Postseason Scoreboard watching....

[Dom Heffner]

That, by rule, is a correct interpretation. It's only subjective as to whether it was ordinary effort. But the rule was correct. Your photos actually help my case. The ball can't even be seen in the first image where Kozma starts forward. He had plenty of time to stay under it (or take a step to the left) in those two seconds.

Except for the immediately part.

If you remove that part of the rule, you're right.

Unfortunately, you can't remove that part of the rule.

Immediately. Because -duh- the runners need to know if they can risk advancing or not.

If you don't tell them immediately, they don't know.

First you said the rule did not say immediately.

Then you said it wasn't simply for the runners but it was so fielders didn't miscommunicate.

The rule is for the benefit of the runners, the rule says immediately.

The discussion is over.

The whole freaking rule is so a fielder can't drop an easy pop up and double up the runners.

Nothing else. And if the umps don't call it immediately it defeats the point of the rule. That's why the rule says it twice, to make it clear. To most people who can read and understand the English language.

If you wish to remove the word immediately, then yes, you're spot on!

[mattfeet]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I've watched this replay 10 times dude. Go to MLB.com and watch the highlight (the 4:59 version). He literally takes his final step back at the 6-second mark. The ball lands exactly at the 8-second mark.

I don't know what else to tell you except my very elementary math education tells me that's 2 seconds.

And my very elementary match education tells me that 1:04 - 1:04 can be no longer than 1 second. Whatever.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Players, umpires, analysts and people who are paid to watch this game, all have pointed out that it was BS call.

If these were angry fans I'd get it. But these are people who are paid to understand the game.

You really put your faith in former players and announcers to understand the rules very well these days? You have a lot more faith than I do.

You're being a little gratuitous though with all these umpires you are saying came out of the woodwork.

But I'm definitely not the only person on the internet. Here's a USA Today column by Paul White asserting the same thing I am:

http://www.jacksonsun.com/usatoday/a...CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

[Dom Heffner]

I'd like to see your elementary math define immediately.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Brutus

You really put your faith in former players and announcers to understand the rules very well these days? You have a lot more faith than I do.

You're being a little gratuitous though with all these umpires you are saying came out of the woodwork.

But I'm definitely not the only person on the internet. Here's a USA Today column by Paul White asserting the same thing I am:

http://www.jacksonsun.com/usatoday/a...CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

Current players.

[Tom Servo]

So basically if you wave your arms, you can get the umpire to declare it an infield fly on that basis?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

I'd like to see your elementary math define immediately.

Why do you continue purposely conflating the definition of immediate?

"must be called immediately when it becomes apparent"

is not =

"must be immediately apparent and called."

[mattfeet]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Why do you continue purposely conflating the definition of immediate?

"must be called immediately when it becomes apparent"

is not =

"must be immediately apparent and called."

I do agree with Brutus with his take on the verbage of the rule.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Current players.

In my experience, most players don't actually know the rulebook very well.

[Brutus]

Just another point to make...

Does anyone really think I'd really be arguing for this if I didn't believe it. It IS the Cardinals, after all. I don't want to defend anything for them.

[vaticanplum]

Anybody want to talk about Devin Mesoraco?

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Why do you continue purposely conflating the definition of immediate?

"must be called immediately when it becomes apparent"

is not =

"must be immediately apparent and called."

If we all have to wait and see if it is routine for five seconds, then it defeats the purpose of the rule.

You can't decide, fifteen feet away from being caught that it is now routine.

The fact that he waited tells you it wasn't. Apparent=obvious. If you have to wait until you're sure, it isn't obvious and therefore cannot be called immediately.



The rule is not made in a vacuum. It has an intent. That SS could not double the runner by dropping the ball on purpose.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Anybody want to talk about Devin Mesoraco?

Sure, I'm game...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Anybody want to talk about Devin Mesoraco?

He hasn't been playing because he accidentally went forward in time back in late August. And when he returned he told Dusty about the Cardinals game and it infuriated Dusty, so he benched Mesoraco for the reminder of the season so as to teach him a lesson about messing with quantum mechanics.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Anybody want to talk about Devin Mesoraco?

I hear he is being officially detained in a cage in Bud Selig's office by law of the infield fly rule.