Other So...Infield Fly or not?

[Illegal pitcher]

He lost it in the sun.

I don't know if that's a joke, but it wasn't the sun.

"I went back and I was under it, and I called for and just missed it," Kozma said. "I bailed at the last second. I thought [the ruling] was the right call. I am an infielder. I went back and was camped under it. I thought [the umpire] made the call. All I heard was the crowd. I just bailed at last second."

 

[spos21ram]

The media outlets that state facts and stats about the depth of this ball are simply sensationalizing a story. What you are completely failing to recognize is that the rulebook does not give any sort of depth requirement. In fact, it explicitly states that there shall be no arbitrary depth used to determine whether a ball is an IFF or not, and that it only matters if the infielder can catch the ball with regular effort. If that were the crux of your argument, you may actually have a point that could be discussed.

The rulebook also does not state the purpose of the IFF rule being in existence as far as I am aware. Furthermore, it does not allow umpires to decide not to call the IFF if the ump feels that a double play will not be turned if the ball is dropped purposely. The umpire must make the call by the book, not by how he feels what the rule SHOULD be.

The reasons that you cite for this not being an IFF have zero bearing on the actual call.

I know this, but because it was so deep and there was no way a double play would have happened, no one, even the Cardinals would not have argued if there was no call. That's all I'm saying. I am fine with the call that was made. Just stating it could have gone either way.

 

[irishmafia]

I know this, but because it was so deep and there was no way a double play would have happened, no one, even the Cardinals would not have argued if there was no call. That's all I'm saying. I am fine with the call that was made. Just stating it could have gone either way.

As I have related on other boards, this rule has nothing to do with "what ifs", but more of "what could ofs"

 

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Borrowed from Manny

As I have related on other boards, this rule has nothing to do with "what ifs", but more of "what could ofs"

Nope. The rule is essentially the same in virtually every code I'm familiar with in both baseball and softball. The only differences I know of is when an IFF should have been called but wasn't. Some codes will allow the IFF to be retroactively enforced (especially when a force-play DP is turned), and others will allow for the play to stand, given that runners and coaches should know when the IFF should be called.

Many clinics I've been to teach that the IFF should be called when the ball reaches its apex. Yeah, that's going to be the case when the pop-up is routine and the infielder doesn't have far to move to make the ordinary effort catch.

But, like in this play, the infielder may have to move a significant distance to get under the ball, and by the time that happens, the ball could be pretty close to the end of its travel. So an IFF call could be late, even though it's appropriate.

I have no problem with the call here. F6 did have to go pretty far, but he was in position to make a catch, and the moment that happened, LFU made the call. It was immediately afterward that F6 decided to bail to give F7 the play.

 

[pjordan4477]

This is only my opinoin, but I believe it was the wrong call based on the spirit of the rule.

The rule was created to save the Offense from a potential double play if the defense dropped the ball on purpose. While everything about the play fits the IFFR the potential for a double play was 0% as the SS was too deep in the outfield to have gotten more than one out.

If there is no one to protect with the rule then it shouldn't have been called.

A lot of gray area...there was no way the protest would have worked with all the gray.

 

[AJ22]

This is only my opinoin, but I believe it was the wrong call based on the spirit of the rule.

The rule was created to save the Offense from a potential double play if the defense dropped the ball on purpose. While everything about the play fits the IFFR the potential for a double play was 0% as the SS was too deep in the outfield to have gotten more than one out.

If there is no one to protect with the rule then it shouldn't have been called.

A lot of gray area...there was no way the protest would have worked with all the gray.

Ahhh .. but see, a dropped ball on purpose still protects the offense even if one out is made. A faster runner on 2nd at the time .. drop the ball on purpose to put slower runners on the bases?


Again, the rule protects the offense .. try to forget the ball was dropped because of a bad play by the defense. If you do not see the play as it happened and replayed over and over again, I'd bet your opinion would change (thats if you understand the rule).

 

[beernbombs]

Sigh. Facepalm combined with slow head shake.

 

[TonyB]

Ahhh .. but see, a dropped ball on purpose still protects the offense even if one out is made. A faster runner on 2nd at the time .. drop the ball on purpose to put slower runners on the bases?

That's a different rule.

 

[AJ22]

That's a different rule.

Yes it is .. which is why an IFF rule exists as well ..

 

[spos21ram]

I don't think they would have even gotten 1 out if it wasn't called.

 

[pjordan4477]

Ahhh .. but see, a dropped ball on purpose still protects the offense even if one out is made. A faster runner on 2nd at the time .. drop the ball on purpose to put slower runners on the bases?


Again, the rule protects the offense .. try to forget the ball was dropped because of a bad play by the defense. If you do not see the play as it happened and replayed over and over again, I'd bet your opinion would change (thats if you understand the rule).

The rule isn't protecting them from one out, it's protecting them from a potential double (or triple) play. Still the potential for any out wasn't there. No call would have been a better call.

I don't think they would have even gotten 1 out if it wasn't called.

They would not have.

 

[baseman]

The rule isn't protecting them from one out, it's protecting them from a potential double (or triple) play. Still the potential for any out wasn't there. No call would have been a better call.




They would not have.

So wrong. The call was the right one to make case closed. There is no such thing as the spirit of the rule, there is only the wording of the rule. A no call would have been the wrong thing to do.

 

[GrandCherokee]

So wrong. The call was the right one to make case closed. There is no such thing as the spirit of the rule, there is only the wording of the rule. A no call would have been the wrong thing to do.

I agree. The rulebook doesn't tell why a rule exists and then say only enforce the rule if it serves it's purpose. I also think no outs would have been made but that doesn't matter.

 

[Illegal pitcher]

I don't think they would have even gotten 1 out if it wasn't called.

That's because the SS gave up on the ball. At the time the call was made, the SS purposely letting the ball drop and turning a double play was possible, although unlikely. About as unlikely as a guy coming off the bench and hitting HRs in the 9th and 12th innings last night.

 

[pjordan4477]

So wrong. The call was the right one to make case closed. There is no such thing as the spirit of the rule, there is only the wording of the rule. A no call would have been the wrong thing to do.

Never said wrong, I said no call was a better call.