Infield Fly in Wild Card Game

[SAump]

More Texas Leaguer, than IFF!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by D Ray

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]

Originally Posted by Ump29

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]

Originally Posted by tmagan

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Baseball Mathmetics 101:

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

Perfectly, succinctly put.

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by Steve Meyer

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]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Baseball Mathmetics 101:

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

Great post.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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]

Originally Posted by robbie

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]

Originally Posted by tmagan

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]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

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]

Originally Posted by Rita C

No, but it could be. That's the point.

Rita

Is that Manny's point, Rita?