The Infield Fly Rule

I defend Valentine. Because it was not possible that Seibu Lions could make a double play considering where the ball landed. Aside from the rule, there is no reason to signal infield fly in that situation.

If the fly ball is thought be be a routine catch by any infielder in fair territory with less than 2 outs, the rule is to be applied. That's the rule. There is not any consideration or judgement on whether the defense can get a double play if the ball is dropped.

Of course, I know the rule. I'm saying we should consider not only the rule but the background of the rule, which means the reason why the rule of infield fly was made. It is because intentional dropping a ball to get a double should be avoided. Except for this, there is not reason to give 1 out (or deprive 1 out of the team at bat) despite the possibility fielders might drop.

Though this goes for everything, we must understand the real meaning behind the rules if we find it difficult which rule should be applied.

In the situation of the game yesterday, it is obvious that it was very difficult for Seibu to get a double play after dropping a ball. Also, the second baseman had no intention to do that. He was just trying to do his best to catch it. His inability shows that this was not a routine fly ball.

Considering all of the above, the judge was completely a mistake. This is what I said.

- Also, the second baseman had no intention to do that. He was just trying to do his best to catch it. His inability shows that this was not a routine fly ball.

Well, that was Valentine's contention. However, watching the action I would have said that there was certainly a case for applying the rule.

Are you talking about general cases? Or getting at the fly?

Just the fly in the game. As I said it was an interesting incident which livened up an otherwise dull game.

Do you know if first runner and second runner moved up a base?

The first base runner did move up to second. To be honest I can't remember what the second base runner did but that is unimportant. The dispute about the application of the rule was whether Kataoka had made a reasonable effort to catch the fly.

Why are you suspicious of it? To be exact, why do you think it is possible Kataoka didn't make a reasonable effort to catch the fly? If dropping is intentional, how did it make a profit? I think there was nothing.

By the way, if the first base runner moved up to second, the second base runner must have moved up to third, right? That is the only possibility because the batter is the only one who was called out.

Offhand, I don't believe Imae should be called out unless the umpire declares, during the flight of the ball, that the ball is an infield fly and he is automatically out. It should be the duty of the umpire to call the infield fly, because the behavior of the base runners in the situation is dependent on whether the call has been made.

In this case, with the bases loaded, and a little pop fly near the line, the runners must hold their bases until they see that it has dropped. If the umpire did not call the infield fly during the play, the runners are forced to advance when the ball drops. As soon as the ball hits the ground, if the ump has not declared the batter out by infield fly rule, the runners are in danger of being forced out. Applying the rule retroactively doesn't work because it is designed to protect the base runners.

Now, you said that the first base umpire "had signaled the situation earlier." Do you mean that he announced before the at-bat that the infield fly rule was in effect? If so, that is great, but it doesn't change the fact that an umpire (I believe the home plate umpire) is responsible for calling the batter out if an infield fly happens. I agree with Valentine to an extent - having not seen the play I can't judge whether the infield fly should have been called, but you can't call Imae out after the ball has dropped. The duty was to call the out to protect the base runners - once the umps failed in that, it did not matter that the base runners advanced safely and did not need the protection of the rule.

The umpire announced that the infield fly was in effect once Imae hit the ball. He did it clearly and while the ball was on its way up. Imae, of course, didn't see it and so ran for first. I don't think the Seibu fielders payed much attention - it's not a common signal - either.

Valentine disputed this because he thought that Kataoka had made a reasonable attempt to catch the fly. This is the debatable part - you can argue this both ways and this was the subject of the umpire's discussion. They decided that Kataoka hadn't made a reasonable attempt and that the application of the law stood. As such, Imae was out but the runner on third had scored.

Yes, and Valentine and I can't understand the umpire's discussion at all. Because, if Kataoka hadn't made a reasonable attempt, he dropped the ball intentionally in other words. But the third runner scored as a result of the play. Where is there a reason he wanted to drop the fly intentionally? I think there is nothing.

This is pretty amazing, because in my softball game a very similar play happened! We played a very bad opponent, and I hit a popup behind first base. Their fielder attempted to make the play, but just was not very good, so the ball dropped. The ump called infield fly and I was out, but our runners advanced. My team's coach complained that there was no way a double play would have been possible on the play but it didn't matter.