Postseason Scoreboard watching....

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

By the way, the assertion that there is no "brotherhood" among umpires is IMO bovine excrement. There is a tendency among just about every group of professionals to stick together and hesitate to admit that another professional made a error.
Lawyers will privately confide to each other when they believe that another lawyer made a mistake in judgment but they are much more reluctant to criticize their colleague in public, at least colleagues in the same legal community. Good luck getting one trial judge to criticize another openly-they tend to publicly pretend that all of their colleagues are John Marshall. It is difficult to get one doctor to testify that another doctor, at least in the same locale, committed medical malpractice. I am not in the least surprised that umpires stick up for their colleagues.

Current umpires maybe. Former ones... much less likely. I'd not expect a current umpire to go too far out on a limb but you also wouldn't see too many current umpires agree to speaking publicly about a controversial call.

Nonetheless, it doesn't mean he's not being sincere in his belief it was correctly applied. My point last night is that there really wouldn't likely be too many umpires that applied this rule differently than it was applied because they're all taught how to apply it and it doesn't match what the public expects of the rule.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Brutus

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.

You're making my point.

In order for the infield fly rule to be called, it is not enough that the infielder could catch it, the infielder must be camped under the ball, before the ball hits its apex and starts to fall back down.

He didn't need to be camped under it to catch it, but he did need to be camped under it for it to be considered a routine catch, and thus an if infield fly.

It's very clear from the video that Kozma was never camped under the ball before it hit its apex, nor could he have been.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I think it enforces why they added an extra wildcard. How upset now are the Rangers for not winning their division? Ironically, there would have been a one-game playoff even if this were last season, but regardless, this 50/50 game just adds to the importance of winning your division rather than settling for a wild card.

Exactly. It may not be a popular opinion and I'll gladly play the role of "contrarian" with you on this issue.

[OldRightHander]

You know, whatever we thought of the call, and I didn't like it one bit, every time you have something like this in a sporting event, the case can be made that the losing team had plenty of other opportunities not to lose. So we can gripe all we want, but what really happened was that the Braves shot themselves in the foot and then complained that the pain killer wasn't working.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by OldRightHander

You know, whatever we thought of the call, and I didn't like it one bit, every time you have something like this in a sporting event, the case can be made that the losing team had plenty of other opportunities not to lose. So we can gripe all we want, but what really happened was that the Braves shot themselves in the foot and then complained that the pain killer wasn't working.

Well stated.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Brutus

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.

I would assume that distance would be a significant piece in having to make an "unusual effort", regardless of whether he had to sprint. For a SS, Kozma had to go pretty near the end of his range. That would require more than a "usual" effort for the SS.

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.

There is a difference, and it should effect their decision making. If no infield fly rule is called, the baserunner may have to worry about actually getting to third base, and as such, would be more likely to wait between bases in order to ensure they can either get back to their original base in the event that it's caught, or be weary they may have to advance in case the ball drops.

In the event that an infield fly rule is called, the decision becomes much easier. There is no need to worry about having to advance, as rather, they can sit in the comfort of their original base without risk. Clear difference, hence why the umpires normally make a very quick decision so that baserunners can make a decision in advance.

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.

Kozma obviously didn't know about this. He was so shocked at the application of the rule that he thought the umpire was his own LF calling him off on the play.

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.

No, it's not that simple. There are plenty of plays made everyday that don't require an ordinary effort and are not out of the expectation for most major league players.

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's because nobody said it. You have simply made up what people are arguing. Distance matters, regardless of whether the player got under the ball with ease.

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.

I tell ya, you look at every topic from a completely different angle than basically every person on this board, and in relation to last night's play, differently than basically every person in baseball. That does not make you wrong, but I certainly find it interesting!

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

I tell ya, you look at every topic from a completely different angle than basically every person on this board, and in relation to last night's play, differently than basically every person in baseball. That does not make you wrong, but I certainly find it interesting!

You know what they say about someone who thinks they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.....

The truth might surprise many here, but Brutus is in fact a women.

No other logical explantion.

[Jpup]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Current umpires maybe. Former ones... much less likely. I'd not expect a current umpire to go too far out on a limb but you also wouldn't see too many current umpires agree to speaking publicly about a controversial call.

Nonetheless, it doesn't mean he's not being sincere in his belief it was correctly applied. My point last night is that there really wouldn't likely be too many umpires that applied this rule differently than it was applied because they're all taught how to apply it and it doesn't match what the public expects of the rule.

I agree with you. No one else will, but I do. I thought it was the wrong call too, but I was wrong. It's hard for some to admit that and some just don't understand the rule and want to put things in the rule book that don't exist. Does it say the ball has to be at it's peak? Does it say the ball has to be in the infield? No.

Brutus is right.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

Well stated.

I disagree. Pointing out that the Braves had ample opportunity to win gets us nowhere. At that level of competition the margin between winning and losing is so slight the least little thing can determine the winner and this game was no different

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by OldRightHander

You know, whatever we thought of the call, and I didn't like it one bit, every time you have something like this in a sporting event, the case can be made that the losing team had plenty of other opportunities not to lose. So we can gripe all we want, but what really happened was that the Braves shot themselves in the foot and then complained that the pain killer wasn't working.

You can say that about every blown call, that the losing team had opportunities to win.

I don't think you can rationalize taking away an extremely good scoring situation simply by saying that if they hadn't made a bunch of errors earlier they shouldn't have needed a competently umpired game.

[AtomicDumpling]

Boy I have seen some bending over backwards to justify defending that blown call.

Nice try guys. Valiant effort. But that call is going down in the history books as one of the biggest umpiring flubs in baseball history. It was totally embarrassing and a black eye for baseball.

[sonny]

I hate the Cardinals. If it wasn't this infield fly rule it would've been something else. The cardinals upper brass must have compromising pictures of the baseball gods.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Brutus

First, please spare me the lecture about condescension considering your first reply to me in this thread was essentially pointing a finger and accusing me of arguing just to argue. That kind of reply is inherently full of condescension, so I don't think there's any grounds to call me on that from you. Especially since people have been coming at me with "contrarian" telling me how wrong I am and how awful of a call it was, I think I have a little right to bite back... especially when not the whole world actually does think it was the wrong call after all.

Now that's out of the way...

Umpiring legion ball was not meant to be some kind of notch on the bedpost. It was only brought up because legion ball uses the same rules as MLB and umpires are taught to umpire games, when possible, just as MLB crews work (except unfortunately many times its' a 2-man crew instead of 4-man). The point was not to act like "oh wow, he umpired legion ball" but rather to merely point out that as far as rules are concerned, legion and MLB are apples to apples because legion uses the MLB rulebook. If it had been any other level, I might not have brought it up, but I had to know and understand the Major League rulebook for several years and infield fly rules was always a huge point of emphasis during various clinics. It's a lot different when you're not only reading the rules but being instructed on how they're to be interpreted.

You can call it arguing from authority or whatever you want. But the premise on why this was a bad call has been wrong on several levels from the very start of the thread because whether you want to hear it or not, the public's understanding of the rule has not been very good. And that's why umpires are standing behind the call... not out of a sense of some imaginary brotherhood for their comrades but because the public doesn't know this rule very well. If they did, no offense, there still wouldn't be issues about how 'late' the call was or how the 'spirit' of the rule means it shouldn't have been called. Those things are, frankly, immaterial.

The gist of the rule comes down to this and only this: did Pete Kozma have to exert more than "ordinary effort" to make a play on the ball. People here are basically suggesting that umpires are only sticking up for each other. I'm suggesting that perhaps it's what I was saying all along: there is essentially a loose standard for what constitutes ordinary effort by umpires (though as I said last night, it is by no means hard and fast), and because of that, a lot of umpires would make that same call if not most. But already now that McKean has spoken up, he's just 'sticking up for one of his own.'

A contrarian is one who takes the unpopular side in a controversy. First you're claiming expertise in tv productions during Clinchgate and telling us how your background makes your argument authoritative. Now you are a highly trained umpire while the rest of us poor ignorant fans just don't understand the intricacies of this rule. If the subject is college basketball, you are an insider there as well. I'm seeing a pattern here.