Braves now playing under protest on IFF call

[UMP45]

jax andYoung why?

[kylejt]

Think of the reasoning behind rule, when making a ruling. By dropping a fly ball way out there, do you need to protect the runners from getting doubled up?

[umpschool]

A tremendous Infield Fly ruling by Sam Holbrook. The term "immediately" in the Infield Fly rules refers to the umpire calling the Infield Fly immediately when he sees it. They should not wait to see what happens with the base runners or the ball. It does not mean it should be called as soon as the ball is hit. This COULD have been caught with ordinary effort by the shortstop, and therefore, meets the requirements.

[BRUMP]

protest denied by MLB

[cyclonehokiece]

protest denied by MLB

Source (in writing): http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/05/braves-protest-immediately-denied-by-league-office/

[Lindsay]

Joe Torre denied the protest saying that Gonzalez, rather than protesting a rule interpretation, protested the judgment call. Indeed, Gonzalez is on record stating he protested the ruling of "ordinary effort." Charlie Manuel's protest of Joe West calling fan interference on instant replay in FL a few years ago (denied, BTW) was more valid than Gonzalez's protest, given that quote.

The whole issue of timing is a red herring because this was a straightforward play that ultimately only affected B1. "Immediately" may have come into play had a runner been put in jeopardy, but R2 and R1 both advanced without throws.

Call was obviously correct.

[TNCoach]

I can't complain much about the Atlanta fans... They usually can't even fill a stadium, now they are showing emotion. I kind of like that they are at least showing emotion even if it is negative.

[Jocko]

I can't complain much about the Atlanta fans... They usually can't even fill a stadium

not true

[cyclonehokiece]

I always thought ATL had a pretty loyal fan base.

[Mr Umpire]

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.

[JaxRolo]

jax andYoung why?

Because I was pulling for the Braves!!!!!

[BRUMP]

Joe Torre denied the protest saying that Gonzalez, rather than protesting a rule interpretation, protested the judgment call. Indeed, Gonzalez is on record stating he protested the ruling of "ordinary effort." Charlie Manuel's protest of Joe West calling fan interference on instant replay in FL a few years ago (denied, BTW) was more valid than Gonzalez's protest, given that quote.

The whole issue of timing is a red herring because this was a straightforward play that ultimately only affected B1. "Immediately" may have come into play had a runner been put in jeopardy, but R2 and R1 both advanced without throws.

Call was obviously correct.

this is a judgement call thats close im not sure you can rule it correct or incorrect becuase it is open to the judgement of the umpire

[johnnyg08]

Hmmm... Interesting note here... Looked up 6 man mechanics for S&G, and behold....

UR and UL never calls the Infield Fly Rule, balks, nor make any rulings on the batter or runners like obstruction or interference.

http://rvua.org/Webp...w mechanics.htm .

Wouldn't affect a protest I don't think, but still interesting.

They may have pre-gamed it differently though?

[johnnyg08]

A tremendous Infield Fly ruling by Sam Holbrook. The term "immediately" in the Infield Fly rules refers to the umpire calling the Infield Fly immediately when he sees it. They should not wait to see what happens with the base runners or the ball. It does not mean it should be called as soon as the ball is hit. This COULD have been caught with ordinary effort by the shortstop, and therefore, meets the requirements.

There you have it!

[johnnyg08]

From that clip there is no way that is IFF

IMHO

Please expand Jax

[mjr_2013]

A tremendous Infield Fly ruling by Sam Holbrook. The term "immediately" in the Infield Fly rules refers to the umpire calling the Infield Fly immediately when he sees it. They should not wait to see what happens with the base runners or the ball. It does not mean it should be called as soon as the ball is hit. This COULD have been caught with ordinary effort by the shortstop, and therefore, meets the requirements.

J/C, what is your belief on the LFU making the call? You said the call was correct, what about mechanics?

[Jimurray]

I can't see a cheap double play achieved from a ball hit to that location even if it was intentionally dropped. Maybe one out. The rule was designed to protect the offense from the cheap double play. I would have no problem with reversing the IF fly call and keeping the batter at 1B. Why the umps didn't reverse the call I don't know. They protected against a cheap DP and found that they didn't need to. They gave the offense an out they didn't deserve. While the IF fly call could be defended, I don't see why it couldn't be reversed. We have already seen a lot of other surprising reversed calls this season. Off to the BRD and Wendlestedt to see what they say. It was an infield fly till it wasn't. It could have been fixed.

[Mr Umpire]

I can't see a cheap double play achieved from a ball hit to that location even if it was intentionally dropped. Maybe one out. The rule was designed to protect the offense from the cheap double play. I would have no problem with reversing the IF fly call and keeping the batter at 1B. Why the umps didn't reverse the call I don't know. They protected against a cheap DP and found that they didn't need to. They gave the offense an out they didn't deserve. While the IF fly call could be defended, I don't see why it couldn't be reversed. We have already seen a lot of other surprising reversed calls this season. Off to the BRD and Wendlestedt to see what they say. It was an infield fly till it wasn't. It could have been fixed.

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.

[Jocko]

I can't see a cheap double play achieved from a ball hit to that location even if it was intentionally dropped. Maybe one out. The rule was designed to protect the offense from the cheap double play. I would have no problem with reversing the IF fly call and keeping the batter at 1B. Why the umps didn't reverse the call I don't know. They protected against a cheap DP and found that they didn't need to. They gave the offense an out they didn't deserve. While the IF fly call could be defended, I don't see why it couldn't be reversed. We have already seen a lot of other surprising reversed calls this season. Off to the BRD and Wendlestedt to see what they say. It was an infield fly till it wasn't. It could have been fixed.

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.

yep

[Jocko]

I can't see a cheap double play achieved from a ball hit to that location even if it was intentionally dropped. Maybe one out. The rule was designed to protect the offense from the cheap double play. I would have no problem with reversing the IF fly call and keeping the batter at 1B. Why the umps didn't reverse the call I don't know. They protected against a cheap DP and found that they didn't need to. They gave the offense an out they didn't deserve. While the IF fly call could be defended, I don't see why it couldn't be reversed. We have already seen a lot of other surprising reversed calls this season. Off to the BRD and Wendlestedt to see what they say. It was an infield fly till it wasn't. It could have been fixed.

nothing to fix

[Jimurray]

I can't see a cheap double play achieved from a ball hit to that location even if it was intentionally dropped. Maybe one out. The rule was designed to protect the offense from the cheap double play. I would have no problem with reversing the IF fly call and keeping the batter at 1B. Why the umps didn't reverse the call I don't know. They protected against a cheap DP and found that they didn't need to. They gave the offense an out they didn't deserve. While the IF fly call could be defended, I don't see why it couldn't be reversed. We have already seen a lot of other surprising reversed calls this season. Off to the BRD and Wendlestedt to see what they say. It was an infield fly till it wasn't. It could have been fixed.

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.

[Mr Umpire]

I can't see a cheap double play achieved from a ball hit to that location even if it was intentionally dropped. Maybe one out. The rule was designed to protect the offense from the cheap double play. I would have no problem with reversing the IF fly call and keeping the batter at 1B. Why the umps didn't reverse the call I don't know. They protected against a cheap DP and found that they didn't need to. They gave the offense an out they didn't deserve. While the IF fly call could be defended, I don't see why it couldn't be reversed. We have already seen a lot of other surprising reversed calls this season. Off to the BRD and Wendlestedt to see what they say. It was an infield fly till it wasn't. It could have been fixed.

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.

[Jocko]

Hmmm... Interesting note here... Looked up 6 man mechanics for S&G, and behold....

UR and UL never calls the Infield Fly Rule, balks, nor make any rulings on the batter or runners like obstruction or interference.

http://rvua.org/Webpages/Basic%20simple%20Four%20&%20Six-Man%20crew%20mechanics.htm .

Wouldn't affect a protest I don't think, but still interesting.

Here's what Richard had to say about his "manual"

Those 3, 4 and 6 Man MechanicsdocumentsI postedon my association's website are not professional mechanics so they should to be taken an "official" mechanics manual. These are BASIC simplifiedversions of the 3, 4 and 6 man systems I put there for the convenience of our members (and anyone else who happens to read them) as a quick cheat sheet for umpires who have never work beyond the 2 man systems. I got some panicked phone calls about 6 years ago when our some of the guys in our association were asked to work tournaments using 4 man crews and they had no idea how to do it. It started out as an email to them which eventually wrote up into these "lite versions" of the 3, 4 and 6 man systems that I posted.

I have no idea what the MLB manual has there for the outfield umpire's responsibilities

[mstaylor]

They could have reversed the call if there was something to fix but it was correct. Three absolutely horrible throwing errors and stranding runners were the problems in that game, one IFF had nothing to do with that. The fans acting like morons didn't help.

[Haid D' Salaami]

Just announced. Interesting mechanic to do it, hope someone can get the video. Normal wave at press box, draw P, point at Braves dugout.

I don't understand why it is a interesting mechanic? Since that is how you do it.