The infield Fly

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Fair enough but how deep does it have to get before it's not an INF Fly?

And that is "the judgement" part of it left to the umpires. And there are a lot of those (balls-strikes, safe-out, etc). They are not perfect as we all know, but I like to think they are the best (like the NFL, lol). There are no rules as to how far out of the INF it goes. And lets hope we do not have new INF-fly lines drawn on the fields of MLB! I agree with the fact that the LF umpire was a late in making the call. I actually yelled INF-fly at my TV as it became apparent to me that Kozmos should get it (and I yelled before LF umpire called it). It is a toughie for sure, but one of many judgement calls that we hope the men-in-blue make correctly... and timely!

[wlf WV]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Reynolds and Vasgersian are certainly not authorities on the subject.

No they didn't get the call right, that much is almost universally agreed by people who truly understand the rule and the spirit of the rule. If there is no reasonable possibility of turning a double play by letting the ball drop then the infield fly rule should not be invoked. The Cardinals had zero chance of turning a double play on that ball. They would have been extremely lucky to get even one out, much less two outs. They ended up getting nobody out at all after the ball dropped and the runners advanced easily. Calling the infield fly on that play was beyond ludicrous. Absolutely embarrassing.

It was a black eye for baseball that will make famous blown call highlight reels for decades.

Exacty.
I a agree with RMR though.
The rule protects the runners,who earned their way on base;the ground ball double play rewards the defense,it seems balanced and fair,I have no problem with this.But like Rick said,the defense should have to catch the ball.

[RedsManRick]

One angle I've not heard discussed much is that the call was made by an additional umpire who would not normally had been on the field in that location.

If that call were left to the ump positioned right behind the bag at 3rd, would he have interpreted it differently? Given that he would have had a vantage point where the SS was running away from him, I think he would have been much less likely to make that call. Possibly he still would have; Reynolds showed the example of Starlin Castro.

But either way, putting extra umpires on the field simply has not resulted in higher quality of umpiring. We have replay to help the umps make difficult boundary calls. Adding 2 additional umps to the field simply puts them in a position that they are not accustomed to. Get rid of the extra umps.

[camisadelgolf]

I just came across this. It's a satellite image of Turner Field's new infield dimensions:

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I don't have a problem with getting rid of the rule. It is a pretty dumb rule.

AD, I think doing that is to stop situations that happened few and far between. Without having stats (god forbid lol) I'd guess that the majority of INF-fly calls are made on plays that will put the the runners in no-man's land; hence, the reason for the rule. It might be more exciting to some, but I do not prefer the circus-thing/tricky-dicky/nonsense in this great game. No one should drop an out on purpose to benefit their team! This is why this rule was put into place long ago. Akin to basketball having rules in place for purposely missed free throws (must touch rim, etc). Most of us have made jest of "play the game the right way". But this rule is what that is about and why it is there.

I have no problem with people saying the umpire's judgement was wrong (although I think he made the right, although late, call). However, I think the rule is necessary and that is why it has been there for so many years. We do not want the XFL shenanigans in MLB.

[FlightRick]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

One angle I've not heard discussed much is that the call was made by an additional umpire who would not normally had been on the field in that location.

If that call were left to the ump positioned right behind the bag at 3rd, would he have interpreted it differently? Given that he would have had a vantage point where the SS was running away from him, I think he would have been much less likely to make that call. Possibly he still would have; Reynolds showed the example of Starlin Castro.

But either way, putting extra umpires on the field simply has not resulted in higher quality of umpiring. We have replay to help the umps make difficult boundary calls. Adding 2 additional umps to the field simply puts them in a position that they are not accustomed to. Get rid of the extra umps.

Then you weren't paying attention to the "Scoreboard Watching" thread, when I mentioned it last night. Not that you can be blamed for not noticing, given what that thread turned into. [Somebody did touch on it a bit earlier in this thread, too.]

But credit where it's due: I didn't think of it all by myself. The TV guys were putting this theory forward during the delay. All I did is go back to my umpiring days, and put myself in the situation. I still don't think I'd have called the infield fly, but running the simulation in my head, I could see why you'd be a lot more tempted to do it if you're watching from LF. I definitely thought it was a theory worth sharing/discussing.

So in the end, I think it's a bad call, but not -- by the rule -- a wrong call. Kind of the inverse of the ol' neighborhood play when turning two: when that happens, it's a wrong call by the rules, but nobody really thinks it's a BAD call when it's applied within reason (because you want the same protection for your SS/2B, too). It's all a matter of context and the spirit of the law being considered when making a call.

I think that's what's got so many britches bunched. It seems like such a common sense thing NOT to call, but at the end of the day, it was still properly called as the rule is written. Cognitive dissonance. Brain goes splodey.



Rick

[powersackers]

Anyone considering the merit of the rule should read this.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/6/34...nals-wild-card

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

One angle I've not heard discussed much is that the call was made by an additional umpire who would not normally had been on the field in that location.

If that call were left to the ump positioned right behind the bag at 3rd, would he have interpreted it differently? Given that he would have had a vantage point where the SS was running away from him, I think he would have been much less likely to make that call. Possibly he still would have; Reynolds showed the example of Starlin Castro.

But either way, putting extra umpires on the field simply has not resulted in higher quality of umpiring. We have replay to help the umps make difficult boundary calls. Adding 2 additional umps to the field simply puts them in a position that they are not accustomed to. Get rid of the extra umps.

Holbrook IMO was like a fish out of water by having to make that call in that position. Having been in this situation many times where more umpires are added to the rotation resulting in different responsibilities and rotations etc.. it will no question at times lead to confusion.

One thing I can say for sure is the reason Holbrook was late making that call was he had to stop and think what his responsibilities were on the play, where to stand, who has fair foul, who has the catch etc.. Keep in mind this stuff happens in a split second so with everything else going on in Holbrooks head suddenly the infield fly idea popped into his head albeit a little late and IMO with poor judgement.

I would almost rather see umpire crews promoted to the playoffs as opposed to individual umpires. Also don't add more umpires to the crew because by doing so it will change rotations, responsibilities etc. which will result in more confusion like what we saw last night. An umpire crew is a team so if that team is doing well keep them together and don't split em up.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by powersackers

Anyone considering the merit of the rule should read this.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/6/34...nals-wild-card

LOL by that crackpot explanation just about any routine fly ball in the outfield should be called an "infield fly rule" play.

It is a fly ball and an infielder had time to run out there and catch it? Infield fly rule!

Might as well station all the outfielders on the warning track because any fly ball short of the warning track is an "infield fly rule".

They are going to have to re-phrase the rule to make sure the gullible umpires don't get confused and make a fool of themselves in front of tens of millions of people like that goofball did last night.

No chance of a double play = no infield fly rule.

[757690]

Originally Posted by powersackers

Anyone considering the merit of the rule should read this.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/6/34...nals-wild-card

Neyer makes the same mistake Brutus made. He conflated being able to catch the ball with being able to routinely catch the ball. Has Kozma caught the ball, there was nothing routine about it, it would have been the result of an exceptional effort. It was a routine catch for Holliday, but a tough catch for Kozma.

[powersackers]

Originally Posted by 757690

Neyer makes the same mistake Brutus made. He conflated being able to catch the ball with being able to routinely catch the ball. Has Kozma caught the ball, there was nothing routine about it, it would have been the result of an exceptional effort. It was a routine catch for Holliday, but a tough catch for Kozma.

Camped under it, waiving off the Lfer does not make for a routine catch?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by powersackers

Camped under it, waiving off the Lfer does not make for a routine catch?

He wasn't camped under it all. Just because you call for the ball doesn't mean you are going to catch it. He didn't catch it, then they didn't get anyone out much less a double play, which goes to show just how ridiculous the call was. And the fielders didn't realize the infield fly rule had been invoked until after the play was over, you can tell by their WTF reactions.

[powersackers]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

No chance of a double play = no infield fly rule.

Then the rule needs re-written to that definition. Because that's not the rule.

[powersackers]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

He wasn't camped under it all.

He 100% was camped under it, and he had to move 2 steps forward to not catch it.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by powersackers

He 100% was camped under it, and he had to move 2 steps forward to not catch it.

He never reached the spot where the ball landed. Never.

If he let the ball drop on purpose they would not have gotten a single out, much less a double play. It was a moronic call and the whole nation is mocking him for it. The umpire is the laughingstock of the country right now. Deservedly so.