The infield Fly

[mth123]

I thought maybe the discussion concerning the IF fly call would be better suited for its own thread. Perhaps a mod could move the posts in the scoreboard thread here and free the thread from being dominated by discussion of the call.

To add some variety to the discussion, let me ask this of the board:

Why exactly do we need a rule to protect the runners from a double play? We don't have a rule to protect them on a ground ball. If a batter hits a weak pop fly in that situation, it seems like a pretty massive fail to me, so why would rewarding the defense with a DP be so horrible?

[powersackers]

Yes the batter failed. That's why he's automatically out. But the rule protects runners from having to do something (run) they otherwise would choose not to do, or at least choose to do at their own risk.

[757690]

I completely agree with Mth123. With runners in base, don't pop the ball up, If you do, it can become a double play. We should have rules that punish players for popping the ball up with runners on base. It also makes the game more interesting, as fielders and runners would have to decide what to do in each situation. I say get rid of it.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by powersackers

Yes the batter failed. That's why he's automatically out. But the rule protects runners from having to do something (run) they otherwise would choose not to do, or at least choose to do at their own risk.

I understand what the rule does, I want to know opinions as to why that's preferable to rewarding the defense with a DP. Why protect the runners? Why not give the defense an option?

[reds1869]

I think the infield fly rule is 100% necessary. Repealing the rule would lead to a double play on most infield pop ups. The defense let's it drop and they get a double play ; they catch it and they double up the runner who strayed too far. The rule wasn't the problem last night; the application was. Repealing a rule based on one misapplication is a knee jerk reaction.

[oneupper]

I get where you're coming from, mth123. Repealing the rule would certainly make pop flies very exciting plays, where fielders and runners have to make spit-second decisions (catch/don't catch, run/don't run).
Not sure whether it would be better or worse, but certainly not routine!

[mth123]

Originally Posted by reds1869

I think the infield fly rule is 100% necessary. Repealing the rule would lead to a double play on most infield pop ups. The defense let's it drop and they get a double play ; they catch it and they double up the runner who strayed too far. The rule wasn't the problem last night; the application was. Repealing a rule based on one misapplication is a knee jerk reaction.

The ability for the defense to put the runner in a no win situation is obvious. I don't think anyone on this board really needs that explained to them.

And while the primary reason for this thread was because the discussion was cluttering the scoreboard thread and made it unreadable, the question posed is not about misapplication of the rule or really about last night's game at all (where the losing team deserved to lose for making errors and not hitting with runners in scoring position and certainly should not have been bailed out by hitting a pop fly with men on base).

My question is why the defense shouldn't get a DP on a pop-up. What makes getting a double play on a ground ball such a great job by the pitcher but on a pop-up the runners are protected? Seems to me that in most situations getting a pop fly is an even better outcome than getting a ground ball (which have a better chance of going through) so why limit the reward for the defense doing its job and limit the penalty for the offense failing? The whole concept seems misguided to me.

[PuffyPig]

Without the rule would lead to a lot of bunting when you have two runners on, as teams wouldn't want to risk the now increased chance of a double play.

Put your hand up if you want more bunting.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by oneupper

I get where you're coming from, mth123. Repealing the rule would certainly make pop flies very exciting plays, where fielders and runners have to make spit-second decisions (catch/don't catch, run/don't run).
Not sure whether it would be better or worse, but certainly not routine!

More than that, it would make staying out of the situation of extreme importance. Getting the runner from second to third would be much more important. Maybe they would need to steal more or be more aggressive going first to third. Pop flies are bad.

Say you are a reliever coming in with runners on first and second and you induce a pop-up, why should the reward be limited to one out? If you induced a ground ball you'd have a chance to get two outs, why only one for a pop fly? A pop-up is a massive fail. Don't want to hit intro a DP there? Get the ball out of the IF.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by mth123

The ability for the defense to put the runner in a no win situation is obvious. I don't think anyone on this board really needs that explained to them.

And while the primary reason for this thread was because the discussion was cluttering the scoreboard thread and made it unreadable, the question posed is not about misapplication of the rule or really about last night's game at all (where the losing team deserved to lose for making errors and not hitting with runners in scoring position and certainly should not have been bailed out by hitting a pop fly with men on base).

My question is why the defense shouldn't get a DP on a pop-up. What makes getting a double play on a ground ball such a great job by the pitcher but on a pop-up the runners are protected? Seems to me that in most situations getting a pop fly is an even better outcome than getting a ground ball (which have a better chance of going through) so why limit the reward for the defense doing its job and limit the penalty for the offense failing? The whole concept seems misguided to me.

Your ideas on this are too revolutionary for me. It's just expected that runners can run on a grounder but not on a pop up. It's just the nature of the game, which could be changed, but I'm happy with the current concept.

But I've noticed over the years that INFIELD fly has become a misnomer. Umpires call infield fly on pop ups into the shorter part of the outfield.

Last night's fly ball was something that Holliday could have fielded. It wasn't an INFIELD fly at all, using the normal definition of the word.

What you MAY see is a new interpretation of the infield fly rule, limiting it to balls popped up within a very specific area - the infield and maybe a few feet beyond.

I agree with mth to this extent - the infield fly rule should be narrowly interpreted. If you call infield fly on virtually anything hit in the air, you've diminished the game by providing too broadly for an automatic out.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Without the rule would lead to a lot of bunting when you have two runners on, as teams wouldn't want to risk the now increased chance of a double play.

Put your hand up if you want more bunting.

I think you are right and I'm not a big fan of bunting, but it may lead to more attempts at a double steal or having the lead runner try to take third.

I'm not really strongly for the rule being repealed (but I wouldn't be strongly opposed either), just wanted to see the discussion.

Now I'm the one getting redundant so I'll leave it to the rest of you to discuss or let the topic die.

[BCubb2003]

Seems like "ordinary effort" was the key to last night's call. The infielder was pretty much standing under the ball (making it an infield fly with ordinary effort), then gave way, thinking the outfielder had it. If the same infielder had let it drop to try for a double play, would it have been more obviously an infield fly?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

Seems like "ordinary effort" was the key to last night's call. The infielder was pretty much standing under the ball (making it an infield fly with ordinary effort), then gave way, thinking the outfielder had it. If the same infielder had let it drop to try for a double play, would it have been more obviously an infield fly?

He was so far behind the dirt area, I'd be hard pressed to call it "infield".

[BCubb2003]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

He was so far behind the dirt area, I'd be hard pressed to call it "infield".

If the infielder is standing under it, it qualifies as infield, is the umpire's reasoning, I suppose. Of course, it depends on whether the infielder has the range of Brandon Phillips or Miguel Cairo.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

If the infielder is standing under it, it qualifies as infield, is the umpire's reasoning, I suppose. Of course, it depends on whether the infielder has the range of Brandon Phillips or Miguel Cairo.

That's why it was a judgement call all the way and I disagree with the ump's judgement. I saw it as the LF's play. Moreover, there was no reason to call the INF Fly Rule because of how deep it was. It was too far away to double up two guys. Runners were going "halfway" because there was no reason to try to tag up on such a shallow fly. Bottomline: Poor, poor judgement on the part of the ump but not something that's "protestable".