I usually hate having Harold Reynolds on my TV, but I thought he did a really nice job after the game yesterday talking through the play. He showed at least one of these other games as an example as well.

Maybe the explanation is that this play is kind of in Harold's wheelhouse - as a former middle infielder, he's probably very familiar with the ins and outs of the infield fly rule.

And it's as good a place as any to point out how sad the world would be without the MLB Network (even with the festival of crap that is Intentional Talk).

And it's as good a place as any to point out how sad the world would be without the MLB Network (even with the festival of crap that is Intentional Talk).

I don't think I've watched 20 minutes of baseball tonight since MLBN launched. It may not be perfect but they have done a great job with it. The two biggest changes between MLBN and ESPN that I've seen is that MLB recognizes that there are thirty teams, not four or five and its ok to like baseball.

The two biggest changes between MLBN and ESPN that I've seen is that MLB recognizes that there are thirty teams, not four or five and its ok to like baseball.

There were so many nights this summer where I just put MLB Tonight on in the background and listened as they looked in and out of different games. I think that's my favorite feature - the chance to just pop in and see a couple of outs here and there. I feel like I followed baseball more closely this year than I have in at least a decade, and it's largely the result of being able to get such a broad view of the leagues every night.

Though ultimately I think it makes MLB.tv redundant. I shelled out for it at the beginning of the year, but probably watched fewer than 20 games in total. I guess if the Cubs had been a bit better, I'd have liked to be able to keep tuning in to watch. But with being out of it by the end of April, I'm just as happy to get the one- or two-inning snippets as I am to watch the whole games.

There were so many nights this summer where I just put MLB Tonight on in the background and listened as they looked in and out of different games. I think that's my favorite feature - the chance to just pop in and see a couple of outs here and there. I feel like I followed baseball more closely this year than I have in at least a decade, and it's largely the result of being able to get such a broad view of the leagues every night.

I do this also. I much prefer this to them showing live games.

I don't know if Reynolds had much to do with it or not, but whoever put that clip together deserves a lot of credit.

I don't know if Reynolds had much to do with it or not, but whoever put that clip together deserves a lot of credit.

Second that. It makes me feel less dirty about the Cardinals winning that game. I still think it's the wrong call, but not nearly as adamantly as I had before.

Yes that is a great clip.

Wow that really is fantastic. Like cfb I'm still not sold that it's the right call but that is an excellent bit of reporting.

Yeah, MLB Network has their share of idiot talking heads (Reynolds isn't the only one) but I concur that it was nice to just have it on as background noise as they looked into games during the season. Especially once the Red Sox were cooked.

It was not an indefensible call, upon further review.

Late and not in a spot where it gets called, so problematic.

But odd. The saving grace is recognizing how much/little damage was allowed by the new Maddux.....

It was very late and it was farther out than Starlin was by a good bit. Not crazy about either, really.

I usually hate having Harold Reynolds on my TV, but I thought he did a really nice job after the game yesterday talking through the play. He showed at least one of these other games as an example as well.

Reynolds is excellent at dissecting and explaining what happens between the white lines. It's his habit of deferring to old-school thinking when it comes to evaluating player talent/ability that makes him difficult to listen to.

There were so many nights this summer where I just put MLB Tonight on in the background and listened as they looked in and out of different games. I think that's my favorite feature - the chance to just pop in and see a couple of outs here and there. I feel like I followed baseball more closely this year than I have in at least a decade, and it's largely the result of being able to get such a broad view of the leagues every night.

I do this pretty much every night I'm home during the season. I was an MLB Extra Innings subscriber for years and missed it greatly when I opted not to subscribe in 2007 or 2008. MLB Tonight's format while the games are happening has made it such that I almost don't feel the need to ever subscribe to the Extra Innings package again.

I found that clip entirely convincing. Well done, MLB Network!

I'm sold, too. Very good video.

Brian Kenny brings a lot to MLB network, and for what it is I realistically could not have imagined them doing it better. Harold Reynolds and Kevin Millar are terrible, but just the fact that Clubhouse Confidential was running was pretty awesome. Plus the draft and winter meetings coverage is pretty strong too.

I thought Harold's discussion of the rule was pretty good, but it did miss one thing - the outfielder (Matt Holliday in this case). The point of the rule is not, as the other commentators insisted on saying, to "give" anything to the infielder. It's designed to give something to the baserunners - a clear option, instead of Hobson's Choice. Without the IFR, the runners on first and second don't know whether to stay or go. If no one catches the ball, and they didn't run, then they are at risk of being thrown out as forceouts. But if they do run and someone catches the ball, then they are likely to be doubled off before they can get back to where they started.

The thing is that the "person who catches or fields the ball" doesn't have to be an infielder. In the play in question, without the rule, the runners would have been in trouble if Kozma had fallen down on his first step. Holliday very likely could have caught the fly ball if he hadn't slowed down to make room for Kozma. If the runners had run, they'd have been doubled off, or even tripled off (I've forgotten whether there was already an out or not). And if the runners stayed home and there was no IFR, Matt only had to run about 6 feet to get to where the ball landed and start a 7-5-4 double play, getting both runners on forceouts and leaving only the batter at first base. That's why you call the IFR even when the ball is hit out that far, at least if it's hit that high as well. It may be called the Infield Fly Rule, but there are also outfielders to consider. Harold, being an infielder and being confronted with guys who didn't understand the rule in any detail, focused on Kozma. But Holliday was right there, too. - Brock Hanke

This is cool, major props to whoever dug up the clip of the other game.

That's why you call the IFR even when the ball is hit out that far, at least if it's hit that high as well. It may be called the Infield Fly Rule, but there are also outfielders to consider.

But does the IFR get called if Kozma isn't there? It may even be easier for Holliday to pull off a double play after intentionally dropping a ball since his momentum is heading that way. But I don't think I've ever seen an OF drop a medium-deep flyball but not have to throw to get the forceout.

As you say, who is fielding the ball shouldn't really matter. Maybe I'm wrong and the IFR gets called often on plays made by OFs (without an IF around).

That was a really good segment. I think I have been persuaded that the call was correct.

I think the clip shows that what happened was what should be expected but I don't think it shows that the implementation of the rule in these kind of situations is correct.

For starters in both clips it would be virtually impossible to double off the runners on those hits and secondly due to all the variables that Harold explained the umpire has to wait and watch for the call gets made late so a runner still has to move off the bag and risk getting doubled off.

Great job by Reynolds and MLB Network. I'm still not convinced that it was the right call, but Reynold's analysis shows that it's a consistent call (much like, for example, a pitch at a certain height that is always called a ball, even though it is, in fact, in the strike zone; an incorrect call, but if all umpires call it the same way all the time, then it becomes a consistent call).

DB

EDIT: I believe McCoy says much the same thing in his post # 20 above.

But does the IFR get called if Kozma isn't there? It may even be easier for Holliday to pull off a double play after intentionally dropping a ball since his momentum is heading that way. But I don't think I've ever seen an OF drop a medium-deep flyball but not have to throw to get the forceout.

As you say, who is fielding the ball shouldn't really matter. Maybe I'm wrong and the IFR gets called often on plays made by OFs (without an IF around).

By rule, the outfielder's position does not matter. He can catch the ball on and infield fly, but for the rule to be in place, one of the infielders must be able to catch it with ordinary effort.

Technically, it was the correct call. You can argue that the rule should be written differently, but it fit the criteria for the IF fly.

The REYNOLDS ON THE INFIELD FLY RULE headline is really keeping a lot of people from this thread. I wonder if someone could change it to MLB NETWORK ON THE INFIELD FLY RULE.

I'm dead serious.

I agree, this is an excellent analysis and video. At first I figured the call was correct, but I critiqued how and when it was called on the field. But it now seems to me that even how and when it was called were quite reasonable. I think it's just a fiendishly difficult and rarely-invoked rule, and everyone gets confused and upset when it's invoked, especially (and naturally) when the ball drops untouched.

I'm still not sold - other examples of bad calls don't support a new example of a bad call.

But it is a good analysis and no Cards fan (CFB, I'm lookin at you) should feel they were given anything. The Braves booted the ball around and failed to hit all night long. If that were a single with bases loaded, one out, the Braves are in better, but not good, shape.

Yeah, this is a great video. Reynolds does a great job on this. And while I'm sure someone in the MLBN research division pulled up that (very convincing) tape from an earlier Cubs game showing the exact same fielder placement scenario, give credit for Harold for really knowing his blow-by-blow on that: he clearly is bringing his middle-infielder experience to that discussion. Like many others here have said, I am now sold that it was the right call to make...or at least not a blatantly wrong call.

Just one more reason why the MLB Network does a better job of baseball coverage than any other option.

And second to the kudos to MLBN. I don't watch ESPN at all now. Even the Sunday night game. I have a friend, not a baseball fan, who says MLBN is the greatest thing to happen to ESPN beccause now they don't have to trifle with all that baseball. Just football, basketball and NASCAR. I have no idea if this is true, but it doesn't make me want to go watch ESPN.

The obvious question in my mind: how far out does a high fly have to go before there is no significant risk of a DP, either way?

I like the suggestion from another thread: if the ump calls IF fly, and the ball drops, the ball becomes dead and everyone moves up a base (ground rule single, of a sort). No ambiguity, no penalizing the offense for when the defense ##### up-seems win-win to me.

I agree with McCoy #20. I'm now mostly convinced that the call was good by the rulebook and by custom. I'm not convinced that they should continue to call it that way.

Yes, the video is a very good analysis. But the video is the second version of Harold explaining the IF rule. The first time he explained it, he was in studio 42? (the one that is the infield recreation) and he was with Billy Ripken and Omar Vizquel. After Harold's explanation, both Ripken and Vizquel were not in agreement with Harold that it was the correct call. Ripken's issue was that he felt that it was not ordinary effort at all. He even used the video to point out that Kozma had been in the wrong molar row (the cross cut grass lines) than where the ball landed. Omar thought that the only correct thing Kozma did was call for the ball, which is what triggered the umpire call the infield fly, but he didn't think Kozma had the play under control.

Still, it was great to see those three out there just breaking it down in that way.

Baseball Tonight can be worth watching Sunday mornings when it's only Kurkjian, Olney and Stark.

It's odd. This analysis only made me think it was a worse call than before. Reynolds' analysis that the ump was waiting for the ball to reach its apex is absurd, because he's saying that the ball somehow falls more quickly than it rises. The apex should be reached (roughly, because there is air friction) at the halfway point of the play, not a moment before the ball lands. Also, the "freeze frame" of when the SS stops shows that he still had several more steps to backpedal than I imagined when watching the play without this feature. I thought he was essentially under it (minus a couple of steps), and then abandoned that spot when he heard footsteps.

Maybe if we assume the kid SS is a crap defender (which some have said), then you can use the clause that lets the ump call the out on the actions of what a competent infielder would have done to allow the call. But still, it's entirely ridiculous that a play designed to prevent defensive trickery allows it because of the lateness of the call. We wuz robbed.

I used to have MLB network but it doesn't seem to be on the FIOS package I have.

I think the only way I can get it is to pay an extra $20 for the next highest package.

TV will be forced to go a la carte at some point, and it won't be soon enough for me.

Part of original Reynolds explanation with Ripken and Vizquel

I managed to find part of the video of the first time Harold explained it but this video cuts off just before Ripken and Vizquel offer their disagreements. I don't know, they should put up the first version so one can get the whole range of opinions offered by their analysts that night.

The one thing Harold's explanation does for me is that I now understand why the situation as such could be called an infield fly. However, I disagree that it should have been called given that I don't think it was ordinary effort (which was Ripken's, Vizquel's and even Schilling's argument on ESPN). In the end, it really comes down to whether you judge if the effort was ordinary or not.

TV will be forced to go a la carte at some point, and it won't be soon enough for me.

At some point in time, TV will go through the internet. Right now the cable companies have too much power/control, but eventually they will have to go to just providing everything over the web. Channels like comedy central already provide most of their stuff over the web, it just makes too much sense not to include it over the web. It's more accurate tracking(ratings), better targetted advertising(including the option to force them to play) etc.

Cable/Satellite has been the one luxury that people have been dumping in these economic times and the providers haven't done anything to ease the financial costs for the consumers even though they are losing subscribers faster than they are picking them up.

The one thing Harold's explanation does for me is that I now understand why the situation as such could be called an infield fly. However, I disagree that it should have been called given that I don't think it was ordinary effort (which was Ripken's, Vizquel's and even Schilling's argument on ESPN).

One interesting thing is that the official scorer did not call it an error on Kozma. I guess fielders getting crossed up and miscommunicating typically isn't scored an error, but as "ordinary effort" is the standard for whether something is an error as well as whether the IFR is invoked, I would think the two should be consistent (even though I recognize that it's two different people making the determinations here).

Publicly traded cable, satellite and phone companies had a combined net loss of about 200,000 subscribers in the quarter, earnings reports showed, about 0.2% of the roughly 100 million pay-TV subscribers.

The second-quarter numbers won't conclusively settle the argument. The April-through-June quarter is traditionally a weak period for pay-TV operators, as college students disconnect their service, typically returning in the fall, companies say. Last year, and in 2010, the pay-TV industry made up for declines in the second and third quarters with gains in the first and fourth quarters. Both years posted net growth of about 200,000 subscribers.

One interesting thing is that the official scorer did not call it an error on Kozma. I guess fielders getting crossed up and miscommunicating typically isn't scored an error, but as "ordinary effort" is the standard for whether something is an error as well as whether the IFR is invoked, I would think the two should be consistent (even though I recognize that it's two different people making the determinations here).

Errors are almost never charged if the ball is not touched before it hits the ground. And of course after infield fly was ruled, no one reached base and no one advanced so there was no reason to charge the error.

One interesting thing is that the official scorer did not call it an error on Kozma. I guess fielders getting crossed up and miscommunicating typically isn't scored an error, but as "ordinary effort" is the standard for whether something is an error as well as whether the IFR is invoked, I would think the two should be consistent (even though I recognize that it's two different people making the determinations here).

That is why there has been some people clamoring for a "team error" to be applied to bad communication on easily played balls. It's never going to happen, but there is some people who want that.

Publicly traded cable, satellite and phone companies had a combined net loss of about 200,000 subscribers in the quarter, earnings reports showed, about 0.2% of the roughly 100 million pay-TV subscribers.

The second-quarter numbers won't conclusively settle the argument. The April-through-June quarter is traditionally a weak period for pay-TV operators, as college students disconnect their service, typically returning in the fall, companies say. Last year, and in 2010, the pay-TV industry made up for declines in the second and third quarters with gains in the first and fourth quarters. Both years posted net growth of about 200,000 subscribers.

I guess a more accurate comment from me would have been their rate of growth(new subscribers) has stagnated. For an industry that used to trump it's new subscribers rate/growth constantly, that is a bad thing. Of course most of the cable companies are already invested in the real delivery medium(Dsl/cable/etc internet) and Satellite will always have a niche.

There isn't much growth left.

no one reached base and no one advanced so there was no reason to charge the error.

There was advancement.

I can't believe people are challenging the ordinary effort aspect, including former big league ballplayers. He had already begun to back pedal for the ball. There was no evidence that he was unsure of where it was (certainly at the time Holbrook decided to make the call). He had to cover less ground from the spot where he began to bail on it then the place he ended up when the ball landed. If that isn't ordinary effort, then only balls hit directly at infielders should qualify.

I can see them saying it might require more than ordinary effort for us to catch it. But these are big league ballplayers who are generally well-schooled in the pop-up arts.

Interestingly, in the ninth inning IF fly in the Giants game last night, the home plate ump called it just as Holbrook did. When Hannigan was stumbling around looking for it, he made no signal. As soon as it appeared he had a bead on it, the arm went up.

I can see them saying it might require more than ordinary effort for us to catch it. But these are big league ballplayers who are generally well-schooled in the pop-up arts.

That's very true for most of us. I do recall that Billy Ripken's argument was based on ordinary effort being something that was dependent of the context. He mentioned something along the lines that weather, wind, even the crowd noise are things that can impact the play and can cause the degree of effort needed for similar plays to vary depending on that specific context (he cited a windy day in Wrigley being a case where he felt the effort needed could be more, or having 50,000 fans screaming their heads off in the late innings of a one game sudden death elimination). I do think there is some evidence Kozma was unsure of where the ball was, because he never reached the cross-cut grass row where the ball landed, he peeled of before ever getting there.

Still, I think at this point it's clear that an infield fly was correctly called in that situation, if you believe it was ordinary effort.

I do think there is some evidence Kozma was unsure of where the ball was, because he never reached the cross-cut grass row where the ball landed, he peeled of before ever getting there.

Even if I granted that (and I'm not sure it's accurate, in part because TV angles on these things can be deceptive), there was no evidence available to Holbrook (or, for that matter, the baserunners and other fielders) that Kozma had some uncertainty about the play. He seemed to be backpedaling at a comfortable pace with his arm raised, which, when performed by an infielder on a pop up, is a pretty universal signal that he's "got it."

Holbrook raises his arm after Kozma start to bail out, though. Once Kozma raises both his arms, he looks lost. Then he breaks forward away from the ball.

And then the ump's arm goes up. Granted, this is all split-second timing, but it looks to me like Holbrook raises his arm after Kozma gets into a pickle.

Based on the MLBN clip, I now believe that what the umpire did was:

1) Follow the path of the ball until it's at the apex
2) Check the fielders and verify that the SS is standing roughly where the ball's going to land, and is calling for the ball
3) Raise his arm

I agree that very shortly after #2, Kozma freaks out and backs away from the place he was standing. But by that point, the umpire has already decided to raise his arm and might be glancing at the other umpires or back up at the ball. But there was certainly a moment where the umpire could have glanced at Kozma and saw a guy who looked like he was going to catch the ball with ordinary effort, just like in the other game the clip showed.

Monty here is absolutely correct, and so is Walt above. I forgot to include that in my adding of the outfielder to the mix. The rule says, essentially, that the umpire should call the ball if, but only when, the infielder signals that he has it tracked down (which also tells the other fielders to stay away), if the umpire believes that the infielder's signal is reasonable - meaning that the umpire thinks the infielder does have the play made with ordinary effort FROM THE POINT AT WHICH HE MAKES THE SIGNAL. That's the actual key I forgot - the umpire makes his decision before the infielder makes the play, but right after the infielder makes the signal. The ball should, at that point, be within ordinary effort reach. The ball was certainly within Kozma's reach at the time he made the signal. That all, including the umpire's call, did happen right before Kozma peeled off, and the umpire did call the IFR before Kozma peeled off. Now that I think about it, that may be the reason that Holliday pulled up short to let Kozma have the play, If Kozma took it, it was the IFR. If Holliday calls him off, then the IFR is not in effect (Holliday did make the point in an interview after the game that he had NOT called Kozma off the play, and now I know why). What I was too focused on is the reason behind the play - to not stick baserunners with Hobson's Choice when they are forced runners if the ball hits the ground. And, in the play in question, I do think (meaning that this is how I remember it, and I have no replay source right at hand) the runners on first and second did advance. You can advance, I believe, "at your own risk." But Walt above is right. The outfielder does not have quite as much to do with the decision as I made it seem like. He's not mentioned in the IFR at all. - Brock

There was advancement.

I stand corrected. The rule isn't clear to me on advancement of the runners. I would think the runners have to tag up from the moment the ball hits the ground, but I don't remember Uggla and Ross tagging up.

The runners don't have to tag up on the IFR unless the ball is caught. The IFR rule simply eliminates the force by declaring the batter out.

If Holliday calls him off, then the IFR is not in effect (Holliday did make the point in an interview after the game that he had NOT called Kozma off the play, and now I know why).

No, that's not correct. The outfielder can make the play on the infield fly. The umpire is only looking to judge whether an infielder can make a play with a reasonable effort. He doesn't have to be the one who makes the play. If an umpire sees an infielder backing up and in position to make a play he will call the infield fly. If the outfielder calls him off, it doesn't change things.