stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (06/10/85)
Disclaimer: it's been a long time since I've looked at a baseball rule book. The following is based on the premise that if runner A overtakes runner B on the basepath, that runner A (rather than runner B) is the one who is called out. Now, on to the main topic: The purpose of the infield-fly-rule is to prevent the fielding team from intentionally dropping a pop-up to create a double- or triple-play situation. It basically states that when there are less than two outs and there are runners on first and second (and possibly third), that on any pop fly in the infield, the batter is automatically called out. (This does not apply to foul balls, and I believe that the definition of "infield" is left to the umpire's discretion, and I may have gotten a few other details wrong.) The automatic calling of the batter out removes any possibility of a force-out, and hence removes the motivation of a fielder to intentionally drop a fly and get a force-out double play. The purpose of this message is to question whether this rule is necessary. On a pop fly, there is presumably enough time for the batter pass the runner occupying first. Once he does this, he is called out for passing the runner, thereby removing the force-out situation. Incidentally, this tactic could presumably work in the context of current baseball rules to foil an attempt by the defensive team to replace a "fast" runner at first with a "slow" runner by intentionally dropping a pop-up and taking the force at second. Any comments? Am I crazy? Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
tischler@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler) (06/12/85)
> Disclaimer: it's been a long time since I've looked at a baseball rule book. > The following is based on the premise that if runner A overtakes runner B > on the basepath, that runner A (rather than runner B) is the one who is > called out. Now, on to the main topic: > > The purpose of the infield-fly-rule is to prevent the fielding team from > intentionally dropping a pop-up to create a double- or triple-play > situation. It basically states that when there are less than two outs and > there are runners on first and second (and possibly third), that on any > pop fly in the infield, the batter is automatically called out. (This does > not apply to foul balls, and I believe that the definition of "infield" is > left to the umpire's discretion, and I may have gotten a few other details > wrong.) The automatic calling of the batter out removes any possibility > of a force-out, and hence removes the motivation of a fielder to > intentionally drop a fly and get a force-out double play. > > The purpose of this message is to question whether this rule is necessary. > On a pop fly, there is presumably enough time for the batter pass the runner > occupying first. Once he does this, he is called out for passing the runner, > thereby removing the force-out situation. > > Incidentally, this tactic could presumably work in the context of current > baseball rules to foil an attempt by the defensive team to replace a "fast" > runner at first with a "slow" runner by intentionally dropping a pop-up and > taking the force at second. > > Any comments? Am I crazy? > > Steve Vegdahl > Computer Research Lab. > Tektronix, Inc. > Beaverton, Oregon Where does it say that the batter WILL pass the runner just because there is enough time to do so? In fact, the batter would be pretty stupid to do that. Perhaps I'm missing your point? -- Mark Tischler (312) 393-7199 (home) (312) 979-5123 (work) ihnp4!ihlpg!tischler
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (06/14/85)
>>The purpose of this message is to question whether this rule is necessary. >>On a pop fly, there is presumably enough time for the batter pass the runner >>occupying first. Once he does this, he is called out for passing the runner, >>thereby removing the force-out situation. >Where does it say that the batter WILL pass the runner >just because there is enough time to do so? In fact, >the batter would be pretty stupid to do that. >Perhaps I'm missing your point? Based on responses I've gotten so far to this query, my point was obviously not made clearly. Let's try again. Currently, it is the responsibility of the umpire to declare an infield fly. The point of my original posting was that on a pop-up, the batter himself could in effect "declare" an infield fly by simply rounding first and passing the runner there. Similarly, he could ALMOST pass the runner, and wait to see what happened to the ball: - If the ball was caught, it would not matter. - If the ball was dropped, he could immediately pass the runner, causing him to be out, and THEREBY REMOVING ANY POSSIBLITY OF A FORCE OUT. - If the ball was dropped, but did something like hit a fielder's knee and bound away, he could remain on first and allow the other runners to advance. In effect, this would allow the batting team to accept or decline the infield fly on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether it is to their advantage. Currently, it must be accepted. The infield-fly-rule is a special rule that was ``added'' to handle an anomalous situation. I am suggesting that there are actions that the batting team could take in the absence of the rule that would prevent such an anomalous situation from taking place. Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/19/85)
>.... The point of my original posting was that on a pop-up, the batter >himself could in effect "declare" an infield fly by simply rounding first >and passing the runner there. Similarly, he could ALMOST pass the runner, >and wait to see what happened to the ball: > - If the ball was caught, it would not matter. > - If the ball was dropped, he could immediately pass the runner, > causing him to be out, and THEREBY REMOVING ANY POSSIBLITY OF > A FORCE OUT. > - If the ball was dropped, but did something like hit a fielder's > knee and bound away, he could remain on first and allow the > other runners to advance. >In effect, this would allow the batting team to accept or decline the >infield fly on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether it is to their >advantage. Currently, it must be accepted. Steve Vegdahl's analysis presumes that every invocation of the infield fly rule occurs on a pop up sufficiently towering so that the batter may reach first before the ball is caught (or dropped). This is not the case. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (06/20/85)
> >.... The point of my original posting was that on a pop-up, the batter > >himself could in effect "declare" an infield fly by simply rounding first > >and passing the runner there. Similarly, he could ALMOST pass the runner, > >and wait to see what happened to the ball: > > - If the ball was caught, it would not matter. > > - If the ball was dropped, he could immediately pass the runner, > > causing him to be out, and THEREBY REMOVING ANY POSSIBLITY OF > > A FORCE OUT. > > - If the ball was dropped, but did something like hit a fielder's > > knee and bound away, he could remain on first and allow the > > other runners to advance. > >In effect, this would allow the batting team to accept or decline the > >infield fly on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether it is to their > >advantage. Currently, it must be accepted. > > Steve Vegdahl's analysis presumes that every invocation of the infield fly > rule occurs on a pop up sufficiently towering so that the batter may > reach first before the ball is caught (or dropped). This is not the case. > > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david I'm not sure of what the ball-height criteria are for invoking the infield-fly-rule. High pop-ups, yes; line-drives, no; the in-between flies must be somewhat at the ump's discretion. Some of these "in-between" situations would also dictate a need for the invocation of the infield-fly-rule with a runner only on first with a slow batter. Otherwise a "low pop-up" could be dropped, and both the runner from first and the batter could be forced out. There is indeed a rule for the situation when the ump believes that a fielder has intentionally dropped a fly with a runner on first to get a double-play. Such a rule could extend to include any force situation in which the batter did not have a chance to get to first. At any rate, the purpose of my original message was not to advocate the abolition of the infield fly rule; I would find it quite bizarre to see a ball game where runners were intentionally passing each other on the basepaths (shades of roller-derby!). Rather I was questioning whether the rule was theoretically necessary. I enjoy discussions about the anomalies of baseball rules. Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon "I used be a little league umpire. My mistakes carry more authority than yours."