Infield Fly in Wild Card Game

[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.

[Steve Meyer]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

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.

Okay so the runner gets thrown out at 3rd. Infield fly or not you still have runners at 1st and 2nd with an out made on the play. Why would Braves fans been screaming for the IFF?

Ballsy, gutsy not hardly. Kozma peeled off, and Holliday was almost on the warning track when the ball was hit.

Holbrooke bailed St. Louis out for their lack of communication, or whatever it was.

I was shocked. I was shocked I tell ya, when it was announced that an infield fly had been called.

Those that harken for the abilities of MLB players to make this play easily, apparantly didn't compensate for their mental ablities to actually know how to properly execute said play, or the umpire to do the same in the botched situation.

I wasn't discussing who, or who didn't win. You brooched the subject. If the call was so ordinary, why are we even having a discussion?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Steve Meyer

If the call was so ordinary, why are we even having a discussion?

This question could easily be asked differently:

If the call was so obviously wrong, why are we even having this discussion?