It was a bad call because the umpire has to make the call right away. If the ball was still in the air and he didn't call it late, there is no way he could have known that the SS could get there and catch it. The SS stopped because the heard the left fielder. If that was a good call then we will never have one of those "tweeners" that falls in between the outfielder and the infielder with runners on first and second because the umpire should be calling it right away with the ball in the air. Bad call all the way... Judgement call made with extreme bad judgement. The best test... would anybody have complained if the infield fly rule was not called on that play?
For me it was a bad call for a very simple reason: the thing the rule was designed to protect against
could never have happened. The rule was designed to protect the offensive team from a player dropping the ball intentionally and turning the double play.
From that spot in LF the player could not have dropped the ball and throw to third and second to double up the runners. The runner at first wad at least half way to second and could have walked to second.
Umpires need to better understand what the rule is designed to protect and use their judgements accordingly.
could never have happened. The rule was designed to protect the offensive team from a player dropping the ball intentionally and turning the double play.
From that spot in LF the player could not have dropped the ball and throw to third and second to double up the runners. The runner at first wad at least half way to second and could have walked to second.
Umpires need to better understand what the rule is designed to protect and use their judgements accordingly.
All 10,000 of them?quote:I'm sorry, but I have grown tired of Rays fans
quote:The rule was designed to protect the offensive team from a player dropping the ball intentionally and turning the double play.
From that spot in LF the player could not have dropped the ball and throw to third and second to double up the runners. The runner at first wad at least half way to second and could have walked to second.
If R1 was at least halfway to second, then F5 could have caught the ball and doubled him off at first. The rule is designed to prevent double plays resulting from the dilemma runners find themselves in: how far to go? The rule takes into account both ways a runner could be put out if the IF rule didn't exist-- by force out at the next base when the ball is not caught or by retouch appeal if the ball is caught.
Isn't baseball great, it allows for various judgements.
I don't think anyone could double off a runner on first with a half way lead to second on a medium flyball to LF. Attempting such a move would open up a risk- reward option that would be fun to watch.
Nevertheless imo that call should only be involked in obvious situations and by using it less it sure puts a premium on smart base running and smart fielders making the appropriate choices and taking their chances with the choices they make. ie more fun stuff to watch.
I don't think anyone could double off a runner on first with a half way lead to second on a medium flyball to LF. Attempting such a move would open up a risk- reward option that would be fun to watch.
Nevertheless imo that call should only be involked in obvious situations and by using it less it sure puts a premium on smart base running and smart fielders making the appropriate choices and taking their chances with the choices they make. ie more fun stuff to watch.
quote:Originally posted by Ninthmanout:
It was a bad call because the umpire has to make the call right away.
READ THE RULE. "Right away" from when? From when it's apparent an infielder can catch it with normal effort. On some plays it becomes apparent later than on others. It's really not hard to understand if you will just READ THE RULE.
quote:Originally posted by Swampboy:quote:Originally posted by Ninthmanout:
It was a bad call because the umpire has to make the call right away.
READ THE RULE. "Right away" from when? From when it's apparent an infielder can catch it with normal effort. On some plays it becomes apparent later than on others. It's really not hard to understand if you will just READ THE RULE.
When the ball reaches it's apex, an umpire should be able to determine if it's going to land near an infielder.
It's a little late ("for the benefit of the runner") to make the call if the ball is 20 feet from the infielder's glove.
If you read the rule...
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.
I will ask the question again...
Would anybody have complained if the infield fly rule was not called on that play?
Would anybody have complained if the infield fly rule was not called on that play?
quote:Originally posted by Ninthmanout:
I will ask the question again...
Would anybody have complained if the infield fly rule was not called on that play?
I made that point earlier in the thread - I think not.
The talking heads are showing their ignorance of the rules. "Immediate" refers, imo, to the point that they make the determination that the fielder can make that play and not to the height of the ball. Per some of your definitions, the infield fly would have been called when the ball was hit if that is your definition of "immediately."
Why are the talking heads not talking about other calls? For example, imo, Loshe had lifted his leg, strided out and started to deliver the ball when time was called prior to the strike dead center of the plate which was swung at by Ross. The hitter (Ross) gets a second chance and HR. Yet, no mention. This has gone unmentioned on MLB station and by most of the media. How about all of the errors? Really? This is the umpires fault?
How about mentioning all of the trash and the danger to players and umps? Little if any mention. I was reading another site and although I don't know the particulars of game etc., apparently in post season play 6 times the infield fly was called and hit the ground so this isn't the first time. You would never believe that by the way the talking heads are acting. (I read the post here mentioning that the range was the issue. Yet, there are several clips that Reynolds showed last night, in defense of the umps, that showed that this distance is typical of what some MLB players do. However, the argument then was that Kozma is a rookie. How does that affect his speed?)
Finally, there wasn't this much coverage of Denkinger. One poster said that last night's call was "the worst post season call ever." Really?
Why are the talking heads not talking about other calls? For example, imo, Loshe had lifted his leg, strided out and started to deliver the ball when time was called prior to the strike dead center of the plate which was swung at by Ross. The hitter (Ross) gets a second chance and HR. Yet, no mention. This has gone unmentioned on MLB station and by most of the media. How about all of the errors? Really? This is the umpires fault?
How about mentioning all of the trash and the danger to players and umps? Little if any mention. I was reading another site and although I don't know the particulars of game etc., apparently in post season play 6 times the infield fly was called and hit the ground so this isn't the first time. You would never believe that by the way the talking heads are acting. (I read the post here mentioning that the range was the issue. Yet, there are several clips that Reynolds showed last night, in defense of the umps, that showed that this distance is typical of what some MLB players do. However, the argument then was that Kozma is a rookie. How does that affect his speed?)
Finally, there wasn't this much coverage of Denkinger. One poster said that last night's call was "the worst post season call ever." Really?
quote:Originally posted by SultanofSwat:quote:Originally posted by Swampboy:quote:Originally posted by Ninthmanout:
It was a bad call because the umpire has to make the call right away.
READ THE RULE. "Right away" from when? From when it's apparent an infielder can catch it with normal effort. On some plays it becomes apparent later than on others. It's really not hard to understand if you will just READ THE RULE.
When the ball reaches it's apex, an umpire should be able to determine if it's going to land near an infielder.
It's a little late ("for the benefit of the runner") to make the call if the ball is 20 feet from the infielder's glove.
If you read the rule...
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.
The key words then are not just "immediatly" but also include, "When it seems apparent that the batted ball will be an Infield Fly..." IMO, that is when he signalled and that is why it was later than most like.
BBallman,
Sorry.... I guess great minds think alike.
Sorry.... I guess great minds think alike.
I weighed in early, and I believe was the first one to be admonished by Swampboy to "read the rule." We also disagreed on whether the SS was "camped" under the ball or short of it, but I acknowledged that I hadn't seen the inevitable replay breakdowns.
I have now - both read the rule, and watched the video breakdown.
First, I have to acknowledge that the SS was closer to being under the ball, while both signaling to the LF to stay back and making what I understood to be an "I got it" wave", than I had originally thought. And it was at this point that the umpire signals the INF FLY. I don't think he *ever* got directly under the ball, but he got way closer than I thought when watching in real time, and I can't fault the umpire for thinking he was under it.
Second, under the wording of the rule, it is a defensible call. That is different from saying it was the "right call," however. That has to do with things that are a matter of judgment, for the most part anyway, and therefore I don't think they can or should be protestable.
Third, despite what I say above and as Jimmy03 notes (and as I understand the rule after reading up this morning), part of the rule is protestable. I don't think it is the part of the rule that deals with the judgment that the ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. Rather, I think it is the *timing* of the call. Under the rule, the umpire must make the call, "for the benefit of the runners" "immediately" after "it seems apparent that the ball will be an Infield Fly." I believe there is an allowable protest on the interpretation of the rule if, on a ball that is in the air approximately 6 seconds, the umpire waits until about 5.5 seconds into the play to make the INF FLY call. After all, it is difficult to see how that call can be made "for the benefit of the runners" if you make it so late that they must go halfway (rather than retreat) and had the LF been in position to catch the ball, he would have been able to make the double-up double-play. [And I believe the rule contemplates protecting the runners from both a 6-5-4 or 7-5-4 DP as well as the 6-4 or 7-4 double-up DP.] Apparently, since the protest was considered rather than rejected out of hand, this must have been the "rule interpretation" protest the Braves made - because as Swampboy correctly notes, everything else about what the umpires are to do is a judgment call about whether or not the play could have been made by an infielder with ordinary effort. Judgment calls are not protestable.
Clearly, the league thought that the timing of the call was *not* too late, though. If they had, presumably they would have upheld the protest.
Regardless, this is why I don't think it was the right call, and why I disagree with the umpire's judgment that the ball could have been caught with ordinary effort.
* If you have to wait that long to determine whether ordinary effort is all it that it takes to catch the ball, you are not serving the purpose of the rule well and the better call would be to NOT call the IFR. I assume this was the thinking of ALL the other umpires (regardless of what they have said publicly), since all of them can be seen looking at the ball, and NONE of the rest of them made the IFR call (and any or all of them could have).
* In my mind, the determination of what "ordinary effort" is must take into context the entirety of the play, and not the last few fractions of a second after a 70-foot high-speed backpedal into no-man's land in the short outfield. It must also take into consideration the infielder's desire and effort to avoid a collision with an incoming outfielder. After all, part of the proper determination of an Infield Fly is that the ball could have "ordinarily" and "easily" "been handled by an infielder." There is a reason on a play that deep that the infielder is supposed to peel off when the the outfielder calls it - it is more "easi;y" and "ordinarily" handled by the outfielder. The SS sure seemed to be reacting to the LF calling him off to me. If not the LF, then what? The late IFR call by the umpire, that he mistook for the LF calling him off?
* The use of the word "immediately" in the rule is meaningless unless there is something to which that can refer. As it stands, there doesn't appear to be, and therefore the word "immediately" is completely unnecessary because you can't really externally judge what "immediately" means when it is only modified by "after it becomes apparent" to the umpire - something entirely subjective and completely internal. Dumb wording.
* If you are not willing to say that, in the absence of the IFR being called, that drop should have resulted in an error, then logically the IFR's requirement that the ball could have been caught by the infielder with "ordinary effort" is not met. The standard of "ordinary effort" is required both under the determination of a hit or error, and under the IFR. I don't know of many scorers who would have ruled that an error in the absence of the IFR. As such, how can the requirement of "ordinary effort" under the IFR be met?
It definitely seems to me that there is a big difference between whether the call was "proper" under the rule and whether the "right call" was made or "proper judgment" exercised. That was not a call I would have made...[confidently says the non-umpire.]
We also disagreed on whether the SS was "camped" under the ball or short of it, but I acknowledged that I hadn't seen the inevitable replay breakdowns.I have now - both read the rule, and watched the video breakdown.
First, I have to acknowledge that the SS was closer to being under the ball, while both signaling to the LF to stay back and making what I understood to be an "I got it" wave", than I had originally thought. And it was at this point that the umpire signals the INF FLY. I don't think he *ever* got directly under the ball, but he got way closer than I thought when watching in real time, and I can't fault the umpire for thinking he was under it.
Second, under the wording of the rule, it is a defensible call. That is different from saying it was the "right call," however. That has to do with things that are a matter of judgment, for the most part anyway, and therefore I don't think they can or should be protestable.
Third, despite what I say above and as Jimmy03 notes (and as I understand the rule after reading up this morning), part of the rule is protestable. I don't think it is the part of the rule that deals with the judgment that the ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. Rather, I think it is the *timing* of the call. Under the rule, the umpire must make the call, "for the benefit of the runners" "immediately" after "it seems apparent that the ball will be an Infield Fly." I believe there is an allowable protest on the interpretation of the rule if, on a ball that is in the air approximately 6 seconds, the umpire waits until about 5.5 seconds into the play to make the INF FLY call. After all, it is difficult to see how that call can be made "for the benefit of the runners" if you make it so late that they must go halfway (rather than retreat) and had the LF been in position to catch the ball, he would have been able to make the double-up double-play. [And I believe the rule contemplates protecting the runners from both a 6-5-4 or 7-5-4 DP as well as the 6-4 or 7-4 double-up DP.] Apparently, since the protest was considered rather than rejected out of hand, this must have been the "rule interpretation" protest the Braves made - because as Swampboy correctly notes, everything else about what the umpires are to do is a judgment call about whether or not the play could have been made by an infielder with ordinary effort. Judgment calls are not protestable.
Clearly, the league thought that the timing of the call was *not* too late, though. If they had, presumably they would have upheld the protest.
Regardless, this is why I don't think it was the right call, and why I disagree with the umpire's judgment that the ball could have been caught with ordinary effort.
* If you have to wait that long to determine whether ordinary effort is all it that it takes to catch the ball, you are not serving the purpose of the rule well and the better call would be to NOT call the IFR. I assume this was the thinking of ALL the other umpires (regardless of what they have said publicly), since all of them can be seen looking at the ball, and NONE of the rest of them made the IFR call (and any or all of them could have).
* In my mind, the determination of what "ordinary effort" is must take into context the entirety of the play, and not the last few fractions of a second after a 70-foot high-speed backpedal into no-man's land in the short outfield. It must also take into consideration the infielder's desire and effort to avoid a collision with an incoming outfielder. After all, part of the proper determination of an Infield Fly is that the ball could have "ordinarily" and "easily" "been handled by an infielder." There is a reason on a play that deep that the infielder is supposed to peel off when the the outfielder calls it - it is more "easi;y" and "ordinarily" handled by the outfielder. The SS sure seemed to be reacting to the LF calling him off to me. If not the LF, then what? The late IFR call by the umpire, that he mistook for the LF calling him off?
* The use of the word "immediately" in the rule is meaningless unless there is something to which that can refer. As it stands, there doesn't appear to be, and therefore the word "immediately" is completely unnecessary because you can't really externally judge what "immediately" means when it is only modified by "after it becomes apparent" to the umpire - something entirely subjective and completely internal. Dumb wording.
* If you are not willing to say that, in the absence of the IFR being called, that drop should have resulted in an error, then logically the IFR's requirement that the ball could have been caught by the infielder with "ordinary effort" is not met. The standard of "ordinary effort" is required both under the determination of a hit or error, and under the IFR. I don't know of many scorers who would have ruled that an error in the absence of the IFR. As such, how can the requirement of "ordinary effort" under the IFR be met?
It definitely seems to me that there is a big difference between whether the call was "proper" under the rule and whether the "right call" was made or "proper judgment" exercised. That was not a call I would have made...[confidently says the non-umpire.]
quote:Originally posted by RJM:All 10,000 of them?quote:I'm sorry, but I have grown tired of Rays fans
Wasn't Holbrook refereeing game's in the NFL last week?
4 unearned runs.
The call doesn't matter.
The call doesn't matter.
The call was by the book. The players actions at the end, which have no impact on the rule, made the application look awkward. This happens a lot in baseball, a mistake by a player makes an umpire look worse than usual.
The protest, which is allowed, was denied. MLB administrators and evaluators know the rule and agreed with its application. No one is this thread has stated a legitimate, rule based reason that this call should not have been made. And no wonder, this play contained all the requirements of an IF call.
The protest, which is allowed, was denied. MLB administrators and evaluators know the rule and agreed with its application. No one is this thread has stated a legitimate, rule based reason that this call should not have been made. And no wonder, this play contained all the requirements of an IF call.
quote:Originally posted by EdgarFan:
First, I have to acknowledge that the SS was closer to being under the ball, while both signaling to the LF to stay back and making what I understood to be an "I got it" wave", than I had originally thought. And it was at this point that the umpire signals the INF FLY. I don't think he *ever* got directly under the ball, but he got way closer than I thought when watching in real time, and I can't fault the umpire for thinking he was under it.
He doesn't have to be under it.
quote:Second, under the wording of the rule, it is a defensible call. That is different from saying it was the "right call," however. That has to do with things that are a matter of judgment, for the most part anyway, and therefore I don't think they can or should be protestable.
Not only defensible, but this play contained every condition that makes this call the required call.
quote:Third, despite what I say above and as Jimmy03 notes (and as I understand the rule after reading up this morning), part of the rule is protestable. I don't think it is the part of the rule that deals with the judgment that the ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. Rather, I think it is the *timing* of the call.
No. What is protestable is "was this rule correctly applied", or in other words did the conditions exist that are required for infield fly enforcement. The league agreed that they did.
quote:The SS sure seemed to be reacting to the LF calling him off to me. If not the LF, then what? The late IFR call by the umpire, that he mistook for the LF calling him off?
This is not a consideration, by rule.
The question that has to be answered is simply, COULD the infielder have caught the ball with ordinary effort? If you watch the replays, the answer is obviously, "yes."
The rule was correctly applied. Now, then, if players, managers and owners feel that the rule is wrong, they can change it.
If a shortstop was, for some reason, positioned at the start of a play 75 feet into the outfield, and could therefore make a play with ordinary effort on a fly ball 275 feet from home plate, would an infield fly rule be the right call?
In other words, is the "ordinary effort" standard apply regardless of where the ball will land? Even if there would be no way to double up any runners from where it would land?
In other words, is the "ordinary effort" standard apply regardless of where the ball will land? Even if there would be no way to double up any runners from where it would land?
A new and very different play? Perhaps that would be handled best in a separate thread.
quote:Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
When the ball reaches it's apex, an umpire should be able to determine if it's going to land near an infielder.
It's a little late ("for the benefit of the runner") to make the call if the ball is 20 feet from the infielder's glove.
IFF should never be called before the ball reaches its apex. Too much can happen on a downward flight.
quote:Originally posted by smalltownmom:
I will be heading that way, but Jimmy will not be able to change my mind.
Smalltownmom what about that very late time call by the home ump that was called after the pitcher started his motion? you know the pitch Ross stuck out on, before the redo and he hit the homer? No problem with that call?
Teams win Championships, ump's do not take them away, Championship clubs beat the teams and the umps.
"OK, even if the call was flat-out wrong, the Braves have no excuse. And it would be shameless to blame their demise on umpires. Not after the Braves blew a 2-0 lead, or committed three errors that resulted in four unearned runs. Not after the Braves had gone 1 for 8 with runners in scoring position. Not after leaving 12 runners on base.
Even when Holbrook made his decision, which meant the batter automatically was out, the Braves still had runners on second and third. They didn't score. Was that Holbrook's fault? The Braves had 12 hits and three walks in this play-in game, but did little with their 15 base runners. Atlanta had plenty of chances to win this game, but succumbed to nerves.
That's the difference between the teams. The Cardinals wouldn't crack during this volatile evening. They weren't going to leave without securing a victory. And by embarrassing themselves and their city, Braves fans gave Atlanta a second loss Friday.
This was the wild-card game, all right.
About as wild as it gets, with the possible exception of prison riots."
http://www.stltoday.com/sports...07-f86157efdfc2.html
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
If a shortstop was, for some reason, positioned at the start of a play 75 feet into the outfield, and could therefore make a play with ordinary effort on a fly ball 275 feet from home plate, would an infield fly rule be the right call?
In other words, is the "ordinary effort" standard apply regardless of where the ball will land? Even if there would be no way to double up any runners from where it would land?
Great question Rob. Umpires cling to the rule wordings, when questioned, and can't recall the intent of the rule and it's application to a particular situation. Often, as in this example, the results seem as ridiculous and often do a school Administrator mindlessly defending "Zero tolerance."
The ball landed 225' from home plate. To suggest that a shortstop routinely makes "ordinary" plays that deep is a stretch. In fact, upon research by Baseball Solutions, only 6 IFF balls have fell untouched during the last 3 MLB Seasons. The deepest was 178'
IMO, the wording in the first paragraph speak to the intent of IFF; paraphrasing here; a fair fly ball that can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort (or the pitcher, catcher, or outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play) shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule."
The purpose, obviously to prevent the infielder from purposely allowing the ball to drop so he could easily out the lead runner and perhaps even turn a double play.
Obviously, this isn't going to happen 225' from home plate.
I too can't pin a loss on the umpires call, or necessarily fault his calling because of wording further along in the rule book concerning outfielders. But it certainly could have and likely did change game momentum and we who have played, understand that momentum is much akin to a boulder rolling down hill!
Certainly, in my mind, and anyone else at the game on on the playing field, felt that "the call changed that game." Hence the near riot (not defending this poor judgement) and later chanting of "Infield Fly Rule" by Cards fans.
Now that we all understand better than we want, a before now relatively obscure rule understood by no one, perhaps they will get busy modifying it to prevent what I think was really horribly applied umpiring call! Why can't they ever just step up and say I blew it in this situation? Not too many Jim Joyce's in the profession I guess?
This call won't even make he top 50...:]
Blind Fury: The 5 Worst Umpire Calls In MLB Playoff History
#1: DON DENKINGER'S SAFE CALL
• Those Involved: Jorge Orta (Kansas City Royals) Todd Worrell (St. Louis Cardinals) and umpire Don Denkinger
• When: 1985 World Series Game 6
• The Call: With the Cardinals only three outs away from a World Series title, Don Denkinger calls Orta safe at first on a routine ground ball where he was clearly out. Royals went on to rally and score two runs and to win the game and eventually the series. Cardinals' fans subsequently sacrificed Denkinger's first-born as equal retribution for the blown call. Maybe not, but Denkinger did say he received death threats for years to come.
http://www.complex.com/sports/...-mlb-playoff-history
Blind Fury: The 5 Worst Umpire Calls In MLB Playoff History
#1: DON DENKINGER'S SAFE CALL
• Those Involved: Jorge Orta (Kansas City Royals) Todd Worrell (St. Louis Cardinals) and umpire Don Denkinger
• When: 1985 World Series Game 6
• The Call: With the Cardinals only three outs away from a World Series title, Don Denkinger calls Orta safe at first on a routine ground ball where he was clearly out. Royals went on to rally and score two runs and to win the game and eventually the series. Cardinals' fans subsequently sacrificed Denkinger's first-born as equal retribution for the blown call. Maybe not, but Denkinger did say he received death threats for years to come.
http://www.complex.com/sports/...-mlb-playoff-history
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
Umpires cling to the rule wordings, when questioned, and can't recall the intent of the rule and it's application to a particular situation.
Do you seriously believe any umpire at any level doesn't know the intent of the infield fly rule?
Actually the rule was written with a more sophisticated intent than you seem to understand, and it's not going to be changed because of this play. The infield fly rule is basically an insurance policy that every offensive team is required to buy. In return for protection from undeserved double plays, they give up the opportunity for their batter-runner to reach base on the rare but occasional misplay or drop on a fly ball that meets the criteria of the rule. The rule is generally recognized as making a fair trade off while also avoiding controversies over whether dropped fly balls are intentional or accidental. This is not the first or last time an offensive team wished it hadn't been "protected" by the rule, but that's the cost of getting protection on the far more numerous plays when they do need it.
If you don't like the wording or the possibility that the rule will be applied when a major league shortstop ranges so far into the outfield that the risk of a double play is minimal, I challenge you to offer wording for a better rule.
As far as whether umpires "cling to wordings" without knowing the intent of rules, do you not understand how outraged you would be if your team was hurt by an umpire who disregarded the wording of a rule in order to enforce his understanding of its intent instead? Suppose your team had the tying run on third base and the pitcher made a minor flinch that qualified as a balk, but no one reacted to it. And suppose your team screamed, "Balk!" but the umpire declined to enforce it because he knew the intent of the rule was really to protect runners from deceptive moves and no one was deceived by that move. What would your position on clinging to the wording of rules and enforcing intent be then?
Umpires don't "cling" to the wording of the rules. They strive to apply them to the situation that unfolds before them.
Get over it. The Braves lost because they couldn't play catch and because they couldn't hit with runners in scoring position, not because an umpire failed to transcend the wording of a rule in order to give your team a benefit they didn't deserve.
quote:Umpires cling to the rule wordings, when questioned, and can't recall the intent of the rule and it's application to a particular situation.
Nonsense. The intent of the rule is at the heart of the application. So far it is the umpires who seem to recognize this rather than fans.
I saw this while perusing the Net last night. I stole it because I couldn't have put it better:
"The umpire saw this: The infielder drifted back, turned to face the infield, did the sweep (Stay away !) signal. That's when the umpire must decide.
Now, those runners are not running. The fielder was perhaps 60 feet from third base. Are you trying to say that a runner can get from second to third before a ball thrown by a professional can travel 60 feet?"
The only reason this call is being debated is that the players actions at the end, which, again, are not part of the consideration for IF, made the play look ugly. This call in THIS play was correct.
So, what next? Well, some want to exaggerate and change the play with "what-ifs". They extend the distance the ball traveled the distance from the infield that the SS is positioned and whether or not a double play was possible. These are junior high debate tactics to attempt to win a point on "A" by attempting to show they could be right on point "B".
Here is what I was taught at proschool regarding the changed an unrelated play:
If, unlike in the play we've been discussing, the SS is positioned as an outfielder and not playing a usual "deep" positioning and the ball takes him back as RJM has suggested, the offense will lose their protection under the IFR.
The reason I suggested that this should be a different thread is that this is NOT applicable to the play the actually happened. The play in Atlanta was a text book IF up to the player FU at the end.
The only argument against the call is that people didn't like it. Bummer.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
I saw this while perusing the Net last night. I stole it because I couldn't have put it better:
[i]"The umpire saw this: The infielder drifted back, turned to face the infield, did the sweep (Stay away !) signal. That's when the umpire must decide.
Speaking of total nonsense...
The call must be made 'immediately' 'for the benefit of the runners'.
An ump can't wait until the ball is 15 feet from a fielder. As a matter of fact, a fielder doesn't even have to be under the ball when the call is made.
You said so yourself earlier in the thread
quote:He doesn't have to be under it.
A SS could just stay planted and never move to the ball.
5 umps thought this was not an IFF.
Any fielder, or umpire, should be able to tell where the ball is going to land (roughly) just after the ball reaches its apex.
quote:Originally posted by SultanofSwat:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
I saw this while perusing the Net last night. I stole it because I couldn't have put it better:
[i]"The umpire saw this: The infielder drifted back, turned to face the infield, did the sweep (Stay away !) signal. That's when the umpire must decide.
Speaking of total nonsense...
The call must be made 'immediately' 'for the benefit of the runners'.
An ump can't wait until the ball is 15 feet from a fielder. As a matter of fact, a fielder doesn't even have to be under the ball when the call is made. A SS could just stay planted and never move to the ball.
5 umps thought this was not an IFF. So 5 out of 6 disagreed with you.
Nonsense. All crew member whose jobs did not require their attention elsewhere agreed with the call.
You do not understand the rulebook's use of the work "immediately".
An infield fly call be called after the catch. An infield fly can actually be enforced when not signaled.
You need more experience with enforcement and mechanics before conducting your next clinic.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
An infield fly call be called after the catch.
Can you show me this in the rulebook?
The purpose of the rule is to 'benefit the runners' How does this accomplish this?
quote:You need more experience with enforcement and mechanics before conducting your next clinic.
I look forward to a future umpire clinic with this play/call heralded as an example of a perfect call.
quote:The reason I suggested that this should be a different thread is that this is NOT applicable to the play the actually happened.
Of course it wasn't, Jimmy. It was a hypothetical situation intended to call the question on the assertion that ANY catch that could be made with reasonable effort would automatically be an infield fly.
You apparently want to dodge this. Your answer above, about the SS being positioned as an outfielder, doesn't cut it.
My question: if the SS is playing deep (but still in a SS position) and he can catch the ball with reasonable effort 300 feet from home plate - is this automatically an IFF?
If not, then the reasonable effort standard is not cut and dried.
This is now the 'Outfield Fly' Rule. 
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
You apparently want to dodge this.
Reading is fundamental.
I dodged nothing. I answered a question posed to me as how I would handle a play. If you don't like the answer, ask someone else.
We are all product or our experience. I utilized my experience from 30 some years of umpiring at level up to professional and training that includes pro-school. You have utilized yours.
Time to move on.
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Of course it wasn't, Jimmy. It was a hypothetical situation intended to call the question on the assertion that ANY catch that could be made with reasonable effort would automatically be an infield fly.
If by "reasonable effort" you mean ordinary effort, then if there are runners on first, second, and third, or first and second, then this is automatic.
quote:If by "reasonable effort" you mean ordinary effort, then if there are runners on first, second, and third, or first and second, then this is automatic.
OK, that is what I am asking. So it doesn't matter how deep the fly ball is, if the SS can get to it with ordinary effort, the IFF rule applies. Even if there would be no way to double off runners from the spot where the catch would be made?
quote:Time to move on.
You are a funny guy, Jimmy. Make an assertion, have a hypothetical question asked that calls that assertion into question, refuse to answer the hypothetical, then when asked again, dodge again, and try to end the discussion.
Kinda like on the field, where the umpire can always end the discussion.
But we are not on the field, and you are not the umpire. Dodge the question all you want, but you don't get to end the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kremer:quote:If by "reasonable effort" you mean ordinary effort, then if there are runners on first, second, and third, or first and second, then this is automatic.
OK, that is what I am asking. So it doesn't matter how deep the fly ball is, if the SS can get to it with ordinary effort, the IFF rule applies. Even if there would be no way to double off runners from the spot where the catch would be made?
Yep.
quote:Yep.
Thanks! A straight question, answered by a straight answer! Somehow this sort of thing is beneath Jimmy.
mizzou, that swing needs some work. Horse beating requires a rotational swing. And his eyes are closed. 
Well, of course the horse isn't dead until all posters think it is.
There have been quite a few posters here arguing that F6 was too far away, and so the IF shouldn't have been called. I think it is instructive to consider a different rule which has a similar motivation.
When a pitch is the third strike, but the catcher doesn't legally catch the pitch, the batter becomes a runner, and the defense must put him out before he reaches first base. There is an exception if first base is already occupied. In that case the batter is out. The motivation for this rule is the same as the IFR: if the batter weren't automatically out, the catcher could purposely drop the pitch, and get a double play. I think most folks know this rule, although it appears that many spectators at youth games momentarily forget it.
So what happens when the batter swings at strike 3, but the ball gets by the catcher? Now the circumstances that motivate the rule are unlikely to be met. Probably the catcher can't get to the ball in time to get a double play. Should the umpire try to assess if a double play is still possible, and use that judgement to determine if the batter is out? After all, the rule in this case works against the offense, because not only would a double play be unlikely, but even getting the batter out would be difficult in MLB stadiums.
The answer is the rule is applied regardless, and I think most students of baseball know this, because it is a fairly common occurence. If the criterion for the rule (first base is occupied) is met, the batter is out. The umpire only needs to determine if in fact the pitch was strike 3.
It's the same sort of consideration with the IFR. Is the criteria for the IFR met? If so, the batter/runner is out.
There have been quite a few posters here arguing that F6 was too far away, and so the IF shouldn't have been called. I think it is instructive to consider a different rule which has a similar motivation.
When a pitch is the third strike, but the catcher doesn't legally catch the pitch, the batter becomes a runner, and the defense must put him out before he reaches first base. There is an exception if first base is already occupied. In that case the batter is out. The motivation for this rule is the same as the IFR: if the batter weren't automatically out, the catcher could purposely drop the pitch, and get a double play. I think most folks know this rule, although it appears that many spectators at youth games momentarily forget it.
So what happens when the batter swings at strike 3, but the ball gets by the catcher? Now the circumstances that motivate the rule are unlikely to be met. Probably the catcher can't get to the ball in time to get a double play. Should the umpire try to assess if a double play is still possible, and use that judgement to determine if the batter is out? After all, the rule in this case works against the offense, because not only would a double play be unlikely, but even getting the batter out would be difficult in MLB stadiums.
The answer is the rule is applied regardless, and I think most students of baseball know this, because it is a fairly common occurence. If the criterion for the rule (first base is occupied) is met, the batter is out. The umpire only needs to determine if in fact the pitch was strike 3.
It's the same sort of consideration with the IFR. Is the criteria for the IFR met? If so, the batter/runner is out.