Not just in Little League™

[maven]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v578639583

[stkjock]

I saw that live.  The wind around here was nutty yesterday.  

 

The runner commented today that he never heard the IFF call, forget that at least one umpire did manually signal (no viewable in the clip) and the base coach was talking to him, so he missed it.  

[Richvee]

Kieth Hernandez..."He needs to pull that turtleneck up over his face...cover it up"

[stkjock]

Same runner goofed today with a ground ball to third when he was on third, should have score, not heads up. 

[Rich Ives]

Didn't see "ordinary effort".

[ricka56]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

Didn't see "ordinary effort".

Ordinary effort doesn't need to be actually given. Every MLB fielder could have caught that ball with ordinary effort. Still an MLB IFF.

If they don't call IFF here, it would have been a DP in the way that the IFF rule was designed to prevent. 

[Rich Ives]

14 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

Ordinary effort doesn't need to be actually given. Every MLB fielder could have caught that ball with ordinary effort. Still an MLB IFF.

If they don't call IFF here, it would have been a DP in the way that the IFF rule was designed to prevent. 

But a gold glove MLB fielder missed it. 

[Replacematt]

18 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

But a gold glove MLB fielder missed it. 

So?

[ricka56]

4 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

But a gold glove MLB fielder missed it. 

If the umpires didn't call IFF and the defense turned a DP, then the umpires would be the goats instead of R1.

The umpires can't wait to see if a gold glove F5 can shag a routine (albeit wind-blown) pop-up.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Didn't see "ordinary effort".

I did.  At all levels HS and above (at least).  IT was ordinary -- even if mis-judged /mis-guided.

[Kevin_K]

7 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

But a gold glove MLB fielder missed it. 

You, of all people, should know the definition of an infield fly is one that can be caught with ordinary effort rather than ought to be.

[scrounge]

9 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Didn't see "ordinary effort".

Seriously? It's not like Wright was chasing a dying quail and barely got there. That was absolutely ordinary effort, even in a JV game. He just extraordinarily flubbed it. Probably wouldn't misplay that the next 999 times...but he did this time. That has no bearing on the plain and obviously seen fact that this was an easy IFF call. And everyone knew it.

[Rich Ives]

My conclusion is that none of you have ever tried to catch a gusty wind-blown high infield popup. They dance and move in the air unpredictably. On a really windy day it is in no way ordinary effort.

 

[basejester]

6 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

My conclusion is that none of you have ever tried to catch a gusty wind-blown high infield popup. They dance and move in the air unpredictably. On a really windy day it is in no way ordinary effort.

 

Trolling.

 

[maven]

14 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

My conclusion is that none of you have ever tried to catch a gusty wind-blown high infield popup. They dance and move in the air unpredictably. On a really windy day it is in no way ordinary effort.

 

I do make allowance for a windy day, as "ordinary effort" to catch that ball can raise the bar higher than the ability level of some amateur infielders. But I do so cautiously and seldom, as it undermines the purpose of the IFF rule in protecting the offense.

IMO — which counts for nothing in MLB — an allowance for wind does not raise the bar of "ordinary effort" higher than the ability level of pro infielders.

[Rich Ives]

25 minutes ago, basejester said:

Trolling.

 

Nope. Facting.

[maineump]

4 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

My conclusion is that none of you have ever tried to catch a gusty wind-blown high infield popup. They dance and move in the air unpredictably. On a really windy day it is in no way ordinary effort.

 

I have, I was a catcher and the ball does all kinds of cool things in the wind (especially for a catcher). IMO, the play in the video is an IFF and was just mis-played. Wind can be odd in some of the stadium designs, but this is his own park. he should understand what the wind is going to do.

Don't 'punish' the offence for s poorly played ball.

[ricka56]

13 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

My conclusion is that none of you have ever tried to catch a gusty wind-blown high infield popup. They dance and move in the air unpredictably. On a really windy day it is in no way ordinary effort.

I like pie.

[ElkOil]

15 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

My conclusion is that none of you have ever tried to catch a gusty wind-blown high infield popup. They dance and move in the air unpredictably. On a really windy day it is in no way ordinary effort.

 

So IFF shouldn't be in effect on days when the wind is blowing? Is that your suggestion to remedy this?

[noumpere]

In MLB, and in many levels below, any high ball that lands in the infield is "always" going to be determined to be an infield fly (assuming the runner configuration allows, etc.).  Only where the fielder needs to "chase" to get to the landing spot will there be some determination needed.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

So we have a IFF rule that has an "umpire judgement" aspect to it (is it ordinary effort?) Going through the responses the majority would use their judgement and say IFF batter out. ONE umpire, would not. It's HIS judgement so does that make him wrong?? I don't thinks so, However I also think his game will require a whole lot more paperwork when done due the ejection and game reports that will be required.

[basejester]

40 minutes ago, NovaScotiaBlue said:

So we have a IFF rule that has an "umpire judgement" aspect to it (is it ordinary effort?) Going through the responses the majority would use their judgement and say IFF batter out. ONE umpire, would not. It's HIS judgement so does that make him wrong??

The double play is the result of R1 not paying attention or not understanding the rule.  The point of the original post is, "Ha, ha.  This player screwed up."  Even if you disagree with the umpire's judgment on the field, it's obviously a situation in which an IFF could be called.  It's not like the runner thought, "Well, it's windy, so in my judgment it will clearly require more than ordinary effort to catch.  I don't need to bother looking at the umpires."  No, he just screwed up.

So when Ives turns this around and makes the thread about how the umpire made a mistake (He didn't.), the fact that in this particular instance the ball was not caught should be considered (It shouldn't.), and no one else was ever a player in this situation (absurd), it's pretty hard to take seriously.  It's just a jab back at umpires to get a reaction. 

[ZebraStripes]

On 4/10/2016 at 9:51 AM, Rich Ives said:

My conclusion is that none of you have ever tried to catch a gusty wind-blown high infield popup. They dance and move in the air unpredictably. On a really windy day it is in no way ordinary effort.

 

you would be wrong, and is is still an IFF at the High School or above level every time.

[ricka56]

1 hour ago, NovaScotiaBlue said:

So we have a IFF rule that has an "umpire judgement" aspect to it (is it ordinary effort?) Going through the responses the majority would use their judgement and say IFF batter out. ONE umpire, would not. It's HIS judgement so does that make him wrong?? I don't thinks so, However I also think his game will require a whole lot more paperwork when done due the ejection and game reports that will be required.

We have one coach trying to stir the pot. He would argue either side depending whether he was on offense or defense.

While the IFR criteria is "ordinary effort" the reason to have the rule is to prevent a cheap DP. At this level, a cheap DP after the drop would be likely, so call IFF. At lower levels a DP may not be likely, so it becomes more of an umpire's judgement call.  

[ZebraStripes]

1 hour ago, NovaScotiaBlue said:

So we have a IFF rule that has an "umpire judgement" aspect to it (is it ordinary effort?) Going through the responses the majority would use their judgement and say IFF batter out. ONE umpire, would not. It's HIS judgement so does that make him wrong?? I don't thinks so, However I also think his game will require a whole lot more paperwork when done due the ejection and game reports that will be required.

Which umpire "would not"?  Ives is a coach.