Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekchips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!stevev
From: stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Is the infield-fly-rule necessary? (Vegdahl Assumption)
Message-ID: <74@tekchips.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 15:27:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekchips.74
Posted: Thu Jun 20 15:27:12 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 00:30:30 EDT
References: <57@tekchips.UUCP><602@ihlpg.UUCP><65@tekchips.UUCP> <681@fisher.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 49

> >....  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."