Braves now playing under protest on IFF call

[mstaylor]

Well we certainly have lots of 'by the book' blues here. Tell y'all what, from now on you better start calling your strike zone by the book. No more one ball out or in that ball better get a piece of the plate or else. Any umpire who has been doing upper level ball knows that effective game management has a lot to do with making 'the expected call'.

Sure sometimes we have to make unpopular calls and then have to explain them to the coaches but that's part of being an umpire. You want to argue that we can't pick & choose what rules we enforce? Fine, go back to that strike zone again. Every pitch better catch some dish or you better ball it.

In the case of this IFF if Holbrook doesn't call it and the Cards manager comes out all he has to say is, "Too deep coach" and it's over. Chances are he wouldn't have to explain it at all. Everyone in the ballpark saw it was too deep , everyone except Holbrook who started a ****storm with his "technically correct" call. Good idea Sam!

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.

I didn't address it because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with this discussion. I have tried to very reasonably explain that on this play it was a good judgment call that met all the conditions. If you are presented with the exact same conditions and you don't call IFF, that's your judgment so not protestable.

This discussion was about did it meet the IFF conditions,yes. Was the play called correctly and were the mechanics correct? In both, yes. In your opinion the second two are no. That's fine, however nothing in your multible posts have furthered that claim.

We do make tough calls, unexpected calls and make participants mad, that is part of our job, this is what happened here. I don't get the statement about picking the rules we wish to enforce. Calling an IFF or not should be based on judgment.

[JaxRolo]

IMHO there is no further useful or learning/useful discussion/objectives on this subject/thread.

Time to close/dismiss/terminate/extinguish.

[AZump78]

I think a buddy of mine put it best: "I could argue either side of it. However, I would rather have to justify to a manager why I did NOT call IFF on this particular batted ball then have to justify to a manager why I DID call it."

Its that whole "SH*#ty end of the stick" thing....

[UMP45]

Sometimes there is no choice. Your hands get stinky because a coach or player doesn't understand the rule. :shrug:

[BillB1960]

Well we certainly have lots of 'by the book' blues here. Tell y'all what, from now on you better start calling your strike zone by the book. No more one ball out or in that ball better get a piece of the plate or else. Any umpire who has been doing upper level ball knows that effective game management has a lot to do with making 'the expected call'.

Sure sometimes we have to make unpopular calls and then have to explain them to the coaches but that's part of being an umpire. You want to argue that we can't pick & choose what rules we enforce? Fine, go back to that strike zone again. Every pitch better catch some dish or you better ball it.

In the case of this IFF if Holbrook doesn't call it and the Cards manager comes out all he has to say is, "Too deep coach" and it's over. Chances are he wouldn't have to explain it at all. Everyone in the ballpark saw it was too deep , everyone except Holbrook who started a ****storm with his "technically correct" call. Good idea Sam!

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.

I didn't address it because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with this discussion. I have tried to very reasonably explain that on this play it was a good judgment call that met all the conditions. If you are presented with the exact same conditions and you don't call IFF, that's your judgment so not protestable.

This discussion was about did it meet the IFF conditions,yes. Was the play called correctly and were the mechanics correct? In both, yes. In your opinion the second two are no. That's fine, however nothing in your multible posts have furthered that claim.

We do make tough calls, unexpected calls and make participants mad, that is part of our job, this is what happened here. I don't get the statement about picking the rules we wish to enforce. Calling an IFF or not should be based on judgment.

My point is that judgement not only includes what call to make but also whether or not to make a call. Just because a pitch meets all of the conditions of a strike doesn't mean we always call it a strike. Where in the definition of a strike does it say, "if caught by the catcher"? Just because a pitch meets the conditions of a ball doesn't mean we call it one. Where in the rulebook does it say, "unless judged as 'hittable' by the umpire"? If we can ignore the rulebook for those calls then why not for a questionable IFF as well?

[BRUMP]

Lock this thread please. Enough is enough.

[UMP45]

R.I.P. :Horse:

[BillB1960]

Look I'm sorry if I'm belaboring a point but no umpire on any forum or in person has answered my question. I'd like someone to step up and answer it. I figured since this forum has the most experienced umpires of any that I frequent I might be able to get a legitimate answer here.

[BRUMP]

Look I'm sorry if I'm belaboring a point but no umpire on any forum or in person has answered my question. I'd like someone to step up and answer it. I figured since this forum has the most experienced umpires of any that I frequent I might be able to get a legitimate answer here.

Bill the problem here is that two people have two different view points. IMO you are gettin answers you just dont agree with them which is ok, but at some point its time to let it go.

[mstaylor]

Look I'm sorry if I'm belaboring a point but no umpire on any forum or in person has answered my question. I'd like someone to step up and answer it. I figured since this forum has the most experienced umpires of any that I frequent I might be able to get a legitimate answer here.

I will not debate this any further. I have supported the call both because of letter of the law and spirit. You have disagreed, neither of us will change so the is no debate. You do not believe you would call it in your game, and that's fine but do it using the rules to explain it. I wouldn't have a problem calling, I actually already have so I know I would. Again no debate.

Nobody addressed your strike analogy because it is irrelevant to the discussion, as well as being uncomparable. I will answer it simply by saying that calling a strike zone is as much art as science and completely personalized. Everybody has their sense of perception. That is a completely different thread.

[johnnyg08]

My point is that judgement not only includes what call to make but also whether or not to make a call. Just because a pitch meets all of the conditions of a strike doesn't mean we always call it a strike. Where in the definition of a strike does it say, "if caught by the catcher"? Just because a pitch meets the conditions of a ball doesn't mean we call it one. Where in the rulebook does it say, "unless judged as 'hittable' by the umpire"? If we can ignore the rulebook for those calls then why not for a questionable IFF as well?

He does have a point fellas. But I think the thread has run its course.

The only thing I can say is that there are hundreds of pitches per game, and this call might happened a few times in a career.

[BillB1960]

Look I'm sorry if I'm belaboring a point but no umpire on any forum or in person has answered my question. I'd like someone to step up and answer it. I figured since this forum has the most experienced umpires of any that I frequent I might be able to get a legitimate answer here.

I will not debate this any further. I have supported the call both because of letter of the law and spirit. You have disagreed, neither of us will change so the is no debate. You do not believe you would call it in your game, and that's fine but do it using the rules to explain it. I wouldn't have a problem calling, I actually already have so I know I would. Again no debate.

Nobody addressed your strike analogy because it is irrelevant to the discussion, as well as being uncomparable. I will answer it simply by saying that calling a strike zone is as much art as science and completely personalized. Everybody has their sense of perception. That is a completely different thread.

Thanks for at least a semblance of an answer. I agree with the rest and think this thread just needs to be allowed to sink to the bottom.

Maybe I'll go start a thread titled: "When is it OK to ignore the rulebook?"

or...

maybe not. <_<

[mstaylor]

Actually if you search the board there are threads on FU calls, the strike zone, ignoring rules, all types of interesting threads. Feel free to start a thread.

[Mr Umpire]

My point is that judgement not only includes what call to make but also whether or not to make a call. Just because a pitch meets all of the conditions of a strike doesn't mean we always call it a strike. Where in the definition of a strike does it say, "if caught by the catcher"? Just because a pitch meets the conditions of a ball doesn't mean we call it one. Where in the rulebook does it say, "unless judged as 'hittable' by the umpire"? If we can ignore the rulebook for those calls then why not for a questionable IFF as well?

He does have a point fellas. But I think the thread has run its course.

The only thing I can say is that there are hundreds of pitches per game, and this call might happened a few times in a career.

I guess I see no point. I call it as I see it. I don't make an out call just b/c the defense looked good on the play. I don't call an out just b/c BR slid into 1B. I don't call a ball just b/c F2 dropped the ball. The only point is when these things happen, it makes the call more difficult to call. That is the only point I see but it does not sway the fact that "I call it as I see it" and my games go quite well for the most part. Sometimes, things happen and they don't.

Just b/c Gonzalez doesn't understand the rule doesn't make a difference. If his players would have gotten doubled up for some reason related to it, he'd be arguing "It should have been called" and probably protested that call. Or, if bases loaded, Matheny would have argued for it. Either way, it is a no-win situation. But, I'd rather get the call correct b/c the rule states it to be called that way than to not call it b/c I just felt to without any rule support and hope no one calls me on it.

[JaxRolo]

And it continues

[Mr Umpire]

And it continues

Yeah, but I wasn't responding to the other post. :fuel:

[mjr_2013]

At a plate meeting before a game this past weekend, I finished it off with an "Any questions?" and one coach piped in "yeah, what do you think of that infield fly this past weekend?"... I was a bit surprised by the question, and it caught me off guard. I was about to give the textbook, "Well, I would have to be there to tell for sure" BS, when the other coach cuts me off with "Terrible. In that situation, that deep. Never should have been called." At this point, I locked my lips tight and let the other respond with how he agreed.

It was close. I wanted to stand up for the ump sooo badly, but I'm proud of my self restraint...

[UMP45]

The coaches just told you they didn't know the rule.

[th3]

i got that question in ALL of my gomes over the weekend!

[Mr Umpire]

I got it too but I didn't end a plate meeting with "Any questions". This is exactly why I don't. Useless questions arise when asked.

It was a base coach in between innings.

[JaxRolo]

Been asked by many many people over the last few games

[BRUMP]

Been asked by many many people over the last few games

Same

[Jocko]

Paul Newberry - Associated Press (Atlanta)

...... MLB found itself embroiled in another postseason maelstrom over umpires-and renewed calls for increased use of instant replay-after a disputed infield fly call led to mayhem in the one game, winner take all playoff in Atlanta.

.......but the...game will long be remembered for a ruling by Sam Holbrook in the 8th inning (insert IFF play here).

The fans at Turner field went nuts, littering the field... Almost immediately...there were comparisons to NFL's referee debacle. Someone held up a hastily crafted sign :"Replacement Umps?"

Dale Murphy (former MVP [twitter post]) "Oh my. Not believing this. Calls an IFF when the ball is almost on the ground?"

Brandon McCarthy (A's F1) "One game elimination and a call like that is made? Inexcusable."

Daniel Hudson (Cardinals F1) "Wow. IFF on a 200 footer."

"I didn't know it was an IFF" said RP Jeremy Affeldt. "I don't know how an IFF is an IFF. I don't know where the line is dranw."**

Baseball's official Twitter site had this sentence in its profile, "We don't undertand the IFF rule either." Sure, it was someone's attempt at humor, but it was quickly zapped from the site.

This certainly wasn't the 1st time the Umps have been at the center of a call that might've gone the other way with instant replay, though Holbrook said he was 'absolutely sure' even after seeing the video."

** 80% of the players know 20% of the rules

Are all sportswriters/announcers complete idiots? Seriously considering writing Mr. Newberry an email addressing all the flaws in his commentary.

[BRUMP]

Are all sportswriters/announcers complete idiots? Seriously considering writing Mr. Newberry an email addressing all the flaws in his commentary.

Go for it. It wont be the first time youve pissed someone off and it definitly wont be the last.

[Jocko]

Are all sportswriters/announcers complete idiots? Seriously considering writing Mr. Newberry an email addressing all the flaws in his commentary.

Go for it. It wont be the first time youve pissed someone off and it definitly wont be the last.

damn skippy!!! :stir