Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
At it's zenith you don't know where it will land, but you should know by then whether an infielder can catch with ordinary effort.
|
Not exactly how professional umpires are taught. Pro umpires are taught to never call an IFF
before the batted ball reaches its apex. They are taught that it IS okay to call it later than that if it takes longer for the infielder to show you that he can catch it with ordinary effort.
This is from USA Today's website tonight (10/5). It was written by a non-umpire, but I could not have written it better myself:
"Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder — not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder.
"Watch replays closely and you'll see that Holbrook, the left field umpire, watches as shortstop Pete Kozma backpedals into left field. As soon as Kozma waves his arms to communicate that he's ready to catch the ball, Holbrook raises his arm to signal an infield fly.
In other words, the umpire waits until he's certain it's a play the infielder can make. Kozma apparently thought it was a play he could make." (emphasis added).
The bold above is exactly how pro umpires are taught to handle IFF situations. The idea that Holbrooke waited too long to make his IFF call is a red herring used by the broadcast announcers and many columnists tonight. The
timing of Holbrooke's call (besides being mechanically correct) in no way, shape or form put the offense at a disadvantage (as announcer Ron Darling, especially, alleged) at any time.