Infield Fly in Wild Card Game

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Rita C

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

Rita

Is that Manny's point, Rita?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

Is that Manny's point, Rita?

That was my point. The rule calls for the catch to be made using ordinary effort. It doesn't require an actual catch. The fielder may use more than ordinary effort to start out, but as the play progresses, he may get into position to make the catch easily.

And an easily caught ball could turn into an equally easy drop to turn the DP. Which is why the rule exists.

For those who continue to argue that the ball went too deep into the outfield, consider the Thome shift that more and more teams are using against him and other dead-pull hitters. Are you going to suggest that a can-of-corn fly ball to F4 playing in short right-center field can never be an IFF?

[ozzy6900]

Protestable? - No, it was a judgment call.
Good Judgment? - I guess for MLB it was - I don't agree.
Would I call this exact play? - Not even in a HS game! I would give infielders about 10 to 20 feet back on the outfield grass. After that I am not call an IFF.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Protestable? - No, it was a judgment call.
Good Judgment? - I guess for MLB it was - I don't agree.
Would I call this exact play? - Not even in a HS game! I would give infielders about 10 to 20 feet back on the outfield grass. After that I am not call an IFF.

Just a question: If a coach asked you why it wasn't an infield fly when his F6 was waiting for the ball to come down when his fielder was 40' in the grass?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Just a question: If a coach asked you why it wasn't an infield fly when his F6 was waiting for the ball to come down when his fielder was 40' in the grass?

Sorry, but that wasn't your garden variety can of corn. Another rule covers the situation to protect the base runners from falling victim to a DP. Hopefully, in the future, a crew will reconsider the rule and make the determination that ordinary effort was not a factor in this play.

The crew convened to discuss the rule and stuck with the call, and then MLB used the word judgement to exonerate the crew. The wrong call was made. The crew should have used better judgment to overturn that original call. MLB cannot do it for them. We find ourselves with another blown judgement call at the end of the day.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by SAump

Another rule covers the situation to protect the base runners from falling victim to a DP.

And that rule is ??

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

Sorry, but that wasn't your garden variety can of corn. Another rule covers the situation to protect the base runners from falling victim to a DP. Hopefully, in the future, a crew will reconsider the rule and make the determination that ordinary effort was not a factor in this play.

The crew convened to discuss the rule and stuck with the call, and then MLB used the word judgement to exonerate the crew. The wrong call was made. The crew should have used better judgment to overturn that original call. MLB cannot do it for them. We find ourselves with another blown judgement call at the end of the day.

Another rule does not cover if the ball falls untouched or accidentally. This is the only rule which applies when the ball is still in the air. And, as soon as F6 is there under ordinary effort, it is a "can of corn" especially at that level. But, at any level, if the infielder is camped under it or showing he is moving with the ball under ordinary effort, it is IFR and should be called regardless if this is HS, 10 year olds, or MLB.

The reasons I have heard so far not to call it are not covered by the rule. The only thing that applies is judgment, not depth and not level.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Another rule does not cover if the ball falls untouched or accidentally. This is the only rule which applies when the ball is still in the air. And, as soon as F6 is there under ordinary effort, it is a "can of corn" especially at that level. But, at any level, if the infielder is camped under it or showing he is moving with the ball under ordinary effort, it is IFR and should be called regardless if this is HS, 10 year olds, or MLB.

The reasons I have heard so far not to call it are not covered by the rule. The only thing that applies is judgment, not depth and not level.

Even a MLB shortstop couldn't make the play on the Texas Leaguer which fell for a base hit. The only way to catch the ball was over the shoulder, and this shortstop turned the wrong way. In my judgment, there was no need to protect the grown man running into the outfield who couldnt catch up with a fly pop.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Just a question: If a coach asked you why it wasn't an infield fly when his F6 was waiting for the ball to come down when his fielder was 40' in the grass?

I honestly don't know too many coaches who would even think of this (the play in the MLB video) as an IFF. Most of them would be questioning why it was called.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I honestly don't know too many coaches who would even think of this (the play in the MLB video) as an IFF. Most of them would be questioning why it was called.

that's because they don't know the rules. They do now!

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I honestly don't know too many coaches who would even think of this (the play in the MLB video) as an IFF. Most of them would be questioning why it was called.

That may be. But, I was just wondering if the answer would be in line with the rule. If an umpire "judges" it to not be in line with the rule, by all means, don't call it. Too many are saying b/c it was "too deep" or the level of play. Both are weak arguments and protestable. Also, if a HS could go out this far and get set to catch it without being "on the run", I think he deserves credit for the effort even if he drops it. Besides, the rule somewhat states the same thing.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Would I call this exact play? - Not even in a HS game! I would give infielders about 10 to 20 feet back on the outfield grass. After that I am not call an IFF.

And when the coach asks you to show him where in Rule 2-19 it says anything about 10-20 feet, are you going to show him the rule, ignore him, or are you going to just make something else up?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by asdf

And when the coach asks you to show him where in Rule 2-19 it says anything about 10-20 feet, are you going to show him the rule, ignore him, or are you going to just make something else up?

If you want to call an IFF with an infielder 40 to 50 feet out, go for it. I will not. I think you are picking up the $hitty end of a rotten stick by calling this. I do not see the intent of the rule (prevent the unearned DP) being served with the infielder so far out. If you want to have $hit on your hands and a coach in your face, by all means, enjoy it.

Remember, I never said it was wrong, I simply said I will not call this under these conditions. Were I evaluating an umpire and he made this call, I would not mark him negatively as long his explanation for the call so far out was in line with the rule. In other words, as long as the umpire knew why he called this, I would have to accept it as a correct call in the evaluation.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I do not see the intent of the rule (prevent the unearned DP)

That's not the only reason. Swapping runners is another option that a savvy defense will exploit if this is not properly called. But you're right, that is the main reason

[GA Umpire]

I think one thing that is being overlooked is the possibility of F7 coming in on the run and catching it to throw to 3B. And, that would not change the fact that F6 still got to it with ordinary effort. If the runners were tagging instead of having a lead, this would very well be a "cheap DP". That is the main goal of the rule, right? It could have been done at this level and possibly HS, definitely college. Just b/c this one hit the ground and the runners had a "lead" does not change the concept or application of the rule.