jimurrayalterego

Nice alliteration from our alliterative poster.

Yes, that's the play and I misremembered it being called and remembered the new comment the next year.

I'm confused. I thought @JSam21 confirmed your thought. There is no passing in the OP at 1B. Segueing to 3B I seem to recall passing being called when R3, in a rundown, overruns 3B toward the outfield to avoid 2 runners on the base when R2 had advanced to 3B.

The call was obvious. No need to mirror it. The clarity needs to come from what the coaches should have seen and their communication to the runners. But was that communication verbal or assistive at 1B? Not enough to judge.

Those conditions do not include the sun or natural darkness. To paraphrase an earlier PBUC interp, losing the ball above the lights in the dark sky is still ordinary effort. Another paraphrase from older PBUC is "when the infielder would ordinarily be able to catch it." Absent losing the ball in the sun F3 could have caught it as could have some MLB F1s and F2s. The purpose of the rule is to prevent an "undeserved DP". An undeserved DP did not happen here because of Cubs incompetence and Brewers alert baserunning. We dodged a bullet. If the Cubs covered and the Brewers runners hesitated with a DP happening would the umps call the IFF after the fact which is an allowable and suggested call when an undeserved DP resulted from a non call? Ordinary effort is not being camped under the ball at the apex. We have many calls where the infieder has to run/jog but does not have to catch it still in the act of running.

Need another angle but we might have had coach assist on R1.

IFF if fair called here: https://www.mlb.com/video/ramon-laureano-pops-out-to-first-baseman-vladimir-guerrero-jr-in-foul-ter?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share IFF called as F5 has ordinary effort to get there: https://www.mlb.com/video/josh-donaldson-pops-out-to-third-baseman-evan-longoria-on-the-infield-fly-rule?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share

“It could be wind, it could be the sun, could be just misjudging it, but we don't make that determination until it reaches the apex. That's why we wait." Larry needs to talk to the guys that affirmed the sun is not a factor in the 2021 MLBUM.

Since you asked for the rule it's in OBR Definitions: "A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball (not including hanging laces alone), while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove. It is not a tag, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his touching a base or touching a runner, the fielder drops the ball. In establishing the validity of the tag, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball. If the fielder has made a tag and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the tag, the tag shall be adjudged to have been made. For purposes of this definition any jewelry being worn by a player (e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.) shall not constitute a part of the player’s body." As an umpire you should aspire to reading the rules (over a long period of time) as opposed to thinking that listening to the guys training you will suffice. Knowledge of the rule wording allows you to use succinct answers to a coach's question or protest. In this case, "I didn't have him securely holding the ball, he immediately dropped it."

A popup in that location, depending on height would be ordinary effort for MLB F3s. This ball was foul and IFF if fair didn't seem to be called because it was obviously foul but it is an example of extraordinary effort by F1 but would have been ordinary effort by F3. https://www.mlb.com/video/denzer-guzman-pops-out-to-pitcher-aj-blubaugh-in-foul-territory?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share

Yes, if the Cubs had handled it correctly there would be at least one and maybe two outs and the no call would be much more controversial on the offensive side. But would those umps have used the no call in error interp and negate a DP?

MLB did not consider the sun to be part of the weather conditions back when Jaska-Roder interps were authoritive: "When determining ordinary effort, wind is a factor, sun in a fielder's eyes and natural darkness are not". We don't know if that's Lindsey's opinion or she has knowledge of an updated MLB interp.

The question is if the ball is in the air on what should be an IFF and the Cubs actually faked it can you call the IFF after the fact because you judged they faked it? But what if the cubs got a DP or TP on this one that was not faked but had two infielders that could have caught it with ordinary effort. Do you negate the DP/TP because the IFF was not called and should have been. That's been our guidance before. Luckily the Cubs totally screwed up.

The Cubs are not guilty of acting like nobody could find it to let it drop and get a DP or TP but F1 and F2 had a shot. But if you don't point IFF with a ball in that area because smart MLB players do a goatrope and want to let it drop to get a DP or TP do you then call IFF?

That's the last interp I have known. Per BRD, Jaska-Roder has wind as a factor but sun in a fielder's eyes is not.

From the Comment to the rule: "This rule is designed to require constant vigilance by the players and managers of both teams."

I get it now. So can ABS be up and running tomorrow?

I don't know you mean by E-Management but there should be some penalty for what happened at the dugout.

I argued in this Facebook post to no avail. The sycophants all said the second example was illegal. Whether that is actually being called in the real world games I don't know. https://www.facebook.com/groups/465162970169200/?multi_permalinks=3931889993496463&hoisted_section_header_type=recently_seen&__cft__[0]=AZUDRY95yyEy2qbW-BCrR7RxANY5ZrsAV_RnPLJFZK6BAsWMxjh--VIi5aM9_HwbEX9HXIeULk528JZp7ymDGMPGit53R0PR0H-H2lmSMWsmxFXVddbfOLDiTodjwfbEMetDQDwSvOwhZbM6wT3l6vj8qE3VddYVziNrcouNALbEWA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Manager did come out and batter did confront the ump. Reynolds let it slide. Could they get the technology going by tomorrow?

Oh well.

You need to ask them where the rule book restricts a pitcher's choice of delivery. No matter what the runner config, if a pitcher/game sit doesn't care if the runner steals he might prefer to deliver his best pitch from the windup. Do your guys balk a conventional windup pitcher who backward steps toward 2B with R2 there when the bases are loaded?

I'm getting the impression you seem to think they might have missed calling it after the pitch was delivered and the ball wasn't put into play. Just to be clear this is not a balk but if the MLB umps were to call a balk for some other reason it would be called immediately. What would be delayed would be the call of "time" depending on what happened.

Examples of square windup pitchers using stutter step to deliver sideways. Both legal in OBR. I don't know if Randy Bruns still has an issue with the forward stutter step in NCAA. In years past he was literally enforcing the wording of not taking a second step toward home which would make the black uniform pitcher illegal. Step Forward.MOV Step side.MOV

MLB will be along shortly to learn them. Meanwhile we effin idiots educate one little thread on a tree of threads on Facebook or Youtube where no poster ever reads the whole thread. Pissin in the wind.