Infield flies and taking a knee

I have written recently about baseball's Infield Fly Rule, including a general defense of, and rationale for, the rule itself. I plan to come back to it more fully in the spring, after I get through some current and future projects. I want to write a fuller piece on the cost/benefit analysis underlying the IFR and why that cost/benefit balancing both justifies IFR and why, given that balance of costs and benefits, the infield fly situation is unique not only in baseball but in all sports. There simply is no other situation like it.

This will expand on The Atlantic piece. In that essay, I identified four features of the infield fly situation that justify a special rule: 1) The fielding team has a strong incentive to intentionally not do what they are ordinarily expected to do in the game (catch the ball); 2) the fielding team gains a substantial benefit or advantage by intentionally not doing what is ordinarily expected (this is the prong I want to flesh out in economic terms of optimal outcomes, costs incurred, and benefits gained for each team); 3)the play is slow-developing and not fast-moving, so the player has time to think and control what he does; and 4) even doing what is ordinarily expected of them, the opposing players are powerless to stop the play from developing or to prevent the team from gaining this overwhelming advantage.

As I said, I believe the infield fly is the only situation in all of sport that possesses all four features. But in conversations with friends and readers, one situation keeps getting brought up: The kneel down (or "Victory Formation") at the end of football games.

The players on both teams know the game is over and that the kneeldown is coming and the defense won't do anything to challenge the play (although the play is alive and the defense could contest it, even if the practice is frowned upon). The defense's only hope in this situation is to somehow get a turnover; taking a knee is designed to avoid that risk by only snapping the ball to the quarterback and not having a handoff or other exchange that may go wrong.

Taking a knee shares all four features of the infield fly: 1) the offensive team is not trying do what we ordinarily expect--move the football forward--and is intentionally losing a couple of yards in exchange for running out the clock and avoiding the risk of a turnover; 2) the offensive team gains a substantial benefit (time runs off the clock, no turnover), imposes a substantial cost on the defensive team (time running out, no opportunity to make a play), and offers no benefit at all to the defensive team; 3) the offensive team entirely controls the situation; and 4) the defensive team can do nothing to stop the kneeldown and the running of the clock (it could try to be aggressive on the snap and force a turnover, but, again, that is frowned upon).

If the kneeldown does contain all four features, it means that I am wrong about the uniqueness of the infield fly. The question is what to do; here are some options:

1)  Eliminate the Infield Fly Rule. If the situation is not unique and if there are similar situations that do not enjoy a special rule, maybe (as a number of readers have argued to me) that special rule is unwarranted here. I like the IFR, so this is the least acceptable option for me.

2) Outlaw taking a knee. My colleague Alex Pearl suggests a requirement that a team at least make an effort to move the ball forward, even if just by a quarterback sneak; by keeping the play truly live, it gives the defense a chance to force a turnover or otherwise make a play. The problem is that this adds more plays in which players are going to be hitting one another; given the genuine need to do something concussions and other injuries, the sport should not be looking for more hitting. Plus, such a rule requires a tricky determination of intent--how hard does the team have to try to move forward, since lots of plays go nowhere.

3) Recognize the effect of the clock in a timed sport such as football, as opposed to baseball. Football is not all or always about gaining the maximum yardage; in many situations a team runs plays that are likely to gain less yardage, but with the benefit of winding down the clock and bringing them closer to the end of the game and the win. In taking a knee, the offensive teams loses yards but gains in time. In other words, we're tweaking how we understand what a team ordinarily is expected to do on a play; it is not only about gaining yardage, but also about managing the clock. The response is that running a play still is different than taking a knee because of prong 4--the ability of the defense to oppose the kneeldown. So running out the clock by simply handing the ball off and running into the line is OK because teams are still running true plays, trying to gain yardage, and the defense has a real chance to force a mistake. But simply taking a knee is different.

4) Adjust my four features to add a fifth--the game must still be genuinely contested. A team takes a knee only when the outcome is, at least as a practical matter, no longer in dispute.

Thoughts?

Proving Extraordinary Ability for Athlete Seeking Work Visa to U.S.

Having taught courses in immigration law and sports law, I found this article by Jere Longman in today's New York Times particularly interesting:

* * *
...[A]n immigration case involving an Iranian table tennis player has raised question about exactly what status an international athlete must achieve before being granted preferential entry into the United States. Is it enough to be the best in your own home country? Or must you also be among the best in the world?

On Wednesday, a Federal District Court judge in New York affirmed a decision by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to deny an “extraordinary ability” work visa to Afshin Noroozi, 27, the first table tennis Olympian from Iran. Noroozi had sought the visa on the ground that he was a top international player, having finished 65th at the 2008 Olympics and gained a ranking of 284th in the world.

The Immigration Act of 1990 allows employment visas to be given to those who possess “extraordinary ability” in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics. Winning a Nobel Prize, for instance, would signal exceptional achievement. Finishing dozens of places behind the winner in Olympic table tennis apparently makes a less convincing case. While Noroozi’s proficiency was “impressive and commendable, and surely bespeaks years of dedication and practice,”

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote, the immigration service was “well within its discretion to conclude that Noroozi’s standing fell short of making him ‘one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.’ ”  
* * *
To read the rest, click here.

Being an Olympic athlete in a recent Olympic Games does not show extraordinary ability?  Tough crowd. Then again, he's 27-years-old, and in table tennis that means his upside has likely already been shown:
The absence of Noroozi as a player is unlikely to make any difference in American fortunes, officials said. An athlete who is ranked only 284th in the world at age 27 is “not likely to see a huge surge in the next five years,” said Sean O’Neill, a spokesman for USA Table Tennis and a former Olympian.
Though it makes perfect sense, it's interesting how player development analysis can impact whether one gets a visa.

hit counter