Infield Fly in Wild Card Game
 

Thoughts? I personally have no problem with the call.

Apparently, the fans of Atalanta do. ;)

It's been awhile since seen fans at a professional sports event throw debris onto the field in response to a call.

Added clip of play:

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=25336303&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

And now the game is under protest

Shouldn't the runners have "tagged up" after 1st contact? Aren't they vulnerable to an appeal?

No.

The ball wasn't caught.

:D

Where did all the Mets fans come from? It makes no sense for them to be in Atlanta throwing garbage on the field.

Does not look like one to me.

The rule is supposed to protect the offense from easy double plays, no chance of that here.

#1 Could the crew chief over-rule the Ump who called it an IFF. #2 shouldn't they have resolved it then and there rather than playing- since playing it out tomorrow if upheld is rather remote. Also let's face it- you can't protest a judgement call.

#1 No
#2 It was resolved, protest was logged and they kept playing.

MLB will not overturn a judgment call.

This is a problem with postseason baseball. Umpires, who are not stationed in the outfield all year long, are in the outfield in the postseason and are not just used to it, and their depth perception changes.

Baseball Mathmetics 101:

(Unusual play + Correct call) + Stupid Fans who do not know the rules = Mayhem

Also add in announcers who are only partially correct and the people watching on TV get bent out of shape too.

U3 called it from 3rd base. I can easily see it both ends of the stick on this one. Take your pick. The protest is a no-brainer denial.

U3 calls it after Holbrook and he's just reacting to what he'd done. The ball is already clearly going to fall when he puts his arm up.

Judgment call, so protest goes nowhere, but it was poor judgment IMO.

Only after the left field umpire called it. You and I know Nelson wouldn't have called it without Holbrook preceding it

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.'

Clearly not an infield fly. Bad call.

OK I didn't see that clip. If Nelson was just mirroring the outfield ump's call, then I agree he wasn't going to call it himself.

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.

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.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/N4Z5MIaISrU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/N4Z5MIaISrU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=25336303&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Protest has been denied by MLB.

Where in the calculus does "poorly named rule" come in? Tough to blame fans and announcers for thinking the rule is what the rules drafters named it. I guess "ordinary infielder effort" rule isn't so catchy.

Or maybe the name of the rule is a good indicator of what the drafters intended in which case this call is a tough one.

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.

Give credit to MLB Network, they showed a play from May 16th in Wrigley where the 'infield fly rule' was called at nearly the exact point that it was in tonight's game.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Infield Fly?
 

More Texas Leaguer, than IFF!

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.

At the major league level, (which you have to consider) this was a pretty ordinary play.

disagree. What if the call benefitted your team, then would you want the rule changed?

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.

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.

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.

Perfectly, succinctly put.

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.

Great post.

What? I must be misinterpreting your statement. You are not saying the ball must be caught for IFF, right?

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.

No

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

Rita

Is that Manny's point, Rita?

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?

This question could easily be asked differently:

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

This is the answer. If it is a questionable IFF this should be what makes up your mind

Or this one I took off another forum:
Example:
R2 is the fastest runner in the league. R1 is the slowest runner in the league. The batter is the 2nd slowest. For the point of my example, Holbrook does not call IFF and the infielder immediately recovers the ball and throws out R2 at 3B. You have now allowed a more advantagous out and eliminated a base running threat from scoring position.

It is in place for more reasons than you may think. Call it consistently and none of this is even a factor. The rule does not have any provision of "unless a DP cannot be turned". It is to protect the offense as much as possible.

The criteria was met for the rule. Depth is not one of them and neither is "if there is no chance to turn a DP". If the runners were not half way during the play and it wasn't called, then a DP could have been turned possibly and then, the umpires would have screwed up the rule.

The umpire saw this: The infielder drifted back, turned to face the infield, did the sweep (Stay away !) signal. That's when the umpire must decide.

Now, those runners are not running. The fielder was perhaps 60 feet from third base. Are you trying to say that a runner can get from second to third before a ball thrown by a professional can trevel 60 feet?

I agree if it had been high school, perhaps even college, that would probably not have been called. But this was a big league call for a big league game.

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?

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?

Texas Leaguers?
 

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.

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?

And that rule is ??

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.

Base hit?
 

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.

The ball landed where the shortstop's feet was prior to bailing away from the charging outfielder.

With a well coached team, they might use the fact that you won't call this at the FED level to swap runners. Maybe they pinch ran a speedster or a fast courtesy runner on 2B for the game winner. Now you don't call IFF and they lose their runner. The rule does more than protect from a cheap double play.

Here is a question for debate.

The MLB comment states: 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. .

My question is, if the outfield is playing shallow and an outfielder makes a catch in a spot that 'in the umpires judgement' could have been easily handled by an infielder, does an infielder even have to make an attempt to catch the ball?

No.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

What about the reverse of this? Left handed pull hitter at the plate. The shortstop is swung around to the first base side of second and the second baseman is playing shallow right field. Is it IFF if the second baseman can, with ordinary effort, catch the ball that is 80 feet behind the baseline? 120 feet? How far back is too far, or is there a limit?

Lets see... Under the same cirsumstances...... (infielder waves off outfielder then both have a brain fart)

I have a coach in my face when I call the IFF 40-50 feet out. The fact that I call an IFF means that I have ruled ordinary effort. He tells me that the fielder is 40-50 feet into the outfield and that's way too far. When I respond that distance is of no consideration and he asks to see written rule to back that up..........

I can back that up.

You, on the other hand do not call the IFF because the fielder is 21 feet into the outfield and the ball drops. The coach is in your face and you tell him that there cannot be ordinary effort due to the fact that the infielder is too far out into the outfield. The coach knows that distance is of no consideration and asks you to show him in the book.

You cannot back that up.

I've got a coach in my face that in the end, will respect the fact that I know the rule.

You've got a coach in your face that in the end, will know that you don't know the rule.

Somebody pass Ozzy the Charmin...................;)

All I would say is for those who will not call this an IFR call, just make sure you defend the call with actual rule book support. Saying it is "too deep" or "that is not what I consider ordinary effort for this level" is protestable and should be rightfully upheld.

I know just about every rule in the book can be headed off with the word "judgment". Just make sure you are "judging" the correct thing according to the rules and not some made up excuse for not calling it by the rules.

Section 2 (definitions) An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

This should be sufficient for you to answer your own question.

But it's not, as you'll find if you look up the definition of "infield."

The rules were written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers, and sometimes that gets us into trouble.

The rule book also defines the infield as just the 90 foot square, so that doesn't really work either..

If the 2nd baseman is "playing in shallow right field", he's not an infielder for the purposes of this rule in my opinion. Your opinions may vary.

That's consistent with pro instruction. It does not, however, apply to the play in the OP, as F6 started in his customary position in the infield.

My latest post was in response to the scenario presented by voiceoflg . As I implied earlier, in the play in STL vs ATL, the shortstop was a legitimate infielder and all other elements were present to declare an infield fly. I have no problem with the call as made in STL vs ATL.

I finally saw the actual play and I have no problem with the call. It fits all the rule requirements that I am aware of. I guess I could understanding not calling this too, but then I would see people suggesting that someone was thrown out at 3rd or second as being unfair too.

Peace

If it was deep enough that they could only throw someone out at 3rd if it dropped, then it shouldn't draw any ire or be called unfair either - as either way (IFF or not IFF), it's just one out.

I think I'd have called it IFF, after watching F6. But I would not fault a no-call here either.

The infield fly is possibly the most misunderstood (by fans and coaches)call (umpires typically make. And it comes from all sides.
Last year alone I had :
1)A defensive coach complain that I didn’t call it. (he wanted me to bail out his incompetent defense.)
2)An offensive coach complain that I did call it.
3) An offensive coach complain that I didn’t call it on a bunt attempt.
4 )A defensive coach complain that “Infield fly, batters out if fair!” confused his 3rd baseman causing him to let a popup fall foul.
5) Fans complain and murmur nearly everytime I call it.

Holbrooke waited until the ball was less than a split second from hitting the ground before he called the IFF. What were the other five umpires looking at, and/or waiting for? This was the first time I've ever seen an infield fly called this deep, and I hope it is the last.

The other 5 waited to see the one whose responsibility to call that area make a call. He waited until ALL criteria was met for the IFR to be in effect. Until then, nothing to call. It was on time and appropriate. All criteria was met, both "technically" and "spiritually".

Okay, call it when the infielder was camped under the ball. Not when the F6 moves away, and the outfielder isn't even close............Holbrook blew it, plain and simple.

Hmmm....he WAS camped under the ball.

JJ

Who was camped under the ball? F6 didn't ever make it out to where the ball landed. That's what the not ordinary effort camps whole point is. At least as I understand it. He didn't have time to check his F7 and get under the ball.