The Infield Fly Rule Summary

Suezengky Yang

Period: 11:00 am

Paper

In the article “The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule,” William S. Stevens distinguishes the similarity between the Anglo-American Common Law and the Infield Fly Rule. He starts off by explaining the process of adopting the Infield Fly rule then creates an analogy with the common law. From a broader viewpoint, these two may be significantly different, one residing in baseball and the other in the judicial system. However, the common Law and the Infield fly rule share very significant elements. That being said, they both went through the process of gradual change and legislative adjustments to repair their flawed system.

The first organized games of baseball dated back to 1845 (Stevens 3). Initially, players who partook in baseball were wealthy men. There was no winning either because the objective of the game was to simply exercise. Early on in the article, Stevens explained that the rules were kept to a minimal because players believed that the moral force would have governed the game

(Stevens 3). As baseball progressed through time,however, the moral forces that originally governed the game began to alter. The objective of the game instead took a sharp turn and winning became the more favorable choice between players. In this case, rules such as the Infield Fly rule were implemented into the game in order to “preserve the spirit of the game” (Stevens 3).
William S. Stevens stated in the article that, “The Infield Fly rule is neither a rule of law nor one of equity; it is a rule of baseball” (Stevens 1). Simply put, this rule was exclusive to baseball and baseball only. However, the rule was not fundamental to the game. As Stevens claimed in this article, without the Infield Fly rule baseball would not degenerate into bladder ball (Stevens 3). However, it was necessary to apply this to the game in order to strengthen the decaying moral force.
The Infield Fly rule was a technical rule. It was used to combat previous actions that were allowed in the game but later became untrue to the spirit of baseball. During the span of seven years, there were three major changes made to the Infield Fly rule in order to perfect it. However, the fundamental motive for change stayed the same: “To prevent the defense from making a double play by subterfuge, at a time when the offense is helpless to prevent it rather than by skill and speed” (Stevens ).
This rule basically negated the defensive team from picking up a cheap double play. As Stevens elaborated in the article, the need for this rule became evident in the summer of 1893, when New York played against Baltimore (Stevens 4). With a runner on first base, the batter a hit a pop fly. Expecting the ball to be caught by the fielder, the runner stayed on first. Instead of catching the ball, the fielder allowed it to hit the ground. The runner was then eager to capture second base, but was forced out by the fielder.
William S.

Stevens argued that although this particular occurrence did not result in a double play, the chances of it was quite possible (Stevens 4). The double play would have been achieved if only the ball was not hit as high (Stevens 4). Stevens explained in the article that this incident called for a change, “because the defense obtained an unfair advantage that it did not deserve and that the offense could have not prevented” (Stevens 4). He then went on to say that although umpires could call the batter out, it would only create more problems than it solved (Stevens 4). Thus lead to the adoption of the “trap ball” rule in 1894. The “trap ball” rule declared the batter out, if he hit a ball that could be handled by an infielder (Stevens 5). If the batter was out, the runner would not have to run, therefore, it kept him safe. For this to happen, however, first base had to be occupied with only one out (Stevens

5).
Despite the problems it solved, it did not totally resolve all conflicts. William S. Stevens went on to declare that there were three major flaws of the new found rule. First and foremost, Stevens stated that there was no way of knowing when the rule was in effect for a particular play (Stevens 5). It proved to be problematic because the umpire was not required to make his decision after the play, which always lead to unnecessary disagreements (Stevens 5). Second of all, instead of declaring the batter and base runner out, two base runners would instead be declared out (Stevens 5). These two problems were not sorted out until the 1895 league meeting.
The third issue, was that the “trap ball” rule was only possible if there was one out (Stevens 5). However, Stevens explained that the danger of an unfair play was still present when there was no man out (Stevens 5). This inconvenience was not resolved until 1901, and since then the rule remained the same. As one can see, the Infield Fly rule gradually changed over time.
After William S. Stevens explained the process of change, he then draws an analogy between the Anglo-American Common Law and the Infield Fly rule. The author went on to say that the Infield Fly rule emerged from the “interplay of four factors” (Stevens 5). Stevens claimed that these four factors closely resembled the major forces that developed the common law (Stevens 5). This is where he drew the analogy between the two.
The first factor Stevens mentioned was the “gentlemen” approach towards baseball. He argued that a gentlemen should not attempt to profit off his own “unethical conduct” (Stevens 6). Stevens claimed that the principle of common law alongside with the gentleman’s concept of fair play was equally as vague as the concept of justice itself. (Stevens 6). Thus, it can be interpreted differently in human society and baseball society because there was no physical law written. The author states that not everyone has morals and because of competitiveness and professionalism moral principles must be codified (Stevens 6). Although some may not agree to the moral principle, they are required to abide by it because it is law (Stevens 6).
Stevens then connected the second factor back to the first, stating that there must be formal and legalistic code of rules that ensured proper conduct (Stevens 6). In the common law, these set of legalistic codes became known as the writ system. Order was governed by basic principles and norms, but to enforce a rule of conduct, it had to be a written command (Stevens 6). For example, written rules are necessary because it gives authority to the umpire to make calls. Just like how written laws can aide the plaintiff in a case. The third factor is that the power of equity and the umpire were not unlimited. It is quite logical because having an unlimited amount of power may prove to be destructive and unfair.
Last but not least the fourth factor indicated that the Infield Fly rule changed in increments, meaning it changed gradually. There are two common law analogies that tied back to this. Stevens states that although common law was slow to change, it did (Stevens 7). It changed not due to only judicial decisions, but also legislation, which is the second analogy. The legislation as Stevens argued, was aimed at fixing the small defects of the system (Stevens 7).
To summarize, William S. Stevens uses these two to show that injustice in society can be fixed gradually. He shows that decaying moral force and the lack of morality can lead to injustice. Although it cannot be solved radically, it may eventually be solved by using legislation over time. Sometimes the best changes occur over time and not instantaneously. Even though these two were different in topic, they shared many of the same important themes.