Seems to me that there's a rather elegant equity in the scheduling.
...
What's wrong with any of that?

Nothing. Except that the stated reason for changing the format was to make it harder on the wild card teams. If that's the case, then making the wild card winner play again the next day, preferably after a long flight, would seem to be the way to go. And of course, it isn't being done this way for equity, it's being done this way for TV scheduling purposes.

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.

Of course it protects against what I described. Without the infield fly call, runners — like the ones last night — have to drift much farther off their base in order to hedge against a no-catch, whether an intentional no-catch or unintentional no-catch.

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.

No way. You believe the runner noticed Kozma bail out a half-second before the ball dropped and then ran 30-45 feet in that second or half-second? Not possible. The runner reached third no more than 2 seconds after the ball dropped, and he no more than jogged the last 10-15 feet.

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.

No, it wouldn't. There's no way a dropped fly ball to LF (intentional or unintentional) results in a DP unless the runner on first blows out his knee or something. But the shallow fly balls, like last night's, can result in a DP either with a catch or with no catch.

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%.

But, again, the ball didn't need to drop to become a DP. Since the infield fly hadn't been called, the runner at second had drifted halfway to third. Without the infield fly call, last night's play could have been a DP with a catch.

Again, the IFF rule does no good if it isn't called immediately.

That's simply not true. Obviously, the earlier it's called the better. But a late IF fly call still gives the baserunners more information than the alternative that people are advocating, which was not calling it at all. Once Holbrook called it last night, the Braves baserunners had the opportunity to begin to retreat to their existing bags rather than remain halfway.

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.

"When it seems apparent."

Holbrook did not make the call until it seemed apparent that it was an IF fly situation (basically, right after Kozma abandoned his side saddle pursit and began back pedaling, which generally signifies to all that he's going to make the play comfortably). The immediate refers to the fact that the umpire should call it as soon as he determines it's an infield fly situation. If there was some time limit upon which the call must be made in relation to the ball's flight, it would be written that way. It isn't.

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

In practice, though, it's usually called as soon as the umpire judges the arc of the popup (keeping his eye everlastingly on the ball). That means the batter is out [EDIT: if the ball stays fair] whether anyone camps under the thing or not. Oddly enough, also in practice, you've got a high popup that could be taken by a number of fielders somewhere in the middle of the diamond, sometimes staggering around trying to gauge the wind and such: a DP wouldn't always be automatic under such circumstances. But the rule is written to avoid judgements like "could it have been a DP" or "was he camped." And that makes sense: an umpire should judge basic if-then-not stuff, not weird continuations of play that might have eventuated or the alignment of people with extrapolated trajectories of the ball. There's enough of that in the NFL :)

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.

Why would the runner on first go back to tag? If it's caught Uggla, the runner on second, wouldn't be able to tag up on Johnny Damon, so going back to tag is just too stupid to bring up as justification.

Of course it protects against what I described.

You wrote, "there would have been a clear DP opportunity at 2B and probably an easy DP opportunity at 2B." My point is that this opportunity was not removed by the invoking of the IFF rule.

That's simply not true.

OK, then. The IFF rule rarely does much good if it isn't called much earlier than Holbrook called this one.

The immediate refers to the fact that the umpire should call it as soon as he determines it's an infield fly situation.

Note that I quoted that part of the rule (and emphasized the word "immediately") in order to respond to a specific suggestion that the call should not be made until a fielder is stationary under the ball for two seconds. Do you really think that such a delay should be built into the rule? If not, then why take my comment out of context like that?

Let me try a different formulation of my position: if you cannot determine that it's an IFF until the ball is just about to hit the ground, then it isn't an IFF.

You wrote, "there would have been a clear DP opportunity at 2B and probably an easy DP opportunity at 2B." My point is that this opportunity was not removed by the invoking of the IFF rule.

Right, but the opportunity only existed because the infield fly wasn't called earlier.

Note that I quoted that part of the rule (and emphasized the word "immediately") in order to respond to a specific suggestion that the call should not be made until a fielder is stationary under the ball for two seconds. Do you really think that such a delay should be built into the rule? If not, then why take my comment out of context like that?

No, I don't think such a delay should be built into the rule (actually, I'm in favor of getting rid of the rule altogether*. There's simply no need for it).

But, as long as it's going to exist, I want umpires treating it like Holbrook did (while granting that it may very well have been too deep to call at all). When Kozma was pursuing the ball at a faster speed, while running side saddle, Holbrook eschewed making the call. But when Kozma started back pedaling, which, when done by an infielder on a pop up, can generally can be interpreted by all participants as "I got it," Holbrook called for the IF fly. It's later than usual because of the nature of the play, but I wouldn't want it called any earlier on this particular play, and I don't think you just ignore it because the conditions for an IF fly aren't established until later than normal.

* Treder and I are pretty much the co-proponents of that rule change, Bob.

I admit the 'immediately' necessity throws a monkey wrench in my two second plan. Maybe one second would be better...but it's still an issue.

I'm not sure there are any easy solutions here. Perhaps the best idea I've seen is to just limit the defense to one out.

Joe, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Joe, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Well, then, I'd appreciate it if you could edify me.

You seem to believe the runner at second would have been halfway even if the infield fly had been called earlier and/or that a runner could retreat 45 feet faster than the SS or LF could have thrown the ball 100 feet. Both of those are bad assumptions.

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.

Yeah, but a fly out to shallow left, he was probably watching the ball the entire time. At the Ted, the backlit ball makes it hard to pick up if you lose it. So he probably has no idea of the situation, other than that he needs to make that catch.

And for people asking why Medlen was asked to stay in and give up five runs -- he didn't. If Chipper turns the DP, you have a bases-empty double followed by three straight outs. If Uggla could play defense, you have an out followed by whatever the hell Descalso does instead of bunting. Medlen made a mistake pitch to Holliday, one of your better hitters in the game.

Fredi's real questionable decision was the call he made once he did decide to go to the pen. Down two runs, eight outs to get, and a runner on third, I go to Kimbrel to try to get a strikeout and strand that runner, and hope I can ride him at least 1.2 innings. O'Flaherty for the ninth, if it still has meaning (or Kimbrel if he feels he can make it).

Treder and I are pretty much the co-proponents of that rule change, Bob

Noted, in future it will be the SoSHUtreder Rule :)

The issue is not if there might have been a double play if the ball had been caught (runners could stand on their bags to prevent that). So that has no bearing on an infield fly situation. It is idiotic to bring that up.

The issue is not if there might have been a double play if the ball had been caught (runners could stand on their bags to prevent that). So that has no bearing on an infield fly situation. It is idiotic to bring that up.

If the infield fly isn't called, they can't just stand on their bags. That's a recipe for a DP or even triple play (if the bases are loaded).

Not sure if serious. What are you talking about. I assure you the chance of that ball yesterday being a double play was ZERO.

It remains the archetypal inscrutable rule. Last night I was sitting beside a knowledgeable young Orioles fan who was telling me about the Braves/Cardinals IF fly debacle. Then, with one runner on at first, one out, Adam Jones hit a pop fly to the infield, and my neighbor says, "Like that, that's an infield fly right there." I corrected him nicely, but didn't feel I could start to explain the rule, or else we'd still be sitting there now.

Not sure if serious. What are you talking about.

Yes, actually, I am serious. If you think the runners would just "stand on their bags" on a 175- or 200-foot fly to LF without the infield fly being called, you don't know what you're talking about. (And you obviously didn't watch the play that inspired this thread, since the runners were halfway by the time infield fly was called.)

I assure you the chance of that ball yesterday being a double play was ZERO.

You believe the runner at second could have retreated 45 feet in less time than a standing Pete Kozma could have thrown the ball 100 feet?

JFC are you retarded. The reason the runners were off the bags was that it was a tough play and nobody was camped under it. Shut up now.

It's later than usual because of the nature of the play, but I wouldn't want it called any earlier on this particular play, and I don't think you just ignore it because the conditions for an IF fly aren't established until later than normal.

but if it takes so long to figure out, it's not an ordinary-effort play!

JFC are you retarded. The reason the runners were off the bags was that it was a tough play and nobody was camped under it. Shut up now.

LOL. You seem to be lost; let me help you out.

So wait a second. Apologies if this is stupid or already discussed. When Holbrook called IFF, nobody noticed it, and the runners advanced. But the fact that the ball hit the ground is immaterial - it was for all intents and purposes a normal fly out according to the rule. And both of those runners advanced without retouching their bases. Could (should) they have been put out during the play or on appeal?

And both of those runners advanced without retouching their bases. Could (should) they have been put out during the play or on appeal?

Infield fly means the batter is out, but the runners don't need to (and, frankly, couldn't) tag up on a ball that isn't caught.

OK. Thank you.

People who think Starlin Castro was as far into the outfield as Kozma really need to clean their screens and look again. Period.

Hey Joe, do you know who I am? Just wondering.

Hey Joe, do you know who I am? Just wondering.

A guy whose argument style is better suited to Bleacher Report?

congratulations netizens on having perhaps the dumbest complaints about a controversial call ever.

1. "the call was not made immediately." This is silly, we've had these discussions before. A call is not invalidated by how long it takes an ump to make it. It is quite obvious that in case of a high pop up it may take a while to determine where the ball will land, it may be too difficult to catch or maybe an outfield fly. Obviously the ump had to determine where the ball will land. So that call cannot be made instantly.

It is also been said that that call can be made after the catch is made. I dont recall ever seeing it that way, but it wouldnt suprise me, GIVEN THE INTENT of the rule (which the complainers keep citing). The timing of call was not bad, and it is quite irreleavant anyhow.

2. "it was not a routine play." Anytime you see a ball player with his feet planted and his arms upraised that usually means he is about to catch the ball. The almost never drop those. I'll bet those are caught like 99.5% of the time. No matter what stat you cite, it's going to be very high.

2b "he wasnt camped." WTF? He was stopped moving and his arms were in position to catch it. What else do you want? Imagine the same play happening at say 2b with the SS in the same posture. Obviously he's about to catch the ball, the only difference is he's far into the OF.

The rule seems to mention "ordinary effort" or some such. The fact that the SS is running or whatever is silly, the make running catches all the time, and it's not extraordinary. It's probably not routine, but I think that's why it says ordinary effort. He's not makign a routine catch but it's not extraordinary either. Apparently the rule of thumb (based on what some experienced playcalls say) is that they look to see if the SS is turned or facing the INF. It seems to me he was facing the INF and certainly not clearly back turned. How else do you want to call that? If the SS is 100 feet into the OF it's extraordinary effort?

Did the SS get there in plenty of time? Yes. Does anyone disagree on that? WHy?

Other than the players posture, what the hell else do you expect the umpire to go on to determine this? All he has is the position of the SS and hopefully the path of the ball.

2c "That the ball ended up 5 feet behind the SS" That's because the SS backed off for some reason (maybe he saw the hand go up)
How is the ump supposed to determine if a catch is extraordinary based on where the ball lands? It landed there only because the SS backed off. You really think thats not an easy catch for a professional? Its not relevant where the ball ended up if the catch was not extraordinary effort.

3. "Only one ump made the call." Yeah this is silly, that's all it takes. Look closely at the photo/GIF. the 3B ump has his hand up as well, but it doesnt even matter.

4. "They couldnt have turned two." Maybe not, but I've seen CLemente and Maz turn two on ball hit to short RF vs the Cubs in April '72. Granted these are excellent fielders. But THATS NOT THE POINT.

The rule is not written that way. We all know the intent of the rule, but the umps job is just to call it as the rule is written. Ordinary effort, etc.

5. "The ump should have considered the crowd noise, etc." Are you sh!tting me?

Yeah the ball was unusually deep for such a call. But that's his judgment its not impossible that a DP coudl be turned and it's not really relevant for determining that in the moment.

Save it people. There are bound to be some really egregious calls starting in a day or two.

Can someone remind me how do you put someone on ignore? Thanks.

Rob -- you don't read their posts or reply to them.

but if it takes so long to figure out, it's not an ordinary-effort play!

you are insane. It takes long because of the height of the ball. Not because the play is easy or hard to make. How you can misconstrue that is beyond me.

Can someone remind me how do you put someone on ignore? Thanks.

Before you do, could you tell me who you are? I'm genuinely curious, and Google didn't help much.

(What a weird thread ...)

Before you do, could you tell me who you are? I'm genuinely curious, and Google didn't help much.

He's one of the early stat researchers, beyond that, no clue.

So wait a second. Apologies if this is stupid or already discussed. When Holbrook called IFF, nobody noticed it, and the runners advanced. But the fact that the ball hit the ground is immaterial - it was for all intents and purposes a normal fly out according to the rule. And both of those runners advanced without retouching their bases. Could (should) they have been put out during the play or on appeal?

No, the rule is that if the ball is caught, it's treated as any other ball that's caught, and the runners must retouch the base before they can advance. If the ball hits the turf, they can advance without retouching. A little odd, but it's the only way the rule is workable (other than simply making it a deadball as soon as IF fly is called).

He's one of the early stat researchers, beyond that, no clue.

Oh, I didn't know that. I guess he feels that makes him an authority on the infield fly rule.

Just another day on the internet, I guess ...

Joe, here you go.

congratulations netizens on having perhaps the dumbest complaints about a controversial call ever

If only someone of your wonderful intellect had arrived sooner! Thank you so much for eliminating any possible requirement for further discussion!

Ha, Wiki Gonzalez! How often does that thing get updated these days?

After giving it several hours I'll say this

1. It was a horrible call, no amount of revisionistic history can change that simple fact.
2. It's slightly possible that it might have been a correct call, but in the real world of baseball, that call is never made, and it shouldn't have been made in that situation with the stakes.
2a. Of course that opinion is based upon the fact that Kozma screwed up. If the infield fly rule wasn't called, and Kozma caught the ball, as a fan you really need to examine whether he could have gotten a double play... but the truth is, that there was absolutely zero chance that he could have gotten a double play by dropping the ball, so there was no reason to call infield fly rule.
3. It more than likely would not have made a difference in the game, yes the Cardinals bullpen sucks, but still it would have been bases loaded one out 6-3 game in favor of the Cardinals.

Ultimately it was a horrible call, horrible way to end the Braves season and Chipper's hof career, but in the big picture, I don't think it affects the final results of the game.

edit: of course I'm a Cardinal fan, so of course I obviously see it that way. (mind you, I'm also a Cardinal fan that doesn't think Denkinger cost the Cardinal the '85 World Series, or even game 6)

Ha, Wiki Gonzalez! How often does that thing get updated these days?

I thought it was supposed to disappear, but it seems to have been spared, if not resurrected with updates. Some of the writing there is incredibly funny. The encyclopedic recaps of BBTF's great battles (and characters) are great.

If the infield fly rule wasn't called, and Kozma caught the ball, as a fan you really need to examine whether he could have gotten a double play... but the truth is, that there was absolutely zero chance that he could have gotten a double play by dropping the ball, so there was no reason to call infield fly rule.

It's kind of funny: If the bases had been loaded, the call would have made much more sense, but it probably would have generated even more outrage if the same result occurred (i.e., Kozma bailing and the ball dropping), since the Braves would have been a run closer to tying the game.

Former Cardinal manager disallows the protest. Nice. They couldn't even get an impartial figurehead to make the call.

Um, well, he's also a "former Braves manager" if that makes you feel any better.

Great call. Ump handled it perfectly. Concentrated on the flight of the ball. Then, when and only when the ball was coming down enabling this judgement, ascertained there was an infielder camped under it within a few feet of estimated (and actual) landing spot. Made the call as prescribed under these conditions. Not his job to watch baserunners. Not his job to adjudge deepness of fly ball. That rule was written to prevent gaming double plays does not mean that every instance as described by these conditions is necessarily relevant to preventing the gaming. Frickin great call. One of the best ever.

Wins the make the correct call even at the certainity of provoking the ire of raving, mad, lunatic, frothing at the mouth psychos award.

That rule was written to prevent gaming double plays does not mean that every instance as described by these conditions is necessarily relevant to preventing the gaming.

Actually, it does. The rule exists solely to prevent "gaming double plays." Any instance where it is not relevant to preventing the gaming is a misapplication of the rule. By definition. Whether yesterday's play was or was not a misapplication of the rule is debatable, of course. That's why people have been debating it.

Any instance where it is not relevant to preventing the gaming is a misapplication of the rule. By definition.

That's not true. AFAICT, there is no mention of the double play at all in the infield fly rule. There is no specification that the umpire should consider whether a double play could be made. You could argue that it should be there, and you are right that the reason it exists to begin with is to prevent gamed double plays, but the rules do not in any way state the likelihood for teh defense to turn a double play is a consideration for determining whether the IF fly is in effect.

That's not true. AFAICT, there is no mention of the double play at all in the infield fly rule. There is no specification that the umpire should consider whether a double play could be made. You could argue that it should be there, and you are right that the reason it exists to begin with is to prevent gamed double plays, but the rules do not in any way state the likelihood for teh defense to turn a double play is a consideration for determining whether the IF fly is in effect.

That is what is one of the major things wrong with the world then. Lawyers looking at the letter of the rule instead of the purpose or spirit of the rule.

That is what is one of the major things wrong with the world then. Lawyers looking at the letter of the rule instead of the purpose or spirit of the rule.

The opposite approach tends to lead to more injustice, not less.

the rules do not in any way state the likelihood for teh defense to turn a double play is a consideration

You will note that I did not write, "Any instance where gaming the play to turn a double play is unlikely is a misapplication of the rule." You can certainly argue that the relative "likelihood" of turning the DP should not be considered. But IMO, you cannot argue that a situation where turning the DP is literally not possible is one where the rule should be invoked. And again, I was responding to what I consider to be a specific error in a specific post. I was not arguing that the DP was literally impossible in last night's case. I do happen to think that it was highly unlikely, but that is not why I think the call was wrong.

The opposite approach tends to lead to more injustice, not less.

I don't see how.(assuming you aren't talking about restrictive laws which purpose was designed to limit a minority type of crap) This rule was designed to prevent gaming of a fly ball into a double play. The ump should react according to what is reasonably possible, not what the letter of the rule says, especially since it's a judgement play per the actual rule.

You will note that I did not write, "Any instance where gaming the play to turn a double play is unlikely is a misapplication of the rule." You can certainly argue that the relative "likelihood" of turning the DP should not be considered. But IMO, you cannot argue that a situation where turning the DP is literally not possible is one where the rule should be invoked.

Yes, you actually can. As the rule is written, these are the conditions that must be present for an IF fly: Runners on first and second, or runners on first, second and third. One out or less.

This is what the umpire must consider: Can the ball be caught by an infielder through ordinary effort? Is it fair?

This is what the ump msut do: Once that determination is made, make the call immediately.

There is no instruction to the umpire to consider whether a double play is possible. It's not there. If MLB wanted it to be there, MLB had ample opportunity to insert that into the rulebook.

You're free to argue that the umpires should consider whether the double play is possible. Or free to petition MLB to make that change to the rulebook. But this statement: "Any instance where it is not relevant to preventing the gaming is a misapplication of the rule. By definition." is false. It is the opposite of a "misapplication of the rules." It is an application of the rules as the MLB rulebook is written.