Braves now playing under protest on IFF call

[JaxRolo]

Seems like like lately when someone disagrees with someone else then all of a sudden one of them is untrainable and doesn't want to learn.

I for one didn't agree with the call when I first saw it. After re-watching it I believe the call was correct but I wouldn't call it.

IMHO maybe somebody will respect it. If not making this call makes me a bad umpire, so be it.

[Minnz]

There have been some solid points as usual in this group posting. I have one issue. Everyone is talking how the rule says to call it immediately. You are leaving out something...it says "he umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners." Nothing about when you see it or when someone gets camped under it or calls for it.

If you call the IFF when the fielder calls for it...who is to say the fielder is just calling for it without even seeing it, trying to make it look like he easily has it. A smart fielder uses calling the ball on tough ones to hold the runners at bay sometimes.

DId he call it late? YES

Were any runners in jeaopardy? NO

Now if a double play had happened and the lateness of the call hurt the runners, now we may have an interesting rules protest to actually consider. We do not since runners advanced safely.

Right or wrong on the call I just wanted to add the immediate reference is often being used wrong is these and so many other talks.

[UmpTTS43]

I can understand the thought process of some not making that call. Some don't call balks, some don't call check swings from the inside. Whether or not a particular umpire would or would not have called it is not the point. The fact is that was a correct call. We don't get paid to make the expected call. We get paid to make the tough calls at all costs.

[Guest]

One thing to add here:

The IFF is designed to prevent the defence from gaining an advantage. This advantage is commonly believed to only be the cheap double play, since 99% of the time that would result from not calling an IFF. However, has the thought occurred to anyone that if the IFF isn't called and you can't, for whatever reason, get the cheap DP, you can at least manipulate the base runners to your advantage?

Example:

R2 is the fastest runner in the league. R1 is the slowest runner in the league. The batter is the 2nd slowest. For the point of my example, Holbrook does not call IFF and the infielder immediately recovers the ball and throws out R2 at 3B. You have now allowed a more advantagous out and eliminated a base running threat from scoring position.

Another reason why none of the external factors matter and Sam got this one right. Sometimes, you gotta have the balls to make the tough calls.

I like this post a lot!

Thanks for the nod, and thanks for quoting it so it didn't get buried in this ridiculous flame war.

[basejester]

One thing to add here:

The IFF is designed to prevent the defence from gaining an advantage. This advantage is commonly believed to only be the cheap double play, since 99% of the time that would result from not calling an IFF. However, has the thought occurred to anyone that if the IFF isn't called and you can't, for whatever reason, get the cheap DP, you can at least manipulate the base runners to your advantage?

The IFFR isn't designed to prevent the defense from selecting the best runner for them to put out, or else it would be in effect every time there was a runner on first. The advantage it's designed to prevent is exactly as is commonly believed.

If the umpire fails to call it when he should have, yes, it can have the effect you're describing. I don't think that tells us anything about whether or not it should have been called.

Example:

R2 is the fastest runner in the league. R1 is the slowest runner in the league. The batter is the 2nd slowest. For the point of my example, Holbrook does not call IFF and the infielder immediately recovers the ball and throws out R2 at 3B. You have now allowed a more advantagous out and eliminated a base running threat from scoring position.

Another reason why none of the external factors matter and Sam got this one right. Sometimes, you gotta have the balls to make the tough calls.

The argument for his call is that he objectively followed the literal words of the rule. I don't think there is another reason.

[basejester]

Are there any interesting cases that test the limits of "stations himself in the infield"? I mean, the shortstop playing a step into the grass surely still counts as an infielder. But how far is too far? How close is close enough?

[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!

[mstaylor]

Obviously you disagree with what he called but it was correct. It was lower than normal but it wasn't horrendously late. Once the SS signaled that he had it, the IFF was called. Is a similar play likely to happen in a youth game, probably not because the skill level is not there. I had a similar IFF in a varsity game. It was to right field, the F4 went way out, turned and called it. The IFF was called and then the F9 called him off and caught it. Not a word was spoken. There wouldn't have been here either except it was an one game play-off with the home team getting beat and playing like crap.

[mstaylor]

I have never been a Reynolds fan either. He has made some of the most clueless statements second only to He-who-shall-not-be-named, but he got this one right. I was shocked to be honest but it also showed that the ball was way higher than you are contending. You are entitled tour opinion, you can not call it in your games, your judgement. But just make sure you are doing it for the right reason, not because of depth in the outfield or where the height is. While you don't want to call it too early, too late isn't really a consideration.

[Jocko]

If F6 or F7 had caught the damn ball, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Noone is saying a word about the sh*tty defense. Catch the f***ing ball, dumbass! Earn your millions!

[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.

[Replacematt]

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. No he certainly doesn't have to make the call immediately after the ball is hit but he'd better be signaling as it starts to descend and he was way late. Torre was right to deny the protest because it was a judgement call but it was still poor judgement.

You do that if I'm evaluating you and you will get dinged. You can call IFF too early. It's hard to call it too late.

[UMP45]

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!

Has a tinge of "sour grapes"!

[UMP45]

Jax you said you would't call it. Why? :wave:

[Jocko]

Jax you said you would't call it. Why?

I also would not have called it. It should be called, but my inexperience/lack of pro training would have let it go. I would probably think I had waited too long and the moment was gone.

I would be wrong, but that's the difference between me and Holbrook. Large gap.

[Mr Umpire]

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!

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.

[BillB1960]

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. No he certainly doesn't have to make the call immediately after the ball is hit but he'd better be signaling as it starts to descend and he was way late. Torre was right to deny the protest because it was a judgement call but it was still poor judgement.

You do that if I'm evaluating you and you will get dinged. You can call IFF too early. It's hard to call it too late.

You're wrong.

[Dannytheman]

I'm coming into this on page 8. I would not have called it. It was called and after watching various relays I see that it was a good call, but I do not have the privledge of seeing MLB player skills 162 times a year.

[johnnyg08]

I would not have called it.

Why not?

[johnnyg08]

but I do not have the privledge of seeing MLB player skills 162 times a year.

that's pretty weak...how many years have you been watching MLB baseball? You've seen thousands of plays by MLB players.

[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. No he certainly doesn't have to make the call immediately after the ball is hit but he'd better be signaling as it starts to descend and he was way late. Torre was right to deny the protest because it was a judgement call but it was still poor judgement.

You do that if I'm evaluating you and you will get dinged. You can call IFF too early. It's hard to call it too late.

You're wrong.

no he's not. IFF can be called retroactively. Egg on your face, but has been done.

[UMP45]

Jocko we are wasteing our time. BillB1960 hasn't gotten the "official" word from JEA! :eek:

[Jocko]

Jocko we are wasteing our time. BillB1960 hasn't gotten the "official" word from JEA!

I emailed Jimmy. Waiting for his response.

[johnnyg08]

I'll make it easy for you, he'll see correct call.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

I wish I new how to post a video. There is one on MLB.com featuring Harold Reynolds analyzing this play and he seems to provide visdeo proof that shows the correct call was made. Here is the link http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=25339817