Infield Fly Discussion on MLB Network

[Richvee]

1. I watch a lot of MLB network. Billy Ripken has a major disdain for umpires. NEVER has anything good to say about them. Add to that his rules knowledge is horrible.

2. I have always verbalized IFF and have always reenforced the out call of the batter runner when an IFF ball hits the ground. It's a great mechanic and it helps alleviate some problems when coaches start asking "what just happened" when their baserunners start running. 

3. I've emailed MLB network numerous times about hiring a "rules guru" to teach the public on some of these misunderstood and lesser known rules instead of having reporters and ex-players give the public false information or apply the wrong rules to situations. Of course, my emails have fallen on deaf ears. All I get is the "thank you for taking the time to email MLB...." form letter in return.

[noumpere]

Why? If all the most advanced umpires in the world when using the most advanced mechanics possible don't verbalize

I think your assumption here is wrong.

[zm1283]

I watch a ton of MLB Network too. Any network that employs Harold Reynolds to give analysis can't be taken too seriously. Harold's big crusade is runner's lane interference. He has a weekly tirade about it. Just last week someone got called out for it and it was a big point in the game. They had all the analysts on MLB Tonight on their little field in the studio and Harold explained that it's not possible for a left handed batter to bunt and then run in the lane because as soon as he bunts it he is out of the lane. (He never mentioned the fact that the lane doesn't start until the 45 foot mark so you have 45 feet to get into it) 

The funniest thing is that about two nights later, the Royals had a left handed batter that bunted and ran all the way to first in the runner's lane, and the opposing team threw the ball away into right field and a couple of runs scored. Kind of turned old Harold's argument on its head. 

[Jimurray]

I watch a ton of MLB Network too. Any network that employs Harold Reynolds to give analysis can't be taken too seriously. Harold's big crusade is runner's lane interference. He has a weekly tirade about it. Just last week someone got called out for it and it was a big point in the game. They had all the analysts on MLB Tonight on their little field in the studio and Harold explained that it's not possible for a left handed batter to bunt and then run in the lane because as soon as he bunts it he is out of the lane. (He never mentioned the fact that the lane doesn't start until the 45 foot mark so you have 45 feet to get into it) 

The funniest thing is that about two nights later, the Royals had a left handed batter that bunted and ran all the way to first in the runner's lane, and the opposing team threw the ball away into right field and a couple of runs scored. Kind of turned old Harold's argument on its head. 

I got the impression (not distinct) a few years back that Jim Evans thought that the running lane rule was an anachronism. If you think about it, any other base they have to throw around the runner. I call RLI when I have it. BUT it's not called consistently even in MLB although this year it seems to be called more consistently. I think the rule existed when the 1B was in foul territory. When they moved it fair the rule became an anachronism. Except it aint. 

Edited August 24, 2015 by Jimurray

[UMP45]

TOTALLY AGREE!  I've said that all along.  They need to cover the complete game.  Not just the players perspective.  If they had a "resident" umpire, it would increase the average fan's, and the damn MLB Network analyst's, baseball rules knowledge 10-fold.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Coaches, players, and fans DO NOT want to learn the rules. It's like how some umpires don't go to clinics. They don't want to be told they're wrong.