Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Is the infield-fly-rule necessary? (Vegdahl Assumption)
Message-ID: <681@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 15:54:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.681
Posted: Wed Jun 19 15:54:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 09:25:01 EDT
References: <57@tekchips.UUCP><602@ihlpg.UUCP><65@tekchips.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 21

>....  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