FYI: You're voting for the rule being crap, or not. Not my "argument", which is obviously crap.

MLB wrote:[Rule 2.0]A fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule. When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare "Infield Fly" for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare "Infield Fly, if Fair." The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul. If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly. On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately. When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05 (L). The infield fly rule takes precedence.

This might be crap. Though a rather high
The defensive team should be able to choose, just like during a fielder's choice, which runner(s) they want to get out. The controversy here, as far as I can tell, is that most people believe the double play to be certain. I don't see how that's the case.

Better communication and base running is all that would be needed to make this an interesting and exciting portion of the game. No longer would infield pops be an automatic out, where the batter curses, lobs his bat, and then trots back to the dugout. It also provides an opp for the offense to advance under otherwise impossible circumstances.

Certainly it's true that at least one person is left out to dry, but are two? Really? Definitely NOT with the dropped ball situation (#1), but possibly with the tag-up outs (situation #2). For this post's sake, IF there's only one definite out: should that person necessarily be the batter? Some would say "yes, dumbfuck shouldn't have popped out." while others might say, "it's a team game, the runners shouldn't be off the hook just cause their teamate sucks, they should have to react to the situation in the way that is best for the team."

Possible advantages (without the rule):
1. Batters have to hustle to first, every time.
2. Infielders have to stay on their toes to cover the bases.
3. Better base running.
4. Improved batting (discourages popping out, swinging away).
5. Exciting for the fans (in a sport that's--sadly--losing stature/support in the US).

Maybe the rule should only be invoked when the ball is near the bases?
Or is the rule fine like it is? I DO think it's pretty poontardish to not catch the ball for any reason, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. Or maybe it does. There are lots of ballplayers I don't like, or who I think are shitty human beings, but that doesn't make them bad players. What do you think?

i think there would be an awful lot of really dumb double plays without it

how could there not be? the runners are fucked if there's no infield fly rule. they run, the infielder catches it and doubles one off. they don't, he drops it and they turn two the normal way.

it's a necessary rule

not crap

devil's advocate in 3...2...

would this necessarily always amount to a double play? what percent of baserunners could position theyself midway between first and second, and make it to the base between the time the ball hits, bounces (average bounce), the fielder picks it up and throws him out? i can't really even estimate, i'm not very knowledgeable about baserunning. but it would seem to me that if even a third of baserunners or so, could make it two thirds of the time, something like that, ditching the rule could be great. it would reward quick runners (and guys with great reaction time) and penalize slow running. it would add to the excitement of the game. close plays at plates are one of the best parts about base running, no?

i dunno, i could picture it where only like 5 guys could make it in time. what the hell.

That's what I'm saying. Maybe they get the double play some of the time, but I don't think they'd get it all of the time. Maybe infield pops should (have to possibility to) be double plays? Anyway, it would necesitate better batting and baserunning. The idea is you lead off just as far as you can get back if he catches it. If he does miss it, or drop it, you start hauling to the next base... chances are you're out. But the batter should have made it to first by now. So that's just one out, and a fielder's choice.
If there are multiple runners, the ones furthest from the play lead off a little more, while the ones close to the play do some stutter steps and try to fake the guy out. He knows that if he drops the ball, a run might score etc., but there's also a chance to get the double play. It certainly puts a little more stress on the infielder. He's constantly looking to see where the players are, then back to the ball, the back to the players (more likely the next bagman would be shouting him directions...but hypothetically, in a flawed argument...let's just say) maybe they stress the guy enough that the ball hits him in the head instead of the glove (not likely) and the runners advance two bases. Yeah, probably not...

The reason I'm torn is not because of the double play, but because people would NOT catch the ball. That's retarded. I'd love to see it happen though because I think people would get burned frequently: drop the ball, bobble it, make a forced throw to third, oh--oops--it goes in the dugout, run scores... etc. But even with fun plays like that happening, I think it's a dumb thing to encourage a baseball player to NOT catch the ball. So yeah, I've changed my tune....it's pretty Not Crap. Or at least, Rule 6.05 (L) is.

Sticky wrote:[Baseball is] a sport that's--sadly--losing stature/support in the US.

MLB averaged 29,363 fans per game over the first four weeks of the 2004 season. That figures represents the highest average per game figure for the month of April in the history of MLB.

This is a great time to be a baseball fan! You gotta bring the facts, man.

I also believe that the disparity in franchise payrolls kills overall competitive balance in baseball. But do I have the facts? Do I bring the facts when I complain about competitive balance?

Bring the facts!

Though I'm very glad to know that 880,890 (29,363 x 30) people from the US and Canada are regularly attending games, I don't think that has as much to do with baseball fanaticism as much as something to do in spring weather.

I don't know what the facts are in this situation; my statement was merely an observation of populous opinion, especially of my demographic (college-aged kids in their 20s). There's no quantitative measure there, so I don't know how to express my disappointment. It just seems like more and more we hear stuff like: this, and this.
I think similar problems plague all the major league parks. As an usher, I had to deal with far more of these disturbance-type problems last year than any other year I've worked (I've only worked 5 seasons, but still).

Anyway, I would never contest now being a great time to be a baseball fan--it's always a great time to be a baseball fan. Now if just my other two favorite sports (NHL, Cycling) would catch on.... heh.

i wonder how much of the record attendance numbers has to do with the expos playing a little further south... probably very little, but still...

i have had that same impression, that baseball's been less and less popular as time's gone on. but then i thought it was probably just the sentiment that followed the strike year...and then it's been making a comeback from that low period? hell, it's all based on personal perception of other people's stated opinions, for me anyways. i should known that MLB would have stats on that on the net.

ok mr bradley, i gotta ask... it almost seems like you're talking outta both sides of your mouth here... "i hate what wrigley fans have become, they're jackasses" in one thread, and then "attendance is at an all time high, it rules" in another? curious to know how that resolves.

Nah. They're mostly unrelated. Stadiums want to be full, regardless of how many occupants know the rules. Money is money to them. And Bradley is a fan. It's always funner to be at games with lots of people as long as the loud ones are sitting somewhere else, like the centerfield bleachers...

I agree about the strike thing though. Little by little baseball reconverts their fanbase.... good times.