Infield Fly in Wild Card Game

[tmagan]

Originally Posted by DG

The first 4 bullets are already rule. Ordinary effort is required and that can happen several feet behind the grass. 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.

The last bullet can't be written into rule.

Sure it can, in the NFL, referees are instructed that if they are in doubt, you can call roughing the passer.

[APG]

Originally Posted by tmagan

Sure it can, in the NFL, referees are instructed that if they are in doubt, you can call roughing the passer.

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.

[rulesmaven]

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.

[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.

[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.

[lawump]

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.

[refiator]

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.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by lawump

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.

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?

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by umpjim

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.

[Steve Meyer]

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.'

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

[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?

[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