Other So...Infield Fly or not?
- Thread starter TonyB
- Start date
GrandCherokee
Addicted to Softballfans
I'm still not clear if they are playing under protest or not but I don't see them winning the protest.
GrandCherokee
Addicted to Softballfans
I agree completely about infield fly being ordinary effort but the announcers keep talking about it having to be in a certain timing. Is that true? I don't think it is but I don't really know the mlb rule book that well.
Illegal pitcher
The Veteran
From the MLB rulebook: "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."
"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."
So, it was OK that an infield fly was called, but it was apparently called far too late.
"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."
So, it was OK that an infield fly was called, but it was apparently called far too late.
GrandCherokee
Addicted to Softballfans
"When it seems apparent" indicates to me that it does not have to be called as soon as it is hit. I think they have nothing on that argument.
Illegal pitcher
The Veteran
That's true, but didn't it look like the 3rd base umpire called it as the ball hit the ground?
dttruax
Addicted to Softballfans
The leftfield ump is the one who made the call (right before the ball hit the ground), not the 3rd base ump. Thought that was odd....
GrandCherokee
Addicted to Softballfans
The ball was in the air still but it was later than most infield fly calls. I'm sure not saying it was the right call but I don't see it even being something that can be protested.
Strawberry
Shin Killer
What defines ordinary? And what if the cardinals drop it and turn a double or triple play? It was so delayed...
GrandCherokee
Addicted to Softballfans
I believe he would have been right under it catching it had he not pulled off of it for whatever reason. It would not have been a catch on the run. Because of that I can see why an ump would call it.
thesteve
Addicted to Softballfans
From what it sounds like, all of the baserunners were holding until the ball hit the ground and no one on the field knew IFF was called until after the play.
RDD15
Addicted to Softballfans
I think it is an IFF.
Fair fly ball? Yeah. Easy.
Can an infielder catch it with ordinary effort? At worst, this is a close call. But Kozma, the shortstop never really turned his back to the plate, nor did he look to be running full-boar. He was able to kinda drift back, and appeared to camp under the ball for a second. Ask yourself this. If he had stayed put and tried to catch it, and the ball had hit his palm and gone to the ground, would you have called it an error? I think you would have. I see ordinary effort here.
The timing on the call is not required as the announcers said. The best mechanic is for the umpires to make the call as soon as it is apparent that the infielder can make that catch. To me, that is as soon as the fielder "camps", which in this case was less than a second or so before the ball hit the ground.
Folks are mentioning that the LF ump made the call and not the infield umps.....so what? The LF ump had the stones to make the proper call by the book. Maybe it didnt look like an infield fly, but by definition I think it was. At the very worst, it was close. If anything, the IF umps spaced it because it didnt look like a typical IFF.
Was it a close judgment call? Perhaps. But this was no crazy miscarriage of justice. I would lean heavily toward saying that it was the right call by all means.
Fair fly ball? Yeah. Easy.
Can an infielder catch it with ordinary effort? At worst, this is a close call. But Kozma, the shortstop never really turned his back to the plate, nor did he look to be running full-boar. He was able to kinda drift back, and appeared to camp under the ball for a second. Ask yourself this. If he had stayed put and tried to catch it, and the ball had hit his palm and gone to the ground, would you have called it an error? I think you would have. I see ordinary effort here.
The timing on the call is not required as the announcers said. The best mechanic is for the umpires to make the call as soon as it is apparent that the infielder can make that catch. To me, that is as soon as the fielder "camps", which in this case was less than a second or so before the ball hit the ground.
Folks are mentioning that the LF ump made the call and not the infield umps.....so what? The LF ump had the stones to make the proper call by the book. Maybe it didnt look like an infield fly, but by definition I think it was. At the very worst, it was close. If anything, the IF umps spaced it because it didnt look like a typical IFF.
Was it a close judgment call? Perhaps. But this was no crazy miscarriage of justice. I would lean heavily toward saying that it was the right call by all means.
GrandCherokee
Addicted to Softballfans
RDD15, that is my view also. Nicely explained.
rodneydeeeee
Manager
Game killer!
BretMan
Addicted to Softballfans
I just saw the replay for the first time.
The standard for "ordinary effort" at the Major League level is certainly not going to be the same for as an amateur baseball or softball game. In the pros, pretty much anything an infielder can get under is going to be "ordinary effort". So ask yourself this...
Was the St. Louis shortstop an infielder? Obviously, yes.
Did he have the opportunity to get settled under the ball for an easy catch? In my judgment, he did. And I think that he would have caught it, had he not been called off by the outfielder.
Thus the requirement of the infield fly rule was met. I don't really see too much of an argument for not calling it.
Since the "ordinary effort" by the infielder is strictly at the judgment of the umpire, this call would not be protestable. You can't protest a judgment call.
I've had to make a few calls like this over the years. Anytime you call an infield fly, but the ball gets dropped, the batter makes it to first base and then gets called out, you wind up with a PO'd offensive coach. If the IFR had not been called, I think that the defense would of had a valid argument. Of course, you probably wouldn't have a sold out crowd throwing bottles onto the field and all the controversy involved.
Was this a blown call? I don't really think you can say it was. Was it an unusual situation? Yes. Did the crowd like it? Obviously not. But the validity of a call isn't based on whether the crowd likes it or not.
The standard for "ordinary effort" at the Major League level is certainly not going to be the same for as an amateur baseball or softball game. In the pros, pretty much anything an infielder can get under is going to be "ordinary effort". So ask yourself this...
Was the St. Louis shortstop an infielder? Obviously, yes.
Did he have the opportunity to get settled under the ball for an easy catch? In my judgment, he did. And I think that he would have caught it, had he not been called off by the outfielder.
Thus the requirement of the infield fly rule was met. I don't really see too much of an argument for not calling it.
Since the "ordinary effort" by the infielder is strictly at the judgment of the umpire, this call would not be protestable. You can't protest a judgment call.
I've had to make a few calls like this over the years. Anytime you call an infield fly, but the ball gets dropped, the batter makes it to first base and then gets called out, you wind up with a PO'd offensive coach. If the IFR had not been called, I think that the defense would of had a valid argument. Of course, you probably wouldn't have a sold out crowd throwing bottles onto the field and all the controversy involved.
Was this a blown call? I don't really think you can say it was. Was it an unusual situation? Yes. Did the crowd like it? Obviously not. But the validity of a call isn't based on whether the crowd likes it or not.
irishmafia
Addicted to Softballfans
Why it was called: SS was coming underneath the ball, turned toward the plate and raised his hand calling for the ball. THAT is when it was called. Remember, the IF has absolutely NOTHING to do with the location of the ball or fielder.
The fact that there was a line umpire is what provided an additional set of eyes to make a call that may not have been made with fewer umpires because they will move toward the bases the play would have been behind them. And I cannot tell you how often a player squaring up and calling for a pop-up is mentioned as an indicator of ordinary effort. However, from the plate area where this call is usually made, it is also noted that if the infielder turns his back to the infield, that is not ordinary effort. In the replay, the SS never actually turns his back to the plate, but he is obviously moving away.
Would I have called it from the plate or from the bases? Hell, no! But I do understand why it was made.
However, the ****ing whining is unbelievable, just like the softball team that makes a half dozen errors and it is everyone's fault, but their own.
dttruax
Addicted to Softballfans
of course then you have the whole "spirit of the rule" thing going on in that the rule is to prevent infielders from dropping routine pop-ups to complete double or triple plays. If the infielder in this case intentionally let the ball drop, would he have had a chance to double up the runners? Not sure, but he didn't catch the ball and the runners were not doubled up.... of course the umpires can't really make that as part of their judgement in the play.
GrandCherokee
Addicted to Softballfans
It is crazy how often that happens.
SevenBizzos
The R
RDD wrote a good summary. Kozma looked like he was not going to have much of a problem catching it. It looked like Holliday may have said something. The call was late, but it probably had to be.
AJ22
Super Moderator
Especially when the media loves a story .. it is what sells.
RDD15 says it very well .. and the one thing many people will never understand is that an umpire has to make a call at the very moment of the play. Umpires do not have the luxury of getting to see a replay over and over again.
Does any of this even exist if there was not a miscommunication between the players on that paticular play and/or the ball is caught? Not saying it was a good call or a bad call .. but I definitely can see based on how the rule is written how the call was made.
irishmafia
Addicted to Softballfans
And what everyone is forgetting, or electing not to mention cause it doesn't fit their agenda, or is just not smart enough to understand, people are judging the late call by watching the hand.
Does anyone know when the call was actually made? Who heard the umpire say "infield fly" and when did he say it? Rarely is a call and signal simultaneously instantaneous.
Does anyone know when the call was actually made? Who heard the umpire say "infield fly" and when did he say it? Rarely is a call and signal simultaneously instantaneous.