The Official Forum
Page 4 of 7 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Infield Fly in Wild Card Game (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/92575-infield-fly-wild-card-game.html)

SAump Sat Oct 06, 2012 07:40am
Infield Fly?
 
More Texas Leaguer, than IFF!

Manny A Sat Oct 06, 2012 07:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Ray (Post 857204)
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.
The rule calls for the catch to be accomplished with ordinary effort. While the effort an infielder expends to get into position is a contributing factor, it shouldn't be the deciding factor. An infielder could turn his back and sprint 10-20 feet to get settled under the ball, and then make a routine catch.

So I wouldn't necessarily support your standard. Just watch the infielder get into position, and then judge if the catch is one that he can turn into a possibly easy DP if he let it drop.

johnnyg08 Sat Oct 06, 2012 08:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump29 (Post 857173)
IMO the infielder was not using ordinary effort in attempting to make the catch.
At the major league level, (which you have to consider) this was a pretty ordinary play.

johnnyg08 Sat Oct 06, 2012 08:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmagan (Post 857156)
Here is how rule should be rewritten:
  • Less than two outs.
  • Ball is a pop-fly.
  • Ball is fair.
  • Runners at least on first and second.
  • Fly ball is, at its zenith, not more than a foot behind the grass cutout beginning the outfield.
  • If in doubt, do not call the 'infield fly rule.'
disagree. What if the call benefitted your team, then would you want the rule changed?

johnnyg08 Sat Oct 06, 2012 08:15am
There's a "call it sooner" myth out there or a "why didn't they call it right away" myth for some reason, when you have to call it is when you judge ordinary effort by the infielder.

robbie Sat Oct 06, 2012 08:50am
If anyone, The call advantaged Atlanta
 
Funny thing about all the hoopla about the "late" call is that being late, it actually advantaged Atlanta. Had it been called earlier, the runners would have retreated and likely (certainly possibly) not advanced when the ball dropped.
By the way - 50/50 call but good, all the way.

asdf Sat Oct 06, 2012 09:00am
The only mistake made on this play was that of the mis-communication between Kozma and Holliday.

Kozman makes that catch easily, supporting the IFF ruling.

aceholleran Sat Oct 06, 2012 09:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin (Post 857150)
Baseball Mathmetics 101:

(Unusual play + Correct call) + Stupid Fans who do not know the rules = Mayhem
Perfectly, succinctly put.

aceholleran Sat Oct 06, 2012 09:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Meyer (Post 857208)
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
I just watched the replay (again!), and I maintain R2 was only about 1/3 of the way to 3B.

Amazing how the pundits take it for granted that--without this call--the Braves would have gone on to a stellar inning.

About THIS hypothetical. Kozma camps out, Holliday peels off, no IF is called, Kozma lets it drop and gets the force at 3B. Now the Braves would be SCREAMING for the IF to be called.

Plus, this ballsy, gutsy call is the lead story by many wags. Forget the Braves' errors, leaving men on base, et al.

johnnyg08 Sat Oct 06, 2012 09:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin (Post 857150)
Baseball Mathmetics 101:

(Unusual play + Correct call) + Stupid Fans who do not know the rules = Mayhem
Great post.

Lapopez Sat Oct 06, 2012 09:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 857214)
The rule calls for the catch to be accomplished with ordinary effort.
What? I must be misinterpreting your statement. You are not saying the ball must be caught for IFF, right?

jicecone Sat Oct 06, 2012 09:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbie (Post 857220)
Funny thing about all the hoopla about the "late" call is that being late, it actually advantaged Atlanta. Had it been called earlier, the runners would have retreated and likely (certainly possibly) not advanced when the ball dropped.
By the way - 50/50 call but good, all the way.
When the call was made or even if the call was made or not, is not what is important here. The IFFR is there to prevent the defense from getting a cheap double play. The ownus is on the runners, (not the umpires) to know the rule and condition and decide what their best course of action is. That is a routine catch at the MLB level that met the criteria of an IFF. Therefore it was called an IFF.

Atl. gained the advantage because they played heads-up. Besides the batter being called out because of the IFFR, the runners would have still ended up on 2nd and 3rd. The only people that screwed up where the Cards defense. Unfortunately, the HC had to beg for mercy because his players blew it.

Rita C Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmagan (Post 857156)
Here is how rule should be rewritten:
  • Less than two outs.
  • Ball is a pop-fly.
  • Ball is fair.
  • Runners at least on first and second.
  • Fly ball is, at its zenith, not more than a foot behind the grass cutout beginning the outfield.
  • If in doubt, do not call the 'infield fly rule.'
No

Rita C Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapopez (Post 857227)
What? I must be misinterpreting your statement. You are not saying the ball must be caught for IFF, right?
No, but it could be. That's the point.

Rita

Lapopez Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C (Post 857235)
No, but it could be. That's the point.

Rita
Is that Manny's point, Rita?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45am.
Page 4 of 7 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1