I'd say it was a correct call, but not a good one. (Taking a pass in an IF call would also have been correct, in my opinion.) The rule is there to protect the offense from a cheap double play. It is not there to insulate the defense from an error.

IMO the infielder was not using ordinary effort in attempting to make the catch.

That would have been my judgment too, albeit from my armchair.

I think MLB would have the "in doubt" the other way. If an umpire is, for whatever in reason in doubt, and doesn't call the IFF, then an easy double play may be at hand which would be a disadvantage for the offense. On the other hand, if you go the other way, it'll be at most, one out assuming the base runners are paying attention and in theory, you're protecting the offense from a "cheap" double play.

More defensible call to me in left field than right, especially with first and second. I know the rule doesn't distinguish, but in right there is virtually zero danger of an intentional drop once the ball gets that deep, since that is a much longer throw to start the double play.

I agree with this and it looks worse because the ball drops to the ground with no one catching it. Had the left fielder caught the ball I dont think there would be nearly as much controversy over the call as there will be.
This will revamp the discussion of instant replay for more plays even though it would virtually never be a replay reviewable call since its 100 % judgement.

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.

Horrible call. If for no other reason, the call was not made until the ball was just a few feet from hitting the found. Infield Fly must be called MUCH earlier than this.

The rule was designed to keep the defense from an advantage, a cheap DP, not to keep the offense from being disadvantaged. So why, if the defense was not advantaged and the offense was not dissadvantaged, would the umpires not reverse their IFF call. In this case, the cheap DP did not happen and was not possible so why not reverse the IFF call. They have reversed much other calls this year.
Certain IFF calls can certainly be reversed. Why not this one?

If this would have been changed, then it would have been protestable. It met the requirements and judged that way. As soon as the umpire says "There was no possibility of a DP", he just misapplied the rules and that is protestable. The Cardinals would have had a very good argument. Regardless of why the rule was made, it does not have the provision "unless there is no chance for a cheap DP". It only says where the runners are, where the ball has to be, how many outs there are, and if the ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. That was all met on this play. It was an IFR call and IMO, the correct call.

I don't think it is the correct call, but I can see where the umpires can call that an infield fly.

As we know there are lots of fly balls that are within the infield that are "not" going to be called infield fly simply because of the location and it is "not" a ball that can be caught with ordinary effort, but this is MLB and the players have such a larger range than say college or HS kids.

so while the umpire can call this an infield fly, in this situation i don't think it was since the F6 seemed unsure during the whole play.

The call should have been made by U3, he had the best angle and view of the play and did not make the call that I could see so I think he had lots of doubt on this ball also.

The LF ump waited til he was sure, but as soon as he throws his hand up the F6 moves out of the way etc.,

But, sometimes you have to umpire and seems that is what they did.

Thanks
DAvid

It was certainly within F6 range and could be considered ordinary effort for MLB. The fact that he got called off, (I am supposing) and bailed out at the last minute, made it look real bad for the officials.

Sometimes **it just happens.

For those that feel this should not have been called, I wonder what standard you use in your games to determine "ordinary effort". In my neck of the woods, if the infielder turns his back to the plate, he is demonstrating EXTRA-ORDINARY effort to make a play. F6 never turned his back. From my arm chair, I feel he would have made the catch had he not bailed. It appears these are the fact used be the umpires on the scene.

You left out a few, but added some that were wrong to make up for it.

The ball was so far out in the grass, both runners were able to get larger leads, and advanced on the play with ease.

Off topic content removed. - Welpe