Series of Infield Fly or Potential Infield Fly Plays
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Property of MLB Advanced Media. Used for educational and discussion purposes under Fair Use.
Clip 1: 0:00 - 1:25
Clip 2: 1:26
Clip 3: 4:32
Clip 4: 5:39
Clip 5: 6:27
Clip 6: 7:14
Clip 7: 9:22
Clip 8: 10:05
Seems to me that the umpires messed it up in the third clip (Pirates - Cardinals). They called the batter out on the Infield Fly Rule. The ball was not caught. The runners both advanced. The throw went to second base but the fielder did not tag the runner. So to me it seems the runner at second base should have been called safe. The video cuts off but it seems like for some reason the umpires changed the call at second base to out. Not sure why.
you are 100 % correct the ump even signaled safe when the runner who was off the bag quickly stepped back on as the fielder was attempting to tag him. There was no reason for that runner to be called out
@@2AForever-wi8yj I think your video is just a perfect example of how confusing the infield fly rule is to even the professionals that play the game. I think it happens just seldom enough for a lot of people to be confused about it. It's easy to understand when you're reading up on it, but if you haven't been studying the rule recently and a year has passed since the last time you familiarized yourself with the rule or have been in a situation where it is applicable, you simply forget all the ins and outs. Do I need to run, do I not need to, etc.?
Of course, there is no excuse for an entire crew of professional umpires with all the time they need to sort through what happened to get this one so wrong. I would hope there is some other factor involved we aren't aware of because the clip was cut short.
I don’t know either, unless he was overruled on the tag play getting back.
At 1/4 speed, you can clearly see the runner at 2nd base was tagged before stepping back onto 2nd base. If you watch carefully, you can also see that after the initial safe call, the 2nd base umpire looked to the 1st base umpire and then called the runner out. I am thinking that he asked for help on the tag, as the 1st base umpire may have had a better view. However, I am not certain of this either, and in my opinion, it is a crappy mechanic if he did it that way. I could see it if the umpires got together and discussed it, which in a confusing situation as this, maybe they did and the video just didn't show it.
Bottom line is that "Infield Fly" was called, so therefore the force at 2nd base on the dropped pop-up was no longer possible. The tag at 2nd base made the 3rd out.
Mechanically, the umpires did a poor job here, in my opinion.
On the flip side, it amazes me how many seasoned ball players have no idea how the "Infield Fly" works. I guess getting paid millions of dollars to perform a job does not ensure that you know the rules and restrictions surrounding what you do. (LOL)
@@stevebesaw1094 you might be right there... it does look like he might have tagged him just before his foot hit the bag, really impossible to tell from this angle and also pretty impossible from where U2 was. but U2 does call him "safe" immediately, and when he comes into the diamond he appears to ask if it was an infield fly and then rules the runner out which makes no sense (why would he ask about what he himself signaled, and why would that make the runner out?); perhaps he's actually asking U1 if he had a good tag... maybe it's just cover for U2 changing his call - he ruled safe and immediately realized he kicked the call so he's just looking for justification to change it.
It is so funny watching the MLB players having no idea WTF is going on!
So in the youth game everyone knew what to do. No force, need to tag. But the professional players are clueless? LOL
Of course, the professionals are signed because of their physical talent, not their smarts. Some professionals learn as their career progresses, some don't. I learned this as a coach of youth baseball. When the kids were young, I could understand them making mental mistakes and expected these mistakes to be fewer as the players got older. However, some kids would continue to make the same mistakes as they got older.
@@thomaswolf723 Worst comment ever...smh. Everything about this comment is so wrong.
1. The IF fly rule is one of the most confusing rules in baseball. 2. Sometimes it's hard for MLBers in stadiums to hear the ump yell IF fly(still not an excuse). 3. All MLBers fall asleep from time to time. Happens to the "smartest" players. Especially when you play 252 innings a month for 6 months straight. I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of Mlbers still don't understand this rule completely- it doesnt mean they're not smart players. It's a judgement call on the umpires part to call it, players miss the call frequently. Kids make this error just as much, if more than pros. The best way to avoid this is tohave a heads up base coach always reminding the baserunners (when it's less than 2 outs, runners on 1,2 or loaded) to always look out for the umpire to yell IF Fly in that situation and that it's the runner's discretion. MLBers lolligag things frequently, doesnt mean theyre clueless.
Clips 7 and 8 are automatically no IFF on the grounds of no R2, though it doesn't matter to either play. On clip 7, R1 is out on the tag either way; on clip 8, the ball was caught.
I'd also avoid an IFF call on clip 6, as similar plays have been called no IFF in the past.
(As a sidenote, why is R1 out in clip 3? IFF called, ball not caught, and he doesn't appear to have been tagged while off the base. At 4:46, F4 attempts a tag, but it appears R1 returns to the base in time. Is this just a case of a bad call on the tag attempt?)
I think that baseball fans should watch this video. Most fans played the game as a youth and they think that they understand the rules, including the infield fly rule. Believe me, as a former umpire, they don't.
The second call, I allow the run because the catcher blocked the plate without the ball. I coach my guys they HAVE to set up on the fair corner (on the balls of their feet) until they have the ball in mitt. In at least two other plays the infielder had to turn his back to home plate. As I personally defined it for making the call or not, turning your back to the play automatically exceeded "normal" effort and therefore no infield fly.
Even big league players have to remember....Stay on Base for any infield fly....rule on or not...ball caught or not! Unless theysee a good opportunity to advance....eg ball thrown away
happened to watch clip 2, the AABC game again and noticed something I'd previously paid no attention to: clear obstruction by the catcher, blocking the path to the plate without possession of the ball. R3 missed the plate only because he had to run/slide around the catcher in the baseline. R3 should've been awarded home on Type 1/A obstruction.
also the umpires called the Infield Fly too soon, I'm not sure it was a proper call because F6 was never settling under it... judgment of course, but "not ordinary effort" would be valid
finally PU was horribly out of position on the play at the plate; he saw the slide and the tag just fine, but if he was where he was supposed to be he might've had a better look at the obstruction
Yes Dave, I was thinking the same thing on the umpire's position on the play at home. I also think he got lucky on the call. There was no way he was looking from a position to see that the runner missed the plate. I also agree that the umpire crew called that IFR a little too quickly.
I have to disagree on the obstruction. The catcher did not block the runner's path. He actually set up in front of the plate with his left foot touching it. That's clearly set up for a swipe tag. When the throw came in high he moved to catch the ball which is allowed, and still wasn't blocking the path of the runner. The runner had a clear path to the plate the entire way.
I have watched this video many times and I too had not paid any attention to the possible obstruction in the AABC game. But I just re-watched it and it does also seem like clear obstruction to me. The catcher is blocking the path to the plate with possession of the ball.
People say the inflied fly rule is too hard and stupid....well the clip at 7:15 with the A's shows you exactly why it exists without it every infield fly with two runners on would be a double play. On the youth baseball one this is exactly why I teach all my runners to go fast, slide hard and as late as possible feet first he would have easily been safe.
Am I missing something with that last clip? There was no IFF potential on that one.
You're right!
That's the point; you always have to check for R1/R2 before you can call IFF.
I guessed coming in that there would be at least one "no R2" play, because this type of quiz would obviously try to trick us that way.
or R1/R2/R3 and less than 2 outs
the *situation* is what is sometimes called "the _other_ infield fly rule": with a runner on 1st base with less than 2 outs, if the infielder intentionally drops the ball in order to get a double play or get R1 instead of the batter out, the ball is dead and the batter-runner is out; other runners return to the base occupied at time of pitch. However, the video is an example of how to avoid getting that call - the fielder lets the ball drop untouched, then picks it up and gets the double play. The rule is only invoked if the fielder touches the ball to control it and then lets it drop on purpose; if he doesn't touch it, then the rule cannot be invoked. In other words, the play is an example of very heads up fielding. Perhaps it doesn't belong in an IFR play video, but it's very much IFR-adjacent. (though admittedly it *only* applies if IFR is NOT called; so it can be called in an IFR situation, but only on a bunt or line drive... if it's a fly/pop-up then the normal IFR should be called)
the usual defense against this sort of trickery is for the batter to run a hard 90, and it's almost impossible to get 2 on this kind of play. but if the batter walks a lazy 30 then jogs a weak 60, bad things shall befall him.
1:15 Infield Fly or not; What was that runner on first thinking to make his move just as the opponent picks up the ball right next to him?
He doesn't even run at full speed either. O.o
The clips at 9:23 and 10:22 are incorrect. There was only one runner who was on first base. In such a situation, the infield fly rule cannot be in effect.
Having umpired baseball and softball for 38 years, I've had my share of calling (or NOT calling) the Infield Fly Rule.
Actually, it is a misnomer as it has NOTHING to do with the infield itself - it is the INFIELDER. If he/she can catch the batted ball "with ordinary effort" (and the baserunners situations & number of outs are in effect), the infield fly shall be called/signaled by the umpires.
The ball is LIVE and baserunners advance at their own risk.
and of course don't forget the infielder doesn't actually have to be the one that tries to catch the ball. as long as an infielder *could* catch the ball, it can be an outfielder who actually first touches/catches the ball. this applies even if an outfielder is the one settling under the ball when IFF is called, as long as an infielder is there as well. This most often seems to happen on a high pop-up behind 2B - F4 or F6 have an "ordinary effort" play on the ball, but F8 is charging in calls them off. (but you're right - infieldER is the key to the call, not infield)
I'm pretty new to baseball. The crowd always seems super suprised and confused. Is this rule not well known or kinda rare?
If you read the rule it's simple. The problem starts with people that don't understand the game speak on rules that they know nothing about how to apply them to the game! The key word in the rule is EASILY . This goes to level of players, 10yr old is different than the pros.
2:47 - not the point of the video, but that sure looked and especially _sounded_ like catcher interference.
It sounded like it, but frame-by-frame it looked like ball-bat followed by ball-glove' Where the bat was lined up with the glove I think we would have seen the webbing move, but I don't see it.
@@gil-ik1rv I hear 3 sounds... like ta-tap-thwap. in umpire mode, my ears say CI. visually, I just can't see anything one way or the other, don't have enough resolution or frames.
7:15 the A's manager had no leg to stand on with his argument. A soft liner that dies before an infielder has a chance to catch it is not an infield fly. He made a fool out of himself there.
In MLB so much of the arguing is for show. The announcers called that right. He was looking to get tossed. Managers have many reasons for it. Usually, it is to shake things, wake up their club who might not be with it that day, or just to show support for one of his players.
One time when I was umpiring a college game, the manager came out and even said that he doesn't have an argument but he needs to light a fire under his team. I had to hold back a laugh as he was making a scene, but not even talking about the play in question.
@@johnbleyer8490 My favorite argument is Earl Weaver arguing with an umpire. They never even talk about the play.
YEAH "HE HAD TO GO AROUND HIM"(THE CATCHER) CATCH INTERFERENCE. DIDNT HAVE THE BALL! RUNNER SAFE!
when an umpire signals an infield fly, does he also make the call verbally so everyone can hear?
Typically there's a verbal but MLB stadiums are very loud. Ultimately the offense and defense are responsible for knowing the situation.
How was he out at home?
His hand didnt touch the plate and went over the catchers foot. It was close, the call could go either way. I say he was out.
4:31 only one out was made in the play, where's the double play??
yeah, I don't know how an MLB crew messed that up. While R1 might have been tagged off 2B (very close, can't tell exactly when the glove touched him), U2 clearly ruled him Safe after the tag. Then he confers with U1 and calls him Out. What? Clearly he knows it's not a force play, he himself echoed the infield fly call and then appears to confirm with U1 "we have an infield fly, right?". So did he change his call on the tag itself? Based on what?
Yeah, I’m a little bit confused myself. When the infield fly rule is called the force is off. However, you can still run at your own risk, but you have to be tagged, and if the ball is caught you still have to tag up. So I’m still really confused on the situation. Does he think that Molina Caught the ball? But he points at R1 being the runner that’s out… Very confusing situation, I think I should probably send him an email and ask him what happened (i really have to know). Do you think that maybe R1 committed some egregious infraction while running to second base? Maybe?
The runner at 2nd base was tagged just before his foot reached the bag when he attempted to step back onto 2nd base. You can see this clearly if you slow the video down to 1/4 speed. So, the right call was made.
Despite this being a "shitty" situation causing the runner to move from 1st base to 2nd base on the "Infield Fly" call, it is ultimately his responsibility to know the rule and that he didn't have to run.
The "Infield Fly" rule is designed to protect the runners, not help the defense. If the Pirates runners knew what was happening and understood the rule, they would have been fine.
Felipe, you can see the second base ump ask for help on the tag. Once the first base ump indicated that the tag was indeed made, U2 made the out call
@@johnbleyer8490 oh yeah I didnt realise that part, thx
It seems like nobody really understands the IFR when it happens.
Obstruction at 3:17. Runner should of been safe
No Shane, if you're referring to catcher, he set up in front of the plate and gave the runner a clear path to the plate. That's not obstruction.
He is safe at home
Freeze at 3:10. Great call by home plate ump - Out.
except for completely missing the obvious obstruction
@@davej3781 Do they have the blocking the plate rule in that league at the time? The footage looks kinda old and I believe they adjusted whether the catcher could position himself in front of the plate only a few years back.
The last three weren’t even IFR...
I agree w what youre saying but video title also says "potential" IF flies... it's a judgement call
TheDreamBlog that’s not even POTENTIALLY an IFR. If you read the rulebook, An infield fly MUST have runners on 1st and second or bases loaded with less than two out.
The last 2 videos had just a runner on first.
The rule also says that it MUST be a pop up, called at the apex, and cannot be a line drive not a bunted ball in order to be an IFR.
The third to last video was “a sinking line drive” you wouldn’t even call that in Little League.
what exactly was Manager Geren from the A's arguing? Not high enough for an IFF, and not an intentionally dropped ball. Just do away with IFF Rule and eliminate umpire judgment. Never understood why you reward the offense on an infield popup, but its ok to hit an infield ground ball, which can result in a double play
I've never heard anybody say "reward the offense" in regards to the infield fly. It protects the offense.
And when the A's didn't feel they were properly protected, of course they're going to complain.
There is a rule against deliberately dropping a catchable ball in order to get a double play. He could be arguing that, instead of infield fly.
@@DozensOfViewers If it drops untouched, the intentionally dropped ball rule can't be invoked. If he's arguing that point, he'd get shot down immediately.
It's just your standard, "My team is screwed because you didn't call the infield fly" versus the umpires' ruling that it wasn't actually a fly/pop up.
There's that awkward height between line drive and pop up where that scenario can happen.
@@daveh1758 the argument I can totally understand with a play like that is if the ball is enough of a fly ball that the infielder has time to decide to let it drop and bounce into his glove in order to gain an advantage over the offense, with no fear that he would misplay the ball on the bounce, then it was a fly ball that was could have been caught with ordinary effort. If it were a real line drive, or even close to one, he couldn't have taken the risk of letting it get past him.
@@davej3781 I'm not defending the call. From my safe youtube perch, with no time pressure to make a ruling, it looks like enough of a pop up to me, with only ordinary effort required to catch it, to call an infield fly.
I've only been responding to the most likely 'why's... why was the manager arguing, and then why wasn't it called differently (the mention of the intentional drop rule pulled me back in, because that's a somewhat obscure rule that laymen don't have a firm grasp on, and one which didn't apply here.)
There's still no more likely an explanation than 'it wasn't actually a fly', according to the men in charge. If there's a different rationale, this play would be far more fascinating.
Sam Holbrook needs to watch this video, retire and go sell insurance. Climb a mountain, fix flat tires, become a monk.....anything but umpire a baseball game.
John Hancock His call was absolutely correct. Maybe learn the rules yourself
@@quickman1047 are you fucking serious, the braves Cardinals one?
YES..that wasnt even a frigging questionable call...was the shortstop going after that ball with ordinary effort??? yes!! Simple..infield fly. That call is called 25-30 times each mlb season..easy call. Stop focusing on the place where he was standing when it was called..it does not matter!!!
@@daphnedesrochers9599 the infield fly is supposed to protect the batter's from getting thrown out on a double-play by intentionally dropping the ball that was clearly not the case with that play
@@daphnedesrochers9599 the infielder had no play on the runner
The female fertile celery inspiringly wreck because james encouragingly pull versus a animated eggnog. utter, voiceless fur
damn straight. truer words were never spoken