T1B

What in the Don Denkinger was that?

That was a weird game overall...the Braves were throwing the ball all over the yard, the strange timeout call that lead to a Ross home run in the first.

I don't think the interpretation of the rule was entirely wrong...it looked botched because of how late the umps made the signal. Usually that's something that is called when the ball is still in flight and not on the way down.

^

Had that shit done down in Philly this story would be much bigger simply based on the crowd reaction.

The ump made the correct call but Shoalzie is correct, it should have been made quicker. It was a routine play for the shortstop and the Cards fucked it up....and got rewarded for it.

Funny how much people have redefined the Infoeld Fly Rule once their team was percieved to be screwed by it.

For one thing, where in the rule does it say "infield"? It doesn't. If an infielder gets to the warning track to make a catch with "ordinary effort," it's still an infield fly. In this case, dude was standing there ("there" being the wrong spot, which is insignificant) waiting for a fly... it's an infield fly, very cut-and-dried.

And Bravesfans are kinda dumb, I guess -- if they don't call that an infield fly, it's likely a double play (hence the reason for the rule for over 100 years), or at minimum, the lead runner is gone. Either way, it was to the Braves' advantage (infield fly rule always is) that the call was made, albeit late.

And as to the late call -- what, were the runners going to bank on a dropped fly ball and start speeding to the next base? While the Braves desperately want to whine, there's no possible scenario where they don't benefit by that call, regardless how early or late it was called.

Mace wrote:The ump made the correct call but Shoalzie is correct, it should have been made quicker. It was a routine play for the shortstop and the Cards fucked it up....and got rewarded for it.

Disagree. It was not ordinary effort for the SS.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Mace wrote:The ump made the correct call but Shoalzie is correct, it should have been made quicker. It was a routine play for the shortstop and the Cards fucked it up....and got rewarded for it.

Disagree. It was not ordinary effort for the SS.

When he's standing there facing the infield it's ordinary effort. It would have been a routine catch if the leftfielder hadn't called him off the ball...or whatever miscommunication took place.

Mace wrote:
When he's standing there facing the infield it's ordinary effort. It would have been a routine catch if the leftfielder hadn't called him off the ball...or whatever miscommunication took place.

He turned his back to the infield to pursue a fly ball halfway into the outfield. How is that ordinary effort?

Anyway, this is all irrelevant as the ump should have pointed to the sky at the peak of the ball's flight (if he did indeed feel it was ordinary effort) to communicate the infield fly. Even if you are going to blow the call, doing it at the last minute is horribly, horribly wrong.

Screw_Michigan wrote: He turned his back to the infield to pursue a fly ball halfway into the outfield. How is that ordinary effort?

He was standing (almost) under the ball waiting for it. No dive, no running catch... standing there waiting for it. There isn't a SS in the Majors that couldn't make that same play with their ankles tied together.

But yeah, keep on thinking that the whole nation was sitting in amazement at what an "extraordinary effort" he made to lope into shallow left.

AGAIN -- if an infielder is standing waiting for a ball (whether he makes/doesn't make the play, or someone else does), he can be on the fucking warning track, and it's still an "infield fly."

And as to when the ump signalled it -- again, who the fuck cares? Were the baserunners going to start running on the shallow popup, gambling that it was going to be dropped? If he signals it earlier, the net result was different how? If he doesn't signal it, the lead runners get doubled up (again, the reason for the rule), and there would be PROPER outrage that it wasn't called.

I'm really not seeing the issue here, except people want something to bitch about.

Dinsdale wrote:I'm really not seeing the issue here, except people want something to bitch about.

Dins is absolutey correct on all points....especially this last one.

Holliday screwed up by calling off the shortstop but the the ump made the correct call by calling it an infield fly....and there's no doubt about it. The shortstop drifted back to the ball and would have made a very routine catch with very ordinary effort had Holliday kept his mouth shut.....and it would have been a correctly called infield fly even if Holliday had caught the ball. There's absolutely nothing controversial about the call except in the minds of those who don't know the rule and how it's supposed to be enforced. That said, fuck the St. Louis fucking Cardinals and the beer wagon they rode in on. Go Cubs....maybe next year is the year. Not likely but maybe sometime this decade.

I don't understand the call at all. Infield fly rule? It was a blooper in the outfield. That aside, why do we play 162 games and now let a team that was 13 games out slip into the playoff and possibly upset the Nats who had a franchise season? The Cards didn't earn that spot. And then to get it as a result of that call?

Dee Snutz wrote:I don't understand the call at all. Infield fly rule? It was a blooper in the outfield. That aside, why do we play 162 games and now let a team that was 13 games out slip into the playoff and possibly upset the Nats who had a franchise season? The Cards didn't earn that spot. And then to get it as a result of that call?

The question of the fairness of a one game playoff is an entirely different topic....and no, IMO, it's unfair and should be a 3 game series with the team having the best record hosting the final two games.

As for the infield fly rule, you apparently don't understand the rule. It doesn't matter if the ball is hit to the outfield, as the only thing that does matter is if the infielder could have caught the ball with ordinary effort. Rule of thumb is it's an infield fly if the infielder is facing the infield and sitting under the ball....which was the case in the play we're discussing. The fact that he didn't catch it is irrelevant to the rule because he could have caught it.

Mace wrote: As for the infield fly rule, you apparently don't understand the rule. It doesn't matter if the ball is hit to the outfield, as the only thing that does matter is if the infielder could have caught the ball with ordinary effort. Rule of thumb is it's an infield fly if the infielder is facing the infield and sitting under the ball....which was the case in the play we're discussing. The fact that he didn't catch it is irrelevant to the rule because he could have caught it.

Perhaps, and my understanding of the rule would be limited to my experience playing little league and high school ball. But my understanding is the rule was developed to keep a fielder from intentionally forcing a runner by dropping a ball that requires no effort and turning the cheap double play. That pop up didn't fall under that category or my understanding of "reasonable effort". That shortstop was 30 ft or more into the outfield. That was no routine play. I see it as a bad call. That being said, I'm not saying the Braves got royally screwed, they still left a dozen men stranded.

I see it as a bad call.

It's okay for you to be wrong.

And the Cards didn't "get their spot" against the Nats because of that call. Not in the least.

Mace wrote:

I see it as a bad call.

It's okay for you to be wrong.

Well, if I am, so is the highly experienced, qualified, and in position to make the call 3rd base ump who also didn't call it. That call was made by an inexperienced, late hour fill-in, left field ump.

Van wrote:And the Cards didn't "get their spot" against the Nats because of that call. Not in the least.

Not in the least, eh? Bases loaded w one out is no stroll through the meadow to get out of. That being said, the Braves did leave a lot of men on and did have their opportunities.I'm not a big fan of the wild card. Like I said, baseball is a long, long season. To allow a team to play in that was 9 games behind after 162 games makes no sense to me.

Dee Snutz wrote:

Mace wrote:

I see it as a bad call.

It's okay for you to be wrong.

Well, if I am, so is the highly experienced, qualified, and in position to make the call 3rd base ump who also didn't call it. That call was made by an inexperienced, late hour fill-in, left field ump.

Inexperienced? Who was the ump? Doubtful that MLB assigned an inexperienced ump to work a playoff game. The "inexperienced" ump got it right. Sorry if your Little League coach would disagree.

EDIT: Okay, I looked it up. Sam Holbrook was the left field umpire and has been umping in the majors for 11 1/2 years....and has four (4) previous playoff assignments. Yep, I'd say he was definitely "inexperienced." :roll:

Mace wrote: Inexperienced? Who was the ump? Doubtful that MLB assigned an inexperienced ump to work a playoff game. The "inexperienced" ump got it right. Sorry if your Little League coach would disagree.

The announcers stated that Sam Holbrook was a last minute fill in and that he wasn't supposed to be an ump in the game. And you're right in your assertion that MLB reserves these games for the proven qualified and most respected umps. We'll see if he got it right when they announce the umps for these future series. I'm sure Sam will make the elite cut as a result of his swift, concise, and authoritative call on Friday.

It was a total judgment call and is open to debate -- certainly not a white and black thing like some are suggesting. This characterization of "ordinary effort" isn't clearly defined. Was it ordinary compared to a diving catch? Yes. But it certainly required more effort than a typical infield fly where the infielder is camped out under the ball the entire time, and doesn't have to range 20 yards into the outfield. Your typical infield fly is a) called right away, b) easily caught with no miscommunication amongst players and c) called so as to avoid a cheap double play, which was not going to happen in that situation due to the depth of the infielder. In other words, the play wasn't so typical or ordinary, now was it?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:It was a total judgment call and is open to debate -- certainly not a white and black thing like some are suggesting. This characterization of "ordinary effort" isn't clearly defined. Was it ordinary compared to a diving catch? Yes. But it certainly required more effort than a typical infield fly where the infielder is camped out under the ball the entire time, and doesn't have to range 20 yards into the outfield. Your typical infield fly is a) called right away, b) easily caught with no miscommunication amongst players and c) called so as to avoid a cheap double play, which was not going to happen in that situation due to the depth of the infielder. In other words, the play wasn't so typical or ordinary, now was it?

Not "typical" in comparison to the usual infield fly call but one that happens not all that infrequently during the season. When an infielder is camped under the ball and facing the infield, it's ordinary effort, and it doesn't matter that he had to drift 20 feet into the outfield. I've never NOT seen the infield fly called in that situation. Yes, it's judgment but the only judgment is whether the infielder could have caught the ball with routine effort. It's also not called "right away", it's normally called when the ball is at its highest point in flight.....although in this situation, the umpire has to see where the infielder is in perspective to the ball...hence, the delayed call. Holbrook made the correct call and I'm sure he'll make the same call again when the situation presents itself, and he'll be correct in doing so.

How far out of the infield before an infield fly qualifies as a blooper, Mace?

Dee Snutz wrote:How far out of the infield before an infield fly qualifies as a blooper, Mace?

What's your definition of a "blooper?"

There's no definitive line around the infield arc that determines whether or not a fly ball can be called an infield fly, if that's what you're getting at. The term "blooper" does not appear in the baseball rulebook. An infield fly is determined by whether the infielder can make the catch with ordinary effort. As a rule of thumb, umpires make that determination on the position of the infielder and whether he's camped under the ball and facing the infield, as opposed to him running with his back to the infield and making an over the shoulder catch.

Mace wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:How far out of the infield before an infield fly qualifies as a blooper, Mace?

What's your definition of a "blooper?"

There's no definitive line around the infield arc that determines whether or not a fly ball can be called an infield fly, if that's what you're getting at. The term "blooper" does not appear in the baseball rulebook. An infield fly is determined by whether the infielder can make the catch with ordinary effort. As a rule of thumb, umpires make that determination on the position of the infielder and whether he's camped under the ball and facing the infield, as opposed to him running with his back to the infield and making an over the shoulder catch.

The ss was never even under that ball. It hit 10 ft behind him as he turned toward the infield and he was easily 30 ft beyond the infield that point. There is no part of that play that can be qualified as an ordinary effort. We'll just disagree, Mace.

No problem, but, if you'll watch enough baseball, you'll see it called again.

I think I covered "how far into the outfield" question quite well. The warning track, if the ball is in the air long enough for an infielder to position himself to make a catch(probably never happened).

It wasn't the "right" call -- it was the "only" call. It's not selectively applied, it's a "rule."

If an infielder could possibly muff a ball to gain an advantage, it's an infield fly. What happens after the call is made is of no consequence. Batter is out, ball is live.

Dinsdale wrote:I think I covered "how far into the outfield" question quite well. The warning track, if the ball is in the air long enough for an infielder to position himself to make a catch(probably never happened).

I know there's no defined territory for an infield fly, but a shortstop catching a ball at the warning track would qualify as "super human" not "ordinary," thus negating any such call.

Pretty good explanation by Harold Reynolds..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1Wenisxtc

Mace wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:It was a total judgment call and is open to debate -- certainly not a white and black thing like some are suggesting. This characterization of "ordinary effort" isn't clearly defined. Was it ordinary compared to a diving catch? Yes. But it certainly required more effort than a typical infield fly where the infielder is camped out under the ball the entire time, and doesn't have to range 20 yards into the outfield. Your typical infield fly is a) called right away, b) easily caught with no miscommunication amongst players and c) called so as to avoid a cheap double play, which was not going to happen in that situation due to the depth of the infielder. In other words, the play wasn't so typical or ordinary, now was it?

When an infielder is camped under the ball and facing the infield, it's ordinary effort, and it doesn't matter that he had to drift 20 feet into the outfield.

Yes, it does. How long have you umped in your life? You are obviously clueless, please stop posting about the subject.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Mace wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:It was a total judgment call and is open to debate -- certainly not a white and black thing like some are suggesting. This characterization of "ordinary effort" isn't clearly defined. Was it ordinary compared to a diving catch? Yes. But it certainly required more effort than a typical infield fly where the infielder is camped out under the ball the entire time, and doesn't have to range 20 yards into the outfield. Your typical infield fly is a) called right away, b) easily caught with no miscommunication amongst players and c) called so as to avoid a cheap double play, which was not going to happen in that situation due to the depth of the infielder. In other words, the play wasn't so typical or ordinary, now was it?

When an infielder is camped under the ball and facing the infield, it's ordinary effort, and it doesn't matter that he had to drift 20 feet into the outfield.

Yes, it does. How long have you umped in your life? You are obviously clueless, please stop posting about the subject.

Clueless? :)

Just STFU, dumbass. It was an infield fly and correctly called by the umpire. Watch the video that Jim posted and you'll see that it was the correct call and also see other situations where it was called exactly the same way.

And to answer your question, I umped high school and college baseball for 20+ years while you were mopping up jizz.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I think I covered "how far into the outfield" question quite well. The warning track, if the ball is in the air long enough for an infielder to position himself to make a catch(probably never happened).

I know there's no defined territory for an infield fly, but a shortstop catching a ball at the warning track would qualify as "super human" not "ordinary," thus negating any such call.

The rule does state that the ump must take into consideration the skill level of the involved player(s). If Usain Bolt were a shortstop, that warning track call could possibly apply to him. I gotta concede on this one. By the explicit letter of the rule, it's not a ridiculous call. However, I wonder if it hadn't been called, if Metheny would have charged out of the dugout in protest?

Dee Snutz wrote:However, I wonder if it hadn't been called, if Metheny would have charged out of the dugout in protest?

Absofuckinglutely. Given the situation and the fact that the bases would have been loaded with only one out, there's a good chance he would have been ejected. I know that I would have argued to the point of ejection if they failed to make that call.

Some dumbasses up in here.

If the ump doesn't call an infield fly, it's a double play.

HENCE THE REASON THEY MADE THE RULE 100+ YEARS AGO.

Mace wrote:And to answer your question, I umped high school and college baseball for 20+ years while you were mopping up jizz.

It would be funny if Screw were running around the establishment with a bucket trying to catch these loads instead of having to mop them up later. Picture this, some dude blasts a huge cum geyser up into the sky. Here comes Screwey, waving his arms in the air, calling off his co-workers like an OF does a shortstop. “I got it. I got it.” Holy shit, outta nowhere, here comes the 3B. Jon pushes Screwey outta they way, catching the load with his chin. For those of you scoring at home = U5.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Picture this, some dude blasts a huge cum geyser up into the sky.

No thanks.

Mace wrote: Clueless? :)

Just STFU, dumbass. It was an infield fly and correctly called by the umpire. Watch the video that Jim posted and you'll see that it was the correct call and also see other situations where it was called exactly the same way.

And to answer your question, I umped high school and college baseball for 20+ years while you were mopping up jizz.

So, again, how does an infielder running 20 yards into the outfield with his back towards the infield and causing a miscommunication with an outfielder count as "ordinary" effort?

Clueless. And fucking stupid, to boot.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Mace wrote: Clueless? :)

Just STFU, dumbass. It was an infield fly and correctly called by the umpire. Watch the video that Jim posted and you'll see that it was the correct call and also see other situations where it was called exactly the same way.

And to answer your question, I umped high school and college baseball for 20+ years while you were mopping up jizz.

So, again, how does an infielder running 20 yards into the outfield with his back towards the infield and causing a miscommunication with an outfielder count as "ordinary" effort?

Clueless. And fucking stupid, to boot.

Watch the video you clueless asswipe and then try to tell me he wasn't facing the infield before he was called off the ball. He was never running full speed to the outfield and was drifting to the ball, knowing he would make the catch. It was a very routine play. Watch the video and STFU. I gave you a little more credit for actually knowin something about the game. My bad.

Mace wrote:
Watch the video you clueless asswipe and then try to tell me he wasn't facing the infield before he was called off the ball. He was never running full speed to the outfield and was drifting to the ball, knowing he would make the catch. It was a very routine play. Watch the video and STFU. I gave you a little more credit for actually knowin something about the game. My bad.

So what if he's facing the infield when he called off the ball? It doesn't make it a routine play. Again, fucking stupid.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Mace wrote:
Watch the video you clueless asswipe and then try to tell me he wasn't facing the infield before he was called off the ball. He was never running full speed to the outfield and was drifting to the ball, knowing he would make the catch. It was a very routine play. Watch the video and STFU. I gave you a little more credit for actually knowin something about the game. My bad.

So what if he's facing the infield when he called off the ball? It doesn't make it a routine play. Again, fucking stupid.

He's facing the infield and waiting for the ball to come down = routine fucking play. You should just forget posting about baseball and get back to your jizz mopping, or licking, or whatever it is you do. :roll: You obviously know absolutely nothing about the rules of the game but that's okay because most of the dumbfucks in the stands and in the broadcast booth don't either. See, you're apparently in the majority, so enjoy your ignorant bliss.