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?

I don't think this needs a solution.

The Cardinals never should have started Ducky Medwick in a post-season game.

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. ;-)

Well, I am a bit insulated, as I work mostly with medium and small companies, and most of the ones we work with are doing OK...but a few factories have gone under in the last year or so.

But yeah....China is going to keep losing jobs in the export sector.

Do you wear little girl panties yet,

Why the "girl panties"?

Are you a misogynistic jerk, or do you just play one on-line?

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.

Gonzalez is a Bobby Cox protege who was brought on because the Braves figured he could manage like Bobby Cox. That's just who he is - knows how to make his roster work in the long haul, not very good tactically. I generally think he's okay, but he played a part in mucking this one up.

Especially when the one change Fredi made to the starting 8 paid huge dividends.

As much as starting David Ross paid off, his inexplicable decision to have Andrelton Simmons bunt with men on the corners was a killer.
Edit: A glass full of tears to Ty Cobb.

I don't think this needs a solution.

Right. There really isn't anything wrong with the rule, and you can't prevent poor implementation by changing the rule.

Medlen faced 25 batters, allowed 3 hits (7 tb), no walks, and plunked a guy.
.136/.160/.318
Keeping him in was not where things went wrong.

He gave up more runs than base runners.

They should change the name of the rule from the Infield fly to the "Wherever the ball ####### goes, it's still an out called by the umpires". Because that's what happen.

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.

The rule is explicit in one direction: 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's not explicit the other way, but my reading is that 'infielder' is defined by who is, and is not, stationed on the infield at the beginning of the play.

6/15/2012 - AJC quotes following Wednesday’s loss. Fredi Gonzalez on Andrelton Simmons bunting with the pitcher on deck: “It’s a learning thing. He probably hasn’t hit eighth before and he’s playing National League rules every day now. It’s an aggressive mistake really. We talked to him about it and I don’t think we’ll see him do it again.”

Judging by the Ross bunt single and the Simmons bunt, the scouting report probably said Freese is injured and immobile (which would be accurate). I'm guessing Simmons acted on that, and then Gonzalez wisely covered for him. That's what managers are for.

Having now watched the replay several times, it looks like Holbrook made the call right at the point that Kozma looked as if he were about to catch it. What made it confusing was that immediately after Holbrook signaled the out, the Cardinals started playing Alphonse and Gaston with the ball. Holbrook should have made the call earlier, but again, at the point he made it, Kozma clearly looked like he was about to make a play that he would have made 99.99% of the time.

But where Holbrook went wrong was that he should have factored in the crowd noise and the distance of the ball from the infield dirt, and not made the call at all, since in a situation like that, the crowd noise can sometimes cause exactly the sort of miscommunication between fielders that we saw last night. Not to mention that there was almost zero chance that at that point of the game, the Cardinals were going to try an intentional drop-and-throw to third maneuver, which is what the infield fly rule is supposed to guard against.

Bottom line is that it was a judgment call, but given the overall context of how the play was developing, it was a poorly made one. And given the context of the game situation and the importance of the game, it ranks almost right up there with Denkinger.

Of course given that my opinion of Atlanta from top to bottom is roughly equal to Gamingboy's opinion of the Yankees, I can't say that the outcome exactly filled me with tears of sadness. But it was still a lousy call.

why was no error assessed when the runners moved up on a ball that could have been caught by the SS, who called for it, with ordinary effort was allowed to fall safely?

There really isn't anything wrong with the rule

The only suggested change I've ever seen that I've liked is the "Steve Treder rule" (I hope I'm representing Steve correctly): just eliminate the rule. If you are unlucky enough to hit a short fair popup in the IF situation, you have hit into a double play: if the defenders can execute it.

The play is complicated enough, rare enough, and seems to confuse even major-leaguers often enough, that it might be worth just playing it the way they so often play it. And as to that not being "fair" to the runners, geez, they're grown men playing a game of tag in the first place, they'll survive the injustice :)

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

That's fair. Which reminds me that I didn't like having Prado bunt with Bourn on first. Why not just hit and run with a hitter like Prado? I'm not saying that Gonzalez is blameless, but when you leave 21 men on base, for me it's to hard to point to the manager first. The first five batters had five total hits. That's a much bigger reason why they lost.

I am surprised that it isn't more common to exchange baserunners on easy popups. Speedy guy on first, slow guy at bat, infield pop-up ... let it drop and you get the slow guy on base.

For those who think the call was correct, I ask you this: do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell Mike Matheny comes out of the dugout to argue if that call's NOT made?

The fact that the IF rule's raison d'etre is to protect the offensive team from being unfairly taken advantage of just adds to the egregiousness of this call; Kozma wasn't turning that ball into a DP if you strap a bazooka to his shoulder and lop off one of Simmons's legs, Black Night-style.

For those who think the call was correct, I ask you this: do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell Mike Matheny comes out of the dugout to argue if that call's NOT made?

I'm not really convinced one way or the other, but this is a really interesting question. My initial guess is actually "yes" but more in a "well, you know guys, you really should have called that, why didn't you?" for appearances and groundwork.

Lassus: I agree with you on much, but not on this, largely because, as another poster pointed out, this may be the deepest-hit ball to draw an IF call in history. And because, contra Ray's apparent MLB feed from a parallel universe, Kozma was nowhere near "camped under" the ball; the very fact that he was still running back and that he and Holliday seemed confused as to whose play it was makes the"ordinary effort" clause inapplicable.

Edit: I realize your "yes" was heavily hedged, but I don't think this play would have even warranted a "standing up for my boys" argument if the IF call's not made.

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

That's silly. If one game was enough to resolve a tie when only 4 division winner made the playoffs, and in the single division AL, was enough to award the pennant, then it's enough for two 2nd place teams.

Lassus: I agree with you on much, but not on this, largely because, as another poster pointed out, this may be the deepest-hit ball to draw an IF call in history. And because, contra Ray's apparent MLB feed from a parallel universe, Kozma was nowhere near "camped under" the ball; the very fact that he was still running back and that he and Holliday seemed confused as to whose play it was makes the"ordinary effort" clause inapplicable.

I didn't answer "Do you think this was the correct call?", I answered "Would Matheny have opened his mouth with no call?" ;-)

To be clear, I do think it was most likely a very bad call. (I rather wishy-washily think there is a ARGUMENT, even if it isn't good, it certainly exists) I do think it's POSSIBLE someone could have gotten in an ump's ear in about making that call if it hadn't happened, again, just to play the game of getting in the ump's ear, not expecting anything.

If that makes more sense.

EDIT: TO be even more accurate, enough intelligent non-Ray people here have made the argument it was not a terrible call, so I'm considering it more than I had prior.

"I'm 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."

ok, I was gonna post that.

meanwhile, Denkinger's call was in GAME SIX, NOT GAME SEVEN. The terrible call left the Cardinals leading the series, 3-2, with a 1-run game in the 9th inning and now a runner on first base. does that sound like some impossible obstacle to overcome?

how about getting out of the inning, just allowing the bogus runner to score and then winning in extra innings or - I'll just throw this out there - WINNING GAME SEVEN?

Just because Whitey Herzog got his team to quit in the 9th inning and then Game 7, doesn't mean we have to accept the whining afterwards about how some call ruined their season.

And I say this even though my wife's cousin played for the Cardinals in that series.

Howie -- does the cuz agree that Whitey got them to quit?

Mayor, he passed away before I ever got to meet him. But I think the Game 7 performance speaks volumes.

I agree with you on much, but not on this, largely because, as another poster pointed out, this may be the deepest-hit ball to draw an IF call in history.

I started reading near the end of this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating others, but I thought Harold Reynolds did a really good job on MLB Tonight last night of explaining the rule and why it was called correctly. And, as part of that, they showed tape of the exact same call being made on a pop-up that Starlin Castro caught in basically the exact same place in left field. Now, I agree that a ball this far into the outfield violates the spirit of the law, but if they're always calling that play, then the issue's with the way the rule's written, not in this particular call.

I have gotten complaints about this thread. I have only skimmed it but I do find some of the comments childish. Childish won't generally get anyone suspended. It just makes them look childish. Telling someone somethlng like "put a bullet in your head" will get people suspended.

I have suspended the writer of that pithy comment. I haven't had time to completely review the whole thread and to review the comment history of the writer. I also don't have time to contact him at the moment as I am going out again in a few minutes. When I have time I will review everything, contact the writer, and decide how long the suspension will be.

BTW, it was a bad call. It was either a routine play, which should have been called much earlier, or it wasn't, which means it shouldn't have been called at all.

For those who think the call was correct, I ask you this: do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell Mike Matheny comes out of the dugout to argue if that call's NOT made?

I'm not really convinced one way or the other, but this is a really interesting question. My initial guess is actually "yes" but more in a "well, you know guys, you really should have called that, why didn't you?" for appearances and groundwork.

Of course he wouldn't argue if the call wasn't made; that wouldn't make any sense. "You should have ruled that this ball my infielder couldn't catch would have been caught with ordinary effort!"

I am still unclear: If, before the pitch, the second baseman is playing in short-med right field in a modified shift, is he still deemed an infielder? Heck, what happens if he is hanging out at the warning track when the batter swings?

Thanks, Howie, and sorry. The cuz was Darrell Porter?

I think the rule (and defenses of last night's call) rests on a false dichotomy between a ball that can be caught with "ordinary effort" and one that cannot. There are some balls that can be caught with ordinary effort that do not provide a realistic opportunity for engineering a double play. Those balls should not be called outs. The popup last night was, possibly, one of those.

This was 3-5 strides too far from an infield fly rule. The outfielder could've caught the ball. This was an error.

why was no error assessed when the runners moved up on a ball that could have been caught by the SS, who called for it, with ordinary effort was allowed to fall safely?

I'd have given an error, but it's possible that with all the ensuing goings-on, the official scorer simply forgot to account for the runners advancing. Or maybe he just couldn't decide who to charge the error to. Alternatively, since the IFF rule does state that runners may advance at their own risk, it's possible (if not plausible) to argue that the advance did not depend on the ball being dropped. I guess it's retroactively scored a fielder's choice. After all, the choice doesn't have to be a wise one. Checking the play by play on Yahoo, it just says "A. Simmons popped out to shallow left, D. Uggla to third, D. Ross to second" which makes it seem like Uggla was able to tag up and advance to third on a pop-up to shallow left. Holliday's arm isn't that weak, is it? The Gameday PBP does specify that the IFF rule was invoked.

Gameday had to revise it. While the #### was unfolding, Gameday had one out and bases loaded while TBS had x-2-3 and 2 outs.

If, before the pitch, the second baseman is playing in short-med right field in a modified shift, is he still deemed an infielder? Heck, what happens if he is hanging out at the warning track when the batter swings?

I suspect that this is also a judgment call. The umpires decide who are infielders and who are outfielders based on how the players are positioned before the play. If the second baseman is playing too deep to allow him to turn a DP by letting the ball fall and throwing to third for a relay to second, then the IFF rule shouldn't be called. IMO. YMMV.

Watching both games yesterday and not having a horse in the race I didn't feel the urgency or excitement that other one game playoffs had. This may be due to some factors:

1) The day break after the regular season.
2) The teams weren't competing against each other in the standings up to the last day of the regular season. With other one card playoffs the urgency for both teams existed to the last day of the season and when a tie occured the drama lasted one more day. The one game playoff was an added bonus where the teams settled the direct race once and for all.

There are some balls that can be caught with ordinary effort that do not provide a realistic opportunity for engineering a double play. Those balls should not be called outs.

That's an argument against the wording of the rule, but not against the call.

If, before the pitch, the second baseman is playing in short-med right field in a modified shift, is he still deemed an infielder? Heck, what happens if he is hanging out at the warning track when the batter swings?

I believe it's irrelevant, with regard to the rule. Infield fly can be called on a ball that the centerfielder is camped under.

This was 3-5 strides too far from an infield fly rule. The outfielder could've caught the ball.

There are a lot of plays where the outfielder can catch the ball where the infielder, with ordinary effort, can also catch the ball - they're usually on balls hit by players with little power, like Simmons, where the outfielder isn't playing that deep. Most of the time, the outfielder takes it because he's coming in while the infielder is going out.

I've looked at this play on tape about a dozen times, and I think the infield fly call is defensible. Kozma would have made the play fairly easily if he hadn't peeled off. It wouldn't have been an over-the-shoulder catch or a reach - he had virtually stopped moving when the call was made. Nor was he sprinting back at full speed or anything close to it. There wasn't extraordinary effort on his part to get to where the ball landed.

-- MWE

1) The day break after the regular season.

The day break is obviously necessary, in case ties need to be broken before the WC game is played, but it seems to me that the two off days go a helluva long way toward mitigating any disadvantage that the WC winners will face in advancing further.

Infield fly can be called on a ball that the centerfielder is camped under.

Yes, as long as an infielder also could have made the play, or if the CF was positioned in the IF before the play. But that doesn't make the pre-pitch positioning of the fielders irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, the rule wouldn't discuss it specifically.

Infield fly can be called on a ball that the centerfielder is camped under.

Can be called, but usually should not be.

I'm not clear on when, if ever, a shifted infielder is no longer an infielder for the purpose of the rule as written. But I have made up my mind that umpires should not call IF fly rule unless there is an incentive without the call for the defensive team to intentionally drop to get the DP. If that incentive is not present, do not make the call. Intrusive umpiring is bad umpiring.

I have made up my mind that umpires should not call IF fly rule unless there is an incentive without the call for the defensive team to intentionally drop to get the DP.

The only downside to this is that it requires the umpire to process more information before making (or not making) the call. Which means more time. Which can lead to more late calls like this one. And IMO, a late IFF call is (almost invariably) a bad IFF call.

The fact that the IF rule's raison d'etre is to protect the offensive team from being unfairly taken advantage of just adds to the egregiousness of this call; Kozma wasn't turning that ball into a DP if you strap a bazooka to his shoulder and lop off one of Simmons's legs, Black Night-style.

It seems people are seeing what they want to see here rather than what actually happened. Due to the infield fly being called so late, the runner on second had drifted at least halfway off the base to hedge against the no-catch. If the SS or LF caught the ball while standing up, which Kozma likely would have done if he didn't bail out, there would have been a clear DP opportunity at 2B and probably an easy DP opportunity at 2B. (The runner from second arrived at third about a second or 1.5 seconds after the ball dropped. That means he was at least halfway off second when the ball hit the ground. As for Kozma, watch where his feet were before he bailed out and then watch where the ball lands. It looks like Kozma was no more than a half-step away from an easy standing catch.)

For those who think the call was correct, I ask you this: do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell Mike Matheny comes out of the dugout to argue if that call's NOT made?

The question isn't whether Matheny would have argued if the call wasn't made; the question is whether Gonzalez would have argued if the catch was made and a double play ensued — or the catch deliberately wasn't made and a DP ensued — because infield fly wasn't called or wasn't called early enough.

But I have made up my mind that umpires should not call IF fly rule unless there is an incentive without the call for the defensive team to intentionally drop to get the DP. If that incentive is not present, do not make the call. Intrusive umpiring is bad umpiring.

Problem is, not calling the infield fly will occasionally mean that the defense doesn't need to intentionally let the ball drop in order to turn a DP. Last night was a perfect example. If the ball was caught with no infield fly call, the runner at second would possibly if not likely have been doubled off, since the lack of the infield fly call essentially forced him to drift much farther off second base than he otherwise would have.


[goes back to politics thread, where death threats are less frequent]

I don't think anyone has claimed 'extraordinary' effort, just that Kozma's effort was beyond 'ordinary.' And of course, that's where we get into personal interpretation, since 'ordinary effort' is not clearly defined in the rulebook (nor *can* it be clearly defined). That said, throughout baseball history, the IF fly has almost never been called on a ball in that area. I guess that's what bothers me...you can theoretically/technically interpret the rule as Holbrook did, but it's pretty much never been interpreted that way. I've seen way too many IFs/OFs miss on balls like that to think it should be an automatic out (Candlestick with the wind blowing, good luck).

I think the rule should be amended so that it can only be called if the fielder has established position under the ball for a set amount of time. Let's say...two Mississippis. Yes. Two Mississippis shall be the number thou ump shalt count.

Good news is I can now order a T-Shirt with 'Worst Call Ever 10/05/12' on it. That should help with the pain.

The day break is obviously necessary, in case ties need to be broken before the WC game is played, but it seems to me that the two off days go a helluva long way toward mitigating any disadvantage that the WC winners will face in advancing further.

Seems to me that there's a rather elegant equity in the scheduling.

The two teams with the best records in their respective leagues are getting three days off since their last game on Wednesday.

The other four division winners are getting two days off since their last game.

And the two wild card survivors are getting only Saturday off since last night, and in addition they've each had to make two long trips since the end of the season.

What's wrong with any of that? The only mitigating factor is that the Yanks and the Nats had to wait until last night to know where to head, but of their entire rosters only Kuroda and Jackson aren't fully rested and available for tomorrow's games.

I think the call was appropriate. Except that it was made immediately after Kozma bailed out. Clearly the ump had just determined that it was an Infield Fly situation, because Kozma seemed to have no trouble getting to it, and he was about to raise his hand and make the call. Then Kozma bailed out for some reason, and this event surprised the ump, who suddenly raised his hand, leading to a resounding "WTF" from all corners.

If it had been called an infield fly, and THEN Kozma bailed out, I don't envision a lot of controversy. Because Kozma was still keeping an eye on the baserunners, he wasn't facing the outfield wall at any point.

Problem is, not calling the infield fly will occasionally mean that the defense doesn't need to intentionally let the ball drop in order to turn a DP. Last night was a perfect example. If the ball was caught with no infield fly call, the runner at second would possibly if not likely have been doubled off, since the lack of the infield fly call essentially forced him to drift much farther off second base than he otherwise would have.

Except that the IFF rule doesn't protect against this. It allows the runners to hold their bags without risk of being forced out at the base they would otherwise be forced to advance to; it does not absolve them of the obligation to return to their bags in the event of a catch. Runners may advance at their own risk, whether the ball is caught or not, but they must tag up if the ball is caught.

That makes no sense Joe. The reason why the runner on 2nd got to 3rd so quickly was that the SS peeled away and the LF was not close to the ball. So the runner(s) had a pretty good idea that the ball was not going to be caught at that point. Your argument would equally apply to many routine flyballs to LF with runners at 1st and 2nd. The runner at 2nd has to take a few steps off of 2nd in the off chance that the ball is not caught so he can make it to 3rd safely, but he cannot stray too far off of 2nd for fear of being doubled off in the very likely chance that the ball is caught. We don't need the infield fly rule in that case since no "easy" double play is possible. Of course, an easy double play is possible in the case of an infield popup with runners on 1st and 2nd since if the ball is not caught there is plenty of time to double up both runners.

As many have stated, the reason for the rule is important. If the umpire(s) cannot understand that, they should not be umpiring major league games. The chance of that ball being turned into an easy double play after letting it drop was approximately .000001%.

I think the rule should be amended so that it can only be called if the fielder has established position under the ball for a set amount of time. Let's say...two Mississippis. Yes. Two Mississippis shall be the number thou ump shalt count.

Again, the IFF rule does no good if it isn't called immediately. That's why the rulebook specifically says "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." Immediately.