Braves now playing under protest on IFF call

[Jocko]

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

agree 100%. Just want to post it so naysayers will shut up

[johnnyg08]

agree 100%. Just want to post it so naysayers will shut up

Hunter posted correct call, people still think they're better than him. Jimmy will write, correct call, people will say he's wrong too. *sigh

[Jocko]

Hunter's people jumped right in and UE members dismissed it. Slap in the face.

[kylejt]

It's true that all the boxes were checked to make this call by the letter of the rule book. But at what, if any point, can we use common sense to trump that wording, and make a judgement on the intent of the rule, which we all know is to protect the offense from an easy double play.

Maybe we can't make that judgement at all, but I'm just wondering if it's possible.

[Mr Umpire]

Hunter's people jumped right in and UE members dismissed it. Slap in the face.

Not to downplay the post, I think it is correct and applies to every level and depth on the field. But, that may not be Hunter replying. Remember, he is an active MLB umpire, Evans isn't.

[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.

Still awaiting your official reference. Do you even HAVE MLBUM? (I don't)

You say you've been to pro clinics and camp after camp, but your lack of documentation on reference material speaks volumes.

The only 6 man "manual" I've seen is the one by Richard S. and even he says it's ad-hoc.

[Mr Umpire]

I think one thing that is being overlooked is the possibility of F7 coming in on the run and catching it on a bounce to throw to 3B. And, that would not change the fact that F6 still got to it with ordinary effort. If the runners were tagging instead of having a lead, this would very well be a "cheap DP". That is the main goal of the rule, right? It could have been done at this level and possibly HS, definitely college. Just b/c this one hit the ground and the runners had a "lead" does not change the concept or application of the rule.

[Jocko]

Hunter's people jumped right in and UE members dismissed it. Slap in the face.

Not to downplay the post, I think it is correct and applies to every level and depth on the field. But, that may not be Hunter replying. Remember, he is an active MLB umpire, Evans isn't.

agreed, that's why I said, "Hunter's people." Whomever it was (Tim?), is certainly speaking with the knowledge and solid standing with HW. Hunter wouldn't let someone speak under his name without 100% confidence.

[Mr Umpire]

Hunter's people jumped right in and UE members dismissed it. Slap in the face.

Not to downplay the post, I think it is correct and applies to every level and depth on the field. But, that may not be Hunter replying. Remember, he is an active MLB umpire, Evans isn't.

agreed, that's why I said, "Hunter's people." Whomever it was (Tim?), is certainly speaking with the knowledge and solid standing with HW. Hunter wouldn't let someone speak under his name without 100% confidence.

I wonder if this is why so many disregard their answer. I guess it takes someone who has been in front of a camera to answer before the answer counts.

[johnnyg08]

The intent of the rule is to protect the offense against a cheap double play.

That's not the only intent. Swapping runners is another big reason for the rule. Would you trade Prince Fielder for Austin Jackson on 2B? I would and it would be a big win for my defense.

[th3]

They will still argue. Fans = delusional.

some "umpires" = retards

agan?? its 2012 for christs sake

[BRUMP]

They will still argue. Fans = delusional.

some "umpires" = retards

agan?? its 2012 for christs sake

Guys although some may think little of it, this word is considered offensive by many. I recommend that we stop using this word to describe others or the actions of others.

[Mr Umpire]

They will still argue. Fans = delusional.

some "umpires" = retards

agan?? its 2012 for christs sake

Guys although some may think little of it, this word is considered offensive by many. I recommend that we stop using this word to describe others or the actions of others.

Yeah, but I am still sticking with Fans = delusional.

[Mr Umpire]

All I would say is for those who will not call this an IFR call, just make sure you defend the call with actual rule book support. Saying it is "too deep" or "that is not what I consider ordinary effort for this level" is protestable and should be rightfully upheld.

I know just about every rule in the book can be headed off with the word "judgment". Just make sure you are "judging" the correct thing according to the rules and not some made up excuse for not calling it by the rules.

[Jocko]

They will still argue. Fans = delusional.

some "umpires" = retards

for christs sake

Some will find this offensive as well.

My feelings are in my gear bag, where they belong

[basejester]

The intent of the rule is to protect the offense against a cheap double play.

That's not the only intent. Swapping runners is another big reason for the rule. Would you trade Prince Fielder for Austin Jackson on 2B? I would and it would be a big win for my defense.

Yeah, it really is the only intent.

Again, 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.

[mstaylor]

I really appreciate Hunter, or somebody from his school, posting to the thread. They are right, Holbrook was right and anybody that chooses to make that call is right. Now in the levels we work that probably isn't going to be ordinary effort simply because it won't be hit as high. If you don't judge OE then don't call it. Just remember OE is the reason to give the coach, not too deep or couldn't have made a cheap double play.

All I know is that of all the guys that I have talked to that I know work high levels and that I respect have agreed, good call.

[johnnyg08]

Again, 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.

There is, it's called the intentional drop.

[Umpire in Chief]

Again, 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.

There is, it's called the intentional drop.

Not to be confused with the intentionally uncaught ball. :stir

[noumpere]

agree 100%. Just want to post it so naysayers will shut up

Hunter posted correct call, people still think they're better than him. Jimmy will write, correct call, people will say he's wrong too. *sigh

Which post? and im not doubting you Im just to lazy to read through all 175 or whatever posts to try to find it lol.

[basejester]

There is, it's called the intentional drop.

It's not the same. The intentional drop rule ( 6.05(l) ) doesn't apply when the ball is untouched. The IFFR does.

[Mr Umpire]

There is, it's called the intentional drop.

It's not the same. The intentional drop rule ( 6.05(l) ) doesn't apply when the ball is untouched. The IFFR does.

But the IFR is designed to prevent this possibility. And, if an infielder can get to a fly ball with ordinary effort, this can happen. It is not deep enough to advance on a tag up but if the offense thought about it and no IFR was called, this could easily result in a DP, especially at MLB level and possibly college level. HS is iffy depending on the player but most outfielders will probably be taking the catch anyway.

From my post #159:

I think one thing that is being overlooked is the possibility of F7 coming in on the run and catching it on a bounce to throw to 3B. And, that would not change the fact that F6 still got to it with ordinary effort. If the runners were tagging instead of having a lead, this would very well be a "cheap DP". That is the main goal of the rule, right? It could have been done at this level and possibly HS, definitely college. Just b/c this one hit the ground and the runners had a "lead" does not change the concept or application of the rule.

[basejester]

There is, it's called the intentional drop.

It's not the same. The intentional drop rule ( 6.05(l) ) doesn't apply when the ball is untouched. The IFFR does.

But the IFR is designed to prevent this possibility.

That position implies it's an absolute SH*# design.

Imagine this exact fly ball trajectory in the OP with only a runner on first.

The fielders intentionally let the ball drop.

They throw out the speedy R1 who was tagging.

The IFR allows this.

If you wanted to design a rule to prevent the fielders from choosing which runner to retire, you'd make the rule in effect everytime there was a runner on first base.

I mean, are you saying that the intent of the rule is to prevent the fielders from choosing which runner to retire, but only (coincidentally) when a "cheap" double play situtation exists? That seems like a bizarre thing to intend. What part of the rule language gives you that idea?

[Mr Umpire]

There is, it's called the intentional drop.

It's not the same. The intentional drop rule ( 6.05(l) ) doesn't apply when the ball is untouched. The IFFR does.

But the IFR is designed to prevent this possibility.

That position implies it's an absolute SH*# design.

Imagine this exact fly ball trajectory in the OP with only a runner on first.

The fielders intentionally let the ball drop.

They throw out the speedy R1 who was tagging.

The IFR allows this.

If you wanted to design a rule to prevent the fielders from choosing which runner to retire, you'd make the rule in effect everytime there was a runner on first base.

I mean, are you saying that the intent of the rule is to prevent the fielders from choosing which runner to retire, but only (coincidentally) when a "cheap" double play situtation exists? That seems like a bizarre thing to intend. What part of the rule language gives you that idea?

No, I think you misread the first paragraph. I was referring to the example I gave. Not the intentional dropped ball. My fault.

[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.