Other So...Infield Fly or not?

[The BP Hero]

I'm on both sides of this. Kozma made below-average effort to get to the ball but Holiday could have easily caught it as well. Not many outfielders catching infield flies. I did hear on the TV last night that this play was the deepest infield fly in MLB history by quite a bit. Who takes the time to track that kind of stat I have no idea.

 

[Illegal pitcher]

Although I don't think it was a bad call, I think maybe they should tweak the rule a bit. ESPN said the ball was hit 225'. At some point, a ball is hit too far for a fielder to turn an easy double play if the ball drops. Unless the runner on 1st was half asleep on that play, a 6-5-4 (or 7-5-4) double play was very unlikely.

 

[second2noone]

Although I don't think it was a bad call, I think maybe they should tweak the rule a bit. ESPN said the ball was hit 225'. At some point, a ball is hit too far for a fielder to turn an easy double play if the ball drops. Unless the runner on 1st was half asleep on that play, a 6-5-4 (or 7-5-4) double play was very unlikely.

This is what i was trying to say about making a rule with no question. Like draw a line in the OF. Saying anything hit within those lines then the infield rule rule takes into effect.

 

[baseman]

This was so very much an infield fly that I laugh at the people who feel it is not. Either way this is softballfans.com not MLBfans.com.

 

[second2noone]

softballfans at its best.

 

[Nwehrman11]

In regards to the rule being black and white argument, it's hard to say that it is completely black and white when their is in fact some sort of judgement by the umpire as to whether or not the infielder can get to the ball with ordinary effort.

I didn't have a dog in the fight as I am a REDS fan but my only problems with the call were first, how late the call was made and how deep the ball was. It was a tough call for the ump and he really had to wait to call it but it puts the base runners in a tough spot when you wait that long to make the call. I understand the rule and I am not saying it was the wrong call, but at some point too deep is too deep. Correct me if I am wrong but the rule was put in place to stop defenses from dropping balls and getting easy double plays. On this particular play they were not going to double anyone up, hell they might not have even gotten anyone out after missing the ball and having to pick it up and throw all the way to third.

 

[cyoung187]

Runners were sitting at almost half way, there is no chance of them being doubled up from that deep. Shouldn't have been called, certainly not that late. However it is a judgment call and protest was pointless.

 

[GrandCherokee]

Although I don't think it was a bad call, I think maybe they should tweak the rule a bit. ESPN said the ball was hit 225'. At some point, a ball is hit too far for a fielder to turn an easy double play if the ball drops. Unless the runner on 1st was half asleep on that play, a 6-5-4 (or 7-5-4) double play was very unlikely.

I agree with this. Strictly by the rule book, which is all that an umpire should ever call, it was the right call. By the intent of the rule, it did not serve it's purpose.

 

[DeputyUICHousto]

Well,

http://stlouis.sbnation.com/st-loui...58/braves-vs-cardinals-infield-fly-rule-delay

What did the umpire call? I believe it was "Infield Fly!". Its a judgement call. There is no protest...its over. Leave it alone.

 

[Fin09]

I'm pretty sure the umpires in a 6 man crew discuss things like this pre-game. If the outfield ump has the best angle on the play, as he did in this case, it's his call. And he got it right, so there should be no discussion about an outfield umpire being able to make this call.

 

[AJ22]

What did the umpire call? I believe it was "Infield Fly!". Its a judgement call. There is no protest...its over. Leave it alone.

And, its typical for the media to 'blow' a story up .. in the story you quoted that was posted, the story isn't even told correctly ..


'' Andrelton Simmons's pop-fly to short left field split a disoriented Pete Kozma, who'd called for it, and a loping Matt Holliday, and looked like an obvious bases-loading hit on Kozma's mental error. ''


I believe the play had runners on 1st and 2nd ..


Point I am making is the media sure likes to twist this into more than what it was. Was it a game changing call? Sure, it might have been but it was the right call based on the rule. What was more game changing was the fact that Atlanta had the tying run or go ahead run at bat in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings .. Atlanta never got a hit in those situations nor did Atlanta score a run.

 

[STLCoach]

And, its typical for the media to 'blow' a story up .. in the story you quoted that was posted, the story isn't even told correctly ..


'' Andrelton Simmons's pop-fly to short left field split a disoriented Pete Kozma, who'd called for it, and a loping Matt Holliday, and looked like an obvious bases-loading hit on Kozma's mental error. ''


I believe the play had runners on 1st and 2nd ..


Point I am making is the media sure likes to twist this into more than what it was. Was it a game changing call? Sure, it might have been but it was the right call based on the rule. What was more game changing was the fact that Atlanta had the tying run or go ahead run at bat in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings .. Atlanta never got a hit in those situations nor did Atlanta score a run.

This is irrelevant at this point.. The Braves lost, Cards won.. and it wasn't because of that play. Braves made 3 costly errors in that game(Even Chipper Jones stated that fact).. but for the sake of the argument: I was watching MLB network and Harold Reynolds agreed with the umpire saying that since he waived off the left fielder(Holliday) behind him, and was camped under the ball ready to make a play on it, The umpire was correct in calling the IF fly rule at that point. He even showed an example of the same thing earlier in the year from a different game that was called the same way.

 

[jb5]

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

Not sure if it is right or not, but I wondered if the SS reacted to the LF umpire calling the Infield Fly, thinking it was Holliday calling him off. It never appeared to me that Holliday said anything.

 

[jb5]

And, its typical for the media to 'blow' a story up .. in the story you quoted that was posted, the story isn't even told correctly ..


'' Andrelton Simmons's pop-fly to short left field split a disoriented Pete Kozma, who'd called for it, and a loping Matt Holliday, and looked like an obvious bases-loading hit on Kozma's mental error. ''


I believe the play had runners on 1st and 2nd ..


Point I am making is the media sure likes to twist this into more than what it was. Was it a game changing call? Sure, it might have been but it was the right call based on the rule. What was more game changing was the fact that Atlanta had the tying run or go ahead run at bat in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings .. Atlanta never got a hit in those situations nor did Atlanta score a run.

"an obvious bases-loading hit" would mean that had that been a hit, the bases then would have been loaded.

 

[IrishBlue]

Rays fan so I am bitter anyway

I have no doubt it was an infield fly and was called correctly and by the book. The left line blue made the call when all the boxes were ticked, and because of the depth those boxes were ticked slightly later than is normal. No problem there for me.

I am also surprised that so many people here are getting this wrong or making the call from personal feelings. Almost every day we get discussions about umpires making calls because they feel the "rule" is bush league or not important (See our rattling bats and batting box discussions for reference).

As an umpire you read the rule book, read the league rules (If different and they oh so often are), you call the games according to the rules. And you then read the rules again, and again and again.

Often players read the rules, or have the rules read to them if they are beer league players , and then vaguely remember them in a format that simply supports their current need (He safe if we are on offence and he was waaaaaaay out blue if on defence).

So maybe there should be a sticky explaining the infield fly, oh wait, there is.

 

[spos21ram]

As others have stated, the intent of the rule is to protect the base runners. Not to give the defense an automatic out. There was no way the defense was doubling anyone up on this and that's where I have a problem with it. Therefore the call did not have to be made and is a good argument against it not being made. It could have gone either way. But as media outlets have stated. This was the deepest infield fly rule ever called, and was something like 50 feet farther than any infield fly called in the 2012 season.

 

[BretMan]

I didn't have a dog in the fight as I am a REDS fan....

Finally, some sanity on this board!

 

[jb5]

9 more wins for the New Red Machine.

 

[TonyB]

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

Me too!

And, its typical for the media to 'blow' a story up .. in the story you quoted that was posted, the story isn't even told correctly ..

'' Andrelton Simmons's pop-fly to short left field split a disoriented Pete Kozma, who'd called for it, and a loping Matt Holliday, and looked like an obvious bases-loading hit on Kozma's mental error. ''

I believe the play had runners on 1st and 2nd ..

Point I am making is the media sure likes to twist this into more than what it was. Was it a game changing call? Sure, it might have been but it was the right call based on the rule. What was more game changing was the fact that Atlanta had the tying run or go ahead run at bat in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings .. Atlanta never got a hit in those situations nor did Atlanta score a run.

Runners on first and second + a base hit (and nobody scoring) = bases loaded

As others have stated, the intent of the rule is to protect the base runners. Not to give the defense an automatic out. There was no way the defense was doubling anyone up on this and that's where I have a problem with it. Therefore the call did not have to be made and is a good argument against it not being made. It could have gone either way. But as media outlets have stated. This was the deepest infield fly rule ever called, and was something like 50 feet farther than any infield fly called in the 2012 season.

But they have to call it by the wording of the rule rather than intent.

 

[Nwehrman11]

I keep hearing that he was camped under this ball. He wasn't. He would have gotten to the ball no doubt but he was not camped under it. I'm not saying the call was wrong because technically by the book it wasn't an incorrect call, but was a call that didn't need to be made. If he doesn't call it he wouldn't have been wrong because he could just say with how deep it was it wasn't ordinary effort. And to be honest, if he doesn't call it and yell it out chances are the shortstop makes the catch because he doesn't think someone is calling him off.

 

[blov10]

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

He(Umpire) called this when he knew that neither the SS or LF were going to catch the ball. The moment the SS waived off Holliday, the umpire should have called it. Not 2 seconds before it hit the ground.

 

[Illegal pitcher]

He(Umpire) called this when he knew that neither the SS or LF were going to catch the ball.

Let me guess, you think the moon landing was faked, right?

 

[Illegal pitcher]

And to be honest, if he doesn't call it and yell it out chances are the shortstop makes the catch because he doesn't think someone is calling him off.

I think it's more likely that a fan yelled "I got it!" and the SS thought it was the LF.

 

[spos21ram]

I think it's more likely that a fan yelled "I got it!" and the SS thought it was the LF.

That SS plays hundreds off games in major league ball parks with 10s of thousands of fans. You honestly think he would confuse a fan calling "I got it" with his own teammate 10 feet away? It's not like he isn't use to a loud crowd or fans saying stuff like that.

 

[jsizelove32]

I know this thread is about the call itself and not the game, but what Braves fans and players need to understand is that they shouldn't expect to win a playoff game when they commit 3 errors and give up a 2 run lead. This call didn't have anything to do with that.

 

[Illegal pitcher]

That SS plays hundreds off games in major league ball parks with 10s of thousands of fans. You honestly think he would confuse a fan calling "I got it" with his own teammate 10 feet away? It's not like he isn't use to a loud crowd or fans saying stuff like that.

It probably fails to confuse fielders almost every time. Maybe this was one of the few times that it actually worked. Remember when ARod confused a Blue Jays fielder by yelling "ha" when he was rounding the bases?

Do you have a better theory than a fan yelling "I got it"? It makes more sense than a SS being confused by an umpire yelling "infield fly". They are used to hearing that.

 

[TonyB]

Do you have a better theory than a fan yelling "I got it"? It makes more sense than a SS being confused by an umpire yelling "infield fly". They are used to hearing that.

He lost it in the sun.

 

[RDD15]

As others have stated, the intent of the rule is to protect the base runners. Not to give the defense an automatic out. There was no way the defense was doubling anyone up on this and that's where I have a problem with it. Therefore the call did not have to be made and is a good argument against it not being made. It could have gone either way. But as media outlets have stated. This was the deepest infield fly rule ever called, and was something like 50 feet farther than any infield fly called in the 2012 season.

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.

 

[RDD15]

He(Umpire) called this when he knew that neither the SS or LF were going to catch the ball. The moment the SS waived off Holliday, the umpire should have called it. Not 2 seconds before it hit the ground.

The umpire cannot call it just because a fielder has waved off another. If that were the case, you would have infielders calling all sorts of questionable balls just to get that call. The umpire must wait until it appears that the fielder can indeed make the catch with ordinary effort. If you watch close, the umpire did wait, but he did a good job in watching the fielder get to about the spot where the ball would be caught.

Again, we look at the actual rulebook instead of our own emotion and the horse**** the media has fed us......"The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately." This portion of the rule addresses when the umpire should make the IFF call. It does not state anywhere that he must make it at any time, other than immediately after he decides that the infielder can make the play with ordinary effort. Which in this case, as soon as Kozma got to, or very near the spot where the ball would come down, the ump made the call.

Stop looking at this with emotion. I would have wanted to see Atlanta win that ballgame, I an NOT a fan of the Cardinals at all. I can still look at the rulebook and come to a conclusion other than emotion and an opinion created for me by talking heads.

 

[USA All the wAy]

I did hear on the TV last night that this play was the deepest infield fly in MLB history by quite a bit. Who takes the time to track that kind of stat I have no idea.

Why would anybody take the time to track something like this ...it's so much easier to just make it up on the fly even if it's obviously not even close to being a true statement.

Harold Reynolds explains the recent IFF play and shows another of equal distance.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sN1Wenisxtc#!