Postseason Scoreboard watching....

[Wonderful Monds]

Arguing that hit was an infield fly is akin to arguing that Golden Tate had simultaneous possession a couple weeks ago. It's just stirring the pot at this point.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

It simply wasn't routine. He didn't even catch it, regardless of the reason.

He was literally camped under the ball. It doesn't matter if he catches it or not. It only requires "ordinary" effort. Considering he was standing under the ball waiting for it, he showed he was able to catch it with ordinary effort.

That is the whole point of the rule... to prohibit someone who could have made an ordinary catch from suddenly letting the ball drop. It doesn't matter whether he catches the ball or not... the point is it didn't require extra effort to get under it. He was there waiting... that's an out right there once the umpire recognizes that.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Arguing that hit was an infield fly is akin to arguing that Golden Tate had simultaneous possession a couple weeks ago. It's just stirring the pot at this point.

No it's not. Apples to oranges. By rule, Tate did not have simultaneous possession. That's not even remotely similar.

[Dom Heffner]

That wasn't ordinary effort...dear God, the point of the infield fly rule is so that the fielder doesn't double up the runner by dropping the ball on purpose.

He didnt catch the ball and couldnt have doubled up Roger Ebert.

[GullyFoyle]

He was under it as it flew over head . It's not like it landed at his feet.

[mattfeet]

Brutus, with all due respect, Kozma was never "camped" under the ball.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by mattfeet

If the only problem with the call was "miscommunication", then I expect to see a lot more "miscommunication" between outfielders with runners on and less than 2 outs in 2013.

-Matt

That's exactly why the rule is in place. To avoid purposeful "miscommunication" and the risk of a double play.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by mattfeet

Brutus, with all due respect, Kozma was never "camped" under the ball.

He was camped under it sure, in the sense that being camped under a ball now means you've lost track of it.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Umpires are taught to be patient before calling it. It actually is recommended that the umpire waits to make sure an ordinary effort can be made. The umpire waited to see that the shortstop was able to get under the ball, which he did, and he called it. That's actually the right mechanics.

That's crazy talk.

He called it at a time when it as clear that he SS was unable to get under the ball.

Off the bat it looked like a sure out. The longer the umpire waited, it became less clear that the SS could get under it. When it became clear he couldn't get under it, the umpire finally made the call.

The purpose of the infield fly is to prevent DP's, not protect incompetent infielders. When the call was made, there was zero chance of a DP.

I've never seen an umpire wait unil the last moment.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

That wasn't ordinary effort...dear God, the point of the infield fly rule is so that the fielder doesn't double up the runner by dropping the ball on purpose.

He didnt catch the ball and couldnt have doubled up Roger Ebert.

Dude, watch the replay. He was literally waiting on the ball and then ran out from under it thinking his LF was calling him off.

He never even had to sprint to get to the ball. It was literally a slow back pedal.

That was ordinary as ordinary can be for a starting major league shortstop.

[Dom Heffner]

Under your definition, if the SS runs into left field on any fly ball and gets there before it hits the ground, it's infield fly. Use your head here- the rule has a purpose.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Brutus

He was literally camped under the ball.

What game were you watching?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Under your definition, if the SS runs into left field on any fly ball and gets there before it hits the ground, it's infield fly. Use your head here- the rule has a purpose.

Yes because it doesn't matter where the left fielder is. You can look at the shortstop completely in a vacuum on that play. If he can get under it with ordinary effort, outside influences set aside, then it's an infield fly. It doesn't matter why he didn't catch it or why it dropped.

[Wonderful Monds]

From Rule 2.00

"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. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield Fly, if Fair.” "

[MikeThierry]

That was a horrible call but I'll take it. Cards advance to play Washington.