fly high 🕊

@Buck Graeber both of you are bots who are scamming pls stop

@@Tttdvkou33 me?

You were the quiet kid in school aye

Thank you! I came here because I was wondering why it doesn't apply if there is only a runner on first. You are right, the batter would already be at or close to first base when the ball is caught.

I'm sure there are ways to get a triple play, but that's very unlikely, I only seen it maybe a couple times in the MLB.

@@Alleksxx scenario with runners on first and third, zero outs: A batter hits hard line drive to infielder who makes the catch for first out, then same infielder tags runner caught between bases and then same infielder executes a throw to another infielder who tags out the free remaining base runner before they reach the intended base or home plate. Triple play

A liner is not considered an infield fly because the out occurs before the ump can make the call and if the ball is dropped the runners typically don't have time to advance. Umpire school.

So bunting is more hazardous than swinging because the fielders can choose to catch it or let it drop depending on which is more beneficial.

That’s correct; a bunt can NEVER be an infield fly, in baseball or softball. The thinking is: you’re supposed to have 90% control over where a bunt attempt goes, and if you pop it up, you need to practice bunting more.

I agree. Make the defense earn the out. For example, the rule could amended so that the defense can make only 1 force out, or that every runner (including the batter) each advances one base.

@@EvanEscher what are we saying is disadvantageous the way the rule is right now?

MUFC 6-1

Vaughn Ryan Shinkus, agree, this is better.

I definitely agree with this. There shouldn't be any "automatic" outs in baseball. Infield fly rule v2.0 should be: 1. If the ball is caught, the batter is out and none of the runners advance. 2. If the ball is dropped, everyone is safe and the runners are awarded the next base automatically. (Basically similar to a BALK.) 3. The rule should apply whenever there is at least ONE base runner.

Do not agree. Here's why that would be stupid. The infield fly rule rewards both teams now by : 1. Keeping runners safe from easy double and triple play from bad contact of the hitter. 2. Rewarding defense team with an out if ball is dropped. Now what you suggest is a rule that only gives advantages to the hitter's team when he makes a bad contact with the ball by : 1. Keeping runners safe no matter what happens. Just stay at the base and chill out 2. Being safe from double and triple play if ball is dropped. 3. Being safe from a single play If the ball is dropped! 4. Being rewarded if the ball is dropped by all advancing to the next base and having possibility of a free point. And all this without having to run to make the play

At this point, you should suggest to remove any rules that alters the game. After all it is the hitter's mistake if an infield fly occur and he should be responsible of the double or triple play that will follow. The infielder will deal with his mistake too is he dropped the ball. There is no place for a rule that will gives so many advantages to only one player's mistake and so so many disadvantages to the other team.

@@taekwondotime The infield fly rule has been around for over 100 years and it has done what was intended precisely for over 100 years in all cases except maybe one or two. There is nothing wrong with the rule. No players, coaches, owners, umpires or anyone else associated with baseball is complaining about the rule. It does exactly what it is supposed to do : protect base runners. There is no meaningful difference between the automatic out associated with the infield fly rule and the automatic advancement of base runners in your modified rule. You've just taken one automatic event and replaced it with a different automatic event. You're complaining that the defense is awarded an out even though they don't have to catch the ball, so you get rid of that and replace it with awarding base runners a base even though they don't have to risk being put out to do so. You're replaced a free out with a free base. The difference is - a ball which is subject to the infield fly rule is caught very nearly 100% of the time. It is a very rare case that an infield fly rule is not caught, so you've rewritten an entire rule of baseball that's been around for over 100 years because 0.01% of the time, the defense is awarded an out without catching the ball. It's just silly.

College players don’t do it maybe because it’s not a good look for the nfl when they try to be drafted

It doesn’t apply to only a runner on first, because if the runners aren’t being lazy, it’s impossible to turn a double play. If the batter runs it out to first base, he should have plenty of time before a defender would be able to let the ball drop, throw to second, and then back to first.

Correct. However, the SS would have had to prove beforehand that catching a fly ball to the warning track is within the realm of his "ordinary effort".

The flash is fast, but can he catch a fly ball? And can he hit a curve?

The runners only need to tag up if the "infield fly" ball is caught; otherwise, they're free to advance without needing to tag.

also the video is incorrect the infield fly rule doesn't apply to bunts.

The likelyhood of them getting doubled in a situation like this is rare though because you have to physically tag them out rather than just stepping on the bag. One person is going to advance regardless in that sacrifice.

"The ball is in play and the runners may advance at their own risk."

No advantage. Unless, the guy on first can run from 1st to 2nd in 4.2 seconds 40, and the batter can only run from 1st to 2nd in 5 seconds.

I don't understand your comment. The runner on first is NOT expected to run to second on an infield fly with less than two outs. That would be crazy and his manager would be all over him. The only reason he would run would be if there were two outs and the rule doesn't apply because it isn't necessary. The runner still has to tag up and if he goes running like you say he should they will force him out at first after they catch the ball.

I misunderstood that. My comment makes no sense now lol.

Having to return to tag up is not a force situation.

People who don't like the rule probably have never played ball. Without it the runners have a damned if you do/damned if you don't choice.

In other words, the cheap double/triple play would not include the batter being out at first.

Clarify my remarks a bit: I see somewhere that a line drive (quickly reaching a fielder) is not an infield fly. On a higher-hit ball (like on a pop-up) the batter has time to get closer to 1st base before the ball comes back down close to the ground.

If there is only a runner on 2nd there is no infield fly rule. If there are 2 outs there is no infield fly. And if by "checking" you mean "tagging up" they don't have to tag up if the ball is not caught.

There’s no reason to tag up with two outs.

Are you on the braves

Yup

Hi Layton

I’m Andrew

At sandy plains

The infield fly rule does not apply to bunts. It specifically omits bunts and line drives from consideration of potential balls subject to the infield fly rule.

I think maybe he meant it applies to bunts if the bunt attempt results in a pop up as they sometimes do when the batter doesn't bunt well.

1981lashlarue Bunts are Never to be considered as fly balls. If one pops up a bunt, a smart defensive team can let it hit the ground untouched, then whip it around the infield for multiple outs. If it's touched and allowed to hit the ground before attempting the same type of play, one could see the intentionally dropped ball rule invoked, killing the play immediately with only the batter called out.

The infield fly rule specifically excludes bunt attempts.

correct........it only applies to "high" fly balls to the infield.........bloops or linedrives do not qualify

You're half right. If the fielder catches the ball, he can run because he's tagging up, just as you would tag up on any other play. However, you don't have to wait for the ball to touch the ground if it's not caught. You could run to the next base and wait there and if the ball is not caught you're fine; in other words if the ball isn't caught you don't have to tag up because you can't, you can leave whenever you want, that's why it's 'at your own risk.'

It ALWAYS screws everything up. Worst...rule...ever!

Yes, bunting a pitch foul with two strikes is counted as a strikeout.

Anyone in the infield when the pitch is thrown is considered an infielder with regards to the rule. That said, that ball has to be able to be caught using "ordinary effort" so it can't just be a little bloop that goes a few feet, the pitcher would need to have time to get under it.

yes they still need 2 tag up

Thankyou

not sure about this, we used to call in field fly rule all the time when my son played little league.

I would tell them to go as far off of their bags as they dare in case the fielder catches it. And then tell them to run like hell to the next base if the fielder lets it drop.

Wolfgang_PK From my understanding, I’m a first year umpire, if the runner didn’t tag up before I think it works like a normal fly ball if the guy is that slow to get back to the base.

@@theshadowmanplays5822 ok we ran into this situation earlier in my season and everyone was confused thanks for your answer

If an infield fly is actually caught, the rule is cancelled, batter is out, and runners must tag up. No force play.

Yes runner is out. Nothing changes for the runners except that the batter is out whether it is caught or not. Runners are not forced to advance.

Alan Rosen runners do not have to tag up if the ball is not caught.

Was it high fly ? Easily handled by an infielder? DID THE UMPIRE HAVE TIME ENOUGH TO YELL,,, INFIELD FLY BATTER OUT ? If not he may have judged it to be more of a line drive! The ball has to go high enough to be judged at the top of its appex or flight. This is when the umpire makes the decision .

@@stevehamman4465 it was high enough to be counted as a fly ball and the umpire had more than enough time to say infield fly and the fielder had it in his mit but it bounced out and that’s really all i remember

@@Jeffkingboi less than 2 outs, it probably should have been an ifr. Hard to say without seeing it I mean a line drive is a line drive.

Even if it's a poor bunt attempt and it's popped up?

MLB Rule 2.00 (definitions): "An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt)..." www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2007/02_definitions_of_terms.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi87vD6tdjbAhXyna0KHQ_CBTIQFggpMAE&usg=AOvVaw2wnxqSpmTyRIMe_Cu6h-l9

@@1981lashlarue I don't think that a bunt could ever go high enough to be considered a pop fly. You really have to get a full swing in to get the ball to go that high.

@@mylesmarkson1686 It happens sometimes. Check out this compilation. I think most are too shallow to be considered a traditional pop fly, but I think the first one, the ones at 3:20, 3:42, and the last one around 4:05 or so would be examples of a poorly executed bunt being popped up. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y7GXesl30damnYE.html

@@1981lashlarue Thanks Lash, but I wouldn't call any of those pop-ups. In each case, the fielder had to hustle after them and dive just to catch them.

If a batter hits a fly ball that an infielder can make a play on with ordinary effort (not necessarily IN the infield), AND there are less than two outs AND there are runners on first and second OR bases loaded, he is automatically out. To better understand the situations in which the infield fly rule applies, it helps to understand the purpose of the rule. Runners are not allowed to leave their bases until a fly ball is caught. Otherwise, if the ball is caught in the air, and runners are off their bases, they can be put out if the ball is thrown back to their base before they return. If the ball is not caught, then runners are forced to advance to the next base, and if the ball is thrown to that base before they get there, they are out. Without the infield fly rule, runners would be put into impossible situations. Suppose there is 1 out with runners on first and second base. If you are the runner on second base, and a fly ball is hit to the third baseman, what do you do? If you don't run, the third baseman can simply let the ball drop, pick it up and touch third base and get you out (then throw to second to get the runner from first out - assuming he didn't run either). However, if you choose to run to prevent from being put out, then the third baseman can just catch the ball, then throw to second and get you out. Both of these are easy double plays. The infield fly rule prevents this defensive exploitation from happening. If there is a situation where there is an actual benefit in intentionally letting the ball drop, then the batter is automatically out, which removes the requirement of the runners to run regardless of whether the ball is caught or not.

No the ball has to be caught except for the exact situation described in this video

When the infield fly rule is in effect, yes he is.

its harder for you then the guy in the show.

Rule it self should not exist.

They say it's a judgement call on the part of the ump, so couldn't you technically just never choose to call it?

That’s why it’s only called if there are runners on first and second or bases loaded and not just a guy a first

The infield fly rule only applies when there are fewer than two outs, and runners at first and second or bases loaded. It does not apply with just a runner on first. Nothing is wrong in the video.

Unless the batter is this slow at running, they should always get to first base before the field players have time to pull off the double play

The rule is as stands because it balances things out between the offense and defense. The batter made a mistake by batting a pop fly ball, so he/she is called out not the base runner. The batter, with a pop fly ball, isn't going to NOT make it to first unless he's slow like a turtle.

Lower chance of turning at least a double play, I think. Plus only having one runner on base gives them more freedom to move, depending on if the ball is caught or if it drops. Two runners makes things way more complicated. It's not a perfect rule, but I can see why it only applies when two runners are on base.

Because there’s usually no way to get a cheap double play with one runner. Either you catch it and the batter is out, or you drop it and force out the runner at 2nd. Still only one out on the play.

no, its because the batter should be able to reach first base before the ball is caught. So, even if an infielder intentionally drops the fly ball, he would only be able to get one out, not 2

Cuz the batter would reach first base anyway.

@@philmccracken179 What if he doesn't though?

I'd say the safest thing to do is just stay on the base.

@@TheOnDeckCircle tried that in the games, not possible.

Because if the batter hits a pop up he will be able reach first anyway if the defense drops it. Thus there is no advantage for the defense to intentionally drop it because either way there will still be an out on the play and there will still be a runner a first base

No. Seems like it should, but it doesn't.

It doesn't - and the reason is because it is assumed that the batter who hit the ball would easily reach first anyway. If there is only a runner on first, and the batter pops it up, and just gives up and doesn't even run to first, it's his own fault for not making any effort to get to first. If he does what he is SUPPOSED to do and run to first, and the defense decides to let the ball fall, the only play they have is the force out at second - and you end up in the same place. One out recorded, runner on first. You DO see this happen however - particularly when the runner on first is fast and the batter is slow. The defense will let the ball fall and get the fast runner out at second - essentially exchanging the faster runner for the slower batter. There is no rule to address this particular strategy as of yet, but you do have to let the ball fall untouched to the ground. There is a separate rule which applies when there is just a runner on first, but it is more often seen applied to things like line drives where the infielder stops the ball with his glove, but lets it fall to the ground. This is against the rules. The ball must fall to the ground untouched to pull this off.

No, there needs to be runners on first and second or bases loaded for the IFR to take effect. So while a fly ball in the infield will USUALLY be caught for an out, the defense still has to catch it if there are no runners on base. If they drop it, the batter can reach first base safely.

Force at third base for an out and force at second for the third out of the inning, no runs score.

McLarren Awesome. Out of all my ump friends, you are the only one so far to get it right. Thanks.

It is assumed that the batter is not lazy. The only way you could get a double play on a pop up with just a runner on first is if the batter doesn't run to first. Any batter just jogging would reach first before the ball comes down, so if in the time it takes the ball to fly up in the air, back down, and then you throw to second to get that runner from first out, and the batter STILL hasn't reached first, then he deserves to be put out for being lazy.

Willoughby Krenzteinburg thanks for explaining that

Charles Henkel This is a really good question, cool video too. I'm pretty sure it is not a force out. When the ump calls Infield Fly, the batter is out instantly, so the runners can all stay put. Thus they are not forced. If the pop up is caught, they've gotta tag up just like on any other play. If it's not caught though, they can run if they want (but they aren't forced to). So even though the batter is out, it does make a difference whether the ball is actually caught or not as far as tagging up goes. I think they got the call right, there was no force play because the batter is out, and so the runner should be safe. The first baseman screwed that play up big time by picking the ball up, he should've just let it roll foul.

Charles Henkel It is not a force. The entire reason that the rule states that the umpire shall call "infield fly" as soon as he rules it as such - is for the benefit of the runners. Once the infield fly rule is called, there is no longer a force (in the event that the ball is not caught). As "TheOnDeckCircle" points out, if the ball is caught, the runners would still need to tag up before advancing.

And if that happens you should probably stop the game because you have a bunch of drunken players that do not know what they are doing anymore..

I believe the rule is that a runner touched by an infield fly is not out.

@@DozensOfViewers , it is still a batted live ball. So!

Wow three yrs later ,,,, but yea!! I've umped alot of games and read the rule book and a book called Naughty problems, and never heard of that scenario! Good one!

It's extremely dumb. There's nothing cheap about a double-play, no matter how you get it. It's a pitcher's best friend!

meh

Wouldn’t batter being out mean the player on first base could stay on first base?

@@yoshiwoollyworld correct. One out is sacrificed to save on an easy double play at third and second. The players at first and second are supposed to stay on their bases....but can advance at their own risk but at the risk of being tagged out if the ball isn't dropped.

You would get a traffic jam at first!

@@bobh6728 if guy on first doesnt go then the runner will be out. It can be a calculated move to avoid a double play

@@Kiflaam I don’t understand what you are proposing. But that is OK.

@@bobh6728 There's a guy on first. The batter just hit a low-infield ball that was quickly picked up. In normal rules, he can throw it to second and the guy on first is immediately out, then throw to first and the batter is out. In my proposal, the guy on first is NOT REQUIRED TO RUN, and when he sees that the ball was too quickly picked up will decide to stay. In my proposal, the infielder (or whomever) will see the guy on first is not going, so he will throw to first to get only the batter out.

@@Kiflaam OK, interesting. I see two issues that would cause problems. 1. You have the 1st baseman taking a throw at 1st, while the base runner is still standing on the base and the batter-runner is reaching the base. Maybe we could add some rugby action and the 1st baseman has to fend off the runner to make the catch. 2. If the batter-runner reached 1st before the throw, now you have two runners at first. Can the original runner now be forced at second, or do they have to tag him, or can both runners stay at first? Maybe make a new rule called the infield grounder rule. On a ground ball with first occupied and less than 2 outs, the batter is automatically out if they hit the ball on the ground toward any infielder. That eliminates all force plays and runners must be tagged. That will also pretty much eliminate any double or triple plays and make the game more offense friendly, (except for eliminating the plays where a ground ball results in everyone being safe). (I have way too much time on my hands)!

Braves got robbed all right. That was a bad call because he called it late. The ump waited till it looked like the the shortstop was going it take it. Lots of shortstops would make that catch and call it routine, but the ump didn't make that judgement right away... If he had, at least one run would have scored. Maybe two. Might have been an acceptable sacrifice. Blame the ump not the rule.

Umpire is supposed to call an infield fly at the high point of the hit so when the umps called it late in that game then yes, I would blame the umpires so i agree with you John Williams

Mr. T dude...do u even watch baseball, other than t ball???? The Braves were screwed on that call. Period. I watched that game. I'm a braves fan, but I'd say the same if It had been opposite. Saw Randy Johnson pitch a perfect game against Atlanta. By the 8th, I was pulling for Johnson. Fair is fair and right is right

Mr. T umpires should always call it right, even in May. However..a game like that....there's no excuse. It was the wrong call.

Even my girlfriend who wasn't a baseball fan, (girl only likes football), saw that live and knew it was bullshit.

No it was an awful call. The dude was 80 feet out into left field and there was clear miscommunication between the two players

@@dylan3488 Yeah, if they're going to call it way out there, it needs to be called "The ANYWHERE-Fly Rule". That was halfway to the fence for cryin' out loud!

Right, in the case I was referring to (bunted foul with two strikes) he's out on the strikeout. I meant it applies in the sense that prior to having two strikes, if there is a situation (unlikely though it may be) a fair ball is bunted high enough to qualify for the IFR, it would be invoked; whether he swings or bunts it irrelevant.

@@TheOnDeckCircle a bunted ball is never an infield fly.

It is the batter's mistake. That's why the batter is out on an infield fly rule.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg the rule should only result in an automatic out if the fielders intentionally let it drop. If they simply misjudge the popup and fail to make the catch the batter should have the opportunity to try for first.

@@MikeDCWeld You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with the batter.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg how's that? The rule says that the batter is automatically out whether the ball is caught or not. That does help those already on base but is completely unfair to the batter in the instances where the infielders make a mistake that results in them failing to catch the ball.

@@MikeDCWeld I'm not arguing this with you. The IFR has existed for well over 100 years. It is necessary, and it.must be invoked before any play is made because it is for the benefit of the runners. If you didnt invoke it until after it dropped, it would not serve its purpose - which is to protect runners on base.

Yeah, it's a rule that really needs to go, but Baseball is so set in its ways that it'll never happen.

@@mylesmarkson1686 It's not that risky to let a pop up fall and get an easy double play. Especially at the MLB level. The rule is necessary. If the rule didn't exist, you'd probably get sick of pop ups turning into automatic double plays pretty fast. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but it's an unpopular one. Baseball rules have been tweaked every year for the last 100 years. That's not even really an exaggeration. EVERY YEAR, rules are removed/added/tweaked. EVERY. YEAR. It's why there are new editions to the Official Baseball Rules........EVERY. YEAR. This notion you have that they are "set in their ways" is utter nonsense. The infield fly rule is necessary to the integrity of the game. It's not going anywhere. You can object to it all you want, but the idea that they only don't change/remove it because they are "set in their ways" is categorical nonsense.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg What is wrong with double-plays? I think they're great. They keep the game moving. These games are already 3+-hour borefests as it is, so anything that can help speed up the game is a definite plus. Also, why is it that double-plays are allowed when it's a hard-hit grounder or a line-drive, but we need to bail out the hitter if it's a crummy pop-up? He deserves a double-play more than anyone. Your entire post was utter nonsense. The rule needs to go, and Baseball is definitely set in its ways. Thanks for proving my point if that's the best defense that you've got.

@@mylesmarkson1686 A runner doesn't know whether or not he is forced to run until the ball hits the ground. Your comparison is invalid. There is nothing wrong with double plays. They are exciting. A game without the infield fly rule would render those applicable double plays virtually assured. Runners on base have two losing choices to make. It takes all strategy and skill away from the play and essentially awards the defense two automatic outs. On a grounder, the runners on base know pretty much immediately whether or not they are forced to run. Runners play a part in the outcome. They can reach safely, or break up the double play because they are aware of the situation and what the rules require. On a pop up - if the infield fly rule didn't exist - runners are put into impossible situations. Do you run? Do you not run? It makes no difference. You're out either way. If the ball is caught, you will easily be doubled up. If you don't run, they simply wont catch the ball and easily get you out on the force. Without the infield fly rule, defenses would get pretty good at deciding whether or not to catch the ball based on what the runners do - and it would be essentially an AUTOMATIC double play. Nothing the runners can do via strategy/speed/skill, etc to avoid the double play. It would be for all meaningful intentions and purposes, a de facto double play because runners on base are just in an utter lose-lose situation without the IFR. You can disagree, but surely you can admit there is a difference. Runners would be put into impossible situations without the IFR. Your comparison to a grounder is different because runners don't have a choice to make. They are required to run if forced. Also, the infield fly rule does NOT bail out the hitter. The hitter is OUT on an infield fly rule. It bails out the runners on base by avoiding a scenario where there is absolutely NOTHING they can do to avoid being put out. If you think the rule bails out the hitter, you don't belong in this conversation in any capacity whatsoever. By ruling the hitter out, all forces are removed - so runners are not required to run. Though they can choose to do so. If you think games are 3+ hour borefests, perhaps you should just have the self discipline to stop watching shit that bores you.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg Do you not understand English? You obviously didn't understand a word I said. I never said that The Infield-Fly Rule bails out the hitter and allows him to be safe. Of course it doesn't. I said that it bails the hitter out of a potential double-play, whereas if you hit a hard ground ball or a line-drive, there is no such protection. So the stupid rule only bails out the hitter who hits a crummy pop-up. Taking out the rule would encourage people to NOT POP IT UP, and that's a good thing--Right? Or do pop-ups really turn you on? I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I give up. You're obviously just rambling on and spouting nonsense because you can't think of anything else better to do. There's gotta be 3+-hour borefest on TV somewhere. Go watch that. Or keep coming right back here throwing another bitch-fit because you're so obsessed with arguing for this stupid rule which you have to know is lame or else you wouldn't have to work so hard to defend it.

It was one of the earliest changes to baseball rules because it quickly became apparent that allowing cheesy double and triple plays was not what anybody wanted.

Dave H if that is the case, can’t the runners just stay on base?

@@Kartal-tp8qq Because of the rule, yes, they can. The first version of this rule showed up 125 years ago. Before then, on a pop-up, runners were damned if they ran early and damned if they held back... there's plenty of time for teammates to yell catch/no catch nstructions to the infielder tracking the ball. From historical books about the evolution of baseball rules, nobody was happy about this quirk in the rules allowing multiple outs and it relatively quickly was remedied.

@@Kartal-tp8qq Imagine a scenario where the infield fly rule did not exist. You ask, "can't the runners just stay on base" - yes and no. If the runners just stay on base, then the fielder can simply let the ball fall, pick it up and turn a double play. If the runners choose to run instead, the fielder can catch the ball and then throw back to the base the runner was originally on and double him up. It's an easy double play every time, and it puts runners in impossible situations. With the infield fly rule, if the ball is shallow enough that the fielder could exploit the situation as described above, then it is an infield fly and the batter is just automatically out. Runners CAN now simply stay on base - BECAUSE of the infield fly rule.

The infield fly rule exists to protect runners on base, and it's a necessary rule. Without this rule, runners on base would be put into impossible situations through no fault of their own. The consequences of hitting a bloop to third or short is an out - as it should be. The defense should not be awarded two outs virtually automatically - that goes beyond the spirit of the game, and the reason the infield fly rule was implemented over a hundred years ago.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg these are TEAMS. If their batter hits the pop and screws them all, so be it. Let the game play decide it, not more stupid rules.

@@funkyzero You say that like they just recently added the rule. It's been around just about as long as the game. We clearly disagree, and if the rules committees agreed with you, the rule wouldnt have survived over a century in this game.

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg I never said the rule was new, maybe stick to the subject. Your argument is that the rule is correct just because it was deemed so by a committee? Here are some other examples of rules created by committee: www.policeone.com/police-humor/articles/231265006-50-dumb-laws-in-America/ The infield fly rule is stupid ,unnecessary, and takes what would be an AWESOME play of strategy and decisions, and pot luck out of the game.

@@funkyzero Do you understand what disagree means?

The point of the infield fly rule is to prevent the defense from turning easy double plays. If not for the rule, the fielder could intentionally let a pop up drop to the ground and at that point, all runners on base are forced to advance. It is assumed that the batter is not a cry baby and actually runs out the play - which he will have plenty of time to do, so you're not going to get the batter out if you let the ball drop. It is not considered as an option as part of a potential double play. It is only advantageous when there are runners on first and second - or - bases loaded. For example, with runners on first and second, they will hold on a pop up. If the fielder lets the ball drop, there is an easy force at third and second. There's your double play - the play that the infield fly rule prevents. With just a runner on first, you're only still going to get the one out. If you let the ball drop, you just have a force at second. The batter would have very easily already reached first by the time the ball fell, so you're going to end up in the same situation as if you had just caught the ball - so there is no benefit in letting the ball drop. You're going to have the one out and a runner on first either way. There IS the scenario though that happened recently with Ian Kinsler. Since the infield fly rule doesn't apply with a runner just on first, you could let the ball drop and get the runner on first out at second with the force. There is no difference as far as base-out situations are concerned, but in this particular case, the runner already on first was very fast - so essentially, Ian Kinsler took advantage and swapped out the fast runner on first with the batter who was much slower. Entirely legal play.

I heard a similar remark very long ago. Suppose you had runner on 1st only and that runner was Lou Brock, a well known base stealer; and the batter was a slower runner.

Carl Moore It's a valid point. The rule omits just a runner on first because it is only addressing the resulting base-out situation, which would be unchanged by the infield fly rule being applicable with just a runner on first.

"The batter would have very easily already reached first by the time the ball fell". I think this is the answer. My son and I talked about it later and he pointed this out, but as Carl (below) says...did you ever see a film of Babe Ruth running? Still, I think this is it.

I agree. It's possible, just not probable.

Who would say whether or not the error was "legit"?

@@TheOnDeckCircle the scorer has to make judgement calls at times. I ask because I witnessed this scenario where a legit error occurred and it stopped the runners from advancing due to the infield fly being called. The ball continued to travel into the outfield a bit where it was eventually dropped.