ATL / STL

The worst was the fans throwing stuff on the field after the game. It should have been Chippers moment.

Well-- They at least made it a fight at the end. Glad Chipper got on in the 9th. 12 hits- 3 runs and 3 errors- and a ??? call- just stinks. The Rays and Braves are my teams-- so now I guess I'm for any team not named Yankees or Cardinals.

Heartbroken for Chipper, wish the team had played stronger.

When mlb made the decision to make a one and done, what did they expect when a call goes so badly? Trashing the field is tacky (not to mention dangerous), but gosh that call!!!

Was it the Twins that got burned a few years ago by some bad calls when they played the Yankees? Maybe having umpires out of position down the line skews perspective too much?

For those who have never ventured over to the umpire's forum, I suspect there will be a lively debate on the infield fly call, although nothing yet.

If I were a betting man I'd say they will ultimately address:
1.) The validity of the protest (my guess is none)
2.) Why they need six umpires in playoff games but not any other time (excluding the all too important all star game)
3.) Best of all, a discussion on the enforcement of the infield fly rule, the how, why, when, etc.

I have learned a lot over there over the years, these guys are good...

Oh and Jimmy will say all the calls were absolutely correct (last prediction)

I will be heading that way, but Jimmy will not be able to change my mind.

JMoff, do you agree with what the announcers were saying about the extra umpires being in an unfamiliar spot and therefore having a different perspecitive on whether that was an infield fly or not?

I know I sure thought that was a lousy call - it is short left field, and while the SS *may* have been able to get to the ball (and I have no idea whether he heard or reacted to the INF FLY call by the umpire and let it drop - but that would be important information), he certainly wasn't camped under it and I question whether he could have caught it "with ordinary effort."

Nevertheless, the ball should have been caught, by *somebody.*

quote:

The validity of the protest (my guess is none)

Can't protest a judgement call.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:

quote:

The validity of the protest (my guess is none)

Can't protest a judgement call.

According to the crew in the Rangers-O's game, they did protest it, and it was denied.

Cardinal fan here. Bad call, I agree. Not as bad as the one that went against us in 1985, but yes a call I thought was wrong.

I said it in 85 and I'll say it today. Never put yourself in a position to have the officials help change the outcome of the game. The Braves made more mistakes then the umpires.


Happy flight!

You are right about that.

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:
JMoff, do you agree with what the announcers were saying about the extra umpires being in an unfamiliar spot and therefore having a different perspecitive on whether that was an infield fly or not?

I'm not an umpire nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, so all I'd say is; the guy who called the infield fly wouldn't have been on the field any other regular season game. The third base umpire did not call INF.

With that said, I don't know the documented rotations of umpires in any system. Like all of you, I've become familiar with the two man system used in HS ball. I've seen the three man system in college many times, so I know what that looks like. We all watch the four man rotations at MLB, which is what these guys are familiar with.

If you feel the need for two extra umpires, in my opinion (humble as it might be) station them deeper to look for fan interfernce or HR/foul at the pole. Why is the LF/RF guy 50' from the 3rd base umpire and 150'from the fair/foul pole? If you need another guy, why put him in a position where he's calling INF?

---------------------------------
Text of the infield fly rule from Rule 2.00 of the Official Baseball Rules:

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.


Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: 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. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately.

-----------------------------------

The call was absolutely correct. The ball landed almost exactly on the spot vacated by the shortstop. Clearly the ball could have been "caught by an infielder with ordinary effort." That was proved by the shortstop getting to that spot and camping out. If the left fielder had immediately picked up the ball and started a 7-5-4 double play, I'm sure Braves fans would have been screaming about that.

The announcer's comments that "It was too deep" and "He wasn't camped" are irrelevant to the application of the rule.

quote:

Originally posted by Mizzoubaseball:
Never put yourself in a position to have the officials help change the outcome of the game. The Braves made more mistakes then the umpires.

Those two sentences say it right there - bad call or not.

Braves fans will probably blame the umps forever, but the reality is the 3 errors they were charged with did more damage. No to blame, but themselves.

I always try to keep what my son's American Legion coach said - that he'd never blame an umpire for losing a game. If you need an umpire's call to win, then you don't deserve to win.

quote:

Originally posted by FoxDad:

quote:

Originally posted by Mizzoubaseball:
Never put yourself in a position to have the officials help change the outcome of the game. The Braves made more mistakes then the umpires.

Those two sentences say it right there - bad call or not.

Braves fans will probably blame the umps forever, but the reality is the 3 errors they were charged with did more damage. No to blame, but themselves.

I always try to keep what my son's American Legion coach said - that he'd never blame an umpire for losing a game. If you need an umpire's call to win, then you don't deserve to win.

I totally agree. In 1985, I was more upset with the Cards for melting down after Denkinger's call in game 6 and for not showing up in game 7 than I was with the umpire.

quote:

Originally posted by Swampboy:

"...The ball landed almost exactly on the spot vacated by the shortstop. Clearly the ball could have been 'caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.' That was proved by the shortstop getting to that spot and camping out. If the left fielder had immediately picked up the ball and started a 7-5-4 double play, I'm sure Braves fans would have been screaming about that."

That's not the way I saw it. I saw the SS get to about 10-20 feet short of where the ball landed, and pull off shortly before it landed. I did not think it was a ball that could be caught "with ordinary effort" nor did I think that the purpose of the rule (which is to keep the defense from purposely dropping the ball so they could get a double play) was served.

Reasonable minds can differ about that, though, I guess. I haven't seen another replay to pay close attention, but I thought that ball was in no man's land, and too deep for an INF FLY. Agree with what everybody else is saying though - the ball still should have been caught by SOMEBODY, and it was the errors that did them in, not the umpires.

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:

Reasonable minds can differ about that.

Yes, they can, my friend. That's why infield fly is a judgment call, and that's why the Braves' protest has already been denied.

There's just something about an umpire positioned in the outfield calling an infield fly that doesn't sit right...

-------------

quote:

Originally posted by OnWabana:
There's just something about an umpire positioned in the outfield calling an infield fly that doesn't sit right...

-------------

Sounds like one of those "arbitrary limitations" the rule warns against

I agree that the depth made it a somewhat surprising call to some people. In fact, it was so deep the runner on second played it 1/3 of the way and didn't need the protection of the rule. However, the wording of the rule is unambiguous, and it nevertheless applies.

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:

quote:

The validity of the protest (my guess is none)

Can't protest a judgement call.

According to the crew in the Rangers-O's game, they did protest it, and it was denied.

It was denied because a judgement call can't be protested.

The call was technically correct, however it was poor judgement. The intent of the rule is to guard against a fielder intentionally dropping a routine fly ball in order to turn a double play. That's why there have to be two runners on base and less than two outs. If there's just one batter on there's little chance of a double play because the batter is going to beat the throw to first on a pop up. Given that both runners were able to advance it obviously wasn't in a location where it could have been intentionally dropped resulting in a double play. An umpire with good judgement will take that into account before calling the infield fly rule.

I'm not certain but I'm don't believe the umpires had the option of overturning the call once it was made.

What is really needed is --gasp-- a rule change. Simply make a dropped ball after an infield fly call result in all the runners and the batter moving up a base. A caught ball results in the out.

The IF call was the right call. And part of the rule is protestable.

Hopefully this umpire isn't doing anymore rounds because I want him nowhere near the Yankee games. The umpire froze on the spot and called the IF way too late. And it was a terrible call. Wonder what he was watching.

The worst judgement call of any postseason.
It's time for Holbrook to return to his day job.

All the people complaining about the judgment need to READ THE RULE and understand that the ONLY judgment to be made is whether the infielder could catch the ball with ordinary effort.

The rule does not authorize the umpire to make any judgment about who might benefit from the ruling. If an infielder can make the catch with ordinary effort, it is an infield fly. Period. There is no further judgment to make. Not about how deep it is. Not about the game situation. Not about where the runners are or what they might do. Just one judgment. Can the infielder catch it with ordinary effort?

All the people complaining about when he made the call need to READ THE RULE and understand that the umpire is obliged to make the call when it is apparent that the infielder could catch the ball with ordinary effort. Not when it is hit. Not when the ball is at its apex. When it is apparent the infielder can catch it with ordinary effort.

On this play, the umpire waited until the infielder settled under the ball and put his hands out from his side, a gesture universally recognized as indicating he has the ball. At that moment, it was apparent he could make the catch with ordinary effort, and the umpire signaled the infield fly. The fact that the infielder peeled off to yield to the outfielder as the umpire's hand was going up is irrelevant.

Right call. Appropriate time. Get over it.

Oh, and by the way, if there was a problem with the timing, which there wasn't, the Cardinals were the team placed at a disadvantage because of it. If the umpire had made the call earlier, the runners would have returned to their bases and would not have been able to advance to 2nd and 3rd.

None of the people whining about the call have pointed to anything in the rule to support their position. Offering emotion and hyperbole does nothing to advance the discussion.

I think when judgement is involved, you have to take into account intent of the rule. We hear about that often from referees and announcers when justifying calls across different sports. I'm trying to understand how a ball 40 feet into the outfield is an infield fly. How about 50 ft or 60 ft. The fact that the player is waiving his arms under the ball like he has it is irrelevant in my opinion. He never settled under the ball... if you see the replay, he settled to left of where it finally hit and then peeled out when he realized he was not under it. No ordinary effort there.

Let's look at it this way... I think we can all assume that the SS was trying to make the play. I think we can all assume that he was giving at least ordinary effort. We know definitively that he was unable to make the play. So we know, as a matter of fact, that ordinary effort was not able to make this play. The umpire's judgement was that ordinary effort would make the play. He was wrong.

Blown call in a big moment.

quote:

Flying debris is ridiculous, but then so is the call. I'm telling you, I'm just glad I'm not there because I'm afraid I might be throwing it to.

quote:

The Rays and Braves are my teams-- so now I guess I'm for any team not named Yankees or Cardinals.

I'm sorry, but I have grown tired of Rays fans. Have seen too many of them with attitudes and their team has done absolutely nothing. And the Braves are lucky they didn't get run off the field. They should expect some sort of punishment from MLB for the fans throwing things on the field. Throwing trash on the field is ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR. I have lost all respect for Braves fans after that...

I hope MLB lays down the law...

quote:

Originally posted by masterofnone:
I think when judgement is involved, you have to take into account intent of the rule. We hear about that often from referees and announcers when justifying calls across different sports. I'm trying to understand how a ball 40 feet into the outfield is an infield fly. How about 50 ft or 60 ft. The fact that the player is waiving his arms under the ball like he has it is irrelevant in my opinion. He never settled under the ball... if you see the replay, he settled to left of where it finally hit and then peeled out when he realized he was not under it. No ordinary effort there.

Blown call in a big moment.

I repeat my encouragement to READ THE RULE, especially as pertaining to your belief that you can create some arbitrary limit, like 50 ft or 60 ft into the outfield, when the rule explicitly rules out such freelancing attempts to put the umpire's sense of the rule's intent above the letter of the rule.

I also assert that the judgment of applying the one clear criterion for this rule is much different from deciding whether to call pass interference. The infield fly rule is much simpler, requiring one judgment call on one factor: can the infielder catch the ball with ordinary effort?

And no, he peeled off because of confusion over who would take the ball.

Again, no one who dislikes the call is willing to discuss the wording of the rule. If your argument isn't that the umpire misread the rule but that he should have ignored the rule because of some circumstances you think are more important, you really don't have much of a case.

I'm sorry, but I have grown tired of Rays fans. Have seen too many of them with attitudes and their team has done absolutely nothing
____________________
You don't think the Rays have been relevant these past 4 years? I won't qualify that. I also don't get the attitudes comment. As a partial season ticket holder for several years I am at the Trop a bit. Don't see the attitude you are speaking of. Rays did not earn it in this year, and it is on them (and their bats). However, there are most definitely some teams that are breathing a sigh of relief they aren't there-- as the last 2 weeks were something else. I assure you, there are some coaches, players, and GM's around the league that think they have relevance!

Anyone who knows me knows that I am the most uncontroversial person anywhere. I said I was glad I wasn't there-- wouldn't want to do what the fans did. No-- I wouldn't throww debris. I recycle everything that can be recycled. Period. A matter of fact, my son's service project involves recycling at all of the football, baseball, softball,s-o-c-c-er, etc. games in town-- with the money earned on aluminum cans going to "Pitch in to Play" for kids throughout the world to have their own equipment. No-- I wouldn't be throwing trash. However, I do understand their frustration-- no matter how misguided.

Originally posted by Swampboy:
And no, he peeled off because of confusion over who would take the ball.

Sorry, I just don't buy that. We all saw the SS waive his hands and call this ball. If this is an easy play, the only reason he pulls off that ball is that Holliday calls him off or it is more difficult than he thought and is hoping for some help. In a post-game interview, Holliday said specifically that he never called it and even kept his distance not to distract the SS. There was no confusion... he needed help.

quote:

Originally posted by masterofnone:
...the only reason he pulls off that ball is that Holliday calls him off ....

If that's true, then it's the second easy fly ball Holiday has screwed up in the last couple of post seasons. Cardinals got away with this one.

Here's a question. If an IFR had not been called, how many people would be screaming that an IFR should have been called? My guess is no one. Just saying.

Here's another thing I just heard. There have been 6 balls in the last 3 years dropped on IFR rules. The farthest was 178 feet from home plate. That ball last night was 225 feet from HP. That's a long way out there for IFR.

quote:

Originally posted by biggerpapi:

quote:

Originally posted by masterofnone:
...the only reason he pulls off that ball is that Holliday calls him off ....

If that's true, then it's the second easy fly ball Holiday has screwed up in the last couple of post seasons. Cardinals got away with this one.

I couldn't have cared less if the cards won or not.

Regardless of the call, the braves played themselves out of the game, the best defensive team in baseball made lots of mistakes.

I am sooooo happy for Hokieone, really, and all of the Oriole fans.

This is a funny game, you can be on top of the world and the next few weeks you are out of the running. I think that this was the best season ever, I enjoyed the extra effort put forth by all teams to win that second wild card spot. JMO.

No question the Braves played themselves out of this one. Not only with the errors, but, they also had 12 hits and 3 walks and only plated 3 runs. Not very good. The call is what it is. It's a judgement call on the part of the ump. I just question his judgement. The problem is, even if the IFR rule is not called, I wonder if the Braves would have been able to score enough runs anyway. They just weren't coming through in the clutch. This call is not the reason the Braves lost the game. And yes, I am a Braves fan.

The Braves also got help on a "time-out" call in the middle of a pitch. Batter swung for strike three, but it didn't count. Next pitch-2 run homerun. I don't see people complaining about that blown call as much...

quote:

We all saw the SS waive his hands and call this ball.

Unfortunately, he wasn't under the ball when he made this move. Any good infield umpire would have noticed this.

Further, the umpire can't wait until the SS sits under it anyway, per rules...

quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by masterofnone:
Originally posted by Swampboy:
And no, he peeled off because of confusion over who would take the ball.

Sorry, I just don't buy that. We all saw the SS waive his hands and call this ball. If this is an easy play, the only reason he pulls off that ball is that Holliday calls him off or it is more difficult than he thought and is hoping for some help. In a post-game interview, Holliday said specifically that he never called it and even kept his distance not to distract the SS. There was no confusion... he needed help.

It doesn't matter what you buy. You still resolutely refuse to discuss the rule. It doesn't matter why he peeled off. Maybe he heard footsteps. Maybe he lost it in the light. Maybe the crowd distracted him. None of that matters if he could have caught it with ordinary effort. He got there. He signaled he had it. The rule applies. READ THE RULE.

JH, I have no problem with the rule. The problem is that the rule TOTALLY relies on the judgement of the umpire. When you have a call that relies on judgement, obviously, there can be different opinions on what that judgement should have been. I think that is where the controversy is coming from.

Obviously, in that umpires judgement, the ball could have been caught with ordinary effort. It didn't look like the infield umpire thought that it could have been caught with ordinary effort because he didn't call the IFR. The 3rd base umps arm did go up, but not until after the ball hit the ground and he was obviously confirming the OF umps call. Some think it was obvious that the ball could have been caught with ordinary effort, some don't. It is a judgement call.

I don't have a problem with the protest being over ruled because the outfield ump made a judgement that the ball could have been caught by the SS with ordinary effort. You can't over rule judgement. You can question that judgement and say your judgement was different. That is what most are doing. I don't question the rule. I question that umpires judgement.

Medlen gave up 5 runs, 3 of which were unearned.

Durbin gave up 1 run which was unearned.

Take those 4 unearned runs out of the equation and the Braves win 3-2 regardless of the call being discussed.

Sloppy defense will bite you in the butt.