When Was The Infield Fly Rule Implemented? The infield fly rule in baseball, a vital part of the sport’s fabric, was officially implemented in 1894 by the National League to prevent infielders from intentionally dropping easily catchable balls to deceive baserunners and complete a double play, and this rule continues to shape the game today. flyermedia.net is dedicated to providing an extensive guide to baseball’s unique rules, regulations, and history, offering fans, players, and aviation enthusiasts an in-depth understanding of the game. By understanding its nuances, readers can fully appreciate the strategic depth and historical context of baseball and its most debated moments. This article explores the historical context and rationale behind this crucial baseball regulation.
Table of Contents
- Understanding the Essence of a Catch
- The Genesis of the Infield Fly Play
- The Baserunner’s Dilemma
- The Fielder’s Perverse Incentive
- The Actual Reason for the Rule
- Early Controversies and Interpretations
- The “Momentarily Held” Standard
- The 1890 Players League Rule
- The National League Addresses the Problem
- Criticisms of the Infield Fly Rule
- FAQ: Unveiling the Infield Fly Rule
1. Understanding the Essence of a Catch
What exactly constitutes a catch in baseball? A catch happens when a player gains control of the ball in their hand or glove. The catch is deemed complete the instant the player has secured the ball securely. If the ball is dropped before this crucial moment, it’s not considered a catch. However, dropping the ball after securing it doesn’t negate the fact that a catch occurred. This determination is critical in many situations, influencing plays and outcomes, and it’s why the infield fly rule exists.
In American football, determining a catch can be contentious, with viewers and officials scrutinizing high-definition slow-motion footage from numerous angles to detect any ball movement that might indicate a lack of full control by the receiver. Fortunately, baseball avoids such extensive debates, with the closest comparison being a fielder fumbling the ball while transferring it from their glove to their throwing hand. However, such instances rarely cause controversy.
2. The Genesis of the Infield Fly Play
What led to the need for the infield fly rule? The “infield fly play” was born out of a loophole that exploited baserunners’ positions.
Imagine this scenario: Runners are on first and second base with less than two outs. The batter hits an easy fly ball to the shortstop. Normally, the shortstop would catch the ball, resulting in an out. The runners, anticipating the catch, would stay close to their bases. However, the shortstop could intentionally drop the ball, creating a force play. The runners, now out of position, could be forced out at third and second bases, resulting in a double play.
The “Infield Fly Play” Explained
How exactly did the “infield fly play” work?
The “infield fly play” allowed the fielder to turn an easy fly ball into a double play. The problem with this play was that it introduced the question of what truly constitutes a catch. The play relied on the fielder not catching the ball while maintaining control of it. This raised many questions:
- How long can the fielder’s hands be in contact with the ball before it becomes a catch?
- How is the umpire supposed to make this determination?
- How can baseball avoid endless arguments and video replays?
The solution to these questions was the infield fly rule. If the circumstances were right for the infield fly play, the batter is automatically called out, regardless of the fielder’s actions. This eliminates the force play, allowing the game to proceed naturally.
3. The Baserunner’s Dilemma
What makes the infield fly rule necessary from a baserunner’s point of view? The standard explanation of the infield fly rule focuses on the baserunner’s dilemma. The Dickson Baseball Dictionary defines the rule as “A special rule to protect the baserunners.”
Understanding the Baserunner’s Predicament
What unique challenges did the baserunner face in this situation?
The baserunner’s dilemma is that they have no correct course of action in the infield fly play. There are many plays in baseball where a runner has no good course of action, but there is a correct, least bad choice. Consider a runner on first base with less than two outs, and the batter hits a routine ground ball to the shortstop. The correct play is to run hard for second base. This puts the runner in a position to capitalize on a defensive error, or potentially prevent the second baseman from turning a double play. The runner’s prospects may be grim, but there is no real dilemma.
In the infield fly play, the runner’s correct course of action depends on the fielder’s actions. However, the runners must commit before the fielder, who can be verbally assisted by teammates about whether to catch or drop the ball. This dilemma is unique and seems unfair.
4. The Fielder’s Perverse Incentive
Why did the infield fly play incentivize fielders to act against normal baseball instincts?
Another account of the rule, complementing the baserunner’s dilemma, is the perverse incentive the infield fly play gives to the fielder. In the ordinary course of play, the fielder’s goal is to catch the fly ball.
Of course, this isn’t always the case. In a tie game in the bottom of the ninth inning with a runner on third base and fewer than two outs, the batter might hit a long fly ball that is foul but within the field of play. Catching the ball would allow the runner to tag up and score, winning the game. In this case, the outfielder should intentionally let the ball fall. However, these situations are rare.
The infield fly play gives the fielder an incentive to intentionally fail to catch the ball, going against normal baseball practice. Harold Seymour and Dorothy Seymour Mills, in their book Baseball: The Early Years, described this as the defense making a double play “by subterfuge, at a time when the offense is helpless to prevent it, rather than by skill or speed.” This has attracted the attention of legal scholars, leading to a series of law review articles.
The combination of the baserunner’s dilemma and the fielder’s perverse incentive provides a satisfying explanation for the infield fly rule. This is reinforced by the fact that the rule developed in the 1890s, around the same time as the widespread adoption of fielders’ gloves. Gloves made easy plays that were once difficult, suggesting that improved fielding influenced the rule’s adoption.
New York Mutuals Baseball Club
New York Mutuals, an early baseball club involved with the infield fly play, highlighting baseball’s early strategic complexities.
5. The Actual Reason for the Rule
What was the core issue the infield fly rule sought to resolve, according to historical analysis?
While the traditional explanations focus on the baserunner’s dilemma and the fielder’s perverse incentive, closer examination of the rule’s antecedents reveals that the primary reason for its creation was to address the problem of distinguishing between a catch and a non-catch. This is a historical argument, focusing on the how and why of the rule’s development, rather than a philosophical discussion of its implications.
The infield fly play first became possible in 1859, when the tagging up rule was instituted. This rule forced runners to stay close to their bases, anticipating the ball being caught. By 1863, the play was well-established:
[Atlantics v. Mutuals 8/3/1863] [Atlantics at bat, Ticknor on first base, A. Smith on third:] Start hit a high ball for [second baseman] Brown to take on the fly.… Ticknor, who runs the bases well, watched Brown closely, and running the chances of his dropping the ball and picking it up on the bound, which Brown often does to get two outs instead of one, ran for his second, and was close to it, when Brown missed the ball not only on the fly but on the bound too. Had A. Smith been quicker, he might have got home in the excitement, but in this match Smith made several errors in running his bases, thereby losing the reward of several good hits that he made.
The problem of determining what constituted a catch arose soon after.
6. Early Controversies and Interpretations
How did early baseball games and reports illustrate the ambiguity and challenges in defining a catch?
In the early days of baseball, determining what constituted a catch was a frequent source of controversy. In a game between the Nationals and Louisville on July 17, 1867, a peculiar double play highlighted the issue:
[National vs. Louisville 7/17/1867] In the sixth innings a very peculiar double play was made by the Nationals, and the noise of the crowd cost the Louisvilles an out in this instance. It occurred in this way: L. Robinson was on his first when A. Robinson hit a high ball to Fox, who was playing at second.… Fox held the ball on the fly, but in turning to throw it he dropped it. The umpire called “out on the fly,” but the yells of the crowd were so deafening when Fox dropped it that L. Robinson did not hear the cry of the umpire, and seeing the ball dropped, ran for his second. Fox made no effort to pass the ball to Parker at second as he knew he had caught the ball, but leisurely passed it to Fletcher [the first baseman]. An appeal being made, the umpire called “time,” and stated to the Louisville players that he could not proceed unless better order was observed.… If a fly ball is held if but for a second or two, unless it plainly rebounds from the hand, it should be considered a catch, and when an umpires sees a ball dropped purposely for a double play, he should decide the ball dropped as a fair catch.
Whether Fox was intentionally attempting an infield fly play or simply seizing an opportunity, the editorial comment clearly addresses the essence of the play: A ball is caught if held “but for a second or two.” However, this opinion was not widely accepted, and the infield fly play became a common tactic.
In an August 12, 1867, game between the Mutuals and Atlantics, a runner was caught trying to anticipate the fielder’s actions:
[Mutuals vs. Atlantics 8/12/1867] [Bearman at first:] McMahon then hit a high one…which was falling nicely into [second baseman] Smith’s hands, and Bearman stopped at his base; but McMahon, thinking Charley [Smith] would drop it for a double play, called to Bearman to run for second, and as Smith held the ball and then passed it to [first baseman] Start before Bearman could get back, the result was a double play, and the closing of the innings for a blank score, a round of Atlantic applause greeting the good fielding.
The infield fly play sparked debates over whether the ball was actually caught.
A game between the Cincinnatis and Mutuals on June 15, 1869, perfectly illustrates this controversy:
[Cincinnatis vs. Mutuals 6/15/1869] Eggler popped up a high ball for Waterman to take, and, as it looked like a sure catch, Swandell and Mills kept their places on the second and first bases, seeing which Waterman let the ball drop from his hands, stepped on third-base, promptly sent the ball to second, and the result was that Swandell and Mills were both out, Eggler getting his base on the dropped ball.… The point played by Waterman, though apparently simple, is really one of the most difficult plays to be made in the position he occupied. In the first place, to drop a ball and avoid a catch, and yet manage to have the ball drop dead in readiness to be quickly picked up again, is very difficult to do, and Waterman failed to legally accomplish the feat. Secondly, the ball, when thus purposely missed must not be held for a second, or it becomes a catch. In this instance the ball seemed to us to have been caught—that is, it was settled in Waterman’s hands sufficiently to constitute a catch. The umpire, however, gave the field the benefit of the doubt—for there was barely a doubt—and decided both were out.
Another reporter covering the same play succinctly captured the problem:
There was some little uncertainty as to whether the point was properly made; whether Waterman did not actually hold the ball. Here is a nut for the expounders of the law to break their teeth on. How long must the ball be held? However, both men were declared out and the sharp play was well applauded.
This uncertainty over what constituted a catch led to endless second-guessing. The issue reached a breaking point in 1872.
7. The “Momentarily Held” Standard
How did the “momentarily held” standard emerge as a way to define a catch, and what inconsistencies did it introduce?
In a game between Troy and Athletic on May 13, 1872, the identity of the umpire added significance to the controversial call. Umpires came and went frequently in the 1870s, making questionable decisions common. However, in this game, the umpire was Nicholas Young, the secretary of the National Association and later the secretary, then president, of the National League. Young’s opinion on what constituted a catch carried considerable weight.
In this particular game:
[Troy vs. Athletic 5/13/1872] [bases loaded, McBride on third:] Fisler popped one up that dropped directly into [shortstop] Force’s hands, and then out again, being purposely missed by that individual in order to make a double play. McBride, of course being under the impression that he was forced off third-base, attempted to run home, and amidst a scene of undescribable confusion, the Umpire decided that Fisler was also out, “caught on the fly” by Force, but on what rule he based that decision, we confess that we are at a loss to know, as the ball just momentarily touched Force’s hands and was not held long enough to constitute a catch. The innings closed.
Young made the opposite call in a game between Mutual and Boston on May 11, 1872.
The reporter covering the Troy vs. Athletic game noted that Force held the ball “momentarily.” Two years later, in 1874, “momentarily” became the standard for a catch, at least in an infield fly play situation. The 1873 rule stated:
Rule IV Sec. 7. In the case of a fair hit ball on the fly, the player running the bases shall not be entitled to any base touched after the ball has been hit, and before the catch has been made.
This was revised in 1874 to read:
Rule VI Sec. 11. No base shall be run, or run scored, when a fair ball has been caught, or momentarily held before touching the ground, unless the base held when the ball was hit is re-touched by the base-runner after the ball has been so caught or held by the fielder. But after the ball has been so caught or held, the base-runner shall be privileged to attempt to make a base or score a run. He shall not, however, be entitled to any base touched after the ball has been hit and before the catch is made.
The 1874 revision clarifies the requirements for tagging up. The new addition was the phrase “momentarily held.” This ratified Young’s call from two seasons prior. The reporter may have been correct that the ball was only held momentarily, but that was all that was needed. While the language seems to present two possibilities—the fielder either catches the ball or momentarily holds it—these were essentially the same thing. Since the runners were prohibited from running before the fielder catches or holds the ball, they weren’t forced off their bases, which only worked if the batter was out, regardless of whether the ball was caught or merely momentarily held.
However, comparing this to the 1874 rules on how a batter is put out reveals a contradiction:
Rule V Sec. 14. The batsman shall be declared out by the umpire…if a fair ball be caught before touching the ground, no matter how held by the fielder catching it, or whether the ball first touches the person of another fielder or not, provided it be not caught by the cap.
There is no mention of the batter being out if the ball is held “momentarily.” These rules were confusing and seemingly contradictory. Did the “momentarily held” standard apply to all situations? If so, why was it stated only in relation to baserunners? Or were there two different definitions of a catch, depending on the presence or absence of baserunners?
In practice, the “momentarily held” standard was only applied when an infield fly play situation existed. The incompatible rules were an oversight, but everyone understood what was meant.
Nicholas Young, National League’s first secretary and future president, advocating early infield fly rule to prevent catch controversies.
We now have many of the elements of the modern infield fly rule. Like the modern rule, there is an expansion of how the batter can be put out in an infield fly situation. An infield fly is treated as if it were caught, even when it is not. And the practical effect for the runners is usually to remain at their bases, as if the ball were caught. One difference is that the 1874 rule is not expressly limited to infield flies. However, there are no known accounts of the “momentarily held” standard being applied to a fly ball to an outfielder during this era, and it is unlikely that it ever occurred to anyone that it would. A substantive element of the modern infield fly rule that is absent from the 1874 rule is that the earlier rule only applies when the fielder actually fields the ball. The modern rule applies even if the ball reaches the ground untouched. The 1874 rule allows the infield fly double play in the case of the high pop-up that drops in front of the fielder.
The untouched fly ball would be addressed later. First, it is important to consider why the rule was designed to treat the momentarily held ball as a catch rather than as a muffed ball. If the point was to clarify marginal catches, it would seem that the rule could have defined such plays as dropped balls. However, this would not have solved the problem. As the rule was enacted, once the ball was dropped, the play was over and the umpire could declare the ball effectively caught. Had the rule declared such a ball dropped, it would have merely extended the question of how long the fielder can hold the ball before dropping it. The fielder could catch the ball cleanly, observe that the runners had returned to their bases, and then drop the ball at their leisure, reopening the force play for the easy double play. The problem of ruling when the catch had truly occurred would remain.
8. The 1890 Players League Rule
How did the Players League attempt to clarify the infield fly rule, and why did it ultimately fail to influence the established leagues?
In 1880, the overall rules were reformatted. Under the new format, the batter became a runner upon hitting the ball in fair territory. The rule for a fielder catching a fair fly ball was moved to the rule on how the baserunner was put out. The “momentarily held” language was placed here, in Rule 46(1). The baserunner is out
if, having made a fair hit while Batsman, such fair hit ball be momentarily held by a Fielder, before touching the ground or any object other than a Fielder, provided it be not caught in the Fielder’s hat or cap.
The language for tagging up came in a later paragraph, in Rule 46(10). The baserunner is out
if, when a Fair or Foul Hit ball is legally caught by a Fielder before it touches the ground, such ball is legally held by a Fielder on the base occupied by the Base-Runner when such ball was struck (or the Base-Runner be touched with the ball in the hand of a Fielder), before he retouches said base after such Fair or Foul Hit Ball was so caught…
This would seem to say that the “momentarily held” standard now applied to all fair balls, and not merely in infield fly play situations. However, it was not understood that way. There are no game accounts, outside of infield fly situations, of batters being called out on seemingly muffed balls. The “momentarily held” standard only applied in practice to Rule 46 (10), by reference to the ball being “legally held.” This was a clumsy attempt to combine these incompatible rules in the new format. It was neither intended nor understood to be a substantive change.
This was not the only problem of rules draftsmanship. The rule simply was not well written. The “momentarily held” standard was too vague to be satisfactory. It authorized the umpire to declare the ball caught, but it provided little guidance about when he should do this. The arguments therefore continued:
Farrell purposely missed an easy catch in the fourth, when men were on first and second bases, and made a brilliant triple-play, which elicited round after round of applause.
While the home crowd applauded the play, the Clevelands played the rest of the game under protest.
League officials responded by trying to strengthen the rule. After the 1882 season, the American Association defined “momentarily held” as
making a catch of the ball if it be grasped by the fielder but for an instant. Under this ruling, therefore, a fielder desiring to make a double play must let the ball drop to the ground and catch it on the rebound close to the ground in order to effect it.
In the same year, Spalding’s baseball guide included a discussion of definitions, including:
In regard to the definition of the words “momentarily held” as applicable to the catching of the ball, it should be understood that a catch is legitimately made when the fielder catching it has a fair opportunity afforded him for making the catch, and purposely fails to hold the ball after stopping it with his hands. In playing the point of refusing to accept a chance for a catch in order to make a double play, the only method officially regarded as legal is to allow the ball to fall to the ground and then to catch it on the bound, or to pick it up at once. If an easy chance is offered to make the catch, and the ball is allowed to drop from the hands of the fielder, the Umpire should regard such stopped ball as “momentarily held,” and decide the striker out on the catch.
This was not merely journalistic opinion. Nicholas Young, in his position as National League secretary, restated the position in his official instructions to NL umpires:
The umpires’ instructions on this question are such as to defeat almost any play of the kind that can be attempted. They are required to rule that if a fielder even stops the force of the fly ball, with the object of effecting a double play, the ball shall be decided as having been caught and held. If a fielder were to put up his open hands and bounce the ball off them to the ground it would be ruled a catch, and a runner having left a base on such a play may be put out by return of the ball to the base.
Young would repeat this instruction regularly over the ensuing years, but these exhortations were not followed consistently. Fielders continued to make the play while touching the ball. Here is an example from a game in 1885 between Chicago and St. Louis:
Pfeffer did a pretty piece of work in the ninth inning by which he recorded a double play for himself and drew forth much applause from the audience. Shafer had taken his base on Anson’s error, and had reached second on McKinnon’s base hit. Glasscock then knocked a fly to Pfeffer, which the latter dropped. Glasscock reached first, but Shafer and McKinnon, thinking that Pfeffer had held the ball, stood their bases, and Pfeffer, running to second, touched Shafer, who should have run to third, and then put out McKinnon by touching the second base with the ball.
The situation reached the point that in 1893 a sportswriter responded to a report of Young’s instructions with incredulity:
President Young, in his instructions to the league umpires, in regard to the interpretation he gives to section 2 of rule 47, is evidently in error. The rule in question states that the base runner is out “if, having made a fair hit while batsman, such fair hit ball be momentarily held by a fielder before touching the ground.” Mr. Young, in his instructions to umpires interprets the words “momentarily held,” in the case of a fly ball hit to the infield and simply touched by the fielder, as a catch; while if a fly ball to the outfield be similarly touched by an outfielder it is to be scored as not a catch but an error. Most assuredly if it be a catch in the infield it must be a catch in the outfield. The cause of the forced interpretation thus give the rule is to prevent a force out play, from an intentionally dropped fly ball in the infield. But this can only be done by adding a new clause to the rule making a force out play inoperative in the case of an infield hit and then only.… As it is now an interpretation is given the rule which applies to the infield, but not the outfield, and this the president of the league has no legal right to do.
This brings us to the 1890 Players League. Its rules included a few changes from the existing set of the National League and American Association. One of them was a new section added to the rule on how the batter could be put out:
Rule 41 Sec. 9. The Batsman is out…if, where there is a Base Runner on the First Base and less than two players on the side at bat have been put out in the inning then being played, the Batsman make a fair hit so that the ball falls within the infield, and the ball touches any Fielder whether held by him or not before it touches the ground.
This is sometimes said to be the first Infield Fly Rule. In reality, it is a restatement of the 1874 rule, as interpreted by both the NL and AA. It is credited as the first because it takes a more recognizable form. Where the old inscrutable “momentarily held” language is overlooked, the PL rule says the same thing, but more clearly.
The Players League lasted just one season. The older leagues felt no urge to borrow any ideas from it. Their rules kept the old language, retaining the old confusion. The Cleveland Leader complained about this in 1892:
The differences of opinion as to what constitutes a muffed infield fly are annoying. Each umpire is disposed to rule upon it his own way. At the next annual meeting of the League the committee upon rules should settle the matter so there will be no further mistakes.
9. The National League Addresses the Problem
When did the National League officially implement the infield fly rule, and how did it change the game?
The National League finally addressed the problem in 1894. A new section was added to the rule on how batters are put out:
Rule 45 Sec. 9. The Batsman is out…if he hits a fly ball that can be handled by an infielder while first base is occupied with only one out.
The rule was written carelessly. It should apply only when both first and second bases (and optionally third) are occupied. (If the batter is the second out on this play, he wasn’t running very hard.) The language of “with only one out” nonsensically suggests that the rule doesn’t apply with no outs. These points were fixed over the next few years. The 1895 rules required that both first and second (and optionally third) bases be occupied for the rule to apply. Not until 1901 was the rule changed to apply “unless two hands are out.” It never made any sense to apply the rule only when there was one out. It is possible that umpires had been enforcing it that way all along.
The 1894 rule had one novelty. The rule now applied whether or not the fielder even touched the ball. Holding the ball, momentarily or longer, no longer entered into the matter. The batter was out regardless of the actions of the fielders. This, it was soon realized, allowed the umpire to call the out while the ball was still in the air. The 1897 rules codified this practice, mandating that the umpire “shall, as soon as the ball is hit, declare an infield or an outfield hit,” meaning that he inform the runners whether the batter was out or play was to continue as normal. This was changed in 1931 to the modern rule, with the umpire declaring only the infield fly, leaving an outfield fly unremarked. Several 1931 revisions brought the rules in line with actual practice. This may have been such a revision, with umpires only calling infield, and not outfield, flies all along.
The new rule removed the fielder’s actions, much less his intent, from the decision to call the batter out. The discussions behind this were held in private, so we can only speculate as to the motivation. A plausible explanation is that by rendering the actions of the fielder irrelevant, he couldn’t game the play and arguments would be avoided. The old standard, even when enforced, could still lead to arguments. Sportswriter Jacob Morse wrote in late 1893 of the proposed rule as being designed
to stop the double play on a fly ball hit to the infield whether the ball touches the infielder’s hands at all or is trapped. I have seen infielders trap the ball and yet the umpires would not allow the play. There is a great deal more disappointment on the part of the spectators when such a double play is allowed than over any other point of the play. The base runners are perfectly helpless in such emergencies. It would help run getting immensely if this change were made.
Here, finally, we come to discussions of the base-runner’s dilemma. Several discussions around the 1894 rule included this feature. Sportswriter O.P. Caylor in 1894 offered this explanation:
This new rule was aimed particularly at McPhee of the Cincinnatis and Fred Pfeffer of the Louisvilles, who, to use the language of the boys on the sun seats, “had de play down fine as silk and made suckers outen de guys on the de bases. See?” When an infield fly went to either of those two players, men on bases were ‘twixt his satanic majesty and the fathomless ocean. If they stood still, the fly would be dropped, and they would be forced; if they ran, the fly would be caught, and so the magnates found it necessary to legislate against those two great players.
The new, stronger form of the rule, removing entirely the infielder’s actions from consideration, may have been motivated by the baserunner’s dilemma. The idea was in the air. It came from the abolition of a play involving the dropped third strike, with its similar incentives to the infield fly play. In its original form, the dropped third strike rule applied regardless of the situation. So, for example, with the bases loaded and fewer than two outs, the catcher could intentionally drop the third strike, pick up the ball, tag home plate for the force out, and throw the ball to first base for the second out. The two plays presented similar difficulties for the umpire, and the same standard of “momentarily held” was applied. The dropped third strike presented the additional challenge that the single umpire positioned behind the catcher was peculiarly ill-positioned to see whether the catcher held the ball, even momentarily. For this reason, the rule was changed for 1887 to the modern form, where the dropped third strike rule does not apply if first base is occupied with fewer than two outs. The Detroit Free Press, for one, approved of the change:
Heretofore the rule declaring a batter out “if the ball be momentarily held,” has led to a vast amount of wrangling among opposing players, dissatisfaction to spectators, and yowling at the umpire. This new rule is intended to put a stop to all this disgusting confusion. When there is a man on first and no more than one man out…what has been the point of sharp play by the catcher? To purposely muff the third strike, force both men to run, and then, by throwing to second, to make a double play. This he can no longer do, the batter being out upon the fourth missed strike [four strikes being required for an out in 1887], no matter whether the ball is caught or not.
The dropped third strike play presented a baserunner’s dilemma similar to that of the infield fly play, where a runner would find himself forced off his base in a situation where ordinarily the correct play would be to stay in place. This wasn’t why the dropped third strike rule was changed, but an urban legend arose that it had been. This in turn gave rise to the idea that the infield fly rule served the same purpose. In 1893 Washington manager Gus Schmelz tied the two together:
No double playing should be allowed on a trapped ball when there is more than one man on a base. If the play can be made when first base alone is occupied, through the carelessness of the batsman in not running out his hit, all well and good, but in every other case where a double is possible the batsman should be given out when the ball is hit up over the infield. The catcher was stopped from making a double by dropping the third strike when first base was occupied, because it made a monkey out of the base runner. The trapped ball should go for the same reason.
With the 1894 infield fly rule, the “momentarily held” language was now obsolete, but in a characteristically sloppy piece of legal draftsmanship, it remained on the books. Its purpose was soon forgotten. The rule was rarely cited, and even more rarely under happy circumstances. This report of a Pirates-Giants game in 1914 is one example:
When is a ball “momentarily held,” is a question which Umpire Mal Eason decides one way, and Umpire Bill Klem another. In Wednesday’s game at the Polo Grounds, Mike Mowrey hit a line drive to left field which Burns got under at the fence, juggled the ball, collided with the stand and then dropped the ball.
“You are out!” yelled Eason to Mowrey, who had rounded second. “He dropped that ball,” came back Mowrey. “He momentarily held it,” said Eason with the entire Pirate squad surrounding him.
In yesterday’s game at Brooklyn, Eddie Collins, in the eighth inning, after a hard run, caught a fly hit by Cutshaw. The youngster couldn’t stop and after carrying the ball fully five yards it dropped out of his hands. Klem declared Cutshaw, who reached second, safe, and when Clarke and Wagner insisted Collins had momentarily held the ball, Klem waved them away and declared, “There ain’t no such thing.”
Here Thomas Holmes of the Brooklyn Eagle, writing in 1928, takes a cynical view of the rule, that it served mainly to let umpires justify blown calls:
There is something in the rules saying that a thrown or batted ball to be caught must be “momentarily held,” and apart from providing umpires with an easy alibi, it doesn’t mean a thing. This rule gives a mistaken umpire a great break. If he calls one too soon or calls one obviously wrong, he can sometimes get out of the jam with honor intact by saying: “Well, the ball was momentarily held, wasn’t it?” and who can say him nay? For any ball that hits in the pocket of a player’s glove is momentarily held.
The interpretation of this vague and unnecessary phrase narrows down to a question of how long is a moment. The answer of that is largely a matter of what the umpire had for lunch and whether it agreed with him.
Not until 1931 was the “momentarily held” language finally cleansed from the rules.
10. Criticisms of the Infield Fly Rule
What are the main criticisms leveled against the infield fly rule, and how can they be addressed?
The infield fly rule is occasionally criticized today, usually in two forms. The first is to criticize borderline (or perceived borderline) infield fly calls and suggest that these could be avoided by doing away with the rule. The prominent recent example is the 2012 NL wild-card game between the Cardinals and the Braves. With runners at first and second and one out—the classic infield fly situation—Braves batter Andrelton Simmons popped a ball into shallow left field. Cardinals shortstop Pete Kozma was in position to catch the ball, then moved away, apparently to cede the play to left fielder Matt Holliday. The ball dropped. This initially seemed to result in the bases being loaded, but umpire Sam Holbrook had called an infield fly. The result was runners on second and third—having advanced as with any uncaught fair ball—with two outs. Regardless of the correctness of the call itself, the play shows the intrinsic problem of the borderline infield fly. In practice, however, this occurs very rarely. The 2012 game resulted in a flurry of debate, which rapidly disappeared.
The second critique is
