- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Playing the game under protest
Posted on 10/5/12 at 7:59 pm to Bho
Posted on 10/5/12 at 7:59 pm to Bho
The other thing about this play regarding the infield fly is that the rule is in place to prevent double and triple plays. Even if he was in place and intentionally dropped it, it would have been near impossible to turn a double play from that deep in the outfield. Just my two cents.
2
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:03 pm to lsulefty5
It was not an ordinary catch. It is as simple as that.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:05 pm to lsulefty5
quote:
The other thing about this play regarding the infield fly is that the rule is in place to prevent double and triple plays. Even if he was in place and intentionally dropped it, it would have been near impossible to turn a double play from that deep in the outfield. Just my two cents.
This is why I think it was a bad call. It was a poor judgement by the umpire.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:05 pm to SBC
Why did he have to wait long? Oh yeah, bc it took longer to get to the outfield than a infield fly would.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:05 pm to SBC
quote:
It was not an ordinary catch. It is as simple as that.
Sam Holbrook judged it to be and MLB rules support his view not SBC's.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:07 pm to Bho
quote:
This is why I think it was a bad call. It was a poor judgement by the umpire.
IMO the outfield umpire should never make that call, let one of the infield umpires call the infield fly.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:07 pm to Bho
Well he made the incorrect call and misapplied the requirements of the rule to make a legitiment shallow-left field fly call.
This post was edited on 10/5/12 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:13 pm to SBC
quote:
Well he made the incorrect call
Agree
quote:
misapplied the requirements of the rule to make a legitiment shallow-left field fly call
The rules disagree.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:13 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
IMO the outfield umpire should never make that call, let one of the infield umpires call the infield fly.
Agreed. I still think it was terrible.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:17 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:When he makes the call is the very reason the rule exists. It exists to defend against cheap double plays on high fly balls in the infield. He has to call it in a timely manner to allow the runners to get bag to the bases and tag if necessary. Also, there is absolutely nothing ordinary about that catch had the shortstop made it. First off, the ball landed a good 10 feet behind him, secondly, he never camped under the ball. He was backpedaling from the moment he called for it until he took a step forward. Absolutely nothing routine about that play.
When he made the called had no impact on the game.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 8:21 pm to Bho
quote:
Bho
It became apparent to him after the play was almost over? Give me a break.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 9:04 pm to Bho
Bho, since you seem to have the most expertise on this, help me think through my logic here and tell me if this makes sense.
Scenario 1--Infield fly rule IS invoked
Result by rule--Batter-runner is out, runners on first and second may choose to advance under ordinary fly ball rules (i.e., they must tag up if the ball is caught, but they are not forced to advance because the batter-runner has been called out)
Scenario 2--Infield fly rule IS NOT invoked
Result by rule--Batter-runner is only out if the ball is caught; runners on first and second must advance if ball is not caught; if ball is caught they may advance after tagging up.
The infield fly rule is not about the batter-runner. It exists to protect the baserunners from an intentional drop resulting in a double-play. I agree that the rule shouldn't have been invoked in this scenario, but here's where I'm unsure. Since the baserunners advanced safely, the only "damages" to the Braves were the out/loss of baserunner of the batter-runner. Even though that is obviously important, it is irrelevant to the spirit/purpose of the infield fly rule.
The other nagging question in my mind is whether the umpire's signal is what caused the ball to be dropped to begin with (each fielder thought the umpire's voice was the other fielder calling him off), in which case the late call actually helped the Braves (since the runners would not have been able to advance without tagging had the catch been made).
Obviously one out/bases loaded is a much different scenario than two outs/two baserunners, but you can't assume that the subsequent at-bats would have played out the same way without the delay, open base, etc.
So the question of whether the Braves were actually harmed really comes down to whether the catch would have been made without the umpire's intervention. The SS especially seems to react as though he thinks he's being called off by the outfielder, but I really can't say for sure. I definitely don't think the SS would've caught it using the "ordinary effort" required by the rule, but in my opinion the call, strangely, actually benefited the Braves. What do you think?
Scenario 1--Infield fly rule IS invoked
Result by rule--Batter-runner is out, runners on first and second may choose to advance under ordinary fly ball rules (i.e., they must tag up if the ball is caught, but they are not forced to advance because the batter-runner has been called out)
Scenario 2--Infield fly rule IS NOT invoked
Result by rule--Batter-runner is only out if the ball is caught; runners on first and second must advance if ball is not caught; if ball is caught they may advance after tagging up.
The infield fly rule is not about the batter-runner. It exists to protect the baserunners from an intentional drop resulting in a double-play. I agree that the rule shouldn't have been invoked in this scenario, but here's where I'm unsure. Since the baserunners advanced safely, the only "damages" to the Braves were the out/loss of baserunner of the batter-runner. Even though that is obviously important, it is irrelevant to the spirit/purpose of the infield fly rule.
The other nagging question in my mind is whether the umpire's signal is what caused the ball to be dropped to begin with (each fielder thought the umpire's voice was the other fielder calling him off), in which case the late call actually helped the Braves (since the runners would not have been able to advance without tagging had the catch been made).
Obviously one out/bases loaded is a much different scenario than two outs/two baserunners, but you can't assume that the subsequent at-bats would have played out the same way without the delay, open base, etc.
So the question of whether the Braves were actually harmed really comes down to whether the catch would have been made without the umpire's intervention. The SS especially seems to react as though he thinks he's being called off by the outfielder, but I really can't say for sure. I definitely don't think the SS would've caught it using the "ordinary effort" required by the rule, but in my opinion the call, strangely, actually benefited the Braves. What do you think?
Posted on 10/5/12 at 9:18 pm to BrocraticMethod
MLB announces the call STANDS. 
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News