2012 Tampa Bay Rays

[-ts]

Haha, so you would've been on here saying "the rule is so black and white, it was an obvious missed call."?

Yeah I  bet.

I agree though, the Braves certainly did not win the game with those errors. However it would've been nice to see the Cards punished for theirs as well.

[olafberserker]

I wasn't the one that came on here complaining the Braves got screwed.  I'm sure that there would have been less debate if it wasn't called since the Cards were winning and they screwed up the play to begin with.  Umpire can easily hide behind the "judgement" that an infielder could not get there with ordinary effort as well (even though replays clearly show the SS was there).   Bottom line is the call was right even if it does suck for the Braves and their fans.

[Biggs3535]

Yeah, your right, the rest of the population that disagrees with you just doesn't understand it.

Please.

And again if it is so black and white. Why is it that if it wasn't called no one in the world would've **CENSORED**ed and moaned that it was a missed call?

Anyone that says that wasn't an infield fly either is biased or doesn't understand the rule.  Pretty simple.

That's not true at all.  It's a highly questionable call of an infield fly to begin with.  It's not as cut and dry as you are portraying.  When combine the questionable nature of the call with the extremely late call - it's understandably disputed.

[olafberserker]

It's not questionable at all by rule.   The SS could have caught it easily if he didn't peel off thinking Holiday had called it.   That makes it an infield fly.   The lateness may be a mechanical issue by the umpire, but the call was right.  It's doubtful that anyone would have known if the umpire called it sooner anyway. 

[olafberserker]

I think this guy does a pretty good job laying it all out.  Of course this is a tough play to call and it is an umpire's judgment, but in looking at the play after the fact it was a good call.


http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/6/3463338/infield-fly-rule-controversy-braves-cardinals-wild-card

[The Anti-Java]

Dumb rule to begin with.   What is the purpose of the rule anyway?  Maybe one of you baseball diehards can explain.   I am assuming,  its so a guy doesn't let a ball drop on purpose?

[-ts]

Dumb rule to begin with.   What is the purpose of the rule anyway?  Maybe one of you baseball diehards can explain.   I am assuming,  its so a guy doesn't let a ball drop on purpose?

It is a necessary rule. Because when it is actually an infield fly, in the infield, runners can't get off the base at all in order to prevent themselves from getting thrown out after the catch. By letting the ball drop in the infield they can then go for a double play.

[olafberserker]

There's a rule on the books that allows the umpire to call a batter out if he feels a fielder intentionally drops a fly ball (for the purpose of a double play or whatever), but that rule kills the play immediately and doesn't allow the runners to advance.  Infield fly rule allows runners to advance at their own risk if the ball is dropped.

[Biggs3535]

It's not questionable at all by rule. 

Of course it is.  You're acting like this is a run-of-the-mill popup  in the infield and it's not.  At all.  That's why there's been so much talk about it in baseball circles. The ball was 50+ feet into the outfield and was not a sure out - obviously, because it was actually dropped.  Miscommunications between infielders/outfielders happen all of the time.  It wasn't a sure out and shouldn't have been called an infield fly, especially how late it was called. 

Here's Curt Schilling's take, as well as other MLB players:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/8467225/controversial-infield-fly-call

[Bookert1905]

Can we talk about how great Verlander is?

[The Anti-Java]

Dumb rule to begin with.   What is the purpose of the rule anyway?  Maybe one of you baseball diehards can explain.   I am assuming,  its so a guy doesn't let a ball drop on purpose?

It is a necessary rule. Because when it is actually an infield fly, in the infield, runners can't get off the base at all in order to prevent themselves from getting thrown out after the catch. By letting the ball drop in the infield they can then go for a double play.

I hear ya man, and appreciate the info, but I still think its a dumb rule.

There has to be a better way, I hate gray areas in rules whether it be football or baseball.

If they are going to have a rule like that, they should have a chalk line say about 10 or 20 feet into the outfield, where infield fly rule is in effect.  Its leaving too much up to the umpires judgement IMO.

[The Anti-Java]

Can we talk about how great Verlander is?

He is, no doubt.



The Rays pitching is looking pretty good too, I think they need to add a bat over the winter.

[olafberserker]

It's not questionable at all by rule. 

Of course it is.  You're acting like this is a run-of-the-mill popup  in the infield and it's not.  At all.  That's why there's been so much talk about it in baseball circles. The ball was 50+ feet into the outfield and was not a sure out - obviously, because it was actually dropped.  Miscommunications between infielders/outfielders happen all of the time.  It wasn't a sure out and shouldn't have been called an infield fly, especially how late it was called. 

Here's Curt Schilling's take, as well as other MLB players:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/8467225/controversial-infield-fly-call

The rule doesn't say a sure out.  It says that an infielder can get to it with ordinary effort.   He was camping out under it when he thought he was called off.   The call was right by rule regardless of what Curt Shilling says.   Lateness is a mechanic has no bearing on the call.

[Biggs3535]

Lateness is a mechanic has no bearing on the call.

The rule you keep referencing says the exact opposite.  And the SS was never "camping out under" the flyball.  He was drifting back the entire time. 

I realize you've dug your heels in on this issue, but for you to not even acknowledge that it's a questionable call at best is pretty absurd.  There's a reason it's being debated as much as it is in baseball circles.

[olafberserker]

Already addressed this once:

The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately.

This is where I have a problem with the call.  It was made entirely too late.  If you're gonna make that call, you have do it much earlier in the play or you don't call it at all.

As an umpire you are supposed to call it as soon as you verify that the infielder can make the play with ordinary effort.  On a ball like that it may take a little longer than an obvious call.

"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."

The runners were not hurt by the call late or not so even if they called it later than they should have it didn't appear to change the play.

Who is to say when it was apparent to the umpire that the ball was an infield fly?  The fact that the SS could easily "drift" to the spot where the ball would eventually land in time to be able to make the play further supports the most important requisite, "ordinary effort by an infielder".   It was an infield fly by rule.   

The debate is fueled by the fact that the Cardinals benefited from the rule despite their mistake.   Call was still correct even if made late and that didn't matter to the play since the runners still made it safely to the next base.   People can debate the merits of the rule and whether or not the rule should be modified if they want.   I agree it sucks for the Braves, but the call was correct by rule.