The CheckerBoard

The umpire had to wait until he knew the infielder was going to get to it, since the criteria for calling an infield fly is that it has to be a ball an infielder can reach with ordinary effort. My thought on it was that the umpire couldn't tell that Kozma was going to get to it with ordinary effort until he settled under it. Assuming the call was even close to correct, it wasn't a ball on which the umpire could have made the call much early. The rule doesn't mean the umpire has to call it as soon as the ball comes off the bat or something like that. I think you're reading "immediately" as something different from what the rulebook means.

Actually, it seems pretty obvious that you are misreading what "immediately" means in the rulebook.

Oh well, that happens.

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.

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.

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.

You don't want me to "break down" the play the other way. It could get ugly.

So you're saying you don't buy Reynolds' breakdown and explanation of it?

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."

"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.

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.

Redsox fan here..

I think the Cardinals gained an unfair advantage from a technically correct call.

Right. It was one of the more questionable calls in playoff history.