 1/2 MLB umpires felt that the fielders' actions mattered much more than the fact that a high fly ball was hit in the infield.

[dumbdumb]

18 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

“It could be wind, it could be the sun, could be just misjudging it, but we don't make that determination until it reaches the apex. That's why we wait."

Larry needs to talk to the guys that affirmed the sun is not a factor in the 2021 MLBUM.

dang. you use to have all the latest MLBUM's. what happened to 22,23,24,25  and especially 26.

[johnnyg08]

3 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

dang. you use to have all the latest MLBUM's. what happened to 22,23,24,25  and especially 26.

Yeah, they're gate keeping again. I wish it wasn't the case. The publish the OBR on their site...why couldn't they do the manual? 

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Yeah, they're gate keeping again. I wish it wasn't the case. The publish the OBR on their site...why couldn't they do the manual? 

Which is precisely why anything in the MLBUM should never be exercised anywhere other than MLB.

Gatekeeping and expecting a gatekept standard to be exercised by amateur umpires are not compatible.  Looking especially sideways at you, NFHS.

[jimurrayalterego]

On 10/14/2025 at 9:18 PM, grayhawk said:

under THOSE conditions.

Those conditions do not include the sun or natural darkness. To paraphrase an earlier PBUC interp, losing the ball above the lights in the dark sky is still ordinary effort. Another paraphrase from older PBUC is "when the infielder would ordinarily be able to catch it." Absent losing the ball in the sun F3 could have caught it as could have some MLB F1s and F2s. The purpose of the rule is to prevent an "undeserved DP". An undeserved  DP did not happen here because of Cubs incompetence and Brewers alert baserunning. We dodged a bullet. If the Cubs covered and the Brewers runners hesitated with a DP happening would the umps call the IFF after the fact which is an allowable and suggested call when an undeserved DP resulted from a non call? Ordinary effort is not being camped under the ball at the apex. We have many calls where the infieder has to run/jog but does not have to catch it still in the act of running.