Mr Umpire

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports. What a crock argument. Is that how you defend your position? Talk about someone who has some interesting EJ reports. Making things up as you go.

I am only addressing the third paragraph, the rest of the quote is just senseless rant. If he doesn't call it he simply says, "Not ordinary effort." The depth is not a consideration in no shape or form. The depth may cause there not to be ordinary effort, here is not a case of it, but it would not be said to a manager because that is not what you are judging. This is part you don't seem to be grasping. Ten feet in the grass or fifty, the distance is not a consideration. The infielder's ability to get to it is and should be the only thing brought up in the discussion. Years of service means jack about knowledge, it is a argument I will not consider. I have been doing this for 37 yrs, have attended many clinics taught by some excellent pros, have spent years on the internet discussing rules and mechanics. None of that has squat to do with this discussion. We are discussing if Holbrook called an IFF properly. This is simply answered, yes. This has been confirmed by one of the pro schools, so in the long run that's the answer. I have made a similar call but normally we won't see that in our games because of lack of ability. If you think you won't, go for it, that's your judgement. What the guys here are trying to tell you is base that judgement on the correct criteria. Judging from most of your comments, it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems you are stuck on the depth of the ball which is irrelevant information, and the length of time it took to call it, again not relevant. Did he get there with ordinary effort, in this case yes, so how far out or how late has no place in the call. Of course you're going to dismiss it because you don't have an answer for it. I'm going to say this one last time: If you've ever balled a pitch in the strike zone because the catcher didn't glove it or called a strike on a pitch that you knew was off the plate then you've got no room to talk about how technically right this call was. Fact is if you've ever made a judgement call that was not "technically" 100% by the book then stop with the "It met all of the criteria therefore it was the right call". It was just another judgement call and that's why the protest was denied. In my opinion Holbrook made a piss poor judgement call just like we all have at 1 point or another since we've been umpires. Just because they're pros doesn't make them perfect as we all know. It was not poor judgment. Just poor execution on the defense. If F7 did get it on one bounce and threw to 3B and then went to 2B, there is a possibility of R1 being doubled up on a DP, especially if he thought about tagging up instead of going halfway to 2B. And, since the umpire does not have the luxury of "guessing how the offense is going to play it", he has to go with what is available and what the rule is in place for. Just b/c the defense screwed up the play does not mean the rule wasn't applied correctly both "technically" and "spiritually". The play met the criteria and the possibility of a DP makes this call correct in every sense of the rule. The rest of your rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with the call or discussion of the rule.

It's not the same. The intentional drop rule ( 6.05(l) ) doesn't apply when the ball is untouched. The IFFR does. But the IFR is designed to prevent this possibility. That position implies it's an absolute SH*# design. Imagine this exact fly ball trajectory in the OP with only a runner on first. The fielders intentionally let the ball drop. They throw out the speedy R1 who was tagging. The IFR allows this. If you wanted to design a rule to prevent the fielders from choosing which runner to retire, you'd make the rule in effect everytime there was a runner on first base. I mean, are you saying that the intent of the rule is to prevent the fielders from choosing which runner to retire, but only (coincidentally) when a "cheap" double play situtation exists? That seems like a bizarre thing to intend. What part of the rule language gives you that idea? No, I think you misread the first paragraph. I was referring to the example I gave. Not the intentional dropped ball. My fault.

It's not the same. The intentional drop rule ( 6.05(l) ) doesn't apply when the ball is untouched. The IFFR does. But the IFR is designed to prevent this possibility. And, if an infielder can get to a fly ball with ordinary effort, this can happen. It is not deep enough to advance on a tag up but if the offense thought about it and no IFR was called, this could easily result in a DP, especially at MLB level and possibly college level. HS is iffy depending on the player but most outfielders will probably be taking the catch anyway. From my post #159: I think one thing that is being overlooked is the possibility of F7 coming in on the run and catching it on a bounce to throw to 3B. And, that would not change the fact that F6 still got to it with ordinary effort. If the runners were tagging instead of having a lead, this would very well be a "cheap DP". That is the main goal of the rule, right? It could have been done at this level and possibly HS, definitely college. Just b/c this one hit the ground and the runners had a "lead" does not change the concept or application of the rule.

I think part of the problem is this useless thing called K-zone or whatever technology being used on TV. I'm betting the front office has heard too much complaining about "That was a strike and why didn't you call it?" Now, instead of making the F2 actually do a good job, just give it to them. They whine enough about everything else.

All I would say is for those who will not call this an IFR call, just make sure you defend the call with actual rule book support. Saying it is "too deep" or "that is not what I consider ordinary effort for this level" is protestable and should be rightfully upheld. I know just about every rule in the book can be headed off with the word "judgment". Just make sure you are "judging" the correct thing according to the rules and not some made up excuse for not calling it by the rules.

some "umpires" = retards agan?? its 2012 for christs sake Guys although some may think little of it, this word is considered offensive by many. I recommend that we stop using this word to describe others or the actions of others. Yeah, but I am still sticking with Fans = delusional.

I know I am late to this one. I see both sides of this. But, as they say, sometimes you just have to umpire. And, I will just leave it at that. I am not "flaming" one side or the other. Nor defending either side's thought on this. In situations like the "hijacking" concept, do what you can live with.

I'm gonna have to say TMI. Just don't post any pics.

Not to downplay the post, I think it is correct and applies to every level and depth on the field. But, that may not be Hunter replying. Remember, he is an active MLB umpire, Evans isn't. agreed, that's why I said, "Hunter's people." Whomever it was (Tim?), is certainly speaking with the knowledge and solid standing with HW. Hunter wouldn't let someone speak under his name without 100% confidence. I wonder if this is why so many disregard their answer. I guess it takes someone who has been in front of a camera to answer before the answer counts.

I think one thing that is being overlooked is the possibility of F7 coming in on the run and catching it on a bounce to throw to 3B. And, that would not change the fact that F6 still got to it with ordinary effort. If the runners were tagging instead of having a lead, this would very well be a "cheap DP". That is the main goal of the rule, right? It could have been done at this level and possibly HS, definitely college. Just b/c this one hit the ground and the runners had a "lead" does not change the concept or application of the rule.

Not to downplay the post, I think it is correct and applies to every level and depth on the field. But, that may not be Hunter replying. Remember, he is an active MLB umpire, Evans isn't.

This would have gotten a protest upheld. I had a coach ask why I didn't call an IFR during my game yesterday. All of the conditions were met except "ordinary effort". F3 was on a dead run and fell down to catch a "looping liner". As soon as I said "It was not ordinary effort", conversation was over. I was completely within the rules not to call it. Saying it was "Too deep" is not and should earn an upheld protest. You'd be better off saying no ordinary effort than it being too deep. That is just wrong and a misapplication of the rule. No one is saying you have to call if you don't judge it to be. But, the reasoning you are using is absolutely wrong. You have to call if the criteria is met. If you judge the criteria not to be met,fine. But, if you do, call it no matter where the ball is.

Only time will tell. If this doesn't work out, he can always try Chicago. He helped break one curse. Maybe he can do it again.

Yes, I will. And, I think if this same play developed and the umpire saw "ordinary effort", most, especially the ones saying the call was correct, WILL call IFR. Ah yes...20/20 hindsight, always valuable. It's not 20/20 hindsight. It's actually predicting the future.

I've never been a Harold Reynolds fan and I've seen and heard him make some real bonehead comments. Regardless of all the whiz bang bells and whistles and arrows and circles and cutesy graphics the fact is that the ball was deep and the call was late. In fact the ball was so deep that Sam Holbrook now has the distinction of calling the longest infield fly in the history of modern baseball. Good thing to have on your resume dontcha think? Depth has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing so why bring it up. The call was correct and that is the bottom line. The mechanics were correct so why bring that up. 14 years experience or 1 year experience 14 times? Sounds like the latter. Really? That old saw? You don't know me, you've never worked a game with me. You're just going to sit at your PC and take pot shots at me? So mature. If you're not calling this very easy one, then I have to wonder.

I've never been a Harold Reynolds fan and I've seen and heard him make some real bonehead comments. Regardless of all the whiz bang bells and whistles and arrows and circles and cutesy graphics the fact is that the ball was deep and the call was late. In fact the ball was so deep that Sam Holbrook now has the distinction of calling the longest infield fly in the history of modern baseball. Good thing to have on your resume dontcha think? Depth has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing so why bring it up. The call was correct and that is the bottom line. The mechanics were correct so why bring that up. 14 years experience or 1 year experience 14 times? Sounds like the latter.

Yes, I will. And, I think if this same play developed and the umpire saw "ordinary effort", most, especially the ones saying the call was correct, WILL call IFR.

Even though he uses some arbitrary methods to explain it, he got it right. And, oh look, since it was in U3's area to call in the Cub's game, he called it. This one was in U5's (?) area to call. And, oh look, he called it.

If this would have been changed, then it would have been protestable. It met the requirements and judged that way. As soon as the umpire says "There was no possibility of a DP", he just misapplied the rules and that is protestable. The Cardinals would have had a very good argument. Regardless of why the rule was made, it does not have the provision "unless there is no chance for a cheap DP". It only says where the runners are, where the ball has to be, how many outs there are, and if the ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. That was all met on this play. It was an IFR call and IMO, the correct call. How about the umpire says IFUd, it wasn't an infield fly. If I am reading your acronym correctly, then someone is getting EJ and the game will still be protested if changed.

If this would have been changed, then it would have been protestable. It met the requirements and judged that way. As soon as the umpire says "There was no possibility of a DP", he just misapplied the rules and that is protestable. The Cardinals would have had a very good argument. Regardless of why the rule was made, it does not have the provision "unless there is no chance for a cheap DP". It only says where the runners are, where the ball has to be, how many outs there are, and if the ball can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. That was all met on this play. It was an IFR call and IMO, the correct call.

As soon as F6 is drifting and slowing down to get under it while calling for it, I have ordinary effort for a 10 year old. This is ordinary effort for this F6. And, if I see a 10 year old doing the same thing and getting set up under the ball, it is IFR. This definitely IFR.

And you are replying why to continue the thread? :shakehead:

Warren just for this you should create a dislike button. No matter what you think of him. He knows his stuff. He had some insightful stuff to say in last year's broadcasts. Maybe you preferred Joe Morgan...... Hated Morgan too. To me bobby came off as cocky and arrogant. Or, maybe you would like to have He-who-shall-not-be-named? :notworthy:

In this spectrum, what level of helpfulnes is appropriate? "What do you want to do here?" "Do you want the result of the play, or the catcher's interference penalty?" "Do you want the result of the play, or the catcher's interference penalty? Remember, we have a balk ruling pending." "You have the option of taking the result of the play or the catcher's interference penalty, which is to award first base to the batter. If you take the result of the play, the balk penalty will be enforced after that, which will put the batter at bat and each of your runners advanced one base." Does the level of play affect your answer? Yes. Remember, we are not dealing with professional managers. These are amateurs who do not devote their lives to the game. Not even the former players who think they know something about the rules and are usually the worst attitudes. They think umpires should bow down to them. You can start with explaining it to the HC or simply enforce the 6.08( c ) and then go to him to explain his options. I would leave it at "Do you want the result of the play or do you want to the result of catcher's interference?" I would not break down how each will end up b/c he is suppose to know how the entire play occurred if he paid attention. For under 13 year olds, I may explain the part of a balk also being called. But not after that.