Other So...Infield Fly or not?

[spos21ram]

My problem is that when the SS appeared to be "camped" under it, in reality he wasn't. You can tell the ball would have landed about 5 maybe 8 feet behind where he was camped for not even a second. It was a close call that St. Louis wouldn't have argued if it wasn't called.

 

[AJ22]

My problem is that when the SS appeared to be "camped" under it, in reality he wasn't. You can tell the ball would have landed about 5 maybe 8 feet behind where he was camped for not even a second. It was a close call that St. Louis wouldn't have argued if it wasn't called.

But the call was made at the time of the play ...


Are you saying this after a replay (probably a few replays to think about your opinion on the call) .. or because you seen the play only once?? Umpires make judgement calls at the time of the play. Not after seeing a replay shown over and over again.

 

[Jimmy34]

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.

Dead on right here...game over, Cardinals advance...excellent post BretMan!!!

 

[SevenBizzos]

My problem is that when the SS appeared to be "camped" under it, in reality he wasn't. You can tell the ball would have landed about 5 maybe 8 feet behind where he was camped for not even a second. It was a close call that St. Louis wouldn't have argued if it wasn't called.

Not really. Harold Reynolds did a great video explanation of the play on MLB network. Kozma was standing where the ball actually landed before he jumped forward those few steps. He probably would have caught it easily except for being spooked by thinking Holliday had it (not that that matters).

MLB didn't post that segment online but I'm sure it's out there.

 

[RDD15]

Not really. Harold Reynolds did a great video explanation of the play on MLB network. Kozma was standing where the ball actually landed before he jumped forward those few steps. He probably would have caught it easily except for being spooked by thinking Holliday had it (not that that matters).

MLB didn't post that segment online but I'm sure it's out there.

Nice catch on the Harold Reynolds breakdown. Fantastically presented here by HR. The youtubes found me a watchable, but not fantastic video of HR's take.

 

[BretMan]

My problem is that when the SS appeared to be "camped" under it, in reality he wasn't. You can tell the ball would have landed about 5 maybe 8 feet behind where he was camped for not even a second. It was a close call that St. Louis wouldn't have argued if it wasn't called.

Personally, I thought that it landed behind him because he ran a few steps forward right before it dropped, apparently because he had been called off by the outfielder.

I just saw a locker room interview with the shortstop. When asked if he thought that he was using "ordinary effort" on the play, he said yes, stating that that he was "camped under it" and was getting ready to catch it.

Either way, I just think it's cool that the entire sports world is all blown up and bent out of shape by the ever mysterious infield fly rule.

 

[MrCharcoal]

It was the after comment by Holliday saying that he DIDNT call off the SS that made me wonder...

He specifically said he did NOT make a noise as to NOT spook the SS......Not sure why the SS moved. Holliday even gave him the "wtf" right after

 

[hit50more]

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.

Normally the Home plate umpire makes this judgement call...still i haven't seen any evidence showing that he didn't make it.Then it took awhile for outfield ump to notice that his arm was up,then put his arm up as well.A play in the infield as we all know can be heard from behind the plate(infield fly batter is out)as yelled by this umpire.A totally diffferent story with thousands in a park that size.The reason its called out loud because of us catching a ball would never see a arm in the air as were's looking up @ the ball!!

 

[juggernaut33]

No way it was an infield fly!!!! SS had to go out way too far and if you look at some replays, it's called so late by the left field umpire…ridiculous imo...

 

[jsam21238]

No way it was an infield fly!!!! SS had to go out way too far and if you look at some replays, it's called so late by the left field umpire…ridiculous imo...

Show me where in the rule it shows how far the infielder can go into the grass...

 

[second2noone]

not an infield fly rule IMO. Maybe rule should say if the popup/ fly ball goes past grass then not an infield fly since it's past infield.

 

[blov10]

It's a bull**** call. The umpire is wrong but won't admit it. MLB is wrong in siding with the umpire. I'm sick of these associations not manning up and taking responsiblity for people screwing up. The NFL a few weeks ago in the GB game and now MLB last night.

It should have been handled by Jeff Kellogg right then and there. Bases loaded, one out. Resume play. I hope they take that idiot off the crews for the playoffs. If he actually thinks he made the right call, he'll be screwing someone else over soon enough.

 

[blov10]

Show me where in the rule it shows how far the infielder can go into the grass...

You want him at the warning track before they don't call it? If the r-tard SS would have been camped under it and missed it instead of running out and then turning around looking at Holliday it still would have been a huge strech in calling "IF."

As a Cards fan I know why your opinion is biased but the umpire was wrong and MLB was wrong for backing him.

Go NATS!

 

[beernbombs]

It's a bull**** call. The umpire is wrong but won't admit it. MLB is wrong in siding with the umpire. I'm sick of these associations not manning up and taking responsiblity for people screwing up. The NFL a few weeks ago in the GB game and now MLB last night.

It should have been handled by Jeff Kellogg right then and there. Bases loaded, one out. Resume play. I hope they take that idiot off the crews for the playoffs. If he actually thinks he made the right call, he'll be screwing someone else over soon enough.

You want him at the warning track before they don't call it? If the r-tard SS would have been camped under it and missed it instead of running out and then turning around looking at Holliday it still would have been a huge strech in calling "IF."

As a Cards fan I know why your opinion is biased but the umpire was wrong and MLB was wrong for backing him.

Go NATS!

Could you please cite which rule you are basing your ruling on?

 

[stork]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/e...explanation-but-what-about-spirit-of-the-rule

 

[spos21ram]

not an infield fly rule IMO. Maybe rule should say if the popup/ fly ball goes past grass then not an infield fly since it's past infield.

I think it could have gone either way and believe it shouldn't have been called, but this part of your statement makes you sound very stupid. The ball does't have to be in the infield. I thought everyone knew that.

 

[GrandCherokee]

Glad to see this went to the level of stupid that I originally expected.

 

[jsam21238]

It's a bull**** call. The umpire is wrong but won't admit it. MLB is wrong in siding with the umpire. I'm sick of these associations not manning up and taking responsiblity for people screwing up. The NFL a few weeks ago in the GB game and now MLB last night.

It should have been handled by Jeff Kellogg right then and there. Bases loaded, one out. Resume play. I hope they take that idiot off the crews for the playoffs. If he actually thinks he made the right call, he'll be screwing someone else over soon enough.

Read the rule and tell me where he was wrong... I'm saying this as an umpire, not a fan

 

[andy-rockstar]

What makes that play look particularly awkward is Holliday not being anywhere near a position to catch that ball. Kozma probably had a better read on it than Holliday did.

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

Just a question for my fellow blues...

Are any of you surprised at the lack of knowledge of the Infield Fly Rule shown here?

I'm not.

 

[irishmafia]

What makes that play look particularly awkward is Holliday not being anywhere near a position to catch that ball. Kozma probably had a better read on it than Holliday did.

He was camped under the damn thing. If he doesn't step forward, he takes a hit on the head. Hell, even the SS said it was ordinary effort.

Every aspect of the IFR was met, it was called and properly applied. This has been noted by those who know the rule from the top down and yet the more intelligent folks still want to argue the point?

Unbelieveable.

 

[spos21ram]

He was camped under the damn thing. If he doesn't step forward, he takes a hit on the head. Hell, even the SS said it was ordinary effort.

Every aspect of the IFR was met, it was called and properly applied. This has been noted by those who know the rule from the top down and yet the more intelligent folks still want to argue the point?

Unbelieveable.

There are several posts in here that disturb me with how misinformed players are of this rule. Everyone should also know it was a judgement call therefor is not protestable.

That being said I will stick to my opinion and say it could have gone either way and the Cardinals would not have argued if it wasn't called. The umpire did have legitimate evidence to call an infield fly, but there would have been evidence backing the umpire up if he didn't call it as well.

 

[second2noone]

I think it could have gone either way and believe it shouldn't have been called, but this part of your statement makes you sound very stupid. The ball does't have to be in the infield. I thought everyone knew that.

I KNOW THAT, I'M JUST SAYING. SOME PEOPLE JUST NEED IT BLACK AND WHITE. This rule is up to interpretation so on plays like the one we are talking about, there will be room for disagreement.

 

[second2noone]

Glad to see this went to the level of stupid that I originally expected.

Glad it went down there to your level.

 

[AJ22]

I KNOW THAT, I'M JUST SAYING. SOME PEOPLE JUST NEED IT BLACK AND WHITE. This rule is up to interpretation so on plays like the one we are talking about, there will be room for disagreement.

But this rule is BLACK and WHITE ...

The reason why there is disagreement is because many do not understand the rule. Many think because the ball is past the infield, how can an infield fly rule be called? I hear this all the time ...

'''the ball is on the grass'''
'''infielder was not on the infield'''



The only room for disagreement comes from an opinion. What defender is making the play is when an umpire will determine what '''ordinary effort''' is. Seen many plays happen where a player will make a play look easy (direct route to the ball) and then another player will do a complete 360 (run in circles) to make the play.


IMO (same scenerio just different players), easy play = ordinary effort ... running in circles = not ordinary effort.

The rule is in place to protect the offense. Not to give free outs to the defense. It is totally irrelevant the ball hit the ground.

 

[GrandCherokee]

Is the infield defined as dirt and the outfield grass?

 

[spos21ram]

But this rule is BLACK and WHITE ...

The reason why there is disagreement is because many do not understand the rule. Many think because the ball is past the infield, how can an infield fly rule be called? I hear this all the time ...

'''the ball is on the grass'''
'''infielder was not on the infield'''



The only room for disagreement comes from an opinion. What defender is making the play is when an umpire will determine what '''ordinary effort''' is. Seen many plays happen where a player will make a play look easy (direct route to the ball) and then another player will do a complete 360 (run in circles) to make the play.


IMO (same scenerio just different players), easy play = ordinary effort ... running in circles = not ordinary effort.

The rule is in place to protect the offense. Not to give free outs to the defense. It is totally irrelevant the ball hit the ground.

This highlighted part makes the rule NOT black and white. It's close, but whenever an opinion can come into play then it's not black and white.

 

[RDD15]

Is the infield defined as dirt and the outfield grass?

On an infield fly call, infield vs outfield DOES NOT MATTER. All that matters is "infielder". Yes, if a shortstop makes a catch on the warning track in straightaway center, if it is with ordinary effort, you have an infield fly by rule.

People barking about the spirit of the rule and other such horse**** are grasping at straws. You might have a beef with the rule itself, but the umpire made the correct call, and the only call he could make. Umpires must officiate according to the rule book, not according to what their opinion on what the "spirit of the rule" is.

 

[spos21ram]

On an infield fly call, infield vs outfield DOES NOT MATTER. All that matters is "infielder". Yes, if a shortstop makes a catch on the warning track in straightaway center, if it is with ordinary effort, you have an infield fly by rule.

People barking about the spirit of the rule and other such horse**** are grasping at straws. You might have a beef with the rule itself, but the umpire made the correct call, and the only call he could make. Umpires must officiate according to the rule book, not according to what their opinion on what the "spirit of the rule" is.

An outfielder can make the catch on an infield fly call as long as an infielder could have made the play with ordinary effort. You almost saw this on the play in question.

MLB is discussing who should make the call. They may change it to only infield umpires can make an infield fly call. This would only effect playoff games since that's the only time there is a 6 man crew.

 

[AJ22]

This highlighted part makes the rule NOT black and white. It's close, but whenever an opinion can come into play then it's not black and white.

I can't resist ...

Please reread what I posted as I pretty much said what you said. My post is BLACK and WHITE just like the rule.