Talk:Infield fly rule

Whoever it is that keeps insisting players have to tag up on an infield fly that is touched, even if it's dropped, please cite the specific rule number and the exact quote, as I am not seeing it, and it doesn't make sense anyway. The rules state that an infield fly is like any other fly ball, except that the batter is automatically out. On any fly ball, runners who have tagged up can advance as soon as the ball is touched (not necessarily cleanly caught), and runners who have not tagged up can advance if the ball is dropped. Obviously, if it is cleanly caught, then the runners must tag up. Wahkeenah 00:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

History section

The second paragraph in the History section has nothing to do with the history of the infield fly rule. It is also unclear what it means for the "third strike rule" to be a "cousin" of this one. The paragraph should be removed. 75.48.26.31 (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I presume the "third strike rule" referred to the following situation: fewer than two outs, baserunner on 1st base, and the catcher fails to catch strike three. The special rule is that the batter is called out to prevent the catcher from intentionally dropping strike three to change what ought to be a single out (the strikeout) into a 2-6-3 double-play. The batter would not be called out if there are already two outs or if 1st base is unoccupied, since in those cases the catcher would not be able to start a double play by dropping strike three. (Note: If there are two outs, a baserunner at 1st base is forced to advance when strike three is dropped, and thus could be forced out at 2nd base. It is normally easier to put out the batter at 1st base, though.) SEppley (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know enough of the rule's history to be able to explain why baseball didn't adopt a less drastic rule? Less drastic than calling the batter out would be for the umpire to call "No Force!" to indicate the baserunners do not need to advance. The batter does not deserve to be called out when the defense fails to catch the ball. Also, the "no force" rule would be simpler for the umpires, since the call is the same regardless of whether it might turn out to be a foul ball. (The infield fly rule has two possible calls: "Infield Fly!" and "Infield Fly If Fair!") Also, it would be more exciting in the case where the ball is not caught (which is more likely at amateur levels): (1) The defense would need to work to get an out, and they might get no outs if the ball takes a bad hop. (2) Smart baserunners could arrange for the slowest runner to be the one put out. (3) Poor baserunners might stumble into a double play they should have avoided. The typical play would be for the baserunners to return to their bases while the batter runs to 1st base (the same as for the infield fly rule); then, if a fielder fails to catch the ball but manages to quickly control it after it hits the ground, the defense would put out the slower of the two runners at (or near) 1st base. (If the batter is the one who's slower, he would sacrifice himself by stopping before reaching 1st. If the baserunner at 1st base is the one who's slower, he would sacrifice himself by leaving the safety of 1st base if/when it becomes clear that the batter will reach 1st base safely.) SEppley (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Answer to question by latest editor

Here is the quote from the MLB.COM rules site (Rule 2.00, definitions-- definition of Infield Fly:

The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul

Note that this official rule does not say the player must retouch if the ball is CAUGHT. It says they must retouch (tag up) if the ball is TOUCHED. A friend of mine at work had this happen to his little league team-- the umpire called a double play when the runner on 2nd did not tag up on a dropped infield fly. The ball was thrown back to 2nd and it was a double play. I looked up the rule and I think I am right. Maybe someone can talk to a higher level ump (high school or above) or does anyone have the "Commentaries on the Rules of Baseball."? User:66.159.232.61 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the rule says runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or [they may] retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. It could be worded a little better, perhaps.

On any fly ball, whether an infield fly or otherwise, it's the same deal: the runners run at their own peril. If they are off base and the ball is caught, they can be doubled up.

The difference is when the ball is not caught; with an ordinary fly, the runners can be forced by the batter, while if it's an infield fly the batter is automatically out, so there is no force and the runners can either stay put or advance, at their peril. That taking away of the force play is the purpose of the infield fly rule.

If the runners happen to have retagged, they can advance as soon as the ball is touched, not necessarily caught. The purpose of that rule is to prevent shenanigans by the fielder, such as purposely "juggling" the ball while running it into the infield. With an ordinary fly, they would be forced by the batter. With an infield fly, they are not forced, so they can stay or go as they see fit.

If the umpire you describe called someone out for not retouching on a dropped fly ball, he was dead wrong and the victimized team should have filed a protest.

There is a tendency to think that while umpires may have bad vision, they still know the rules. Sometimes they don't, and that's where the protest option comes in. Wahkeenah 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally got time to submit the question to baseballumpires.com. They say that the runner "does not have to re-touch." So this article is correct as it stands.

This rule came up in the Braves/Mets game tonight (April 23, 2010.) Dropped infield fly, and the runner on first (Luis Castillo) did not tag up. The Braves players tried to get him out at first, but the umpires ruled the runner safe, thereby confirming what the article says. And the Braves manager, Bobby Cox, did not argue. (Meanwhile, the runner from second, Angel Pagan, managed to score while the Braves were trying to get the runner at first.) So, yes, on a dropped infield fly, the runners do NOT need to tag up. Brettalan (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

---

11-14-2007: I believe the phrase "after the ball is touched" refers only to the question of *when* the runner may advance in the case where the ball is caught. The writer above who pointed out the defensive tactic of juggling the ball before catching it has it right. The runner can advance when the juggler first touches the caught ball, or if the ball is not caught. --SEppley

• One great way to answer this is that the play for the runners is no different than for any other fly ball: If the ball is caught, the runner must tag up and can run as soon as the ball is touched; if it's not caught, the runner can go at any time without touching up. A catch starts as soon as the ball is touched by a defensive player, so that if the ball is juggled, the runner can start running even before the fielder has control. For anyone running on an infield fly rule call, the fact that the batter is out does mean that the force is off at all bases and that the runner must be tagged out regardless of if the ball was caught. Alansohn 00:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

---

11-14-2007: Instead of automatically calling the batter out in the "Infield Fly Rule" situation, wouldn't baseball and softball be purer if the force play were turned off for the baserunners instead? (The same holds in the two related situations where the batter is "undeservedly" called out: the "Intentionally Dropped Fly Ball Rule" situation and the "Dropped Third Strike With Runner At First Base And Fewer Than 2 Outs" situation.) Instead of calling "Batter is out!" the umpire would call "No force!" In these 3 situations, under the alternative rule I'm proposing, the baserunners would be forced to advance only if the batter reaches first base safely. This would give the batter a tactical choice: Choice 1: The batter can refuse to reach first base, sacrificing him/herself to keep the other runners from being forced. The defense can easily put him/her out by possessing the ball at first base, but would be unable to put out any other runner smart enough to stay on (or return to) his/her original base. Choice 2: The batter can try to reach first base safely. This choice would be sensible if the other runners try to advance, which would be smart if it appears to them that the defense will not quickly gain control of the uncaught ball. Given choice 1, the result would be the same as under the existing rules; the batter is out and the other runners may try to advance at risk of being put out too. Given choice 2, the defense might score no outs, which is purer than calling an automatic and possibly undeserved out on the batter. --SEppley

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Invoking the rule

There was a dispute about whether the rule was automatic or had to be called. One side felt the "infield fly rule" was automatically invoked, while the other side felt it had to be called by an umpire before it would be applied. I need it in writing.Petercoe (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the rule must be invoked by the umpire. In the 5th game of the recent Rays vs Phillies World Series, the rule was not invoked although there were runners on First and Second bases with less than 2 outs and a pop fly to the second baseman. After some confusion among the commentators and team managers, the explanation given was that because of the extreme weather conditions that existed, in the umpire's judgment, the ball was not necessarily catchable by an infielder with ORDINARY EFFORT (emphasis mine). 72.81.56.133 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Ordinary effort" clause has always been present. In youth ball, I have heard umpires justify not invoking the Infield Fly Rule based on a judgment that none of the infielders could make the play with ordinary effort. The rule has always had to be invoked by an umpire, who has to make the decision as to the applicability of the rule based on circumstances. I have added the recent case as an example in the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

foul ball

What if a fair pop up is hit and the umpire properly calls "infield fly" and the ball is not caught or touched before it rolls foul before it reaches a base? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.123.77 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just a foul ball and the batter is not out. By the way, it's NOT proper for the umpire to call "Infield Fly" in this situation. The proper call when there's a chance the ball may become foul is "Infield Fly If Fair!" SEppley (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question/Clarification: "The rule"

The Rule section currently ends with `On the other hand, if "infield fly" is called and the ball hits the ground without being caught, the batter is still out, and there is no force. However, the runners do not need to tag up to advance`

This does not differ from a standard fly ball. If a ball is dropped/falls the runners do not need to tag to advance for ANY flyball. The point of the rule is they do not need to advance, not that they do not need to tag. Perhaps rephrase as "However, no advancement is required of the runners, as there is no longer a forceout situation at the next base. The runner may safely choose a) to not advance on an uncaught ball b) to advance directly on an uncaught ball or c) to tag up on either a caught or uncaught ball."

May need to be rephrased/clarified better than I can say it, but the way it is phrased now is at best ambiguous.

--Pagelm (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be a fly ball?

I was at a triple-A baseball game once when the infield fly rule seemed to be invoked on a line drive. There were runners on 1st and 2nd with one out, and the batter hit a line drive directly at the second baseman, who "dropped" the ball on the ground, picked it up, and threw over to 2nd and then to 1st for seemingly the inning-ending double play. It certainly seemed that he dropped the ball intentionally to allow for a double play, similarly to an infield fly situation. The umpires conferred and ultimately called just the batter out, and the runners remained on 1st and 2nd.

Was this the right call? Can the infield fly also apply to line-drives by the same reasoning? 140.251.125.50 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Matt

As a former Pee Wee umpire, I'd be very hesitant to call "infield fly" on an obvious line drive. But as the article points out (and as confirmed by the Rulebook), it's a judgment call, so it's up to the plate umpire to make the determination, and once determined, it's not subject to appeal. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The infield fly cannot be invoked by the umpire for either a line drive or on a bunt that happend to pop up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goofyhorse (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It was right to call the batter out, but the relevant rule is not the infield fly rule. The relevant rule is the "intentionally dropped fly ball" rule (which applies to line drives too). For this rule to be invoked, there must be fewer than two outs, a baserunner at 1st base, and the fielder must touch the fly ball and, in the umpire's judgment, intentionally not catch it. Similar to the infield fly rule and the "dropped third strike with runner at 1st base and fewer than two outs" rule, the purpose of these three special rules is to prevent the defense from changing what ought to be a single out (the batter) into an "undeserved" double play or triple play. Unlike the infield fly rule and dropped third strike rule, in this case the umpire is expected to judge the fielder's intention. (There aren't many rules that require the umpire to judge intention, since few humans have the ability to read minds.) SEppley (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Infield fly rule and legal theory - "Widely cited"?

The article suggests that William Stevens's article is one of the most "widely cited" articles in legal history, with "numerous" references in decisions.

A westlaw key-cite of the article (123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1474) shows only 81 total references: 7 citations in cases; 72 citations in secondary sources; and 2 appellate briefs. Respectable, for a student Note, but certainly not a "widely cited" legal article with "numerous" references in decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.121 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Wild Card Game

Game is officially under protest - per recent edits, is the game subject to an official review or not? My understanding from the TV commentary was that it is, and the call could be overturned. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable - I was just informed on another board that the protest has already been denied by the MLB, though I don't have an official source. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While the odds are probably not very high that anything will be overturned, the game was protested by Atlanta. I would guess there is a minor chance something unforeseen could happen. AutomaticStrikeout 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If the protest really was denied, I'd assume official confirmation will come soon. AutomaticStrikeout 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll add it back to the page about the Wild Card Game, if someone hasn't already. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They just stated on TBS that the protest was officially denied. Now I just need to find a source... unless the broadcast was sufficient for the time being? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic comment
Should we consider again the need to remove "judgement calls" from umpiring in this age of instant replay? Wstorm (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fan reaction - Noteworthy?

I believe that the fan reaction was noteworthy in that it was in direct response to the application of the rule. As a sidenote, regardless, please do not remove copyright information from the file page for the image, especially if the image itself is not removed from the article. Actually, regardless. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I believe also the fan reaction was noteworthy and deserves to be mentioned, though I have a minor issue with the claim that the game was delayed 20 minutes as a result of the fan reaction. The cited source says 19 minutes but several sources state only 15 minutes. [1] and [2] for example. Remember that some time went by before the fans realized what was the decision on the field and significant time passed while Braves manager Fredi González argued his case before the rain of debris started actually coming in. So I believe 15 minutes of delay at the most was a direct result of the fan reaction. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The article originally stated 19 and was edited to say 20 later, since I posted this message. 15 sounds right to me based on your logic, but isn't the delay time determined officially by the people at the park? ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and not by us I think is your point? My above logic is also borderline original research, but we can still state the game was delayed 19 or 20 minutes without specifcally saying or implying that the entire duration of the delay was directly caused by fan response. The wording of some of the articles on the play has better wording in least this regard even if it is unintentional. For example we could say "After the call, the game was delayed 19 minutes as Braves fans littered the field with debris." Almost says the same thing without implying too much. But hey, now that I think about it it's really not that big of deal. As long as the statement is sourced properly is the main thing I guess. Also I removed the duplicate copy of my earlier comment. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like good wording to me. I'll see about editing it... ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I also tweaked the image caption. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic comment
Isn't the rule stupid anyway? Why should a team get an automatic out without even being required to catch the ball? Makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Page views

Not really a point to improve the article here, but thought I would mention the page view stats for this page jumped from a couple hundred per day to well over 300,000 yesterday. [3]. To be honest, I expected it to be far more than that. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)