Worse call in recent history?

[David Snodgrass]

**CORRECTION** Worst call...not "worse." My apologies.

Tonight, as well all know, during the 8th inning of the Wild Card game the outfield umpire determined that a pop fly hit to shallow left field was actually an infield pop fly which evoked the infield fly rule.

Worse call that I've seen in a long time. Cleary the SS was having a hard time getting under the ball so he defaulted to the left fielder who was not prepared to make a play.

Full Disclosure: I'm a Braves fan...but that doesn't change the fact of a terrible call.

[Peggy Gray]

I sure thought so last night. Now I'm conflicted. I thought the point of the rule was to prevent fielders from deliberately letting the ball drop, which I thought they obviously did not.

[Michael Flowers]

A ball hit that far into the grass should not be ruled an infield fly in my opinion. An infield fly should be obvious fairly quickly from the point of contact and that play it was not. It was a bad call for sure, but is a judgment call that the umpire has to make.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yet to see a replay... But am very interested.

[Shea Zellweger]

yeah, that was pretty bad.

[Doug Ward]

Sorry, but as an umpire, that was the exact, correct call. The rule states if a ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. The ball landed almost exactly where the SS had been standing. it does not matter if he lost it in the lights, was blinded by the sun, or thought he heard the LF call him off, it was exactly right - as the rule is wriiten. Perhaps we might modify the rule to only include an area within ___ feet of the skin area of the infield, but then you would have to add a painted line or something.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sorry, but as an umpire, that was the exact, correct call. The rule states if a ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. The ball landed almost exactly where the SS had been standing. it does not matter if he lost it in the lights, was blinded by the sun, or thought he heard the LF call him off, it was exactly right - as the rule is wriiten. Perhaps we might modify the rule to only include an area within ___ feet of the skin area of the infield, but then you would have to add a painted line or something.

You are correct in theory, but I feel the rule has always been thought to contain an unwritten, vague idea of proximity to the infield. I cannot think of any application of the rule this far out into the OF.

That being said, no, this call is not nearly the "worst call" in recent memory. Questionable or bad, maybe. Horrible? No. Worst? Definitely not.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Sorry, but as an umpire, that was the exact, correct call. The rule states if a ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. The ball landed almost exactly where the SS had been standing. it does not matter if he lost it in the lights, was blinded by the sun, or thought he heard the LF call him off, it was exactly right - as the rule is wriiten. Perhaps we might modify the rule to only include an area within ___ feet of the skin area of the infield, but then you would have to add a painted line or something.

I tried to measure the distance from where the ball fell to third base. If the infielder had backed up a couple of steps, let the ball fall, snatched it up and fired it to third base would he have been able to initiate a double play at third and second?

I think he could have.

Had it happened, the Braves manager would have stormed the field shouting "infield fly rule" and the fans would have gone ballistic over the lack of a call.

I tend to agree with you that it was the correct call, howbeit made a bit late.

[Benjamin Burch]

I tried to measure the distance from where the ball fell to third base. If the infielder had backed up a couple of steps, let the ball fall, snatched it up and fired it to third base would he have been able to initiate a double play at third and second?

I think he could have.

Had it happened, the Braves manager would have stormed the field shouting "infield fly rule" and the fans would have gone ballistic over the lack of a call.

I tend to agree with you that it was the correct call, howbeit made a bit late.

Excellent point.

[Monte Butts]

As a Cards fan it was a great call

[Shea Zellweger]

Sorry, but as an umpire, that was the exact, correct call. The rule states if a ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. The ball landed almost exactly where the SS had been standing. it does not matter if he lost it in the lights, was blinded by the sun, or thought he heard the LF call him off, it was exactly right - as the rule is wriiten. Perhaps we might modify the rule to only include an area within ___ feet of the skin area of the infield, but then you would have to add a painted line or something.

It's true that that's the wording of the rule, but I'm not sure the application is so cut and dried. I'm having difficulty coming up with an example of infield fly being called in which the Infielder had to travel that far into the outfield, and I'm guessing this is not the first time where such a play happened. You could probably call that one either way. What made the call bad is the amount of delay. Usually, the ball is still traveling up, or has just begun its descent, when the umpire invokes the infield fly rule. It's possible he had made the call earlier, but since the runners didn't tag, and advanced when the ball fell, I don't think this is the case. If you watch the replay I linked, the ball hits the ground before the OF ump signals the out, at which point the runner from second has already broken for third, without tagging. According to the rule, runners must tag, just like a regular fly ball out. By delaying the call that long, the umpire created an advantage for the fielding team, which is exactly the opposite of the intent of the infield fly rule. I know that in this case, the runners were ultimately allowed to remain on 2nd and 3rd, but proper application of the rule would have allowed the SS baseman to pick up the ball, toss it to 2nd, and record a double play. I realize timing is not explicitly covered in the rulebook, but I'm pretty sure the purpose of the rule dictates that it be invoked in a timely enough fashion to allow the baserunners to respond accordingly.

[Nate Pruitt]

I will say that every time I've seen it called as it extended to the outfield the ball was either A) dropped by the infielder going back or B) fell in front of the infielder giving him the angle to make a quick double play. Neither of these things happened. However, controversy could still be avoided if the call was made while the ball was in the air, as it typically has been even on those occasions. Calling it as it happens, not after the fact, is what allows runners to hold safely and negates the less than ethical decision to "fool" a runner into holding his base to easily get him out at the next one by a cagey infielder whether in the infield grass, on the clay, or the shallow outfield. The umpires went about the process of making the call poorly and that makes it rather unpalatable even if it is, by the letter of the law, an accurate one.

[Ryan Scott]

Um, we're forgetting an important point - timing. The infield fly rule is called the second the ball goes up and the umpire deems it an infield fly. This one drifted too far into the outfield for the call to be easily defended - but the call was made before the ball got out there, not after. It's just that no one noticed until well after the play.

I agree, the rule should not have applied to that ball, but I'm also willing to give the umpire the benefit of the doubt that it might have been difficult to know that in a timely fashion.

I've done very little umpiring, but in my limited training, one of the things I remember emphasized the most is to quickly make the infield fly call so all parties can make appropriate decisions on the play with the maximum amount of warning.

It was an unfortunate result, but a defensible call.

[Nate Pruitt]

Um, we're forgetting an important point - timing. The infield fly rule is called the second the ball goes up and the umpire deems it an infield fly. This one drifted too far into the outfield for the call to be easily defended - but the call was made before the ball got out there, not after. It's just that no one noticed until well after the play.

I agree, the rule should not have applied to that ball, but I'm also willing to give the umpire the benefit of the doubt that it might have been difficult to know that in a timely fashion.

I've done very little umpiring, but in my limited training, one of the things I remember emphasized the most is to quickly make the infield fly call so all parties can make appropriate decisions on the play with the maximum amount of warning.

It was an unfortunate result, but a defensible call.

True- it's much easier to acknowledge at a little league or school game with a smaller crowd and the umpire yelling, "Out! Infield fly!" so everyone on the field can hear. Shoot, once it was called (which happened twice while I was playing third one season) I didn't bother catching the ball. What was the point? The play was dead. Now our umpires were very good about moving toward the fielder while repeatedly making the call. It would seem that if you can still call a teammate off during a short fly when crowd noise isn't terrible that an umpire can make himself heard, too. There is nothing in what happened to make me believe the runners or fielders had any idea the call had been made.

[Shea Zellweger]

What made the call bad is the amount of delay...

I realize timing is not explicitly covered in the rulebook, but I'm pretty sure the purpose of the rule dictates that it be invoked in a timely enough fashion to allow the baserunners to respond accordingly.

Um, we're forgetting an important point - timing.

[insert video of Tonto here]

[Ryan Scott]

Shoot, once it was called (which happened twice while I was playing third one season) I didn't bother catching the ball. What was the point? The play was dead.

Please tell me this is a joke? The ball is not dead on an infield fly. The batter is out, but the baserunners can still run or tag up using their own judgment. The infield fly only guarantees that they can stay put without worrying about making an out.

[Doug Ward]

Please tell me this is a joke? The ball is not dead on an infield fly. The batter is out, but the baserunners can still run or tag up using their own judgment. The infield fly only guarantees that they can stay put without worrying about making an out.

Ryan is right. (I wanted to say that) The ball is not dead. The call is not immediate, as has been suggested by others. It is made when it is determined that it can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. In old Candlestick, that could be any number of places in the crazy flight of a ball.

[Nate Pruitt]

Please tell me this is a joke? The ball is not dead on an infield fly. The batter is out, but the baserunners can still run or tag up using their own judgment. The infield fly only guarantees that they can stay put without worrying about making an out.

It was a joke- the phrasing was poor. Like I said, I was playing third. Both times the ball landed in the "cut" at third. I just let it sit there and smiled at the runner on second. I was a jerk as a teen sometimes thanks to a mix of high competitiveness and hormones. It wasn't dead, but they couldn't advance safely. Hope that helps.

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan is right. (I wanted to say that) The ball is not dead. The call is not immediate, as has been suggested by others. It is made when it is determined that it can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. In old Candlestick, that could be any number of places in the crazy flight of a ball.

I think we had different umpiring instruction.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'm pretty sure the purpose of the rule dictates that it be invoked in a timely enough fashion to allow the baserunners to respond accordingly.

I may be wrong but I don't think the rule is written to to benefit the base runner - just to protect the base runner and the integrity of the game. The runner isn't normally expected to advance, just to be able to stay on base and not be in jeopardy from an infielder taking advantage of one of the few flaws in this nearly perfect game to get two outs when the play should normally result in just one out.

[Shea Zellweger]

I may be wrong but I don't think the rule is written to to benefit the base runner - just to protect the base runner and the integrity of the game. The runner isn't normally expected to advance, just to be able to stay on base and not be in jeopardy from an infielder taking advantage of one of the few flaws in this nearly perfect game to get two outs when the play should normally result in just one out.

Whether you want to call it a benefit or a protection doesn't really change things. If the umpire waits until the ball is nearly in the glove of the fielder to make the call, nobody is watching him at that point. They're watching the ball. When the ball hits the turf, they advance without tagging, which hands the defense a giftwrapped double play. I'd say that's pretty much the opposite of the rule's intent.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Whether you want to call it a benefit or a protection doesn't really change things. If the umpire waits until the ball is nearly in the glove of the fielder to make the call, nobody is watching him at that point. They're watching the ball. When the ball hits the turf, they advance without tagging, which hands the defense a giftwrapped double play. I'd say that's pretty much the opposite of the rule's intent.

I guess I'm not following. If the runners assume the ball will be caught, which is exactly the intent of the rule, they have no intention of tagging and advancing. It's an easy out with no chance of their moving up a base - if they try, they'll almost certainly be out.

The reason for the rule is to make it impossible for the fielder to create an almost certain double play. The runners can't leave base because everyone assumes the ball will be caught, but if they don't leave base they can easily be doubled off by an infielder who intentionally drops the ball.

The base runners yesterday weren't hindered from advancing by the umpire's call, they thought the ball was going to be caught, and were staying put. Realistically, the only thing that changes when the infield fly rule is invoked is that the fielder can no longer try to create a double play by letting the ball drop.

[Michael Flowers]

Remember though that the runners actually did advance on this play. Also, I have yet to see a media report that said the umpire called the play in a timely fashion, all of the ones I have read have indicated that he made the call as the ball fell toward the ground. That is not very timely in the perspective of a ball player (especially if you are on the base paths).

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Remember though that the runners actually did advance on this play. Also, I have yet to see a media report that said the umpire called the play in a timely fashion, all of the ones I have read have indicated that he made the call as the ball fell toward the ground. That is not very timely in the perspective of a ball player (especially if you are on the base paths).

However, also remember that they didn't advance because of the infield fly rule being invoked...they advanced because the ball wasn't caught.

Timely or not, the purpose of the rule is to limit the options of the fielder, not to help runners advance on a play that should be a routine out.

[Benjamin Burch]

Scott bringin' the thunder!

[Michael Flowers]

However, also remember that they didn't advance because of the infield fly rule being invoked...they advanced because the ball wasn't caught.

Timely or not, the purpose of the rule is to limit the options of the fielder, not to help runners advance on a play that should be a routine out.

My post was more about reminding people of the situation that occurred. There were all sorts of comments about the dead ball thing (which I believe it is a dead ball in Little League, or at least it was), it is not a dead ball but in most cases it might as well be due to the situation (proximity to infield typically makes advancing unlikely). There were also comments saying that umpire called it right away.

It is a rule that limits the fielder for sure. From a strategy standpoint letting the ball drop would be great because of the double play potential. I do believe that after watching that Braves-Cardinals play that there needs to be further definition of what constitutes an infield fly. If a ball hangs in the air high/long enough you can travel 30 feet into the outfield to make a catch (I did it 3 or 4 times in high school as s second baseman) but I would never consider or think it should be considered an infield fly (given current language of the rule it could be called such though). I doubt they will clean up (clarify) the rule any time soon, but it would sure make it easier on the fans.

[Shea Zellweger]

However, also remember that they didn't advance because of the infield fly rule being invoked...they advanced because the ball wasn't caught.

This makes my point for me. By the time the infield fly was invoked, the runners were not paying attention to the ump. The ball hit the ground, and they advanced without tagging. According to the infield fly rule, the SS could have picked up the ball, lobbed it to 2nd, and recorded a double play.

Timely or not, the purpose of the rule is to limit the options of the fielder, not to help runners advance on a play that should be a routine out.

I'm not talking about helping the runners advance, I'm talking about putting the runners at a disadvantage by setting them up to get doubled off.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

This makes my point for me. By the time the infield fly was invoked, the runners were not paying attention to the ump. The ball hit the ground, and they advanced without tagging. According to the infield fly rule, the SS could have picked up the ball, lobbed it to 2nd, and recorded a double play.

I'm not talking about helping the runners advance, I'm talking about putting the runners at a disadvantage by setting them up to get doubled off.

I don't know that I'm making your point for you, but I now understand where you're coming from. I still disagree with you, but I see your point.

I've seen the video. The ball is at least 20 feet up in the air and the umpire who is on the foul line in line with where the ball is going to come down has his arm up, clearly ruling and infield fly. At this point, the runners are looking toward him and the fielders - and these are professional baseball players who are supposed to know that the infield fly rule can be called in this situation. Anyway, I see your point, but I don't agree that the players weren't paying attention to the umpire.

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't know that I'm making your point for you, but I now understand where you're coming from. I still disagree with you, but I see your point.

I've seen the video. The ball is at least 20 feet up in the air and the umpire who is on the foul line in line with where the ball is going to come down has his arm up, clearly ruling and infield fly. At this point, the runners are looking toward him and the fielders - and these are professional baseball players who are supposed to know that the infield fly rule can be called in this situation. Anyway, I see your point, but I don't agree that the players weren't paying attention to the umpire.

So you're saying that the baserunners watched the umpire call the out, knew it was an application of the infield fly rule, and still didn't bother to tag up before trying to advance, knowing full well that doing so would only result in them being doubled off? I don't think that's the case, and I think the fact that the umpires allowed the runners to advance is a silent admission of guilt on their part. Otherwise, the ball should've been thrown to second, the runner standing on third should've been called out, and the inning should've ended.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

So you're saying that the baserunners watched the umpire call the out, knew it was an application of the infield fly rule, and still didn't bother to tag up before trying to advance, knowing full well that doing so would only result in them being doubled off? I don't think that's the case, and I think the fact that the umpires allowed the runners to advance is a silent admission of guilt on their part. Otherwise, the ball should've been thrown to second, the runner standing on third should've been called out, and the inning should've ended.

They advanced because the ball wasn't caught...they didn't have to tag up.

[Shea Zellweger]

They advanced because the ball wasn't caught...they didn't have to tag up.

I was told as an ump to treat an infield fly exactly like a fly out. Wouldn't that involve the need to tag up?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I was told as an ump to treat an infield fly exactly like a fly out. Wouldn't that involve the need to tag up?

I don't think so. The only player affected by the infield fly rule is the hitter-runner. He's out, thus the fielder can't create a double play opportunity by letting the ball drop. The fielders and base runners continue the play like they would any other fly ball and the ball remains live.

The runners take a short lead in case the ball is dropped, and if it's caught they have to tag up. If not, they can take their chances and try to advance.

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't think so. The only player affected by the infield fly rule is the hitter-runner. He's out, thus the fielder can't create a double play opportunity by letting the ball drop. The fielders and base runners continue the play like they would any other fly ball and the ball remains live.

The runners take a short lead in case the ball is dropped, and if it's caught they have to tag up. If not, they can take their chances and try to advance.

I just looked up the rule, and you're correct. It's a good thing this scenario never came up when I umped, because I would've gotten it wrong. I have to imagine that the Braves' manager was thinking something similar, otherwise I can't imagine what all the fuss was about...

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I just looked up the rule, and you're correct. It's a good thing this scenario never came up when I umped, because I would've gotten it wrong. I have to imagine that the Braves' manager was thinking something similar, otherwise I can't imagine what all the fuss was about...

Thanks Shea - you had me digging!

I do love the rare situations in baseball. It's such a perfect game that the little accommodations, like calling a hitter out while the ball is still in the air are fascinating to me.

[Doug Ward]

They advanced because the ball wasn't caught...they didn't have to tag up.

Scott has been right here all along. No runner ever has to tag up. You can run all day long on any fly - you will be out of course if they catch it. The infield fly is solely for the protection of the runners.
However, in this day of supershifts where the 2nd baseman is often in medium depth RF for power hitters - perhaps a rewrite is needed. Adam Dunn can hit a 260 ft fly ball that gets caught by a 2B. I do not think that was the original intent of the rule.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott has been right here all along. No runner ever has to tag up. You can run all day long on any fly - you will be out of course if they catch it. The infield fly is solely for the protection of the runners.
However, in this day of supershifts where the 2nd baseman is often in medium depth RF for power hitters - perhaps a rewrite is needed. Adam Dunn can hit a 260 ft fly ball that gets caught by a 2B. I do not think that was the original intent of the rule.

I think the measure has to be the distance at which a fielder could let the ball drop and reasonably hope to manufacture a double play. Since the base runners aren't able to leave base until the ball hits the ground it would be an ideal double play, much easier than one initiated by a ground ball to the third base side. It's 90 feet between bases, so maybe a rule of thumb of 90' beyond the base path?

[Michael Flowers]

I think the measure has to be the distance at which a fielder could let the ball drop and reasonably hope to manufacture a double play. Since the base runners aren't able to leave base until the ball hits the ground it would be an ideal double play, much easier than one initiated by a ground ball to the third base side. It's 90 feet between bases, so maybe a rule of thumb of 90' beyond the base path?

I would rather say 30 feet beyond the bases (usually at least 20 feet beyond the dirt of the infield at that point).

[Benjamin Burch]

I just looked up the rule, and you're correct. It's a good thing this scenario never came up when I umped, because I would've gotten it wrong. I have to imagine that the Braves' manager was thinking something similar, otherwise I can't imagine what all the fuss was about...

The late call added to the confusion. Infield flies are routine flies. As such, they are almost always caught and such advances don't happen. When they aren't, they're in front of the fielder. This was an odd one in that the infielder let a routine ball drop behind him because he thought someone called him off, but no one was there.