In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1230
Online now 2001 Record: 6475 (12/7/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The bottom line, as we mentioned in another thread, is that the infield fly rule is intended to protect the runners, not the team in the field. That's what everyone forgets in this. The call ended up benefiting the Cardinals, of course, but it's supposed to help the baserunners avoid being doubled up. If the ball had dropped, it hadn't been called and the Cardinals somehow got a double play out of it (unlikely, but still maybe possible), the umpire would have been a bigger goat than he appears to be now for NOT making the call.
Staff writer for govols247 — http://www.twitter.com/RyanCallahan247 — firstname.lastname@example.org
Actually, it seems pretty obvious that you are misreading what "immediately" means in the rulebook.
Oh well, that happens.
What's your interpretation of "immediately," then? You've yet to share that.
Please, enlighten me.
Oh Crockett...it's hard to make an "immediate" call like that in a baseball game. From my experiences playing ball thru school, most umpires will announce when the infield fly rule is effect before the next pitch is thrown. Doesn't mean the next hit will be a pop fly or anything. You still have to make a judgement on the flight of the ball. Most players, imo, aren't even thinking about a rule like that during the game.
Ryan, this is why it was such a horrible call. It was 47 feet deeper in the outfield than any other infield fly call made all season. It was too deep to be considered an infield fly.
I hear you, but the only problem with that is there's no dividing line on the areas of the field where it is or isn't acceptable to call an infield fly. It's all about how easily an infielder is able to get to the ball, even if an infielder doesn't make the catch.
Had it been such an ordinary play I think the ball would've been caught. Also the ball dropping had no negative effect on the runners at all. If you look at the replay they were both half way between the 2nd/3rd and 1st/2nd. The call was put in place to protect the base runner, not the defensive team like it happened to play out. Horrible call.
This post was edited by BBSVol 18 months ago
Not to revive the debate over the call, but I had heard a lot about this explanation from Harold Reynolds on MLB Network but hadn't seen it until last night.
If you haven't watched this, you should check it out. He basically says exactly what I've been saying about the infield-fly-rule call and breaks it down perfectly, and he even offers a video example from a similar play earlier this season that was called the same way.
This post was edited by Ryan Callahan 18 months ago
Move on, Ryan. Your guilt over your team's illicit win is showing.
This post was edited by wataugavol 18 months ago
Ha! Actually, no. No guilt here whatsoever. Just thought those who were debating the call with me might want to see a complete breakdown of the play to show what I was talking about.
You don't want me to "break down" the play the other way. It could get ugly.
Plus, Wes mentioned the call again in the Midweek Stock Report. He can't get over it.
In all seriousness, he probably needs to see this clip.
So you're saying you don't buy Reynolds' breakdown and explanation of it?
I don't accept it was a good call. It was unnecessary.
Tim Dahlberg of the AP agrees:
"It might not have cost the Braves the game, but it surely cost them a chance to get back in the game. And while it may have been the technically correct call to make under the broad interpretation of the rule, it was the wrong call to make under the rule of common sense.
"It was a call made by an umpire looking at the play from an angle he never sees during the regular season, when there are no outfield umps. The last time Holbrook was that far down the left- field line during the regular season, he probably was trying to get away from the bratwurst and hot dog racing between innings in Milwaukee."
This is the only thing I've been saying all along.
Harold Reynolds actually takes it farther than that, if you'll watch his breakdown of it. He says it's the correct call, period, and he actually makes a convincing argument for it. You should watch it.
"Were the Cardinals going to turn a double play from left field? Not bloody likely. There was no need to call the batter out on that play. There’s a reason it’s called the INFIELD fly rule, and it’s not because the rule should be applied on balls hit to the outfield, even if the rule leaves it open for the umpires to make that call."
This argument from the first link you provided is null and void, IMO. As Reynolds points out, the infield fly rule is intended to prevent double plays, yes, but it's also in place to prevent fielders from trying to eliminate speedy baserunners on force outs. For instance, if a team would prefer to have the batter on a particular play running the bases (presumably because he's slower than one of the guys already on base), they theoretically could let the ball drop just to throw out one of the faster guys on base. So while some people are trying to make it sound like the ability to turn a double play should be the burden of proof, that really has nothing to do with it.
Oh I watched it. And I understood your explanation from the beginning. I'm just saying there was no reason to call it. There was no way they were going to turn a double play on the ball. Common sense, as Dahlberg said, should come into play on such a play.
Again, though, as I said, the ability to turn a double play is not the burden of proof on that play. And, honestly, with David Ross on first in that instance, I really can't say with absolute certainty that the Cardinals couldn't have turned a double play. Infielders make that throw from where the ball dropped to third base all the time, and they can throw it on a rope from that distance. Regardless, though, that's not the point. The simple ability to get a force out at second or third on that play makes the infield fly rule at least a possibility.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Ryan Callahan 18 months ago
How ironic is it that the other example Reynolds used involved the Cubs and Starlin Castro? I bet Wes didn't complain about that one.
Redsox fan here..
I think the Cardinals gained an unfair advantage from a technically correct call.
As the play turned out, sure, the Cardinals ended up gaining an advantage. But if the call is "technically correct," how can the advantage gained be unfair?
The bottom line is this, though — and I'm glad to hear people finally starting to acknowledge this, when Twitter Wes and many others weren't willing to admit this the night of the game — that the call technically was correct by the book. That means, regardless of whether you think it was the right call to make, it wasn't anywhere close to one of the worst calls in playoff history. Not even a horrible call, really. Just a questionable one.
Right. It was one of the more questionable calls in playoff history.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports