The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 07:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
Infield Fly?

More Texas Leaguer, than IFF!
__________________
SAump

Last edited by SAump; Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:46am.
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 07:54am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Ray View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 08:12am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump29 View Post
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.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 08:13am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmagan View Post
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?
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 08:15am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
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.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 08:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
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.
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 09:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 751
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.
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 09:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 323
Send a message via AIM to aceholleran
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin View Post
Baseball Mathmetics 101:

(Unusual play + Correct call) + Stupid Fans who do not know the rules = Mayhem
Perfectly, succinctly put.
__________________
There is no such thing as idiot-proof, only idiot-resistant.
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 09:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 323
Send a message via AIM to aceholleran
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Meyer View Post
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.
__________________
There is no such thing as idiot-proof, only idiot-resistant.
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 09:18am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin View Post
Baseball Mathmetics 101:

(Unusual play + Correct call) + Stupid Fans who do not know the rules = Mayhem
Great post.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 09:19am
I hate Illinois Nazis
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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?
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 09:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbie View Post
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.
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 10:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmagan View Post
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
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 10:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapopez View Post
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
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2012, 12:00pm
I hate Illinois Nazis
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C View Post
No, but it could be. That's the point.

Rita
Is that Manny's point, Rita?
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can anybody explain wild card . . . ? greymule Baseball 5 Mon Oct 01, 2007 03:47pm
Game Card michaelpr Football 47 Thu Aug 05, 2004 07:12pm
Fed Game Wild Play Dukat Softball 14 Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:51pm
Game Card Ed Hickland Football 15 Fri Sep 05, 2003 09:49am
Pre Game Card RefSouthAlb Basketball 1 Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:44am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1