Cubs Wanted Infield Fly Rule on Dropped Ball in Chicago

[Lindsay]

Cubs manager Craig Counsell sought an infield fly rule call after Chicago 1B Michael Busch lost track of Brewers batter William Contreras' fly ball in the sun, allowing Milwaukee to load the bases in the 1st inning of NLDS Game 3.

With runners on first and second base with one out, Contreras hit a high fly ball in front of first base, on the infield.

The Official Baseball Rules defines the infield fly: "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 themself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule."

Accordingly, the infield fly rule has four criteria: 1) first and second (or bases loaded), 2) before two are out, 3) the batter hits a fair fly ball (not line drive nor bunt), 4) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.

The first three criteria were plainly satisfied, which leaves us with #4: the ordinary effort criterion.

We thus turn to OBR's definition of that term: "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."

Because F3 Busch, the fielder we would expect to make a play on this ball, lost the ball in the afternoon Chicago sun, the "weather conditions" provision of the ordinary effort definition gets triggered: 1B Umpire Lance Barksdale, looking directly at Busch, ruled that this particular weather condition turned Busch's potential catch from requiring effort that was ordinary into extraordinary.

Umpires therefore ruled ordinary effort was not satisfied, which is why an infield fly was not declared.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Cubs campaign for infield fly call after uncaught ball, but the rule couldn't save them

View the full article

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Lindsay said:

 

Cubs manager Craig Counsell sought an infield fly rule call after Chicago 1B Michael Busch lost track of Brewers batter William Contreras' fly ball in the sun, allowing Milwaukee to load the bases in the 1st inning of NLDS Game 3.

 

With runners on first and second base with one out, Contreras hit a high fly ball in front of first base, on the infield.

 

The Official Baseball Rules defines the infield fly: "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 themself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule."

 

Accordingly, the infield fly rule has four criteria: 1) first and second (or bases loaded), 2) before two are out, 3) the batter hits a fair fly ball (not line drive nor bunt), 4) that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.

 

The first three criteria were plainly satisfied, which leaves us with #4: the ordinary effort criterion.

 

We thus turn to OBR's definition of that term: "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."

 

Because F3 Busch, the fielder we would expect to make a play on this ball, lost the ball in the afternoon Chicago sun, the "weather conditions" provision of the ordinary effort definition gets triggered: 1B Umpire Lance Barksdale, looking directly at Busch, ruled that this particular weather condition turned Busch's potential catch from requiring effort that was ordinary into extraordinary.

 

Umpires therefore ruled ordinary effort was not satisfied, which is why an infield fly was not declared.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Cubs campaign for infield fly call after uncaught ball, but the rule couldn't save them

View the full article

MLB did not consider the sun to be part of the weather conditions back when Jaska-Roder interps were authoritive: "When determining ordinary effort, wind is a factor, sun in a fielder's eyes and natural darkness are not". We don't know if that's Lindsey's opinion or she has knowledge of an updated MLB interp.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Lindsay said:

Cubs manager Craig Counsell sought an infield fly rule call after Chicago 1B Michael Busch lost track of Brewers batter William Contreras' fly ball in the sun, allowing Milwaukee to load the bases in the 1st inning of NLDS Game 3.

As comes up often, if / since there is ambiguity of the rule, look to the purpose of the rule.

Defenses wanting IFF called always makes me laugh.

[jimurrayalterego]

9 minutes ago, Velho said:

As comes up often, if / since there is ambiguity of the rule, look to the purpose of the rule.

Defenses wanting IFF called always makes me laugh.

Yes, if the Cubs had handled it correctly there would be at least one and maybe two outs and the no call would be much more controversial on the offensive side. But would those umps have used the no call in error interp and negate a DP?

[beerguy55]

On 10/9/2025 at 5:19 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

Yes, if the Cubs had handled it correctly there would be at least one and maybe two outs and the no call would be much more controversial on the offensive side. But would those umps have used the no call in error interp and negate a DP?

The funny part for me is even if IFF was called both the runners still advance, because of F6.

It does seem common sense in hindsight...there's no reason for F6 to vacate and run further than anyone else to try to make the catch - if IFF is called nobody needs to make the catch - if he stays put, he prevents R1 from advancing - whether caught or not.  He also prevents R2 from getting too far off the base, making it harder for him to advance.  No fielder near second base allowed R2 to get a head start.   If IFF is not called, if F6 stays put, they have an easy force if the catch isn't made. Either an easy force to third, because R2 didn't get a head start...or to second...getting both would be difficult, but not impossible.

On 10/9/2025 at 5:00 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

MLB did not consider the sun to be part of the weather conditions back when Jaska-Roder interps were authoritive: "When determining ordinary effort, wind is a factor, sun in a fielder's eyes and natural darkness are not". We don't know if that's Lindsey's opinion or she has knowledge of an updated MLB interp.

It's a weird interpretation - sun/darkness SHOULD be factors in determining ordinary effort; if you can't see the ball, it would require extraordinary effort to catch it - me catching a flyball is considerably more ho-hum than Stevie Wonder catching a fly ball.

However, it would create some problems:

1. It would be easy to pretend you can't see the ball

2. The sun's effect on the infielders might be impossible for the umpires to judge...the sun in the eyes of a player may not be in the eyes of any of the umpires, or vice versa. In this play it appears F3 couldn't see it, but F2/4/6 all could. It's reasonable to conclude that the two right side umpires lost the ball, the other four likely saw it.   I'm guessing it's pretty difficult for U1 to make an assessment at the ball's apex when he can't see the ball at its apex.

  A high fly ball at night that goes above the lights and gets lost against the sky may be easier for everyone to gauge consistently.

 

On a side note - does anyone think the RF umpire is about to point for IFF?  It looks to me he's just shading the sun from his eyes.