tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post4086426231950562742..comments2024-01-18T06:49:55.117-08:00Comments on Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League: STL-ATL Infield Fly (NL Wild Card): Why Call was CorrectLindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-39405187053875896012012-10-13T00:15:05.547-07:002012-10-13T00:15:05.547-07:00Stay classy, Atlanta! Seriously next time Braves f...Stay classy, Atlanta! Seriously next time Braves fans talk crap about how Yankee fans are rude new yorkers and classless, I'm pointing straight to this. It was the right call, Georgians are apparently too stupid to know the rule and compound the problem by throwing garbage on the field during Chipper Jones' last game. What's worse, you drunks in the upper deck thought you could get your booze bottles on the field and ended up so short, you hit fans sitting on lower levels. They should have forfeited this game because of the fans inability to behave like civilized human beings. What a disgrace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-6782343136251518172012-10-12T03:35:37.158-07:002012-10-12T03:35:37.158-07:00Looking at the play again I noticed something stra...Looking at the play again I noticed something strange, moving it forward about a second at a time. Holbrook didn't raise his finger to call the Infield Fly Rule until Kozma started to move out of the way. Makes me wonder if it wasn't on purpose. . .guess we'll never know for sure. <br /><br />Just gonna throw my two cents in, bad judgement call, Holbrook should've admitted it and reversed it himself (if he could). I would have.<br /><br />-BULKARDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-66443225387652600622012-10-11T12:16:17.401-07:002012-10-11T12:16:17.401-07:00Then again, the book says nary a few lines later: ...Then again, the book says nary a few lines later: "Wait until the play is completed before making any arm motion." the MLB rule book is full of conflicting information and mistakes. That's why MLBU have the MLB umpires manual. Though again, MLBUM is like zone eval - secret, behind the scenes, not generally circulated.<br /><br />Secretive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-66815727632430606142012-10-11T12:11:23.155-07:002012-10-11T12:11:23.155-07:00While reviewing Rule 9, I found something I find f...While reviewing Rule 9, I found something I find funny (given Holbrook's comments about watching the player, rather than the ball):<br /><br />"Keep your eye everlastingly on the ball while it is in play."Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-41874128727164322252012-10-11T11:53:29.499-07:002012-10-11T11:53:29.499-07:00So the idea is that "play" within "...So the idea is that "play" within "ordinary effort" could mean anything an umpire wants it to on any given play? I can't see why they bother having any rules.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-9688922654745895362012-10-11T11:48:39.109-07:002012-10-11T11:48:39.109-07:00See, that's where you're inferring the rul...See, that's where you're inferring the rule. It says exhibit on a play - not the beginning of it, not the end of it, not the whole thing. Just "a play." That means the judgment can use any part of the play to rule ordinary effort and yes, this includes the latter half of the play ONLY just as it could include the beginning only or the entire play. Giants just had an infield fly in Cincy in the outfield-makes absolutely no difference. Where the rules do not specifically state something, umpires refer to rule 9, where umpires may rule on any point not specifically covered in the rules. Believe it or not, that rule 9 elastic clause makes an appearance in nearly every play, including this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-52048834454106827502012-10-11T11:42:27.881-07:002012-10-11T11:42:27.881-07:00The statements from Holbrook indicate he doesn'...The statements from Holbrook indicate he doesn't consider "ordinary effort" until the end of the play (the player is now in position to, with ordinary effort, catch the ball). When I read the rule, it reads like "ordinary effort" needs to be considered over the entire play (not just the end of it).<br /><br />"I saw the shortstop go back and get underneath the ball where he would have had ordinary effort and would have caught the baseball..."<br /><br />"Once that fielder establishes himself and he has ordinary effort on the ball..."<br /><br />See, he specifically mentions that the player establishes himself and then considers whether the player has ordinary effort on the ball. Not that the player has exhibited ordinary effort on the entire play.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-64789484227471586722012-10-11T11:31:28.117-07:002012-10-11T11:31:28.117-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-61404844399338164782012-10-11T11:23:10.079-07:002012-10-11T11:23:10.079-07:00See, I don't know why this is such an issue. K...See, I don't know why this is such an issue. Kozma being in the area confirmed to U5 that the criteria of ordinary effort and thus IFF had been established. In a sense, it's being extra certain that you have the criteria and then saying that the criteria was indeed satisfied, as evidenced by the fact that the fielder was there. It's confirming the call as correct. Why is that such an issue? If it walks and talks like a duck....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-61549211870745143922012-10-11T11:16:16.223-07:002012-10-11T11:16:16.223-07:00"ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder..."ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions."<br /><br />"This standard...is an objective standard in regard to any particular fielder. In other words, even if a fielder makes his best effort, if that effort falls short of what an average fielder at that position in that league would have made in a situation, the official scorer should charge that fielder with an error."<br /><br />"An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort...On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder...The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpires judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder."<br /><br />If the idea is that the call can only be made based on the actions of the fielders, as Holbrook claims, then how would he call an infield fly caught by an outfielder when an infielder doesn't "get underneath the ball" or "establish himself" at all? By written rule, an infielder need only to have been capable of doing it. They don't have to even try to do it.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-23049951687577751472012-10-11T10:58:30.771-07:002012-10-11T10:58:30.771-07:00See, your position that a player's actions are...See, your position that a player's actions are always irrelevant is one interpretation just as is the one that they may be relevant in some infield fly situations. For better or for worse, MLB has always agreed with the latter, especially given the line in the rule book that immediately follows ordinary effort on IFR: that location is arbitrary and does not matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-62202578852695328122012-10-11T10:51:13.045-07:002012-10-11T10:51:13.045-07:00That is an interpretation, as I don't believe ...That is an interpretation, as I don't believe that is found in the rules (although I would love to read it if you can find it there - I haven't). <br /><br />That's fine. If the case is that umpires are trained to use different criteria than is in the written rules, it answers my questions and confirms that they are not applying the rule exactly as written.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-2158421062531463152012-10-11T10:25:12.140-07:002012-10-11T10:25:12.140-07:00Because, in advanced mechanics on an unusual IFF s...Because, in advanced mechanics on an unusual IFF situation, one of the criteria you look for in establishing ordinary effort is whether the infielder is in a position where ordinary effort could yield a catch. It is verification of OR and of the IFF and is only used in unique IFF situations. It IS based on the fielder and NOT the location. You're being way too narrow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-68636477096748650592012-10-11T10:11:49.203-07:002012-10-11T10:11:49.203-07:00Also, Holbrook's statements don't support ...Also, Holbrook's statements don't support your claims.<br /><br />"I saw the shortstop go back and get underneath the ball where he would have had ordinary effort and would have caught the baseball, and that's why I called the infield fly."<br /><br />But, he would've had to call this an infield fly even if he didn't watch Kozma get underneath the ball (by the rules), so why does he make a statement implying that Kozma getting underneath the ball was important for making the call? Why did he wait for Kozma to do this if the rules don't mention this as criteria for the call? He could've made the call much sooner if he weren't hung up on watching the player.<br /><br />This other statement also implies a standard that is not in the rules:<br /><br />"It's all judged on what the fielder does. Once that fielder establishes himself and he has ordinary effort on the ball, that's when the call is made. So it wouldn't matter whether it was from third base or on the line out there. But, again, it's all based on what the fielder does, that's what I went on, and that's what I read."<br /><br />The rules don't say it is about observing what "the fielder" or "that fielder" does. The standard is whether or not, in the umpires judgment, an average skilled fielder, starting on the infield, could've made the play. Observation of 1 or more players doing it isn't required by the rule and by applying a standard not found in the rules he made the call far later than he should have.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-14501003220487984772012-10-11T02:30:22.553-07:002012-10-11T02:30:22.553-07:00Ordinary effort is defined in the rules. There'...Ordinary effort is defined in the rules. There's no need to read it anywhere, and the quote in this article was incomplete.<br /><br />Given Holbrook's comments about Kozma needing to be "underneath the ball and "establish himself", I don't think he would've called it if Holliday makes the play. Holbrook sounds like he cared a lot about what that particular fielder did, which is not what the rule calls for.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-46720972876728670232012-10-10T11:53:56.657-07:002012-10-10T11:53:56.657-07:00@Lidstrom, read the 5th paragraph of the original ...@Lidstrom, read the 5th paragraph of the original post and you'll see there is indeed discussion of the definition of "ordinary effort." Kozma's actions on the play bear mentioning because they themselves are a component that helps in determining ordinary effort -- his actions in getting to the outfield <i>CONFIRM</i> Holbrook's judgment was correct in that an infielder, exhibiting ordinary effort, could make the play.<br /><br />Kozma's actions certainly don't deny it and they are relevant.<br /><br />You must not have been following this thread much and by the content of your comment, you haven't fully read the original post and the part where "ordinary effort" is defined nor the part where all those myths are debunked, including the myth of location where, yes, Holliday could have caught it and it would still be an infield fly.<br /><br />Notice again that Holbrook calls infield fly before the ball gets down to the ground - he doesn't know who's going to catch it nor should he take that into account. It's not the umpire's job to wait for the ball to actually be caught or an attempt actually to be made. <br /><br />It is his job to wait until "it is apparent that a batted ball will be an infield fly" and ONLY then is he supposed to immediately call IFF. If you read the rules, criteria and expert analysis, you'll see that Holbrook indeed got the call right. In the umpiring community, there is absolutely no doubt it was the correct call.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-2144597306514334752012-10-10T05:19:44.003-07:002012-10-10T05:19:44.003-07:00If you read the written rule, understanding that &...If you read the written rule, understanding that "ordinary effort" is also a term defined within the rules (not something we get to make up to suit our particular needs/desires), it is hard to find that Holbrook followed the written rules to the letter. If he had been following them to the letter, he would've known that whether or not Kozma gets "underneath the ball" or "establishes himself" have nothing to do with the call and won't be found anywhere in the rule.<br /><br />Because he was applying a criteria not found within the rule, he waited painfully late into the play to make his call. Applying the rule, as written, doesn't leave him waiting for Kozma to accomplish those things. Maybe it was an infield fly, maybe not, but the reasoning behind his call is flawed.<br /><br />Interesting to note that, given the way the infield fly rule is written, he would've had to call this an infield fly even if Holliday caught it.<br /><br />"The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpires judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder."<br /><br />If he doesn't agree with that, then it wasn't an infield fly, because a critical component of the rule is the determination that an average skilled fielder, exerting ordinary effort, would make the catch. Holbrook's claims that the rule is enforced based on a particular fielder's actions are not supported by the rules. The rules are written such that the determination is to be made based on the ordinary effort definition, not what he observes particular fielders doing.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-5780811682088569012012-10-09T20:24:10.452-07:002012-10-09T20:24:10.452-07:00I seriously hope people understand that umpires, w...I seriously hope people understand that umpires, when making this particular call on the field, CANNOT consider whether a double play is possible because the infield fly rule says absolutely NOTHING about double plays, lead runner force outs, etc. All the umpire can do is call it by the book, which is exactly what Holbrook did. All this prognostication about the purpose or spirit of the rule and thinking Holbrook should have weighed that in his decision is wrong.<br /><br />Just like the original post says, you have several criteria for determining whether you have an infield fly - R1, R2 or R1, R2, R3 with <2 out, fair fly ball, infielder ordinary effort. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-54607895146738196422012-10-09T06:35:19.604-07:002012-10-09T06:35:19.604-07:00We can debate whether or not it should have been a...We can debate whether or not it should have been an infield fly call, but the reasoning provided by Holbrook is questionable.<br /><br />If you read the infield fly rule, and the definition of ordinary effort in the rules, you will understand why all this attention on Kozma by Holbrook and mostly everyone else is invalid.<br /><br />By the rules, Holbrook should have made the decision based on the ability of an average skilled infielder to make the play with ordinary effort. His statements referring to his observations of Kozma, as justification for his call, reveal an improper application of the rules.Lidstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299935418508698525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-91264519001318768522012-10-09T06:23:12.100-07:002012-10-09T06:23:12.100-07:00You like many others don't understand the rule...You like many others don't understand the rule. The purpose of the IFR is to protect the runners by removing the force so your argument that the runners are put at risk is ludicrous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-91895138308510168522012-10-09T06:19:00.172-07:002012-10-09T06:19:00.172-07:00Ummm....because he had the best look at itUmmm....because he had the best look at itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-46646491411302053022012-10-09T06:17:58.705-07:002012-10-09T06:17:58.705-07:00No it wasn't the wrong call...you're anoth...No it wasn't the wrong call...you're another plumber who doesn't know the rulesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-57122010690522627402012-10-08T18:18:38.384-07:002012-10-08T18:18:38.384-07:00It was a quirky play, but the umpire got it right....It was a quirky play, but the umpire got it right.<br /><br />The rule says ". . .if a ball 'could have' been fielded by an infielder with ordinary effort. . ." not "was fielded..." or "an attempt was made to field".<br /><br />Holbrook nailed the call, and every umpire worth his salt stained hat knows it....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-51205279922968591572012-10-08T11:43:43.290-07:002012-10-08T11:43:43.290-07:00@ JimmyT... the runners SAFELY advanced during thi...@ JimmyT... the runners SAFELY advanced during this play, making timing absolutely irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-11742161049202732352012-10-08T08:10:06.426-07:002012-10-08T08:10:06.426-07:00Okay, the ump was correct within the letter of the...Okay, the ump was correct within the letter of the law, but I agree with the commenter who said that "no one" thought it was an infield fly. <br /><br />To me, it’s just wrong to call it if the umpire has to wait that long to see if the infielder is in position to “easily” catch a ball. The whole idea of the rule is to let the runners know immediately that the batter is out so, as the announcers use to quickly say, they can then “proceed at their own risk.” By calling it that late you confuse the runners and you take away the PRIMARY reason that the rule is in place.JimmyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08726475117128279663noreply@blogger.com