Postseason Scoreboard watching....

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Brutus

The rules say nothing about when it has to be apparent that it's an infield fly. Again, the entire premise of your argument is false. It doesn't exist. It's not a consideration in the rules.

It can be apparent 10 seconds before an infielder catches it or one second. It does not matter when it's apparent.

The umpire called it when it was LEAST apparent, so even that word mince doesn't cut it. Contrarian indeed. Sometimes people make mistakes on their job, whether it be television producers or umpires. Not sure why you are carrying the torch when incompetence is called out.

[mth123]

I think the Braves got hosed on that call, but they sure played poorly enough to deserve to lose. The Cardinals were less "offensive" in the way that they played that game, so as much as I think the call was horrible, I think the team that was the better team on this day won the game.

[Wonderful Monds]

I just want to know what could happen in between the last part of a balls downward trajectory and it hitting the ground that could change enough that it takes that long for it to be apparent that it's an infield fly.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by traderumor

The umpire called it when it was LEAST apparent, so even that word mince doesn't cut it. Contrarian indeed. Sometimes people make mistakes on their job, whether it be television producers or umpires. Not sure why you are carrying the torch when incompetence is called out.

Because it's being judged by people that do not have the proper understanding of how the rule is interpreted and applied.

It's not about being contrarian... it's about understanding the rule based on several years of training. At best, at very worst, it's a subjective 50/50 call. But the interpretation of the rule is absolutely 100% correct.

The fact that you and others continue to cite the timing of when it was called as a reason for being "incompetent" shows a clear lack of understanding of the rule itself. Timing is irrelevant. The umpire can wait as long as he feels it's not apparent that ordinary effort could result in a catch. Once he feels an infielder is in fact in position to make a play with ordinary effort, only then does it have to be called.

The infielder stopped right in the vicinity of the ball a full 2 seconds before it dropped and then got out of the way for an outfielder. At that moment in time, the umpire felt it was apparent that it could have required ordinary effort. And indeed, if the shortstop had not been called off, or at least thought so, he'd have made an ordinary catch.

Arguing something that is not completely understood and haven't been trained on, then calling someone that does and has a contrarian, is rather poor form.

[Wonderful Monds]

OK even arguing under those terms

What did Kozma or that ball do that took THAT long for him to realize it was a routine pop out? Everything was pretty much set in motion by the time he made the IFF signal.

Either he mangled the rule, or he's a bad ump for having to wait that long to call it.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

I just want to know what could happen in between the last part of a balls downward trajectory and it hitting the ground that could change enough that it takes that long for it to be apparent that it's an infield fly.

It's pretty simple... the infielder stopped as if he were waiting on the ball and the ball was still in flight. That right there gave the umpire every indication he needed to believe ordinary effort was possible to make the play. Everything that happened after that was irrelevant. At that moment in time, the umpire was justified in his interpretation of the rule. It's still subjective as to whether the infielder would have made the play but once he stopped as if he were getting ready to catch it, the umpire had every right to call that an infield fly.

[FlightRick]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Protest denied by MLB.

Probably as it should be.

I know it sounds like BS equivocation, but I think that was a bad call, not a wrong call. In a game riddled with "unwritten rules" and "the human element," it's not even like that's an oxymoron. If I'm on the field, it's not a call I make; but if I'm MLB, then I also can't overturn the call/uphold the protest, because the call still does conform to the rule, as written.

It's a catch-22, but upholding the letter of the law trumps an umpire who made a mistake in applying the spirit of it, I guess.

The TV guys came the closest to hitting the nail on the head, I thought: the only reason this call is made is because it was an extra ump, in a position where there normally isn't an ump. Leave it up to the 2nd or 3rd base umpire, and all they see is the SS drifting out at a steady jog, and it probably never occurs to them to call an infield fly when the fielder is getting further and further away from the infield. But an ump down the LF line has a different perspective, and sees the LF running after the fly and still not getting to it as fast as the SS, so he calls the infield fly rule.

I sort of painted that mental picture for myself, and it made a bit of sense, anyway.


Rick

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

OK even arguing under those terms

What did Kozma or that ball do that took THAT long for him to realize it was a routine pop out? Everything was pretty much set in motion by the time he made the IFF signal.

Either he mangled the rule, or he's a bad ump for having to wait that long to call it.

Kozma was never once sprinting or running to the ball. That is the first thing umpires typically look at to determine effort. If an infielder never has to sprint or turn his shoulder and run with his back to the ball, then any good umpire is going to keep watching the play. Nonetheless, umpires are taught to make sure an infielder is at least in position to make a play before they make the call. The umpire should not and did not call it until he saw Kozma stop as if he were going to make a catch.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Brutus

It's pretty simple... the infielder stopped as if he were waiting on the ball and the ball was still in flight. That right there gave the umpire every indication he needed to believe ordinary effort was possible to make the play. Everything that happened after that was irrelevant. At that moment in time, the umpire was justified in his interpretation of the rule. It's still subjective as to whether the infielder would have made the play but once he stopped as if he were getting ready to catch it, the umpire had every right to call that an infield fly.

Why did it take him that long to see? He saw where the ball was carrying and he should've seen the fielder's positioning by then.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Kozma was never once sprinting or running to the ball. That is the first thing umpires typically look at to determine effort. If an infielder never has to sprint or turn his shoulder and run with his back to the ball, then any good umpire is going to keep watching the play. Nonetheless, umpires are taught to make sure an infielder is at least in position to make a play before they make the call. The umpire should not and did not call it until he saw Kozma stop as if he were going to make a catch.

Explain then how the rule has never been applied that way, until tonight.

[mattfeet]

I rest my case:

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Explain then how the rule has never been applied that way, until tonight.

It's applied that way a lot. Sometimes you don't realize it because the announcers might not mention an infield fly call is ruled, but it's called hundreds of times during the season. Remember it's not a dead ball, so if the announcers don't mention the infield fly being called, you probably didn't even realize it was.

Honestly, I don't know what else to say. That rule is called a lot. I'd say given the spot on the field where the ball landed, it probably doesn't happen very often that a shortstop gets to the ball with 'ordinary effort' or typically the LF calls him off early on in the play so umpires have a lot less to go on. But truly, that call really isn't atypical. I saw it a few weeks ago in a Reds' game, in fact. But the TV guys didn't mention it, and the only reason I know it was called is because I was actually listening to the Pirates radio broadcast and they did say it on the air.

[Tom Servo]

Kozma. Back and to the left.

[mattfeet]

My points with that picture are:

1) Kozma gave up BEFORE the call was even made
2) Kozma NEVER reached the point where the ball landed
3) At point Kozma quit on ball, there was NOT "2-3 seconds" left until ball landed.

[Wonderful Monds]

Meanwhile in Arlington, Adam Jones pops to CF and is called out on an infield fly by an umpire in an Atlanta hotel room.