Talk:Infield fly rule

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Answer to question by latest editor 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Invoking the rule 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Foul ball 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question/Clarification: "The rule" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does it have to be a fly ball? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infield fly rule and legal theory - "Widely cited"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: If the protest really was denied, I'd assume official confirmation will come soon. AutomaticStrikeout 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2012 Wild Card Game 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  and  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 meStalk me  13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 meStalk me  01:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like good wording to me. I'll see about editing it... ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I also tweaked the image caption. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  15:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fan reaction - Noteworthy? 

message: 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. . To be honest, I expected it to be far more than that. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  18:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views 

message: The explanation on this page is very dry and confusing. It would be helpful if someone who understood the rule (i.e., not me) could create a diagram of a baseball field with player location, preferably based on an actual case of this rule being invoked, that explains the role of each player in triggering the infield fly rule and that explains why it was being invoked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.212.55 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram/example 

message: Maybe I'm just missing it - is the rule stated here? Is it considered a copyright violation to print the text of the rule?  There's no external link to the rule.  If you go to the citations and click on one to the MLB rules, you get a 284-page pdf file.  I don't see how anyone can understand the rule as a whole through this article.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: MLB makes its copyrighted rulebook available but does not isolate the Infield Fly Rule for download.  At the very start of Section 1, we point the reader to the two relevant passages in the rulebook.  It is appropriate to give snippets of the rule, but readers do not come to Wikipedia to read entire copies of source documents that they could read at the source.  This article is absolutely more understandable than the MLB rule, as we include "annotations":  Implications in various situations, such as when the umpire fails to call the rule, relation to other rules, and coaching strategies.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Text of the Rule

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infield fly rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215073506/http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/2012/10/06/braves-emptiness-after-wild-card-loss-infield-fly-debated/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/2012/10/06/braves-emptiness-after-wild-card-loss-infield-fly-debated/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified