Pretty sure Sam Holbrook is not a mute but whatever. Continue to pretend that his hand-signal is the end all be all if you are another biased fanboy.!

Well, yeah. He can catch the ball, if he's backpedaling quickly enough. Whether or not the ball was catchable is not up for debate - Kozma can clearly catch it. The question is whether that's "ordinary effort" - I'd say no, given the distance he had to go.

I don't think so. In fact, watching that gif, I think I can see what Holbrook was thinking. When Kozma was pursuing it side saddle, he made no call. It wasn't until shortly after Kozma started to back pedal where he determined it was an IF fly. And I think that's correct (ignoring the depth of the ball itself). That shift to the back pedal sends a signal that the infielder "has it." I'm sure that's how Holliday saw it. I'm sure that's how the Braves runners saw it. And I'm sure that's how Holbrook saw it.

Never seen a IF fly call that deep.

I think it was a call that was right by the book, but that usually wouldn't be called that way because the responsible umpire would usually be trailing the play with his back to the infield. If they go to six umpires to enforce the book over the whole field, then I think it's a right call.

I linked to a GIF of the play in post 32. Look at it.

Find the point where Kozma is farthest out. Then put your finger there. The ball lands beyond where you have placed your finger.

I looked at the GIF, and I fully disagree. The SS was camped under it.

I've carefully considered this entire issue, and I have this to say:

Go home, Braves fans, and wait 'til next year. You did not lose on a blown call. The call was correct. Holbrook was correct. All six umpires were correct. And Joe Torre was correct. Your problem is with the rule, not with the call.

This is not Richie Garcie. It's not Don Denkinger. It's not Phil Cuzzi. You don't have to wonder What Might Have Been. You already know what was.

Go see Chipper safely off into the sunset, and then turn out the lights. You don't have to wish death on Frank Torre. You lost fair and square. You're out.

My god, I am in full agreement with SoSH.

Pretty sure Sam Holbrook is not a mute but whatever. Continue to pretend that his hand-signal is the end all be all if you are another biased fanboy.!

I'm sure he made a vocal call. I just don't think that was the reason Kozma pulled off, unless this lifelong infielder, for some reason, doesn't know how the infield fly works (and if so, we need to introduce him to Frank Robinson).

My god, I am in full agreement with SoSH.

Yeah, I'm thinking of showering.

The problem is the rule is up for a lot of interpretation. And the fact that the rule has really never been used in this manner before (that I can remember, at least) is going to cause tremendous controversy.

I will stand by my belief that it was a bad call. I don't think Kozma ever had position, and I don't think it was ordinary effort.

And don't tell me to go home.

And the fact that the rule has really never been used in this manner before (that I can remember, at least) is going to cause tremendous controversy.

A big part of that is because most high pop ups that the shortstop starts backing up to catch are subsequently caught, rendering the IF fly moot. The IF fly only matters when the ball hits the turf, which major league defenders are generally pretty good at preventing.

I looked at the GIF, and I fully disagree. The SS was camped under it.

You must have some real funny definition of "camped".

Meanwhile, let's all marvel that the fact that the infield fly rule made the front page of CNN.

Brian - so what if the ball landed 3 feet behind where the SS was waving his arms? 3 feet behind when the ball is 100 feet in the air means he's under it.

Yeah, the main thing I see in that GIF is Kozma looking back at Holliday as if Holliday has called him off. Certainly doesn't seem to be a reaction to a possible verbal umpire call.

If Holbrook doesn't make that call, no one would have dreamed of claiming that the infield fly rule should have been called.

If Holbrook doesn't make that call and Holliday starts a 7-5-4 double play, you better believe Fredi Gonzalez would have been all over the umpires asking where the infield fly call was.

I wonder if we'll see a rule change in the aftermath of this. The rule governing the call is fine, but the result if the ball is dropped isn't fair. Why should the fielding team be rewarded with an out if they can't make the catch? If it's dropped, once the play is over, why not award the batter first and move up any runners as needed to make room for the batter?

I've carefully considered this entire issue, and I have this to say:

Ray, put a bullet in your head.

I'm a Braves fan. They lost this game ten ways to Sunday. I don't like the IFR on that play, but it was within the rules, a judgement call. I'd prefer best of three, all games in better team's park. More legitimately baseball. Cut the season back to 154 games.

If Holbrook doesn't make that call and Holliday starts a 7-5-4 double play, you better believe Fredi Gonzalez would have been all over the umpires asking where the infield fly call was.

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

I wonder if we'll see a rule change in the aftermath of this. The rule governing the call is fine, but the result if the ball is dropped isn't fair. Why should the fielding team be rewarded with an out if they can't make the catch? If it's dropped, once the play is over, why not award the batter first and move up any runners as needed to make room for the batter?

Concur. The play leaves a bitter taste in your mouth because the Cardinals didn't make the play and were rewarded. But no crying, the Braves legitimately lost this game. Win your division.

Yeah, I think the biggest problem is not that this was a bad call by the rulebook (I'm not convinced it was), but rather that it was an unconventional call. Calls in the postseason, on the biggest stage, should be in line with what we're used to and what's normally done. Fans and players will be happy with the fairness and results of the games if the calls "look right," even if they're technically wrong. And the last thing any sport should want is to have its officials end up center stage in the most important games of the year.

I'm a Braves fan. They lost this game ten ways to Sunday

memo to Braves fans--don't kick the ball around the infield on routine plays and this situation never comes up

I looked at the GIF, and I fully disagree. The SS was camped under it.

To be camped under it, you have to actually be under it. (It's right there in the phrase "camped under it.") The SS never got to where the ball landed. By definition, that is not camped under it.

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.

This thread stinks, btw, a bad cross between lawyering and conspiracy mongering.

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

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.

From Holbrook's position, which is not at all a normal position for an umpire to be in, the play was an infield fly.

A big part of that is because most high pop ups that the shortstop starts backing up to catch are subsequently caught, rendering the IF fly moot. The IF fly only matters when the ball hits the turf, which major league defenders are generally pretty good at preventing.

Right; that's because most such balls actually can be caught with ordinary effort, which major league infielders ordinarily make.

And the fans behavior -- I feel like resigning from my lifetime rooting interest.

Ray, put a bullet in your head.

And I thought the political threads got rough!

They're doing a nice job on MLB Network explaining why it wasn't a bad call. Using footage from other games where they show that, when the ball is hit past the infield, the umpires often wait until it's clear that the infielder is slowing and getting in position before making the infield fly call.

I don't know that it matters that Kozma wasn't right under the ball when the call was made. That's not part of the rule - with ordinary effort, he ran back on the ball, slowed down as if to get under it, and the call was made. If he had taken 2 more steps back and had the ball hit off his glove, rather than peeling off and having it fall a couple of feet behind him, I think we'd still have seen complaints about the call.

Whether or not you think this was the right call depends almost entirely on whether you think Kozma was using ordinary effort to get back to the ball. Having watched the replay a few dozen times, it's pretty clear that he wasn't rushing back to get there - it was a normal infielder drifting back to catch a ball in shallow left.

(And I hate the Cardinals, so I'd have liked nothing more than to see them get screwed over here.)

And the fans behavior -- I feel like resigning from my lifetime rooting interest.

Where are the photos of Ted Turner & Jimmy Carter throwing beer bottles?

(Said in my worst Tom Hanks voice) There's no crying in baseball!

I wonder if we'll see a rule change in the aftermath of this. The rule governing the call is fine, but the result if the ball is dropped isn't fair. Why should the fielding team be rewarded with an out if they can't make the catch? If it's dropped, once the play is over, why not award the batter first and move up any runners as needed to make room for the batter?

On any other error, the hitter at least has to run to first, and the other runners have to advance as well. If they hit a fly ball to the outfield, and the OF drops it, you don't just move everyone up a base.

The infield fly rule protects the offense a lot more than it harms them, but this goes overboard in favoring them. It's basically a free play - if it's caught, you're no worse off than you would have been if there were no infield fly rule. If it's dropped, it's basically the same result as a base on balls - everyone moves up, free of risk of being put out.

(Said in my worst Tom Hanks voice) There's no crying in baseball!

no crying but plenty of whining

A big part of that is because most high pop ups that the shortstop starts backing up to catch are subsequently caught, rendering the IF fly moot. The IF fly only matters when the ball hits the turf, which major league defenders are generally pretty good at preventing.

The call has to be made before the ball is caught or hits the ground. If this was the correct call, we would see a lot of IF fly rules called on 200+ foot pop-ups.

If the call had been made shortly after the ball was hit, it would be a lot less controversial. If a ball can be caught with routine effort, you don't need to wait and see how fast the shortstop gets under the ball. That's the entire point of routine effort.

The fact that the ball was in the air that long and only one out of six umpires made the call is another sign it was the wrong call.

The infield fly rule protects the offense a lot more than it harms them, but this goes overboard in favoring them. It's basically a free play - if it's caught, you're no worse off than you would have been if there were no infield fly rule. If it's dropped, it's basically the same result as a base on balls - everyone moves up, free of risk of being put out.

Both of which are the expected results of a popup pursued with "ordinary effort" at the big-league level. Let's pull some numbers out of a hat - the exact odds don't matter much. You expect a catchable popup to be caught at least, say, 90 times out of 100. If there are 10 drops, the batter's likely to reach first at least 9 of 10 times. The rule change would do justice to 9 of those 10 drops, while giving the batting team an unwarranted advantage on 1 drop. The current rule does justice only in the single instance where the batter would have been thrown out at first on the drop, while unfairly penalizing the batting team on the other 9 drops.

The telling point is that the 3rd base ump did not call an infield fly. That is never ever ever an infield fly in regular season. The jackass left field ump had a brain fart. Anybody who argues that this was the correct call does not understand baseball.

Reading this thread is penance for Denkinger.

I saw Pete Kozma in the minors and was surprised by how bad his defense was. He has shortstop-class agility and has a good arm, but he had a way of botching 'ordinary effort' plays. So in the last year and a half he peeled off an easy pop-up in a playoff game for no apparent reason and he's broken Albert Pujols' arm on a routine groundball to 2b.

If the call had been made shortly after the ball was hit, it would be a lot less controversial. If a ball can be caught with routine effort, you don't need to wait and see how fast the shortstop gets under the ball. That's the entire point of routine effort.

You can't always tell where the ball will come down right after it's hit. Wind patterns, etc., can blow the ball in various directions (not to mention the umpires are often looking at it from an angle rather than straight on, may not pick up the ball right away off the bat, etc.). The umpires may not precisely know how each infielder was positioned for the pitch - playing deeper where they'd reach balls more easily beyond the infield dirt, or playing in, or in a crazy shift. And ordinary effort likely also varies by player - using the same level of effort, it seems likely that Ozzie Smith could camp under more balls to shallow LF than Dan Uggla would on a similar ball to shallow RF. Speed, instincts, positioning, experience with the field... these things might all help determine whether someone could reach a ball using ordinary effort, and they're not things that would be readily apparent right off the bat.

It's perfectly reasonable to let the umpire determine that the ball is capable of being caught by an infielder using ordinary effort before forcing him to make the call.

The call has to be made before the ball is caught or hits the ground.

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think the rule precludes a call after the ball drops. The rule states:

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.

It says "will be," which might imply that the call is made before the ball is caught or hits the ground, but doesn't explicitly state that the call can't be made after the fact (e.g., when an intentional drop results in a double or triple play, and the umpire hasn't called it before the ball hits the ground). The point of that sentence is to tell the umpire to make the call as soon as he makes the decision, rather than waiting for the catch or drop, so that the runners can react accordingly.

way to leave chipper, broken-bat up the middle-right, off-the-bag 1B-man and even then it looked like an out

That call at first was absolutely horrid. I swear, it looks like the first baseman tagged the bag TWICE before Chipper reached. Maybe it was the angle or something -- I don't know. Of course, if Chipper had actually run out the ground ball, it would have been closer.

The infield fly call, of course, was a blown call. Still, you can't put all the blame for the loss on that one call. Atlanta played a horrible game.

And the fans behavior -- I feel like resigning from my lifetime rooting interest.

Why? Pelting people who've displeased you with garbage is a time-honored tradition.

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.

Except, no, on the "close catch/trap" Holliday (of all people) isn't throwing fast enough to start that DP. You've got a fielder coming fast, making a catch at grass level, then a transfer, then a throw. Is he standing up after the catch? Will he bother to regain his balance before he throws?

The telling point is that the 3rd base ump did not call an infield fly. That is never ever ever an infield fly in regular season. The jackass left field ump had a brain fart. Anybody who argues that this was the correct call does not understand baseball.

During the regular season, the 3rd base ump would have had to drift out a bit with the fielder to monitor the play. Here, he knew there was another umpire out there to cover that part of the territory. If the 3B ump ran out to stand next to the LF ump, and the ball fell and there was a play at 3B on the advancing runner, he'd be out of position to have to make the call.

That's why they add the extra umps in the postseason - more coverage, less requirement for umps to have to move around the field and potentially leave themselves out of position.

The argument that the wrong ump made the call, or that only 1 ump called it, is probably the weakest one I've seen. How many umps have to call something for it to be called? It's not majority rule, and there's no question that the LF ump was closest to the play.

(But of course, there will be no changing of anyone's opinions on this thread. If you think the ump was a jackass and your favorite team got screwed, then it's not going to really matter what the video shows or what anyone else says. If this had happened to my team, I'd be pissed right now too. Still wouldn't make it the wrong call.)

Why? Pelting people who've displeased you with garbage is a time-honored tradition.

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...

Both Braves baserunners had read the play well. There was next-to-no chance at a DP unless Uggla trips or something.

One MLB.com writer said he'd never seen an IF Fly called this way in 54 years of covering the game. Sure, you can make some technical arguments about what the (somewhat vague) rule means, but tonight was basically a new interpretation of a very old rule. I don't think it cost the Braves the game, no, but it's still frustrating.

Except, no, on the "close catch/trap" Holliday (of all people) isn't throwing fast enough to start that DP. You've got a fielder coming fast, making a catch at grass level, then a transfer, then a throw. Is he standing up after the catch? Will he bother to regain his balance before he throws?

Is a DP likely? Hardly. Is it possible? Yes, especially if the runners are confused on a trap vs. catch.

Both of which are the expected results of a popup pursued with "ordinary effort" at the big-league level. Let's pull some numbers out of a hat - the exact odds don't matter much. You expect a catchable popup to be caught at least, say, 90 times out of 100. If there are 10 drops, the batter's likely to reach first at least 9 of 10 times. The rule change would do justice to 9 of those 10 drops, while giving the batting team an unwarranted advantage on 1 drop. The current rule does justice only in the single instance where the batter would have been thrown out at first on the drop, while unfairly penalizing the batting team on the other 9 drops.

You're too focused on what happens to the batter and completely ignoring what happens to the other runners in your calculation. With 2 runners on (or bases loaded), a ball that is dropped and quickly picked up could easily result in a double play. Now the batting team is much worse off than they'd have been with the batter just being automatically out. (Remember - if you change the rule, it has to apply to all infield flies, not just ones that are 50 feet behind the infield.)

If there are runners on 1st and 2nd, and a pop up is hit right out over the second base bag, all the fielder would have to do is let it drop, pick it up, tag the runner, and step on 2nd. (Or, if the runner reacted quickly enough to move a few feet toward third in the time it took the fielder to pick up the ball, he could step on 2nd for the force and then throw to 3rd to catch the runner in a rundown.)

I think you'd see a lot more double plays without the infield fly rule than you'd see instances where everyone advances safely (assuming that the in-between situation - the ball is dropped, the batter reaches, but one of the other runners is forced out - is basically neutral for both teams and can be ignored for purposes of this discussion).

UCCF, I'm not advocating getting rid of the infield fly rule - you absolutely need the rule, for all the reasons you mention. My suggestion is only that when a ball that is called an infield fly is dropped, the result should not be an out for the batting team. Once the play is over and the ball is dead, the batter would be awarded first base instead of being called out, with runners moving up as needed to make room for the batter (as on a HBP). Any runners that have already advanced on the live play would not be forced to go back.

I'm in no ways a braves fan, but that was a terrible call. 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? It's obvious the ump just had a brain fart or something, but it seems like all these extra umps on the field just end up screwing up (like with the Mauer call)

Just sad to see it happen in a 1 game playoff.

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.

If that was an "ordinary effort", then I'm the Sultan of Brunei. The Braves played a horseshit game and probably deserved to lose anyway, but they should've been allowed to lose on their own merits. It shocks me that so many people here are on the wrong side of this.

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.

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.