The step-wise process by which the “infield fly rule” evolved
The origin of infield fly rule cannot be separated from the origin of baseball. The first organized game of baseball was played in1845 by Knickerbocker Base Ball Club from New York. The rules at the time allowed the game to be played by gentlemen i.e. rich men only. The objective of playing the game was not to win but to exercise. The initial attitude of the game resembled that of British cricket spirit. This attitude could not overcome the challenges of the unwilling soil of New York. Baseball grew in reaps and bound in the years that followed its introduction and the purpose of playing to win triumphed over the spirit of paying for exercise. Victory became the driving and every strategy was employed to win including violation of the existing rules (William 1). These violations of spirit of the rules of the game necessitated making of specific written rules that that would safeguard the spirit. The article entails a sly witty law review with a focus on the connection between the Infield fly rule in baseball and the Anglo American Common laws. The article is one of the best and impactful analyses of sports law in the American legal history.
Historically, the rule was first adopted in the year 1890. The implementation was subjected to the short lived League Players Mark 568). In 1892 a major change occurred to the rule. The National League and American Association of Base Ball Clubs made some changes to the effect that batsmen were no longer permitted the flat side, and they were required to be round (William2). The change was made with the argument that a fairly batted ball, viewed as a hit-over a fence in not more than 235-feet from a home plate would entitle the batsman to double bases.
In 1894, the National League and American Association of Base Ball Clubs (NLAABBC) adopted the rule. The NLAABBC initially applied the rule only when fly ball was touched by the infielders with the runners on the first base being occupied with only one out.
In 1895, the NLAABBC modified the infield fly rule. The new rule stated that the batters would be considered to be out if a hit on a ball that the infielders can handle with the 1st and 2nd bases occupied. At the same time it applies with the 1st or 2nd or 3rd bases occupied, but with only a single out. However, the change did not address a situation where no men are out. In 1901, this anomaly was corrected (William4). Since then, the rule has stayed relatively untouched since 1901.
Reasons for adoption of “infield fly rule”
The infield fly rule was adopted because of several reasons. The Rule generally arose from the interaction of some factors with close resemble to the development and growth of the common law. The adoption of the rule in 1890s was aimed at dealing with unethical sports practices. For example, during the 1890/1 season, there was uproar over the growing challenges in sports management. During the season, the Baltimore Orioles team was accused of coming up with unfair practices, what is currently called the inside baseball. According to the article, The Orioles played a smart baseball and ‘a dirty baseball. While “they may not have originated dirty baseball they perfected it to a high degree” (William 4). In the game, a fast runner on first and a batter at speed of high speed hit a pop fly. The runner waited on the first hoping the ball would be caught. The fielder however allowed the ball to drop on the ground and completed the force out at instant. This particular event did not lead to double play but that likelihood was obvious, as it would have required the ball to be hit as high. This incident prompted the stakeholders to agree that something needed to be done as the defense got an advantage that it did not deserve and it was out of control of the offense. Umpires would have called the batter out but this was not a viable solution to the problem as it would complicate the situation and creates more problems. The rule helped in the prevention of scenarios where a fielder could take undue advantage of a base runner by deliberately letting a ball drop with less than two outs with a view to have a double or triple plays on base-runners (William 5). When such issues occur, the Infield Fly Rule would be invoked at the discretion of the umpire should fair fly ball is wedged by the infielder s with ordinary efforts. The law, just like the European common law, viewed sports as a gentleman engagement that should neither constitute trickery nor profit one through unethical conducts.
Further, the article deduces that the Baseball game has rules drafted with the intent to enforce the correct and desired behavior. Just like the common law, there was a desire to have formal and legalistic codes of sports rules that would ensure allowable and proper conduct through a formal writ system. The conduct of the players and stakeholders is directed by the game’s general principles (Mark 567). However, to realize the enforcement of the rule of conduct, it became essential to come up with specific legal remedies under a specific writ.
The rule also arose because of the need to control the discretionally powers of the umpire just as the case of the chancellor in common law. This would help deal with issues of equity. This helped reduce the umpire’s discretions with strong policies backed by facts and reasons. Lastly the rule was adopted to deal with the negativities of the piecemeal approach to rule making. The situational approach to problems solution became problematic.
Anglo-American common law vs. European legal systems
Several adjustments have been made to the Infield Fly Rule. For example, the Major League Baseball rules 6.05e & 2.0 have some adjustments to the rule. The article, written in Anglo-American common law format contrasts the European legal systems. The article was written as a semi-parodic paper, unlike the European legal system of writing law that had had no such parody characteristics and contextualization. Secondly unlike the European legal system, the article is scrupulously footnoted. This shows the emergence of the Anglo-American common law development. The practice was aimed at showing how such a rule was a necessity during that particular era. During the ear, the inappropriate sports’ behaviors were taking place in in the game. These behaviors went far way beyond the conventionally accepted sports norms, acts and order that had characterized sports in earlier ages, the gentlemanly sports age.
Conclusion
The article elicited mixed reactions and numerous imitations. The article focused on the need for an incremental development of baseball rules, the rule's formalization and development. The step-by-step analysis on the development echoed the procedures through which the common law was formed. Infield Fly Rule is not the key principle of baseball as it is not more concerned with the actual playing of the game. Baseball can successfully be played without the Infield Fly Rule (Douglas 117). It is a legislative that responds to events that were permissible earlier but were against the spirit of the game. There have been three changes in the substantive rules that stretch over a period of seven years to bring Infield Fly Rule in its current form. Each of these changes has always been done with one motive: to stop the defense from doing double play through subterfuge when the offense can do nothing to stop it, rather than speed and skill.
Works Cited
Douglas, Linder, Strict Constructionism and the Strike Zone. City Law Review 117 (1987).
Mark W. Cochran. The Infield Fly Rule and the Internal Revenue Code: An Even Further Aside.
Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 567 (1988).
William, Stevens. Aside. The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule. 123 U. Penn. L.
Rev. 1474 (1975)
