On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 9:41 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > "Of course, I'm happier with the change in playoff format than I am with > the spontaneous change to the infield fly rule." > > And that's the thing that seems to be making everybody so upset: that the > umps changed the interpretation of the infield fly rule and cost the Braves > a rally that might have (unlikely, but possibly) allowed them to come back > and tie up the score. But, in Comments to rule 2.00 (Definition of Terms: > Infield Fly) in the MLB Rule Book, it specifically states "*The umpire > must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an > outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as > easily handled by an infielder." * > * > * > It's obviously an extremely rare situation (I've never seen it called that > way before), but the umpire got the interpretation of the rule correct; the > only argument would be whether or not the ball came down close enough to > the infield that it "could have been as easily handled by an infielder." > And, since shortstop Pete Kozma was one of the two Cardinals calling for > the ball that eventually dropped between them, there's not much argument to > be made there. > > So, no, there was no spontaneous change to the rule...that's just > apparently the first time most Atlanta Braves fans saw the rule implemented > that way. > > Doug Fields, baseball fan and occasional umpire >
Well, it is the first time most baseball fans have in or out of Atlanta have seen it called that way, but I do agree with you. The question is whether the infielder could have made that play using normal effort, and the umpire waited until he could tell for sure that the effort required to make that play by the shortstop was going to be normal or not. It would have been a much more questionable call had the umpire raised his arm a second or two earlier, when the shortstop was still going back on the ball, and it was less clear if it would have required some sort of super, extraordinary effort on his part to make the play. Ironically, waiting that long to raise his hand is probably also what pissed off Braves fans so much, since it intensified the contrast between the out call and the drop. If the shortstop had dropped the ball it would have made the ump look bad, suggesting that it was not an ordinary play - the fact that the outfielder dropped the call in my book supports the ump, in that it suggests that maybe the play would have been easier for the shortstop. Tough call - if it has been made against the Giants I would have been outraged; but I think it was the right call. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
