Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Atlanta fans melting down

  1. #1

    Atlanta fans melting down

    Wow...what a disgace. I'm only listening to the game. How bad was the infield fly call really?
    Last edited by mhanson93; 10-05-2012 at 07:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    605
    Like
    11
    Liked 23 Times in 17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mhanson93 View Post
    Wow...what a disgace. I'm only listening to the game. How bad was the infield fly call really?
    Yeah, the umpires are such a disgrace. Way to blow a playoff game.

  3. #3
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,354
    Like
    1,311
    Liked 1,295 Times in 749 Posts
    What was the deal with the phone call that lasted forever?

  4. #4
    Senior Member All-Star IdahoPilgrim's Avatar
    Posts
    2,421
    Like
    2
    Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by mhanson93 View Post
    Wow...what a disgace. I'm only listening to the game. How bad was the infield fly call really?
    Pretty bad. But that's baseball, and Atlanta fans did themselves no favors by their reaction.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    957
    Like
    43
    Liked 69 Times in 49 Posts
    It wasn't as bad as the Chuck Knoblauch game in the dome, but it was terribly embarrassing for this Braves fan to see how the hometown fans responded. It was a horrid call and yet another example of why baseball needs replay, but committing 3 errors cost that game, not the call.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer J-Dog Dungan's Avatar
    Posts
    658
    Like
    7
    Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    From the way the broadcasters described it, it was far enough into the outfield that a runner would consider tagging and trying to score on it if his team really needed a run.

  7. #7
    Absolutely terrible call, but that's no excuse for the fans' reaction.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    590
    Like
    1
    Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    The ball landed 225 feet from home plate.
    I caught this stat on Twitter: In past 3 seasons, longest "infield fly" that wasn't caught (only 6) was 178 feet from homeplate.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...field-fly-rule

    It's an egregiously bad call. What's amazing to me is that some people are actaully defending it as the correct call.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...inals/1616389/

    I don't see how this play falls within the letter or spirit of the infield fly rule.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack View Post
    The ball landed 225 feet from home plate.
    I caught this stat on Twitter: In past 3 seasons, longest "infield fly" that wasn't caught (only 6) was 178 feet from homeplate.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...field-fly-rule

    It's an egregiously bad call. What's amazing to me is that some people are actaully defending it as the correct call.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...inals/1616389/

    I don't see how this play falls within the letter or spirit of the infield fly rule.
    "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."

    Kozma was in position to make the catch, but I'm wrestling with the definition of "ordinary effort". Sounds like it was the correct call...I don't like it either though....
    Last edited by mhanson93; 10-06-2012 at 08:58 AM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,354
    Like
    1,311
    Liked 1,295 Times in 749 Posts
    It may have been the right call but it was stunning none-the-less.

    I was pulling for St. Louis but frankly the play -- and the call -- made me sick to my stomach.

    Overall, neither team was very impressive in this game.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    590
    Like
    1
    Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    I think Rosenthal has a good take on it:
    http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/u...-excuse-100512

    I suppose you could argue it was "correct" within the letter of the rule if you're willing to stretch certain words far enough. But there's no way you can argue it falls within the spirit of the rule. You can't tell me this was the type of situation that the rule was intended to address. Under Holbrook's interpretation, the rule should be invoked every time an infielder runs into the outfield and starting calling for a high fly ball. I've never seen the rule applied that way.

    And Cardinals reaction was very telling. They were confused, not screaming for an out call.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by mhanson93 View Post
    "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."

    Kozma was in position to make the catch, but I'm wrestling with the definition of "ordinary effort". Sounds like it was the correct call...I don't like it either though....
    The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for
    the purpose of this rule.


    It was not ordinary effort. The fact that the umpire did not call it until Kozma broke away was particularly galling. A badly botched call.
    "Baseball is like church. Many attend, few understand."

  13. #13
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    240
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    My first reaction was that it should not have been called. After looking up the rule, I still feel it would have been better not to call it. However...

    Here is the rule book: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y20...ball_Rules.pdf

    Here is the rule:

    An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted
    bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or
    first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any
    outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for
    the purpose of this rule.

    When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall
    immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the
    baselines, the umpire shall declare “Infield Fly, if Fair.”

    The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or
    retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit
    becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul.

    If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces
    foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls
    untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third
    base, it is 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. The
    infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the
    decision should be made immediately.

    When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly
    rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule
    6.05(l). The infield fly rule takes precedence.

    The rule was applied correctly, as far as I can tell. Distance is not a factor. "Camping" under the ball is not a factor. "The umpire's judgement must govern" and that judgement is "a fair fly ball... which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort." There is nothing about the "intent" of the rule.

    "ordinary effort" is the only criteria in question that is to be judged. I don't see any extra-ordinary effort on the part of the shortstop though he did go pretty far to be in position to catch it. He clearly was in position to catch the ball before he stepped out of the way.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    590
    Like
    1
    Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by powrwrap View Post
    It was not ordinary effort. The fact that the umpire did not call it until Kozma broke away was particularly galling. A badly botched call.
    ---Yes, it was. What's even more galling to me are the feeble attempts by MLB to convince us that this was the correct call and the national media actually buying it instead of doing their job and calling BS on it like they should.

    All of these explanations involve standards like "square to the ball" or "under control" which are found nowhere in the text of the rule, and ignore the "ordinary effort" standard that is in the text of the rule.

  15. #15
    Senior Member All-Star IdahoPilgrim's Avatar
    Posts
    2,421
    Like
    2
    Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26
    The whole point of the rule is to prevent an intentional drop leading to a double or triple play.

    In this case, the ball was deep enough that the runners were able to advance safely even after it dropped.

    That alone shows that this was not the situation intended to be addressed by the rule. You can stretch the language of the rule to make it fit anyway you want, but using the "duck" test, it was a botched call.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    140
    Like
    53
    Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    It was a horrid call and yet another example of why baseball needs replay.
    Um, no. You can't use replay to look at any judgmental calls in ANY sport. This would 100% not be reviewable in baseball. Replay would not be an option here.

    Bad call. MLB and the Umps need to man up and at least admit the mistake. No changing it now, but at least acknowledge the mistake.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    240
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    How is it stretching the language of the rule? The language of the rule may be bad. It might not represent the intent adequately but how would you know that? Certainly not by anything in the rule book.

    The word "ordinary" is open to interpretation. I didn't see the shortstop even sprint. He sidestepped the whole way, tracking the flight of the ball. He was under it in plenty of time. He would not have had to dive or lunge. How would you feel if he had not got under it and it fell in? Would you have felt that was "ordinary" effort on the shortstop's part?

    Perhaps the rule should include wording to the effect that, in the umpires opinion, the fielder dropping the ball intentionally would put the runners at a disadvantage. But it doesn't.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    "ordinary effort" is the only criteria in question that is to be judged. I don't see any extra-ordinary effort on the part of the shortstop though he did go pretty far to be in position to catch it. He clearly was in position to catch the ball before he stepped out of the way.
    Running 50 feet from your usual position and almost colliding with an outfielder is "ordinary effort?"

    From the rule:
    When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall
    immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners.


    Now, if it was ordinary effort why did it take 6 seconds for the umpire to call it an infield fly?
    "Baseball is like church. Many attend, few understand."

  19. #19
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    957
    Like
    43
    Liked 69 Times in 49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jm3319 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    It was a horrid call and yet another example of why baseball needs replay.
    Um, no. You can't use replay to look at any judgmental calls in ANY sport. This would 100% not be reviewable in baseball. Replay would not be an option here.

    Bad call. MLB and the Umps need to man up and at least admit the mistake. No changing it now, but at least acknowledge the mistake.
    Then every call in baseball and football should no longer be reviewable. The umpires mentioned the idea of allowing the staff on the field to overturn fair/foul type of calls which are the epitomy of judgement calls that could be reviewed. If staff on the field could have seen the video and compared it to the rule itself, it would be overturned.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  20. #20
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    240
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by powrwrap View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    "ordinary effort" is the only criteria in question that is to be judged. I don't see any extra-ordinary effort on the part of the shortstop though he did go pretty far to be in position to catch it. He clearly was in position to catch the ball before he stepped out of the way.
    Running 50 feet from your usual position and almost colliding with an outfielder is "ordinary effort?"

    From the rule:
    When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall
    immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners.


    Now, if it was ordinary effort why did it take 6 seconds for the umpire to call it an infield fly?
    It wasn't an ordinary play. It wasn't an ordinary call. It was ordinary effort. Any shortstop not under that ball would be justifiably criticized if not benched. The umpire immediately calls infield fly when he determines it. What should the time limit be? Maybe it should be in the rule. But that would be preposterous.

    I'm not saying it was a great call. First thing I wrote was that I didn't think it should have been called. But arguing against it based on the rule book is nonsense. It is hard to argue when the umpire follows the rule book. It can be annoying... like when they never call a strike at the letters until you don't want them to and they do and "Fox Track" confirms it. Or when they always call the runner out at second during a "phantom" double play... until they don't and you don't get a critical out. If the umpire had not called it, I doubt there would be much discussion that he should have. But he did and it was justified based on the rule book.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.