Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Maineac

Orioles Triple Play vs. Red Sox

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, maven said:

I wasn't going to quibble with this statement, but Gil's site has a cool photo of something we seldom see in pro ball: a runner forced to advance put out while touching the base he was forced from:

jim-wolf-dp-tp.png

I had the tag well before that at the 0.11 mark.

Out.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

So here's a confounding variable for determining ordinary effort. Apparently a gusty night at Fenway late in the game.

fenway-winds.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to be clear...

The BR did run down to 1B but just didn't touch, which is why we see him returning from there in one of the shots?

Which umpire made this last out call? 

1U seems to shake his head "no" initially to the out at 1B, I'm guessing because because he can see (but we can't... yet) that the BR has passed the base and must have touched it.. entirely reasonable.

One of the other umpires had to have noticed the BR didn't touch and came in with info to get the call right... Im just curious which guy has the hero (besides 2U who was all over it from the jump). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Radie 88 said:

One of the other umpires had to have noticed the BR didn't touch and came in with info to get the call right... Im just curious which guy has the hero (besides 2U who was all over it from the jump). 

Given that after running down to first base, BR decided to go back to and enter the dugout, it might even be abandonment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gil said:

Given that after running down to first base, BR decided to go back to and enter the dugout, it might even be abandonment.

Yes. I figured this as a possibility too... Especially when the PU points into the dugout.

For this to happen though, we are assuming all umpires missed the no-touch at 1B? Which again, is entirely reasonable... In fact , in the moments before the camera picks up the BR in foul territory, the 1U most likely thinks the BR is heading to the 1B coach to hand him equipment so he can take his spot on 1B.

That first shot we have of the BR is likely the first spot the 1U realizes something is amiss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first instinct was IFF, and, though it's not fundamentally sound for the players to do so, it's evident to me that all three Red Sox players thought it was an IFF as well.  In reality, with IFF not called, if the Red Sox were being fundamentally sound with their base running and not making any assumptions, there's still a good chance you end up with a double play....and for sure one player is getting out on this play.

R2 should be off the base about 15-20 feet - anymore and he's getting tossed at second if the ball is caught.  R1 should be about half way.  Ball drops, if F6 throws to third they're only getting one.  If he throws to second they force out R1 and then get R2 in a rundown and likely get him too.   BR keeps his head out of his ass and stays on first base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gil said:

Given that after running down to first base, BR decided to go back to and enter the dugout, it might even be abandonment.

After the 3rd out is made at 1B, Bradley can be seen walking away, just behind the 1B coach;  he's nowhere near the dugout.  What puzzles me is why would a B/R go all the way up to 1B and not bother to touch it?  It's not as though he'd be creating a problem for R1 (Pedroia) by touching the base.  He must have assumed (incorrectly, since no signal was given) that the IFF had been called, but I don't see a case for abandonment.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right.

Let's say everybody here and their brother goes 50 50 on this call. Absolutely happy either way it is called.

Which side is it better to err and take crapola on.

Calling the infield fly and getting the guaranteed 1 out and no more.

Or, no call and the chance of having all runners be safe and no outs at all.

Or a very possible double play.

Or a weird triple play as happened here.

Or, the guaranteed 1 out by calling IFF, but the runners still making more outs when they see the ball fall to the ground and leave their bases and are tagged while off the bag.

 

So once again, if you had to err on one side or the other on this play, would it be to err on the IFF call or on the non call??? You are going to catch crapola either way.

 

 

And with the wizard = caught by an infielder (not average infielder as is now) with ordinary effort, , you might want to err on the side of an IFF or there are going to be a lot of double plays once he catches on to the more lenient interpretation. That running sideways and seeing most of the front number but not seeing the total back of the jersey like running directly towards the wall, was a guaranteed money in the bank catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

All right.

Let's say everybody here and their brother goes 50 50 on this call. Absolutely happy either way it is called.

Which side is it better to err and take crapola on.

Calling the infield fly and getting the guaranteed 1 out and no more.

Or, no call and the chance of having all runners be safe and no outs at all.

Or a very possible double play.

Or a weird triple play as happened here.

Or, the guaranteed 1 out by calling IFF, but the runners still making more outs when they see the ball fall to the ground and leave their bases and are tagged while off the bag.

 

So once again, if you had to err on one side or the other on this play, would it be to err on the IFF call or on the non call??? You are going to catch crapola either way.

 

 

And with the wizard = caught by an infielder (not average infielder as is now) with ordinary effort, , you might want to err on the side of an IFF or there are going to be a lot of double plays once he catches on to the more lenient interpretation. That running sideways and seeing most of the front number but not seeing the total back of the jersey like running directly towards the wall, was a guaranteed money in the bank catch.

I don't think an IFF situation is the time to be considering how much of a crapstorm we're going to get or how many outs will be recorded. Even though it's up to judgement, we have specific criteria for an IFF and we should judge it accordingly. Ordinary effort? IFF. Fielder who is struggling to find the ball and requires more than ordinary effort to get there? No IFF and let the cards fall where they may. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

And with the wizard = caught by an infielder (not average infielder as is now) with ordinary effort, , you might want to err on the side of an IFF or there are going to be a lot of double plays once he catches on to the more lenient interpretation

I get your point, and I'm inclined to agree for amateur ball.

For pro ball, the "when in doubt" is going to be reversed, because as a general rule they want the defense to make/earn all the outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With better base running, the worst they would have had was one out. Especially when IFF wasn't declared!  Which I agree with others, good no IFF call.  

 

Edited by Tborze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BrianC14 said:

After the 3rd out is made at 1B, Bradley can be seen walking away, just behind the 1B coach;  he's nowhere near the dugout.  What puzzles me is why would a B/R go all the way up to 1B and not bother to touch it?  It's not as though he'd be creating a problem for R1 (Pedroia) by touching the base.  He must have assumed (incorrectly, since no signal was given) that the IFF had been called, but I don't see a case for abandonment.  

This screenshot was taken about 10 seconds after the fielder touched first base. BR sure thought he was out and left the field because of it. The language of 5.09(b)(2) is "after touching first base, he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base." As the 3B Dugout is far away from said path, It would seem that 5.09(b)(2) fits the bill (not to mention that he left his base path to return to the dugout almost immediately after the fielder's tag of first base), assuming BR acquired first base and there was no appeal prior to his abandonment. If he didn't actually acquire first base, naturally, he's out on the tag.

Orioles_Turn_Triple_Play_on_Contested_Infield_Fly_No-Call___Close_Call_Sports___Umpire_Ejection_Fantasy_League.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little doubt that he thought he was out;  both baserunners were basically staying put, thinking IFF was going to be called.  Bradley gave up, for sure, but not touching first.   But 10 seconds after the touch of 1B by F3.... that's not hard to get the 1B side dugout in Fenway; it's a pretty short walk.   Regardless, he should have touched the base just out of habit, if nothing else.   Bad baserunning x3 for the Sox on that play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Stk004 said:

I don't think an IFF situation is the time to be considering how much of a crapstorm we're going to get or how many outs will be recorded. Even though it's up to judgement, we have specific criteria for an IFF and we should judge it accordingly. Ordinary effort? IFF. Fielder who is struggling to find the ball and requires more than ordinary effort to get there? No IFF and let the cards fall where they may. 

But it is.  Remembering the intent of the rule.  The wording and the interpretation is all fine and dandy and I have no fundamental problem with how the rule is defined, interpreted or called by most umpires.  "Ordinary effort" is as good language as any. But in the end the intent of the rule was to protect the runners, and so in that respect you should be cognizant of the crapstorm that could entail if the wrong call leads to a double/triple play when the runners are forced to advance.  If runners advance at their own peril and get into a triple play that's on them.

So, though it's not specifically outlined this way, my humble opinion is the umpire's real judgment should not be about ordinary effort, but more about the likelihood of this turning into a cheap double play.

I outlined it in another post - the third out is entirely on Bradley.  However, I think, even with sound base running, there's a very real chance of a double play on this uncaught fly ball.  And, more importantly, they're getting one out at the very least.  There's no way the Red Sox get out of this with no outs.  If they're going to get one anyway, and there's a realistic chance at two, call the IFF.

If ever given the choice, I'd rather have an IFF incorrectly called rather than incorrectly not called.   Even taken to the extreme - I'd rather have an IFF called at the warning track than one not called with F6 camped under a fly ball long enough that he can have a coffee and a smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

But it is.  Remembering the intent of the rule.  The wording and the interpretation is all fine and dandy and I have no fundamental problem with how the rule is defined, interpreted or called by most umpires.  "Ordinary effort" is as good language as any. But in the end the intent of the rule was to protect the runners, and so in that respect you should be cognizant of the crapstorm that could entail if the wrong call leads to a double/triple play when the runners are forced to advance.  If runners advance at their own peril and get into a triple play that's on them.

So, though it's not specifically outlined this way, my humble opinion is the umpire's real judgment should not be about ordinary effort, but more about the likelihood of this turning into a cheap double play.

I outlined it in another post - the third out is entirely on Bradley.  However, I think, even with sound base running, there's a very real chance of a double play on this uncaught fly ball.  And, more importantly, they're getting one out at the very least.  There's no way the Red Sox get out of this with no outs.  If they're going to get one anyway, and there's a realistic chance at two, call the IFF.

If ever given the choice, I'd rather have an IFF incorrectly called rather than incorrectly not called.   Even taken to the extreme - I'd rather have an IFF called at the warning track than one not called with F6 camped under a fly ball long enough that he can have a coffee and a smoke.

As an umpire, I would never blatantly defy the rule book in this fashion. Sometimes the offense just hits into double plays. Ground balls to the shortstop with R1 is an easy double play, and the offense put themselves in that situation. No different than this inbetweener fly ball. Yeah sure it would've been easier if F6 caught it, but he didn't. The offense didn't hit it well enough (or poorly enough I suppose) to get bailed out with the IFF. Stuff happens. I'm not out here to feel bad for the offense team and protect them by ignoring what the rules tell me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

my humble opinion is the umpire's real judgment should not be about ordinary effort, but more about the likelihood of this turning into a cheap double play.

So you want umpires to make a call based on what they think is likely to happen? I'll keep a deck of tarot cards in my ball bag, bust them out in a hurry, sit cross-legged behind home plate, deal the cards and tell my own fortune before making the IFF call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2017 at 10:24 PM, Stk004 said:

As an umpire, I would never blatantly defy the rule book in this fashion. Sometimes the offense just hits into double plays. Ground balls to the shortstop with R1 is an easy double play, and the offense put themselves in that situation. No different than this inbetweener fly ball. Yeah sure it would've been easier if F6 caught it, but he didn't. The offense didn't hit it well enough (or poorly enough I suppose) to get bailed out with the IFF. Stuff happens. I'm not out here to feel bad for the offense team and protect them by ignoring what the rules tell me. 

 

On 5/5/2017 at 11:35 PM, ElkOil said:

So you want umpires to make a call based on what they think is likely to happen? I'll keep a deck of tarot cards in my ball bag, bust them out in a hurry, sit cross-legged behind home plate, deal the cards and tell my own fortune before making the IFF call.

Aren't you, when deciding that a ball can be caught with ordinary effort, making a call based on what you think is likely to happen?  No tarot cards needed, just common sense.  If you can judge ordinary effort, you can judge what will probably happen if the ball drops.   When you are judging the ball to be caught with ordinary effort you are, by extension, judging that if the ball drops it will likely be an easy double/triple play.  That is what I mean.

The rule book means and says exactly what it means to say, except when it doesn't.

The IFF rule was written to prevent exactly what happened in that game (the first two outs...not the third bonehead out).  And a pro ball player can EASILY pull this off while making it seem unintentional.  If F6 was camped under this ball I doubt anyone would argue an IFF call.  It's pretty easy for F6 to not be camped but put himself in position to play the ball after it lands.  The higher the level of ball, the more often this play should be an IFF, because the easier it is let it drop accidentally on purpose, to pull off the double play.   

If you're not prepared to judge a potential double play, then be prepared to broaden your scope of "ordinary" effort....especially when the player(s) you are judging are extraordinary by nature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

Aren't you, when deciding that a ball can be caught with ordinary effort, making a call based on what you think is likely to happen?  No tarot cards needed, just common sense.  If you can judge ordinary effort, you can judge what will probably happen if the ball drops.   When you are judging the ball to be caught with ordinary effort you are, by extension, judging that if the ball drops it will likely be an easy double/triple play.  That is what I mean.

The rule book means and says exactly what it means to say, except when it doesn't.

The IFF rule was written to prevent exactly what happened in that game (the first two outs...not the third bonehead out).  And a pro ball player can EASILY pull this off while making it seem unintentional.  If F6 was camped under this ball I doubt anyone would argue an IFF call.  It's pretty easy for F6 to not be camped but put himself in position to play the ball after it lands.  The higher the level of ball, the more often this play should be an IFF, because the easier it is let it drop accidentally on purpose, to pull off the double play.   

If you're not prepared to judge a potential double play, then be prepared to broaden your scope of "ordinary" effort....especially when the player(s) you are judging are extraordinary by nature.

 

I see what you're saying. IFF doesn't require us to judge a potential double play, nor should it. It only requires us to see if the criteria are present to make the call. We can only judge and decide so much in the couple of seconds we have in such a situation. The rationale behind the rule doesn't need to be decided on the field -- the call only needs to be made. It seems like you're over-complicating an already complicated rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ElkOil said:

I see what you're saying. IFF doesn't require us to judge a potential double play, nor should it. It only requires us to see if the criteria are present to make the call. We can only judge and decide so much in the couple of seconds we have in such a situation. The rationale behind the rule doesn't need to be decided on the field -- the call only needs to be made. It seems like you're over-complicating an already complicated rule.

I also see what you're saying.  It's funny, but for me I think I'm simplifying it, but I'm seeing it as a player.  I see the two conditions intertwined and that I'm almost instinctively seeing them as the same thought process, concurrently.  I understand how they are separate, but in real time I don't see them that way.

I'm also giving the defender more credit than others will at not only the ability to think about being devious in real time, but also pulling it off, especially at the MLB level

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the J&R pg. 52: "A fly ball that meets all the requirements for an infield fly,but is not declared as such, is not an infield fly. Resulting action is allowed; however, the umpires should not allow a double play that the infield fly rule was intended to prevent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×