To stop double play on a flyball that is hit in the infield, whether the ball touches or traps even the infielder`s hands. I saw infielders catch the ball and yet the referees didn`t allow the game. There is much more disappointment on the part of spectators when such double play is allowed than at any other point in the game. Basic runners are completely helpless in such emergencies. It would be extremely useful to function if this change were made. [fn] Jacob C. Morse, “Hub Happenings,” Sporting Life, November 4, 1893 [/fn] The 1894 rule had something new. The rule now was whether the outfield player touched the ball or not. Holding the ball, temporarily or longer, was no longer part of the problem. The batter was out, regardless of the actions of the outfield players. We quickly realized that this allowed the referee to call the ball while the ball was still in the air. The 1897 rules codified this practice, requiring the umpire to “declare a hit to the infield or outfield as soon as the ball is hit,” meaning he or she informs runners if the batter was absent or if play should continue as usual. This was changed to the modern rule in 1931, with the umpire only explaining the infield fly and an outfield fly going unnoticed.
Several revisions in 1931 put the rules into practice. It could have been such a review where the referees only call the infield and not the outfield, flying all the time. The general reaction of league officials has been to try to reinforce the rule. After the 1882 season, the American Association defined “currently” as Not the usual representation of the fly rule in the infield. The typical explanation of its purpose focuses on the baserunner`s dilemma. The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, for example, begins the entry on the fly rule in the infield: “A special rule to protect basic runners.” [fn] Paul Dickson, The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, 3rd edition (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 2009), 451. [/fn] The baserunner`s dilemma is that he doesn`t have the right approach to the fly game in the infield. It is not mentioned that the batter came out when the ball is held “currently”. When combined, these two rules are confusing, if not completely contradictory. Does the “currently” standard apply to all situations? If so, why is it only indicated in relation to baserunners? Or are there two different definitions of a take, depending on the presence or absence of baserunners? The Players League lasted only one season. Older leagues felt no desire to adopt ideas.
Their rules retained the old language and maintained the old confusion. The Cleveland Leader complained in 1892 that Stevens` Aside equated the process of formulating a baseball rule with the process of creating a common law law. Fans barely hear an announcer explain that the umpires have just invoked the rule of the fly in the infield. Does the ordinary fan have any idea that the fly rule in the infield is invoked when first and second or first, second and third base are occupied before two are eliminated? The second criticism is more substantial: the rule of the fly in the infield rewards failure. While the baserunner`s dilemma looks at the game from the baserunner`s point of view and the outfielder`s perverse inducement to drop the ball looks at him from the outfielder`s point of view, this criticism looks at the game from the hitter`s point of view. Whatever he wanted to achieve, it wasn`t a fly in the field. So why is it protected from a double game? A sharp ground ball at shortstop or a line drive at first base would most likely have resulted in a double play and no one would say it was just barely. Why should an infield fly be different? The answer to the baserunner`s dilemma and the outfielder`s perverse incitement in this review is: “So what?” That`s right. What is a trap? Baseball has not always been exempt from this issue.
Imagine the following scenario: there are riders in first and second place with less than two exits. The batter hits a flying ball for a shortstop. In the normal course of events, the shortstop takes the light setting and brings out the dough. Riders who expect it will stay cautiously close to their bases. But suppose the shortstop drops the ball to the ground instead. It is now a power play where runners are so out of position that the shortstop can pick up the ball and throw it at third base, and the third baseman can pass it to second base, resulting in a double play. If the infield fly was a high pop-up, the shortstop may be able to drop it intact in front of him and catch him on the rebound. Most often, however, he will have to orient his file. He will put his hands in position to catch the ball, but instead of finishing the catch, he will drop the ball in front of him so that he can pick it up and make his throw the third.
The idea was that the way baseball gradually created the fly rule in the infield was a metaphorical statement about how common laws were conceived in civil society. The nature of the Wild West in baseball`s early days, when the game had not yet become the game we know today, and the infield fly rule was desperately needed to signal that baseball could still be a fair and honorable game that fans could believe in? Stevens concludes his article by comparing the “dynamics of the common law” and the development of “one of baseball`s most important technical rules.” Both, he argued, were “essentially conservative” and only made changes when a problem arose and only to the extent necessary. The article concluded: “Although problems are solved very slowly when this attitude prevails, the solutions adopted do not create many new difficulties. If the process yields only a few, it carries little risk. [1]:1480-81 Stevens` view is that a baseball rule was conceived in the same way that a common law edict was issued through the legislative process. And its adoption changed the way the game was played. Stevens` theme was the infield rule, a baseball rule added around 1895 to fill a loophole that gave the defensive team an unfair advantage in certain circumstances. [a] “Mr. Stevens described the fly rule in the infield as a technical remedy for sneaky behavior that would not have occurred in the days when baseball was a gentlemen`s sport played for practice.” [2] This is sometimes referred to as the first rule of the fly in the infield. [fn] Peter Morris, A Game of Inches, 2nd edition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee 2010), page 164 [/fn] In reality, it is a reformulation of the 1874 rule as interpreted by both the NL and the AA. It is credited as the first because it takes a more recognizable shape.
Where the old impenetrable “momentary” language is neglected, the PL rule says the same thing, but more clearly. With the fly rule of 1894, the language “currently held” was now obsolete, but in a typically sloppy element of legal design, it remained in books. His purpose was quickly forgotten. The rule was rarely cited, and even more rarely in fortunate circumstances. This account of a giant pirate game in 1914 is an example: the rule of the fly in the infield was conceived over three years. Rendered piece by piece. Gradual. Address specific aspects of the problem once they have occurred. It was only after the third revision that the fly rule in the infield was considered complete. So we have many elements of the modern rule of the fly in the field. Just like the modern rule, there is an extension of how the dough can be taken out in a fly situation in the field.
Just like the modern rule, an infield fly is treated as if it has been caught, even in situations where it actually is. And just like the modern rule, the practical effect for runners is usually to stay at their bases as if the ball had been caught. One difference is that the 1874 rule is not explicitly limited to infield flying, but there are no known game reports of the “current” standard applied to a flyball to an outfielder at that time, and it is likely that it did not occur to anyone that this would be the case. An essential element of the modern infield fly rule absent from the 1874 rule is that the previous rule only applies when the outfield player actually sets the ball up, while the modern rule also applies when the ball reaches the ground intact. The 1874 rule allows double infield-fly play in case of high pop-up that falls in front of the field player. Immaculate flyball is discussed, but we`ll first look at why the rule was designed to treat the ball currently held as a catch rather than a cushioned ball. When it comes to erasing marginal catches, it seems at first glance that the rule could have gone the other way and defined these plays as loose balls, and that seems to be the most natural choice. On closer inspection, this does not turn out to be a solution to any of the problems. As soon as the ball was released, this phase of the game was over and the referee could declare the ball actually caught.
If the rule had explained that such a ball would be dropped, it would only have broadened the question of how long the outfield player can hold the ball before dropping it. He was able to catch the ball cleanly, observe that the runners had returned to their bases, then drop the ball at will and reopen the power play for the single double play. The problem would remain to govern when the capture actually took place. The article pointed to examples of questionable play in professional baseball in the 1890s that led to the fly rule in the infield and turned to its legal analogy. Stevens argued that the fly rule in the infield “emerged from the interaction of four factors, each very similar to a force majeure in the development of the common law.” [1]:1478 Finally, here we come to discussions of the baserunner`s dilemma. Several discussions surrounding the 1894 rule included this feature.
