Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!tischler
From: tischler@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Is the infield-fly-rule necessary?
Message-ID: <602@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 10:04:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.602
Posted: Wed Jun 12 10:04:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 01:54:19 EDT
References: <57@tekchips.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 43

> 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