My friend and I were having an argument over the necessity of the infield fly rule.
I believe it is a good rule that prevents defenses from dropping a pop fly on purpose in order to get a double (or even triple) play.
My friend thinks that if a defense wants to go through the risk of letting the ball drop and then trying to throw out runners on the base paths, they should be allowed to do it because you can't ever assume that a player will catch a pop fly. There is also a certain amount of risk that the team is aware of, but that there is also a reward for being able to pull it off.
What is the general consensus here?
_________________ "Relaxed, but Edgy" - Ed, Raleigh, NC April, 2003
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:43 am Posts: 18418 Location: Anytown, USA Gender: Male
Too Big a Man Too Say wrote:
parchy wrote:
Infield fly rule = good thing
_________________
stip wrote:
In five years, when you get laid and grow up, you should go back and read some of these posts and if you've turned into a decent person you'll realize how much of an asshole you sound like right now
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:58 am Posts: 2105 Location: Austin
Ilium wrote:
My friend and I were having an argument over the necessity of the infield fly rule.
I believe it is a good rule that prevents defenses from dropping a pop fly on purpose in order to get a double (or even triple) play.
My friend thinks that if a defense wants to go through the risk of letting the ball drop and then trying to throw out runners on the base paths, they should be allowed to do it because you can't ever assume that a player will catch a pop fly. There is also a certain amount of risk that the team is aware of, but that there is also a reward for being able to pull it off.
What is the general consensus here?
I doubt your friend has ever played Baseball before. It is definetly a good idea.
it's a dumb rule because it should be extended. There's no reason why there needs to be a guy on second as well. It should include any situation with a runner on first and less than two outs.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:05 am Posts: 8045 Location: Arlington Heights, IL Gender: Male
davo15 wrote:
it's a dumb rule because it should be extended. There's no reason why there needs to be a guy on second as well. It should include any situation with a runner on first and less than two outs.
But if there is a pop with a guy on first the batter should reach first base by the time the ball comes down. Thus, it is unnecessary.
it's a dumb rule because it should be extended. There's no reason why there needs to be a guy on second as well. It should include any situation with a runner on first and less than two outs.
But if there is a pop with a guy on first the batter should reach first base by the time the ball comes down. Thus, it is unnecessary.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:05 am Posts: 8045 Location: Arlington Heights, IL Gender: Male
davo15 wrote:
Too Big a Man Too Say wrote:
davo15 wrote:
it's a dumb rule because it should be extended. There's no reason why there needs to be a guy on second as well. It should include any situation with a runner on first and less than two outs.
But if there is a pop with a guy on first the batter should reach first base by the time the ball comes down. Thus, it is unnecessary.
not if carl crawford is on first base.
Then the infielders should catch the ball, if they dont then it is their fault.
it's a dumb rule because it should be extended. There's no reason why there needs to be a guy on second as well. It should include any situation with a runner on first and less than two outs.
But if there is a pop with a guy on first the batter should reach first base by the time the ball comes down. Thus, it is unnecessary.
not if carl crawford is on first base.
Then the infielders should catch the ball, if they dont then it is their fault.
huh? No, what i am saying is if a fast man is on first the defense gains an advantage by dropping it to get the force at second. it's not about the double play, but the integrity of the game.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:34 am Posts: 12700 Location: ...a town in north Ontario...
davo15 wrote:
Too Big a Man Too Say wrote:
davo15 wrote:
Too Big a Man Too Say wrote:
davo15 wrote:
it's a dumb rule because it should be extended. There's no reason why there needs to be a guy on second as well. It should include any situation with a runner on first and less than two outs.
But if there is a pop with a guy on first the batter should reach first base by the time the ball comes down. Thus, it is unnecessary.
not if carl crawford is on first base.
Then the infielders should catch the ball, if they dont then it is their fault.
huh? No, what i am saying is if a fast man is on first the defense gains an advantage by dropping it to get the force at second. it's not about the double play, but the integrity of the game.
I think I understand what you're saying... that they could just let the ball drop and get the out at second and let there be a slower runner on first, right?
Have you ever seen that happen?
_________________ I think we relinquished enough... and it's still dark enough... and it goes on and on and on...
it's a dumb rule because it should be extended. There's no reason why there needs to be a guy on second as well. It should include any situation with a runner on first and less than two outs.
But if there is a pop with a guy on first the batter should reach first base by the time the ball comes down. Thus, it is unnecessary.
not if carl crawford is on first base.
Then the infielders should catch the ball, if they dont then it is their fault.
huh? No, what i am saying is if a fast man is on first the defense gains an advantage by dropping it to get the force at second. it's not about the double play, but the integrity of the game.
I think I understand what you're saying... that they could just let the ball drop and get the out at second and let there be a slower runner on first, right?
Have you ever seen that happen?
i have in a way, but mostly on bunts, where pitchers are trying to bunt someone over. i am not saying it happens, but i dunno if people would intentionally drop fly balls either.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:34 am Posts: 12700 Location: ...a town in north Ontario...
davo15 wrote:
i have in a way, but mostly on bunts, where pitchers are trying to bunt someone over. i am not saying it happens, but i dunno if people would intentionally drop fly balls either.
I remember seeing Robbie Alomar intentionally drop a hard line drive to turn a double play. That was different though because it wasn't a fly ball and there was really no risk. Anyway...
_________________ I think we relinquished enough... and it's still dark enough... and it goes on and on and on...
i have in a way, but mostly on bunts, where pitchers are trying to bunt someone over. i am not saying it happens, but i dunno if people would intentionally drop fly balls either.
I remember seeing Robbie Alomar intentionally drop a hard line drive to turn a double play. That was different though because it wasn't a fly ball and there was really no risk. Anyway...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
but seriously,
