Postseason Scoreboard watching....

[Brutus]

Harold Reynolds with a wonderful analysis of the play and also shows a similar play from a game this year where a call was made late on a ball hit in a very similar spot (which is not surprising as this is not really that rare a call as I've been saying all along). But I guess Harold is just a contrarian too.

Cardinals Infield Fly Rule - YouTube

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Brutus

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.

I expected the ball to be caught, but I also thought it had a good chance of falling in as well. I always half expect that to happen because those plays happen on a nightly basis across MLB. It's a common enough result that there are communication errors on the border of shallow OF that the ball does drop in frequently out there. Frequently enough that Sam Holbrook blew it for the Braves.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Harold Reynolds with a wonderful analysis of the play and also shows a similar play from a game this year where a call was made late. But I guess Harold is just a contrarian too.

Cardinals Infield Fly Rule - YouTube

If he's not a contrarian he doesn't know much about baseball, because I just heard him say the other night that Tulowitzki is the most overrated player in baseball because he's never had a 100 RBI season.

So yeah in that sense Harold is a contrarian on their show pretty often, actually.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Brutus

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.

It was a routine play for the left fielder, and a non-routine play for the SS. Just because the SS could get to it, doesn't make it routine. If he would have caught it, most people, including me, would have been impressed.

Most third basemen can make a diving stop of a hard hit ball right down the line, and throw out the runner. It still isn't routine, however. Most CF can make a leaping catch against the wall of a high drive, but it doesn't mean it was routine.

From what I understand, umpires are taught that a pop up or fly ball is routine if the fielder is camped under it before it starts to come down. That clearly wasn't the case in this play. At no point was the SS camped under it, nor was he ever able to be camped under it before it started to come down. It wasn't an infield fly.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

If he's not a contrarian he doesn't know much about baseball, because I just heard him say the other night that Tulowitzki is the most overrated player in baseball because he's never had a 100 RBI season.

So yeah in that sense Harold is a contrarian on their show pretty often, actually.

But I thought everyone on the internet and all the former players and announcers all said it was a good call

Regardless, I don't watch Reynolds enough to have an opinion of him one iota. But his analysis is 100% spot-on.

There's a reason why MLB immediately denied the protest (if it's a judgment call it would be denied anyhow but it puts to rest the idea that the rule was misapplied). The umpiring crew is unilaterally saying, even after review, they completely believe the right call was made. I absolutely positively agree with them.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Harold Reynolds with a wonderful analysis of the play and also shows a similar play from a game this year where a call was made late on a ball hit in a very similar spot (which is not surprising as this is not really that rare a call as I've been saying all along). But I guess Harold is just a contrarian too.

Cardinals Infield Fly Rule - YouTube

The only thing worse than backing up your argument by showing that Harold Reynolds agrees with you is backing up your argument by showing that Mitch Williams agrees with you

Btw, immediately after that, Billy Ripken blew Reynolds argument to pieces, leaving Reynolds speechless.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by 757690

The only thing worse than backing up your argument by showing that Harold Reynolds agrees with you is backing up your argument by showing that Mitch Williams agrees with you

It could have been Gumby and Pokey backing up the argument for all I care. It wasn't that it was Reynolds but he broke down the mechanics of the play perfectly. I expect people to make ad hominem attacks on his credibility now because they rejected the premise out of hand.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

If he's not a contrarian he doesn't know much about baseball, because I just heard him say the other night that Tulowitzki is the most overrated player in baseball because he's never had a 100 RBI season.

So yeah in that sense Harold is a contrarian on their show pretty often, actually.

What does Reynold's opinion of Tulo have to do with his interpretation of a rule? Just because he doesn't agree that Tulo is as great as someone doesn't make Reynold's argument for this play less valid.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Brutus

It could have been Gumby and Pokey backing up the argument for all I care. It wasn't that it was Reynolds but he broke down the mechanics of the play perfectly. I expect people to make ad hominem attacks on his credibility now because they rejected the premise out of hand.

Reynolds was wrong, and Billy Ripken showed him why he was wrong immediately after that. Ripken showed on the video that the SS was not camped under it, nor could he have been able to camp under it, the same way that the Cubs player was.

[MikeThierry]

Isn't this whole debate almost moot considering that the Cards were winning and the Braves beat themselves? The only true outcome of that play if there wasn't the infield fly rule was bases loaded with 1 out.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by 757690

Reynolds was wrong, and Billy Ripken showed him why he was wrong immediately after that. Ripken showed on the video that the SS was not camped under it, nor could he have been able to camp under it, the same way that the Cubs player was.

What was he wrong about? A subjective statement based on a non 3-dimensional view of the field that we have to start and stop video equipment to argue back and forth? That's not very strong proof to declare a winner and loser.

Kozma had come to a complete stop and the ball still wasn't even at the top of the frame. He had taken 1-2 steps forward before the ball even dropped. Even if one concludes he wasn't right under the ball, at most Kozma takes one or two more easy steps ("back and to his left") and he has a routine catch.

I mean the ball wasn't even in view of the screen when Kozma had stopped. It's hard to assume it would not have been probable he makes the catch under ordinary circumstances.

If Ripken's best argument is that it can't be reasonably expected for Kozma to take one more step back and to the left to catch the fly ball, I will declare Reynolds the winner of that debate.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Brutus

What was he wrong about? A subjective statement based on a non 3-dimensional view of the field that we have to start and stop video equipment to argue back and forth? That's not very strong proof to declare a winner and loser.

Kozma had come to a complete stop and the ball still wasn't even at the top of the frame. He had taken 1-2 steps forward before the ball even dropped. Even if one concludes he wasn't right under the ball, at most Kozma takes one or two more easy steps ("back and to his left") and he has a routine catch.

I mean the ball wasn't even in view of the screen when Kozma had stopped. It's hard to assume it would not have been probable he makes the catch under ordinary circumstances.

If Ripken's best argument is that it can't be reasonably expected for Kozma to take one more step back and to the left to catch the fly ball, I will declare Reynolds the winner of that debate.

For the play to be routine, it requires more than just that it was catchable. Kozma needs to be camped under the ball, ready to catch it, before the ball starts to fall back to the ground. That never happened, nor was it ever possible for that to happen. This has been said and shown numerous times in this thread. If you think he was camped under the ball before it started to fall back to the ground, fine, that's your opinion. But that's not what I saw. And with that I exit this discussion. Thanks for the lively debate

[RedsBaron]

Breaking news: Major League Baseball has just announced that it is reversing the errors charged to Dodgers centerfielder Willie Davis in game two of the 1966 World Series, when Davis dropped two flyballs hit to centerfield. Umpire Sam Holbrook has called the infield fly rule on each play, stating that Davis could have caught each ball with ordinary effort. Holbrook brushed off complaints by some unknowledgable critics that the infield fly rule should have been called immediately.

[Brutus]

Former umpire Jim McKean told ESPN that he thought it was the correct call:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=8467452

He too must be a contrarian.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by 757690

For the play to be routine, it requires more than just that it was catchable. Kozma needs to be camped under the ball, ready to catch it, before the ball starts to fall back to the ground. That never happened, nor was it ever possible for that to happen. This has been said and shown numerous times in this thread. If you think he was camped under the ball before it started to fall back to the ground, fine, that's your opinion. But that's not what I saw. And with that I exit this discussion. Thanks for the lively debate

He was no more than a step away from where the ball landed and would have had another two seconds to take that extra step if he'd not stopped. He didn't even need to be camped under it for him to get it.