UCCF -- you have no idea who I am, do you? I am not a Braves fan. I have been watching baseball for over 40 years. This was one of the worst calls I have ever seen.

Think about why baseball needs the infield fly rule. It is to protect the baserunners from a simple double play. This play was never ever going to be a double play. Both runners were around 1/3 to 1/2 from their original base since it was not an ordinary infield fly.

Jeez, this is not hard to understand.

I wish the people at my office felt this way. I'd go to every meeting with a bag full of apple cores to fling at people who won't shut up...

Just get a speech jammer.

Count me in as one who found the call proper, at least defensible. As I said in the wild-card chatter. In fact, when the play first happened, I said -- watching with others at the office -- that the infield fly rule should have been called, not realizing it had been.

I thought a big part of the IF rule was to let the runners know that it was going to be an out so they decide wether to advance or not. By calling it so late, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Right. The biggest problem with this call was that it was made so late. The runner at second looked like he was much farther off the base than he would have been if it had been called earlier.

The runners still have to tag up if it's caught, so as long as the call is made before the ball is caught or drops, it doesn't make much difference.

There's a big difference between being halfway and being on the bag. If the SS or LF caught this while standing up, it looked like there would have been a DP opportunity at second base, if not an easy DP opportunity.

This play was never ever going to be a double play. Both runners were around 1/3 to 1/2 from their original base since it was not an ordinary infield fly.

If the LF or SS makes the catch while standing up, he easily could have made the 100-foot throw to 2B before the runner retreated ~45 feet.

All of the above said, this probably would have been a less controversial call if the bases had been loaded. The lack of a runner on third limited the amount of damage that could have been done.

It was a defensible call based on the wording of the rule and what Holbrook saw, but one which should lead to revision of the rule. If the point is to prevent trick double/triple-plays, just make it clear that if a team tries that the umps will call the batter out and send runners back, instead of having them make an on the spot judgement call.

I was coaching little league practice here in Dongguan when I got a phone call from a friend watching the game, who told me the happenings going on. I then turned and told our head coach, who is both a former professional player (minors and here in Asia) and also a professional umpire. The first thing he said was that if the infielder was backpedaling ALL THE WAY then even if it was deeper than usual, it's the right call, but if the infielder turned his back to the infield then the minute he did that he could not see what the runners were doing and it should not be an infield fly. So we couldn't wait to get home to see the replay.

When I saw the replay, the fact that Kozma was running turned at an angle away, but still back to the infield, and during those first 4 or 5 steps, before he turned around could in no way know what the runners were doing immediately signaled to me it was a wrong call. The depth of the ball....225 feet ?? yeah that is too far too. I understand why the umps made the call they did because Kozma did finally turn and wave his arms. But that was AFTER he turned his back to the infield. (yes, I know he was angled somewhat...but again from that angle could not see the runners).

BAD CALL.

WRONG CALL.

Ray, put a bullet in your head.

I'm sorry, this is WAY the #### out of line, even for BTF. Ya know, every time I read a thread, I see people making ad hom attacks against Ray. Yeah, he is an opinionated, stubborn, always right, condescending know it all.....in other words the typical BTF poster.

I get that he can be frustrating to debate or argue with.....but you guys need to back off. The ad hom crap needs to stop. ESPECIALLY stuff like that encouraging someone to commit suicide. Because, ya never know what your words may mean to someone else or what kind of effect you might have.

It was a defensible call based on the wording of the rule and what Holbrook saw, but one which should lead to revision of the rule.

I'm not a big fan of knee-jerk rule changes based on fluke plays. More than anything, what MLB needs to learn is that the postseason LF and RF umpires are positioned too close to the infield. Even if it was correct, there was no reason for the LF umpire to be making that call in the first place.

When I saw the replay, the fact that Kozma was running turned at an angle away, but still back to the infield, and during those first 4 or 5 steps, before he turned around could in no way know what the runners were doing immediately signaled to me it was a wrong call.

But it can be caught by an OF and still be an infield fly, and the LF was right there, albeit a couple steps away.

The depth of the ball....225 feet ??

Maybe the camera angles are tricking me, but that ball didn't look like it dropped 225 feet from home plate (or ~135 feet from third base).

OK, stop the presses! DMN and Ray disagree on something!

I'm with DMN! Go O's!

That ball was too deep to be called an IF. If caught by the SS, while it would not have been an "OMG!!!" play, it would have been better than ordinary.

If Holliday had continued coming full-tilt, he'd have either made the catch or (potentially) played it on one hop. If the latter, he gets the 7-5 force at third. If the runner on first headed back to tag, assuming that the ball had been caught (let's say it's a close catch/trap call), Freese might have a chance to force the runner at second for the DP.

So assuming everything was different than it was, there's a slight chance that something different might have happened. Good point?

Anyway, as others have said, the Braves lost this game themselves, but anyone who thinks this was a "good call" is a lunatic.

Regarding the call itself, it seemed to be a strange call but it's a judgement call and these things happen. I do like the idea of penalizing the fielding team for not catching an IF Fly by letting the batter reach base and the runners move up one base. The rule should be changed. I don't like the idea of making the WC game a best of 3 since I don't want the real playoff teams to have to wait for the 4th and 5th most deserving (not necessarily best) teams to decide which one is really 4th most deserving. On a personal note, now that the Cards won, I can go to Game 1 of the NLDS and watch Gio and Kurt. Too bad Henry won't be there.

I was coaching little league practice here in Dongguan

Wow! You coach baseball in Dongguan? Can I visit and watch?

It shocks me that so many people here are on the wrong side of this.

Don't you know? - being a contrarian means you're smarter than other people.

The important thing is, you get to be superior to both!

As I spent half the night arguing, I think that it was a horseshit call and should have been reversed.

I don't, however, think it was a judgment call. I think it's clear from the rule, both by saying that the umpire "shall immediately" call an infield fly when it comes apparent and from the fact that it outlines that the rule is for the benefit of the runners, that the call was not timely enough to do anything but hurt the runners. So judgment of whether or not the ball was an infield fly is besides the point - the call was way too late, so the call itself never even happened. In a rule written to protect runners, it's not reasonable to allow an umpire to rule at a time at which it's a detriment to the runners, thanks to a reaction time slower than someone in a persistent vegetative state.

No, the rule does not explicitly say what the time frame is for the ball being an infield fly becoming apparent, but without specific guidance and with the explicit knowledge that the rule is there to protect teh runners, it's reasonable to infer that the time frame for judging the ball an infield fly is before the point at which a call of an infield fly is not protecting the runners. After all, if there's no time frame for an infield fly becoming apparent, an umpire could technically invoke the infield fly rule to negate a dropped play made from, say, 1985 if they catch the play on ESPN Classic and see it for the first time since 1985.

So I argue the rule was misapplied, a protest therefore should be allowed, and then the call overturned. As far as I'm concerned, we're still in the 8th inning of last night's game and the Cardinals have advanced to the next round of the playoffs based on the results of an incomplete game.

that call manages to obscure gonzalez mismanaging this game completely.

pretty clear the guy has the ability to manage 162 games. he has had the braves in it for 2 straight seasons and the roster isn't dripping with talent.

but one gathers why braves fans are so frustrated. in situations where the game gets beyond managing the players and getting them to maximize effort and calls on a manager to make tactical decisions that can push the team toward victory fredi falls flat.

that and the braves mucking up defensively.

i feel for chipper but i wrote about his defense evaporating earlier this season after watching him against the brewers. he just cannot make a series of physical moves common to the position on a regular basis. that ability has abandoned him. it was gutwrenching to see

I've been taught to call the infield fly at about the apex of the ball's flight. That being said, that's a mechanic, not a rule, and mechanics are not protestable.

Your inference is reasonable, DJS, but if it didn't become apparent to Holbrook until right at the end of the play...then that's when he's supposed to call it. There's definitely an argument for a rubric of that "if that's when you think it's reasonable, then you're wrong," and several umpires I know have said that. But several haven't.

I'm of the opinion that it's an unusual, but defensible call, and certainly not one of the most hideous blown calls ever (stuff like the Maier interference or the Denkinger play where you're not sure if the were watching the same game everyone else is.) And yeah, the Braves lost that game six other ways to Sunday. Why was Medlen allowed to give up 5 runs in a one-and-done game again?

UCCF has this well in hand. Too bad he wasn't working national TV or in the press.

Shoewizard, your friend needs to retake his umpiring course. Ordinary effort doesn't depend on whether a guy gives up on the play.

Let;s say the bases are loaded with one out and David Ortiz is up. Madden decides, for whaterver reason, to keep the shift on (it's hypothetical, and its Madden, so why not).

The second baseman, an infielder, is positioned way out in right field, such that he can catch a medium depth fly to right field with "ordinary effort". Should the ump call that one? It might be a sac fly, but by the letter of the rule it is infield fly rule. Or, possibly, because of his understanding of the intent of the rule, could he decide not to intrude on the action?

As Torre said, this is a judgment call, therefore not reversible. But the judgment stunk.

I don't, however, think it was a judgment call. I think it's clear from the rule, both by saying that the umpire "shall immediately" call an infield fly when it comes apparent and from the fact that it outlines that the rule is for the benefit of the runners, that the call was not timely enough to do anything but hurt the runners. So judgment of whether or not the ball was an infield fly is besides the point - the call was way too late, so the call itself never even happened. In a rule written to protect runners, it's not reasonable to allow an umpire to rule at a time at which it's a detriment to the runners, thanks to a reaction time slower than someone in a persistent vegetative state.

This is utter nonsense. There is no timing on the IF fly call that can possibly "hurt the runners," (other than calling it earlier, though that isn't an option absent that time machine that takes you back to 1985). As long as no call is made, the runners have to guard against the possibility of both a) the ball falling, and b) the ball being caught. Once the IF fly call is made, regardless how late, the runners now have more information at their disposal to guide their decision making. And the fact is, in this play, the Braves baserunners were not hurt in any way, as both advanced to the next base safely despite no obligation to do so.

The earlier you call it, the better. But the reason the "immediate" is inserted into the rule is to alert the baserunners as soon as the umpire determines the IF fly is warranted, which is exactly what Holbrook did in this case.

I'm open to the idea that I might be wrong here, but what if the umpire had _not_ called infield fly and the SS dropped it on purpose and they turned a DP?

Exactly. Would the Braves fans have thrown crap on the field if no IFR call was made and the Cards got a double play out of it? It's a judgement call, like a called 3rd strike or ball four with the bases loaded (Kenny Rogers, 1999 NLCS against ATLANTA). The ump had to make a decision in a very short amount of time. Sometimes they go your way, sometimes they don't.

They HAVE to make it two out of three. One game playoffs like this are just wrong.

the roster isn't dripping with talent.

HW, I think you need to rethink this statement. McCann, Freeman, Jones, Heyward? Prado and Bourn aren't talented? Uggla might be nearing the end or just had a bad season. Andrelton Simmons is young but looks like a multiple all-star for the future. Medlen, Hudson, that bullpen? There's talent all over the place.

Has the shortstop mentioned if he backed off when he heard the umpire yell infield fly? If that's the case, he would in 99.9999 percent likelihood have caught it had the call not been made, rendering this debate moot.

hey guys i was traveling last night and didn't get to see a TV or computer ... did anything happen in last night's game?

ed

what i was trying to convey was that fredi didn't have a standard set of guys to run out there and not fuss over things. he had to manage a beyond broken down chipper into a fine part time season. he had to manage through a banged up mccann. a seemingly disintegrating uggla

fredi has a good core but he also had to 'manage'

he can that for 162 games but boy when the expiration date hits on game 162 it hits 'hard'

Also, the fans were absolutely right to throw garbage in response, and my only regret is that the ump only got hit by one bottle. He deserved a brick in the face - maybe it'd shake loose some common sense.

Finally, some sense in this thread. The fan reaction was by far the best thing about the entire game. The only regret is that Holbrooke had security to get out of the stadium without meeting the taut end of a short piece of rope.

I'm sorry, this is WAY the #### out of line,

Do you wear little girl panties yet, or are you still in pull-ups?

Also, does anyone think the champagne parties are getting absurd? Champagne for winning the stupid wild card game? It's bad enough they do it after the division series.

Also laughing about the "Orioles upset win "comments on MLB tonight. Oh yeah, huge upset. ??

Also, does anyone think the champagne parties are getting absurd? Champagne for winning the stupid wild card game? It's bad enough they do it after the division series.

Champagne party for clinching a tie for the second wild card
Champagne party for winning the playoff for the second wild card
Champagne party for winning the wild card play in game
Champagne party for winning the DS
Champagne party for winning the LCS
Champagne party for winning WS

SoSH U makes an interesting point in #118: the IF fly meant that the runners took 2nd and 3rd, instead of holding as they would on a normal caught fly ball. IOW, the fans' anger was directed at getting a smaller advantage out of the play than they'd initially expected. A smaller advantage, but better than 1st and 2nd, two outs.

Which is irrelevant to the call, of course. After reading the thread and poring over the video, I'd have to say that the rule was invoked correctly, but it was called in a dizzy delayed way that poisoned the whole affair. The few times I've seen the IF fly rule invoked (see this immortal infield-fly example), an umpire, as Stevis notes, invokes the rule when the ball is high in the air (at a point where he can track its flight and reckon that it will land among infielders). And does so vigorously (and I'd imagine loudly), not with a casual raised hand after the ball has hit the ground in left field somewhere. It's true that there's no requirement for the umpire to stride into left field pumping his finger in the air, but everybody and his brother would have felt much better about this play if he had.

So I'm with Ray and not DMN on this issue, though with compunctions. But congratulations to the Orioles, David!

I like the champagne parties. Why do we have to be so serious? Have some fun, celebrate each step in the journey.

Finally, some sense in this thread. The fan reaction was by far the best thing about the entire game. The only regret is that Holbrooke had security to get out of the stadium without meeting the taut end of a short piece of rope.

Do you wear little girl panties yet, or are you still in pull-ups?

Ha ha ha ha ha. Shut and watch football, loser.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Shut and watch football, loser.

Your wife gives good head.

But this never could have happened. This hypothetical is useless.

If Holliday...If the latter...If the runner on first headed back to tag

So your defense of a useless hypothetical is to put out three more useless hypotheticals?

Since I was at the game, I have a few comments about the fan reaction.

1. For big crowds, Turner Field can become close to inaccessible due to traffic gridlock. Plenty of Georgians have had the experience of getting to a big game in the third inning. The public transportation options are not great -- it's Atlanta. So it was widely publicized leading up to the game that the parking lots would open at noon, and that the gates would open at 2PM. I was there by 3, and the stadium was bustling. It was a warm afternoon, perfect for knocking back a few brews. By the second inning the men's restrooms were overwhelmed and stinking.
2. This was not a typical Atlanta suburban family crowd. There were no kids in attendance. Nor was it a notorious non-sellout Braves playoff game, nor was this all about corporate schmoozing. The tickets were bought by men who were charged up to see the game.
3. While it was a correct call, the Braves had already had a rally snufffed after an apparently advantageous play was reversed when Simmons was called out for running inside the basepaths on a bunt. I had a good angle on the play and could tell that it was not a bad call, but there was no replay, and I'm sure many in attendance questioned it. BTW, this is one of my least favorite rules.
4. The Braves played very poorly in the one game after playing very well for the whole season. Fans were frustrated.
5. I'm a Cardinal's fan, and I thought the IF fly rule call was awful.

Lots of booze, lots of young men, lots of energy, lots of frustration...

the IF fly meant that the runners took 2nd and 3rd, instead of holding as they would on a normal caught fly ball.

No. The runners took second and third because the ball wasn't caught, not because the IF fly rule was invoked. The call did not give the Braves any advantage whatsoever. The dropping of the fly ball did. You can't assume that the ball would have been caught absent the IF fly call.

Once the IF fly call is made, regardless how late, the runners now have more information at their disposal to guide their decision making. And the fact is, in this play, the Braves baserunners were not hurt in any way, as both advanced to the next base safely despite no obligation to do so.

No. The point again, is that the Braves runners advanced because the ball was dropped (not because of the call), and were at risk (however small) of being doubled up had the ball been caught. The lateness of the call absolutely is relevant.

That said, while I do think the call might well have changed the final score, I don't think it would have changed the outcome. The Braves brought the tying run to the plate in each of the last three innings, and did squat with those opportunities.

For big crowds, Turner Field can become close to inaccessible due to traffic gridlock. Plenty of Georgians have had the experience of getting to a big game in the third inning. The public transportation options are not great -- it's Atlanta.

I always take public transportation to the game and have never had a problem. It's cheaper and faster.

EDIT: That said, public transportation in this city is otherwise a joke, but that's what people want.

tippe:

you last line sounds like someone describing a bachelor party where the strippers are late showing up and the guy responsible can't get get them on the phone

he can that for 162 games but boy when the expiration date hits on game 162 it hits 'hard'

This is a very strange observation to me. Especially when the one change Fredi made to the starting 8 paid huge dividends.

No. The runners took second and third because the ball wasn't caught, not because the IF fly rule was invoked. The call did not give the Braves any advantage whatsoever. The dropping of the fly ball did. You can't assume that the ball would have been caught absent the IF fly call

Oh, any number of things could have been different; all I'm saying is, the Braves were a little bit better off afterwards than they might have been.

da:

are you referring to david ross?

i am referring to sitting there with a great bullpen as medlen gave up runs, among other things.

he showed no sense that this game had to be won or the world ended.

and fredi himself has come out and said he did not handle things well in the late stages of 2011.

I've fine w/ a one game playoff.
The Braves would have likely lost regardless of the outcome of this call.
Throwing stuff on the field was not remotely acceptable.

This was a terrible call.

Shoewizard, your friend needs to retake his umpiring course. Ordinary effort doesn't depend on whether a guy gives up on the play.

Thats not at all what I said. I didn't mention anything about ordinary effort, or giving up on the play.

Please go re read my post. I can't respond to you because your response appears to be in response to someone elses post !

i am referring to sitting there with a great bullpen as medlen gave up runs, among other things.

Two relievers does not make a great bullpen. Durbin, Gearrin and Venters don't inspire confidence. Criticising him for saving O'Flaherty for the 8th is fair.

What other problems did you have? Fredi's not the greatest but he's not the reason the Braves lost last night.

Wow! You coach baseball in Dongguan? Can I visit and watch?

Sure. There are 3 groups every saturday. The really young team, (herding cats basically) from 9-10:30, then the 9-12 year olds from 10:30-12:30, and then the 13 + team from 1-3

Level of play is not very high at all... program is just a year old. But we have some kids that are learning fast and love the game. It's a lot of fun.

I have to work October 13th, but I'll be there the 20th. We have a big tournament up in Xiamen thanksgiving weekend.

It's held at ISD, (International School of Dongguan)

Jesus, what a thread.

It was a horrendously bad call, but I doubt it influenced the outcome of the game. Especially considering the Umps gave Chipper a free single in the 9th.

I was coaching little league practice here in Dongguan

Wow -- another Primate out here in China. My family and I are in Shenyang right now, which is only like a 5 hour plane ride from Dongguan.

Is Dongguan's economy doing as bad as I hear? I've been reading all about big companies closing up down there.

Of course, here in Dongbei, the big companies were never here to begin with. ;-)

Don't you know? - being a contrarian means you're smarter than other people.

aka the Rob Neyer School of Journalism.

What other problems did you have? Fredi's not the greatest but he's not the reason the Braves lost last night.

Calling a safety squeeze with a slow as molasses Freeman at third base and the pitcher on deck was pretty egregious.

Would the solution to this be to simply modify the infield fly rule to state the catch still actually has to be made, and if it isn't its a single? Takes away the option for the fake out double play as the rule is meant to, but ensures the fielder still has to execute?