Braves now playing under protest on IFF call

[Jocko]

Here are the undisputable facts

1) Force at 3B with >2 outs (sets the IFF scenario)

2) F6 was under the ball facing the infield

3) F6 raised both arms as if to call off other defenders (camps)

4) F6 could have easily caught the ball

5) Holbrook, seeing 1-5 are met, signals IFF (i.e. immediately when they are met)

6) The rule has no provision for judgement on possible DP

Like it or not, Holbrook, the appropriate man to make the call, judged correctly.

Codify the rule to include possibile cheap DP?

The rule protects the OT. The umpires enforce the rules.

[Jocko]

IF is anyone's call. If you see it call it.

I'd like to see the discussion if U2, UR, or U1 make that call. Youd be sayin it wasn't their call. And you'd be correct.

[BillB1960]

Here are the undisputable facts

1) Force at 3B with >2 outs (sets the IFF scenario)

2) F6 was under the ball facing the infield

3) F6 raised both arms as if to call off other defenders (camps)

4) F6 could have easily caught the ball

5) Holbrook, seeing 1-5 are met, signals IFF (i.e. immediately when they are met)

6) The rule has no provision for judgement on possible DP

Like it or not, Holbrook, the appropriate man to make the call, judged correctly.

Codify the rule to include possibile cheap DP?

The rule protects the OT. The umpires enforce the rules.

Using technicalities to support poor judgement and bad mechanics is not a good practice IMO.

[Jocko]

Here are the undisputable facts

1) Force at 3B with >2 outs (sets the IFF scenario)

2) F6 was under the ball facing the infield

3) F6 raised both arms as if to call off other defenders (camps)

4) F6 could have easily caught the ball

5) Holbrook, seeing 1-5 are met, signals IFF (i.e. immediately when they are met)

6) The rule has no provision for judgement on possible DP

Like it or not, Holbrook, the appropriate man to make the call, judged correctly.

Codify the rule to include possibile cheap DP?

The rule protects the OT. The umpires enforce the rules.

Using technicalities to support poor judgement and bad mechanics is not a good practice IMO.

technicalities??? It's the rule IN BLACK AND WHITE.

Your opinion $3.59 will get you a gallon of gas. Facts are facts.

[BillB1960]

IF is anyone's call. If you see it call it.

I'd like to see the discussion if U2, UR, or U1 make that call. Youd be sayin it wasn't their call. And you'd be correct.

I don't know how that particular crew 'pregamed' that game but normally in 6 man mechanics the left and right field umpires never make infield calls including IFF.

[Jocko]

IF is anyone's call. If you see it call it.

I'd like to see the discussion if U2, UR, or U1 make that call. Youd be sayin it wasn't their call. And you'd be correct.

I don't know how that particular crew 'pregamed' that game but normally in 6 man mechanics the left and right field umpires never make infield calls including IFF.

MLBUM reference, please

[BillB1960]

Here are the undisputable facts

1) Force at 3B with >2 outs (sets the IFF scenario)

2) F6 was under the ball facing the infield

3) F6 raised both arms as if to call off other defenders (camps)

4) F6 could have easily caught the ball

5) Holbrook, seeing 1-5 are met, signals IFF (i.e. immediately when they are met)

6) The rule has no provision for judgement on possible DP

Like it or not, Holbrook, the appropriate man to make the call, judged correctly.

Codify the rule to include possibile cheap DP?

The rule protects the OT. The umpires enforce the rules.

Using technicalities to support poor judgement and bad mechanics is not a good practice IMO.

technicalities??? It's the rule IN BLACK AND WHITE.

Your opinion $3.59 will get you a gallon of gas. Facts are facts.

And technically by rule an umpire can take any position on the field to call balls & strikes. You want to start seeing balls & strikes called from behind the mound? Technically he may have been correct but Holbrook had bad mechanics and poor judgement.

[Jocko]

Here are the undisputable facts

1) Force at 3B with >2 outs (sets the IFF scenario)

2) F6 was under the ball facing the infield

3) F6 raised both arms as if to call off other defenders (camps)

4) F6 could have easily caught the ball

5) Holbrook, seeing 1-5 are met, signals IFF (i.e. immediately when they are met)

6) The rule has no provision for judgement on possible DP

Like it or not, Holbrook, the appropriate man to make the call, judged correctly.

Codify the rule to include possibile cheap DP?

The rule protects the OT. The umpires enforce the rules.

Using technicalities to support poor judgement and bad mechanics is not a good practice IMO.

technicalities??? It's the rule IN BLACK AND WHITE.

Your opinion $3.59 will get you a gallon of gas. Facts are facts.

And technically by rule an umpire can take any position on the field to call balls & strikes. You want to start seeing balls & strikes called from behind the mound? Technically he may have been correct but Holbrook had bad mechanics and poor judgement.

Just curious. What exactly are you basing your thoughts on? What part of the call was "bad machanics and bad judgement?"

[BillB1960]

Just curious. What exactly are you basing your thoughts on? What part of the call was "bad machanics and bad judgement?"

When I have an IFF situation I track the ball to the apex and then glance at the fielder. If I have a fielder who is settling or settled under the ball then I make the IFF call as the ball begins to descend. If I still have a fielder running hard then I don't have IFF because I don't have ordinary effort and I sure as hell don't call IFF when the ball's a foot from the glove. I realize that 'ordinary effort' is different from level to level but even at MLB level that was questionable for 'ordinary effort' and it was way deep for an IFF in the first place. Holbrook waited too long i.e. bad mechanics and made a poor judgement call on depth and ordinary effort.

[Jocko]

If F6 is camped, how is that not normal effort?

Show me the word "depth" in the rule, or any reference to location of where the ball is caught.

Do I agree with the call? Absolutely

Would I personally have called it? No.

But I'm at home watching the game in hi def.

Holbrook is making $200K and seeing it live

Big difference

[BillB1960]

If F6 is camped, how is that not normal effort?

Show me the word "depth" in the rule, or any reference to location of where the ball is caught.

Do I agree with the call? Absolutely

Would I personally have called it? No.

But I'm at home watching the game in hi def.

Holbrook is making $200K and seeing it live

Big difference

Holbrook's salary has no bearing on the situation.

For me F6 wasn't camped. I realize the rule says nothing about depth but there are lots of rules that get interpreted differently than they're printed in the book.

I'm glad you said you wouldn't make that call because I wouldn't either . Neither did any of the other 5 umpires on the field which is exactly what makes Holbrook's call so egregious.

ETA: Oh and just for the record I'm neither a StL or ATL fan so I could care less who won.

[Jocko]

:banghead: :banghead:

U3 mirrored the call. UL had the catch/no catch, and all calls associated with the ball on the play. Thats why noone else called it. The crew stuck with the call, because it was correct. They could have retroactively placed BR at 1B, but they agreed to a man the call was right.

Think what you want. You're going to anyway. Just seems funny you're a minority of 1.

[BillB1960]

:banghead:

U3 mirrored the call. UL had the catch/no catch, and all calls associated with the ball on the play. Thats why noone else called it. The crew stuck with the call, because it was correct. They could have retroactively placed BR at 1B, but they agreed to a man the call was right.

Think what you want. You're going to anyway. Just seems funny you're a minority of 1.

He has to mirror the call. Do you not mirror your partner's IFF calls? According to the video there were at least 4 umpires watching that ball and any of them could have called IFF. Only Holbrook did and he was wrong despite being technically right. I don't have a MLBUM citation but I have done 6 man mechanics and the right and left field umpires were told specifically to not make any calls on the infield including IFF.

Being a minority doesn't matter to me, besides even you said you wouldn't make that call.

[Jocko]

I wouldn't make it. Doesn't make me right. He made it. Doesn't make him wrong. He's a lot more trained/qualified/experienced than I. If anyone should adapt, it should be me.

You are the minority arguing the call. When you're driving on a one way street, and there's a bunch of cars coming at you....

[Haid D' Salaami]

If Holbrook had to wait that long to make the IF call then it wasn't an IF because it's not 'ordinary effort' even at the level of MLB.

disagree

But the other 5 umpires at that game don't. Notice how even the 3B umpire didn't call it until after Holbrook signaled? I can only imagine him thinking, "I can't believe he did that!"

The 3rd BU didnt call it cause it wasn't in his area... maybe you should learn the catch no catch coverage area..

[Jocko]

If Holbrook had to wait that long to make the IF call then it wasn't an IF because it's not 'ordinary effort' even at the level of MLB.

disagree

But the other 5 umpires at that game don't. Notice how even the 3B umpire didn't call it until after Holbrook signaled? I can only imagine him thinking, "I can't believe he did that!"

The 3rd BU didnt call it cause it wasn't in his area... maybe you should learn the catch no catch coverage area..

. Though in most infield fly situations, the call is so obvious that IFF can be declared by the home plate or other infield umpire upon the ball reaching its apex, during STL-ATL, the ordinary effort consideration was not satisfied until the ball had begun its descent and had already exited the infield umpires' calling area. The left field umpire correctly made this call as the ball was in his calling area at the time when all considerations had been satisfied.

[UMP45]

If F6 is camped, how is that not normal effort?

Show me the word "depth" in the rule, or any reference to location of where the ball is caught.

Do I agree with the call? Absolutely

Would I personally have called it? No.

But I'm at home watching the game in hi def.

Holbrook is making $200K and seeing it live

Big difference

Holbrook's salary has no bearing on the situation.

For me F6 wasn't camped. I realize the rule says nothing about depth but there are lots of rules that get interpreted differently than they're printed in the book.

I'm glad you said you wouldn't make that call because I wouldn't either . Neither did any of the other 5 umpires on the field which is exactly what makes Holbrook's call so egregious.

ETA: Oh and just for the record I'm neither a StL or ATL fan so I could care less who won.

BillB1960= Fanboy!

[Jocko]

If F6 is camped, how is that not normal effort?

Show me the word "depth" in the rule, or any reference to location of where the ball is caught.

Do I agree with the call? Absolutely

Would I personally have called it? No.

But I'm at home watching the game in hi def.

Holbrook is making $200K and seeing it live

Big difference

Holbrook's salary has no bearing on the situation.

For me F6 wasn't camped. I realize the rule says nothing about depth but there are lots of rules that get interpreted differently than they're printed in the book.

I'm glad you said you wouldn't make that call because I wouldn't either . Neither did any of the other 5 umpires on the field which is exactly what makes Holbrook's call so egregious.

ETA: Oh and just for the record I'm neither a StL or ATL fan so I could care less who won.

BillB1960= Fanboy!

Fanboy likes to spout umpire responsibilities, but has zero reference. I'm not buying the gut instinct or I thinks.

[UmpJeff]

Ron Darling needs to keep his piehole shut. He always seems to say something stupid everytime he's on a broadcast crew. Always!

[Lindsay]

...Only Holbrook did and he was wrong despite being technically right...

That's good enough for me. Correct Call.

[Jocko]

...Only Holbrook did and he was wrong despite being technically right...

That's good enough for me. Correct Call.

isn't being technically correct the same as being correct?

[BRUMP]

...Only Holbrook did and he was wrong despite being technically right...

That's good enough for me. Correct Call.

isn't being technically correct the same as being correct?

Yep

[Lindsay]

MLB has posted video of Harold Reynolds' explanation of last night's call as heard on MLB Network:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25339817&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_25339817&v=3

[Mr Umpire]

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.

[Jocko]

MLB has posted video of Harold Reynolds' explanation of last night's call as heard on MLB Network:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25339817&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_25339817&v=3

anyone wanna disagree with the facts NOW???