Infield Fly in Wild Card Game

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Ump29

Clearly not an infield fly. Bad call.

It's not clear at all. Maybe it wasn't a very wise call, but it was not, by rule, incorrect.

[Ump29]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

It's not clear at all. Maybe it wasn't a very wise call, but it was not, by rule, incorrect.

IMO way too deep for IFF.

[JugglingReferee]

[APG]

Protest has been denied by MLB.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Ump29

IMO way too deep for IFF.

But that's not how the rules define an infield fly.

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

But that's not how the rules define an infield fly.

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.

From this definition, it looks like a good call.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

From this definition, it looks like a good call.

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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

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

[jicecone]

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.

[Steve Meyer]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

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

[SAump]

More Texas Leaguer, than IFF!

[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.

[Ump29]

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

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Ump29

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.

[legend]

Originally Posted by Ump29

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

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.