Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 3 of 3 pages
Seems to me that there's a rather elegant equity in the scheduling.
What's wrong with any of that?
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.
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%.
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.
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.
Of course it protects against what I described.
That's simply not true.
The immediate refers to the fact that the umpire should call it as soon as he determines it's an infield fly situation.
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.
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?
Joe, you really don't know what you are talking about.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
And both of those runners advanced without retouching their bases. Could (should) they have been put out during the play or on appeal?
Hey Joe, do you know who I am? Just wondering.
but if it takes so long to figure out, it's not an ordinary-effort play!
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.
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?
He's one of the early stat researchers, beyond that, no clue.
congratulations netizens on having perhaps the dumbest complaints about a controversial call ever
Ha, Wiki Gonzalez! How often does that thing get updated these days?
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.
Former Cardinal manager disallows the protest. Nice. They couldn't even get an impartial figurehead to make the call.
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.
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 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 rules do not in any way state the likelihood for teh defense to turn a double play is a consideration
The opposite approach tends to lead to more injustice, not less.
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.
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.
Considering that the rule is in effect with <2 outs and >1 runner in a force position, it's entirely about gaming DPs. (Hint: the batter is expected to run it out, would be at first, and thus would not be the back-end of a DP.)
Torre was correct; it was a judgment call that could not be protested. Holbrook was wrong; it was not a ball that could be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. It did not satisfy the letter of the rule and certainly did not satisfy the spirit.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.6122 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed