Postseason Scoreboard watching....

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Arguing that the "infield fly" call was correct is the most contrarian thing I have ever seen on Redszone, and Lord knows we see a lot of contrarians on Redszone. It was without any question whatsoever one of the worst calls in the history of playoff baseball. The call will live in infamy forever in baseball lore. Ridiculous and embarassing for all concerned. It is a perfect example of why a one game playoff is a joke.

Actually it's the opposite. Arguing something is a bad call because it doesn't fit the preconceived belief of how the rule is enforced is contrarian when it was based on a false premise to begin with.

It's not being a contrarian, AD. It's called 10 years of experience with games, clinics, camps and tests. You should try it sometime before accusing someone of merely being a contrarian.

I'm sorry that you have a mistaken belief on when and why the rule should be applied. But that doesn't make the merits of my argument any less.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I agree, but on that play even the most rudimentary brain power would have been good enough. The other umpires should simply have overruled him. It was obvious to everybody that the call was wrong. Just get the call right in the end.

It's obvious to me that a lot of people don't know the rule to begin with. Heck, look at how many people thought the ball landing in the outfield precluded it from being called.

And even still, look at how many people are arguing it wasn't called right away when the rule book says it only has to be called when it's determined to be an 'infield fly.'

I'd say most people didn't know the rule properly, so how obvious it was doesn't make a lick of difference. People didn't understand the tuck rule in 2002. Same deal. I don't think people need to be an umpire to debate calls. But when people clearly have not understood the rule and don't understand how it's applied and taught, I find that to be worth noting.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by Brutus

It's obvious to me that a lot of people don't know the rule to begin with. Heck, look at how many people thought the ball landing in the outfield precluded it from being called.

And even still, look at how many people are arguing it wasn't called right away when the rule book says it only has to be called when it's determined to be an 'infield fly.'

I'd say most people didn't know the rule properly, so how obvious it was doesn't make a lick of difference. People didn't understand the tuck rule in 2002. Same deal. I don't think people need to be an umpire to debate calls. But when people clearly have not understood the rule and don't understand how it's applied and taught, I find that to be worth noting.

To be fair, that was a horrible call even going by rule of law, lol.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I'm sorry that you have a mistaken belief on when and why the rule should be applied. But that doesn't make the merits of my argument any less.

It's supposed to be applied when a player does not have to make an unusual effort to get to the ball.

Kozma had to run to a great length to get the ball. It was not a normal play. Infield fly did not apply.

Even thinking about this logically, the whole point of the rule is to protect baserunners from a double play or triple play scenario. The fielder had to go far enough that there was no protection required as the fielder was not in a position to easily handle the ball and prepare for such a play (hence the rule about making a usual effort).

Lastly, if the rule was so obvious that the infield fly should be applied, why was it only called by the umpire at the very last second? Normally, an infield fly is called very quickly during the play so as to alert everyone on the field as soon as possible so that runners can make a clear decision. Also, it is normally called on plays where it is obvious right away (ie. the defensive player can very quickly camp under the ball, whereas, Kozma only settled under the ball a few seconds before the catch).

This was most certainly not the obvious usage of the infield fly rule as you claim. At best, it was a very complicated play that required a split second application of the rule. On the other end, thinking logically about the intent of the rule, and the verbage of the rule, this was a situation where I think it is pretty clear that the rule did not apply in the situation.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

It's supposed to be applied when a player does not have to make an unusual effort to get to the ball.

Kozma had to run to a great length to get the ball. It was not a normal play. Infield fly did not apply.

Even thinking about this logically, the whole point of the rule is to protect baserunners from a double play or triple play scenario. The fielder had to go far enough that there was no protection required as the fielder was not in a position to easily handle the ball and prepare for such a play (hence the rule about making a usual effort).

Lastly, if the rule was so obvious that the infield fly should be applied, why was it only called by the umpire at the very last second? Normally, an infield fly is called very quickly during the play so as to alert everyone on the field as soon as possible so that runners can make a clear decision. Also, it is normally called on plays where it is obvious right away (ie. the defensive player can very quickly camp under the ball, whereas, Kozma only settled under the ball a few seconds before the catch).

This was most certainly not the obvious usage of the infield fly rule as you claim. At best, it was a very complicated play that required a split second application of the rule. On the other end, thinking logically about the intent of the rule, and the verbage of the rule, this was a situation where I think it is pretty clear that the rule did not apply in the situation.

Do you consider back pedaling unusual?

Kozma never once had to sprint. Never once had to turn his back to the ball and go all out. I have never heard anyone describe back pedaling as he was an unusual effort to get to the ball. Like I said, almost everyone thought he was going to catch the ball. That right there should end the debate of this being an "awful" call.

Further, your point about giving the runners enough time to make a decision illustrates my point perfectly. It's not a dead ball. The runners can advance at their own risk regardless of what the fielder does. So the infield fly call really shouldn't impact their decision making too much. If it's caught, they better make sure they tag up. If it's not caught, all bets are off. If a runner is waiting to see whether an infield fly rule is called on whether to tag up or not, they're not doing their job properly.

Logically, umpires are taught to be very deliberate with infield fly calls. When they determine it's going to take ordinary effort, then they should immediately signal infield fly. But they're also taught to be careful in making that determination too soon. Every good umpire will wait too long rather than too soon. That's one of the first things taught in clinics.

It is really as simple as this though: if you thought he was going to catch it, then by nature one should admit they thought it was a pretty routine effort. That everyone in the heat of the moment was so amazed that the ball dropped shows that Kozma was giving pretty ordinary effort to get to it. Really, truly, I've never heard someone say a back-pedal is unusual effort. That honestly doesn't pass the smell test. I'd say back pedaling is extremely usual for infielders catching fly balls out of the infield.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

It's supposed to be applied when a player does not have to make an unusual effort to get to the ball.

Kozma had to run to a great length to get the ball. It was not a normal play. Infield fly did not apply.

Even thinking about this logically, the whole point of the rule is to protect baserunners from a double play or triple play scenario. The fielder had to go far enough that there was no protection required as the fielder was not in a position to easily handle the ball and prepare for such a play (hence the rule about making a usual effort).

Lastly, if the rule was so obvious that the infield fly should be applied, why was it only called by the umpire at the very last second? Normally, an infield fly is called very quickly during the play so as to alert everyone on the field as soon as possible so that runners can make a clear decision. Also, it is normally called on plays where it is obvious right away (ie. the defensive player can very quickly camp under the ball, whereas, Kozma only settled under the ball a few seconds before the catch).

This was most certainly not the obvious usage of the infield fly rule as you claim. At best, it was a very complicated play that required a split second application of the rule. On the other end, thinking logically about the intent of the rule, and the verbage of the rule, this was a situation where I think it is pretty clear that the rule did not apply in the situation.

Let's not let logic get in the way of things here.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Originally Posted by Brutus

It's obvious to me that a lot of people don't know the rule to begin with. Heck, look at how many people thought the ball landing in the outfield precluded it from being called.

And even still, look at how many people are arguing it wasn't called right away when the rule book says it only has to be called when it's determined to be an 'infield fly.'

I'd say most people didn't know the rule properly, so how obvious it was doesn't make a lick of difference. People didn't understand the tuck rule in 2002. Same deal. I don't think people need to be an umpire to debate calls. But when people clearly have not understood the rule and don't understand how it's applied and taught, I find that to be worth noting.

I don't think there is a lack of understanding. It was a judgement call. It wasn't an indefensible call, which you have proved with about twenty posts, but that doesn't make it,the right call.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

I don't think there is a lack of understanding. It was a judgement call. It wasn't an indefensible call, which you have proved with about twenty posts, but that doesn't make it,the right call.

Yet there are still people calling it an "awful" call and indefensible call and saying only a contrarian can argue otherwise. Where's the room for judgment there?

Amazing thing is not one person yet, despite my asking several times, has answered the question of did they actually think the ball was going to drop. A few people did answer 'no' and yet still talk about it being an awful call. If you expected it to be caught, then by nature, it should have expected ordinary effort as one typically expects ordinary effort to result in the play being made (about 98% of the time in Major League Baseball).

[OldRightHander]

If anything, and this is shaky ground at best, it violated the intent if the rule to start with, which is to protect base runners fom being taken advantage of with cheap double plays. It's pretty clear they weren't going to be able to turn 2 by letting that one drop.

But with that said, if the Braves had taken care of business during the innings leading up to that play, it wouldn't have mattered.

[757690]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

I don't think there is a lack of understanding. It was a judgement call. It wasn't an indefensible call, which you have proved with about twenty posts, but that doesn't make it,the right call.

Exactly. Holbrook was within his rights to make the call, but his judgement was poor.

Much physical evidence has been presented to demonstrate that for this ball to be caught by the SS, it would require more than an ordinary or routine effort. Just because he could have possible caught it doesn't mean that it was routine. It would have been a nice play if he had caught it.

It was a routine flyball to left field that the left fielder should have caught, but the SS made a nice, non-routine effort to get to. When the ball left the bat, I thought and the announcer said it was a popup to left field. It wasn't an infield fly.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Yet there are still people calling it an "awful" call and indefensible call and saying only a contrarian can argue otherwise. Where's the room for judgment there?

Amazing thing is not one person yet, despite my asking several times, has answered the question of did they actually think the ball was going to drop. A few people did answer 'no' and yet still talk about it being an awful call. If you expected it to be caught, then by nature, it should have expected ordinary effort as one typically expects ordinary effort to result in the play being made (about 98% of the time in Major League Baseball).

I never thought the ball would drop. I also never thought the SS would get to it. I thought it was a standard pop up to left field that the left fielder would catch, and he would have, had the SS not gotten in the way. And I think that is what nearly everyone else thought as well.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by OldRightHander

If anything, and this is shaky ground at best, it violated the intent if the rule to start with, which is to protect base runners fom being taken advantage of with cheap double plays. It's pretty clear they weren't going to be able to turn 2 by letting that one drop.

But with that said, if the Braves had taken care of business during the innings leading up to that play, it wouldn't have mattered.

If the intent of the rule is to keep from baserunners being taken advantage of with cheap double plays, then doesn't it violate the spirit of the rule to allow a ball to drop that an infielder could have made with regular effort?

It's a preventive measure. The ends should not justify the means. The umpires should not be tasked with deciding if a double play is likely in that scenario because if you put that up to them, you're really adding in a whole other layer of subjectivity. The focus should be strictly on the prevent: let's not give the fielder a chance to pull it off.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Yet there are still people calling it an "awful" call and indefensible call and saying only a contrarian can argue otherwise. Where's the room for judgment there?

Amazing thing is not one person yet, despite my asking several times, has answered the question of did they actually think the ball was going to drop. A few people did answer 'no' and yet still talk about it being an awful call. If you expected it to be caught, then by nature, it should have expected ordinary effort as one typically expects ordinary effort to result in the play being made (about 98% of the time in Major League Baseball).

I answered I expected it very well could be dropped several pages ago.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by 757690

I never thought the ball would drop. I also never thought the SS would get to it. I thought it was a standard pop up to left field that the left fielder would catch, and he would have, had the SS not gotten in the way. And I think that is what nearly everyone else thought as well.

In that situation, no doubt a shortstop is often called off just because it's always preferable to let an oncoming outfielder make the catch than a back-pedaling infielder. But it still comes back to mere ability to make the play. The question is as simple as: could the infielder have made an ordinary effort to make a play. That's all that matters when it gets right down to the rule.

Do you think back-pedaling is an extraordinary effort? I guess that's the more apt question. Because basically that's the relevant question. If someone thinks back-pedaling is extraordinary (the antithesis of not being ordinary), then fine... that's simply a subjective judgment that won't be reconciled. If someone thinks back-pedaling is a routine play in major league baseball, though, there's nothing to discuss.

I'm really just surprised that infielders that don't have to sprint to get to a fly ball in the majors isn't considered ordinary. That play is made well over 90% of the time at this level even if you remove the outfielder from the field. Kozma was basically in position or a step away from being in position from making the catch even without breaking a sprint or turning his back. In little league, that's not an ordinary play. But at this level? There's no reason not to expect a shortstop to make that play under most normal circumstances.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

I answered I expected it very well could be dropped several pages ago.

You're really hedging... a lot!

Your comment was "I don't know that I would have bet on it falling, but..."

Now you add "I expected it very well could be dropped."

So you wouldn't have bet on it not being caught and you expected it could be dropped but isn't it safe to mean that you expected it would likely be caught?

You're really not doing a convincing job showing you didn't expect the ball to be caught. It sounds to me like you're saying in a roundabout way that, yes, while you thought there was a chance of it falling for a hit, no you did not expect that it would. Let's call a spade a spade here.