Official Post Season Thread

bravesfanforlife88 said:
With replay now for line calls there is now no point in having line umpire IMO
Click to expand...

With modern technology a case could be made there is no longer a need for any umpires on the field at all. An automated strike zone with the players calling the rest of the plays backed up by a replay challenge system with in game penalties for incorrect calls would likely be better.
 
Last edited:
To be fair to Sam Holbrook (And by "to be fair", I mean he can go sodomize himself), the biggest problem with that situation isn't the call he made, but the wording of the infield fly rule itself. The "ordinary" effort clause leaves WAYYYYYY too much up to interpretation and it creates this situation where players of different skill are playing by different rules. Is the radius of an infield fly eligible pop up substantially larger for a guy like Andrelton Simmons than it would be for a guy like Miguel Sano, since Simmons can make far more difficult plays look "ordinary?"

I'm honestly shocked that they haven't changed the wording of that rule to incorporate more well defined language to avoid situations like 2012. Something I also don't understand is why players aren't taught from an early age that, with runners on 1st and 2nd with less than two outs, any medium-shallow pop up in the outfield should always be allowed to fall if the runners hold and no infielder should ever try to make the play unless the outfielder is unable to. You'd have to make a read or two in the middle of the play, but if you could execute effectively it could end up being a pretty easy double play ball, especially if it were hit to left field.
 
striker42 said:
What made that call worse was the fact that no one in baseball would admit it was a bad call. You had them all close ranks and say stuff like "A flyball to the warning track could still be an infield fly." It was insulting. If Holbrook had just come out after the game and said "I kicked that call" and Torre had said "It was the wrong decision but it's a judgment call that can't be reversed" I'd feel better.

Also, Holbrook was a line judge. His only function out there was have another pair of eyes on whether a ball was fair or foul. He shouldn't have been making any other calls.
Click to expand...

I remember the Braves announcing they were going to play the game under protest, but Torre wouldn’t allow it because “we have no time to make up the game” or something to that effect.
 
BeanieAntics said:
To be fair to Sam Holbrook (And by "to be fair", I mean he can go sodomize himself), the biggest problem with that situation isn't the call he made, but the wording of the infield fly rule itself. The "ordinary" effort clause leaves WAYYYYYY too much up to interpretation and it creates this situation where players of different skill are playing by different rules. Is the radius of an infield fly eligible pop up substantially larger for a guy like Andrelton Simmons than it would be for a guy like Miguel Sano, since Simmons can make far more difficult plays look "ordinary?"

I'm honestly shocked that they haven't changed the wording of that rule to incorporate more well defined language to avoid situations like 2012. Something I also don't understand is why players aren't taught from an early age that, with runners on 1st and 2nd with less than two outs, any medium-shallow pop up in the outfield should always be allowed to fall if the runners hold and no infielder should ever try to make the play unless the outfielder is unable to. You'd have to make a read or two in the middle of the play, but if you could execute effectively it could end up being a pretty easy double play ball, especially if it were hit to left field.
Click to expand...

Looked up the wording and the rule states that an outfielder can be considered an infielder by rule....that’s stupid
 
The infield fly rule is there to protect the runners from being doubled off, not help the defenders. If an OFer is in position such that he can purposely drop a short fly to start a double play, it doesn't matter what position number is written next to his name on the line up card.

I promise you had the LFer purposely let the ball drop and then started a 7-5-4 double play, Braves fans would have been equally up in arms if the infield fly wasn't called.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
The infield fly rule is there to protect the runners from being doubled off, not help the defenders. If an OFer is in position such that he can purposely drop a short fly to start a double play, it doesn't matter what position number is written next to his name on the line up card.

I promise you had the LFer purposely let the ball drop and then started a 7-5-4 double play, Braves fans would have been equally up in arms if the infield fly wasn't called.
Click to expand...

Except that play would have been impossible to create a double play. At best the runner at third maybe. But no way with out a runners gaff would the ball beaten a runner to second after throwing to third.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Except that play would have been impossible to create a double play. At best the runner at third maybe. But no way with out a runners gaff would the ball beaten a runner to second after throwing to third.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. The runner on 2nd was absolutely tagging. The runner on first was probably in some no mans land between tagging and being half way.

I’ve seen that scenario in lower level baseball/softball leagues often. Typically the throw goes to 2nd for a force out and then the runner between 2nd and 3rd is caught in a rundown

The exact scenario the infield fly rule is designed to protect runners against.
 
Enscheff said:
Hard to say. The runner on 2nd was absolutely tagging. The runner on first was probably in some no mans land between tagging and being half way.

I’ve seen that scenario in lower level baseball/softball leagues often. Typically the throw goes to 2nd for a force out and then the runner between 2nd and 3rd is caught in a rundown

The exact scenario the infield fly rule is designed to protect runners against.
Click to expand...

Ball was too deep to be a sure fire double play.
 
The Chosen One said:
Ball was too deep to be a sure fire double play.
Click to expand...

The depth wasn't the issue putting the double play in doubt. The issue was how far away from 2B it dropped.

That same ball if hit to CF would have landed like 100' from 2B, and I am confident a CFer like Inciarte could have thrown to 2B and then Albies/Swanson to 3B for a double play. MLB baseball players make that type of throw accurately 99% of the time. The rule is designed to prevent that type of double play, regardless of fly ball depth.

Definitely a bad call since a double play would have required 2 pretty long throws, but not as egregious as upset Braves fans like to make it out to be.
 
Enscheff said:
The infield fly rule is there to protect the runners from being doubled off, not help the defenders. If an OFer is in position such that he can purposely drop a short fly to start a double play, it doesn't matter what position number is written next to his name on the line up card.

I promise you had the LFer purposely let the ball drop and then started a 7-5-4 double play, Braves fans would have been equally up in arms if the infield fly wasn't called.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? The text of the rule clearly states that it has to be the ordinary effort of an infielder or an outfielder positioned in the infield. If an infielder doesn't break for a fly ball in the outfield, the umpire can call an infield fly if he determines that the infielder COULD have caught the ball with ordinary effort. It says nothing about outfielders and their effort level and it seems like an infield fly call has to be made based off the Umpire's judgement of what the infielder did or could have done.

To me, this creates a pretty substantial gray area in the mid section of the outfield that gets deeper and deeper based of how high the fly ball is hit. The umpire could easily be put into a position where he's trying to judge the height of the ball, distance of the ball, and the ability of the infielder to get to the ball to make a certain call. I don't like rules that leave that much open to interpretation.

Given the technology we have, I'd much rather develop a rule that incorporated the launch angle and the distance traveled of a ball to create the parameters of what is or is not an infield fly. I understand its for the benefit of the baserunners, but when there is a gray area play like the one from that game I would prefer for them to have more concrete rules. Either that, or change the interpretation to focus on the baserunners and how far the ball needs to travel for them to shed any disadvantage they may have from an infield fly. In the 2012 game, both runners were playing halfway waiting to see if the ball was caught. They had enough time to retreat if it was caught and they had a reasonable amount of time to advance if the Cardinals had let it drop (a play at 3rd would have been close, a double play would have been impossible).
 
Enscheff said:
Hard to say. The runner on 2nd was absolutely tagging. The runner on first was probably in some no mans land between tagging and being half way.

I’ve seen that scenario in lower level baseball/softball leagues often. Typically the throw goes to 2nd for a force out and then the runner between 2nd and 3rd is caught in a rundown

The exact scenario the infield fly rule is designed to protect runners against.
Click to expand...

The runner on 2nd wasn't tagging. He was also playing off the bag seeing if the ball dropped. Here is a video of the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ujbLknUc

If you fastforward to about 1:22 you can see Uggla waiting several feet off 2nd to see if the ball was going to drop.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
Looked up the wording and the rule states that an outfielder can be considered an infielder by rule....that’s stupid
Click to expand...

Did I miss a clause somewhere? The only thing I saw about an outfielder being considered an infielder was if he were shifted into the infield at the start of the play.
 
Enscheff said:
The depth wasn't the issue putting the double play in doubt. The issue was how far away from 2B it dropped.

That same ball if hit to CF would have landed like 100' from 2B, and I am confident a CFer like Inciarte could have thrown to 2B and then Albies/Swanson to 3B for a double play. MLB baseball players make that type of throw accurately 99% of the time. The rule is designed to prevent that type of double play, regardless of fly ball depth.

Definitely a bad call since a double play would have required 2 pretty long throws, but not as egregious as upset Braves fans like to make it out to be.
Click to expand...

Mark Teixeira and Ryan Howard were on baseball tonight yesterday saying it was the worst call they had ever seen and I wouldn’t call them Braves fans.
JS
 
BeanieAntics said:
The runner on 2nd wasn't tagging. He was also playing off the bag seeing if the ball dropped. Here is a video of the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ujbLknUc

If you fastforward to about 1:22 you can see Uggla waiting several feet off 2nd to see if the ball was going to drop.
Click to expand...

Can Uggla run 80' from a standstill before 2 MLB players can throw a ball 100' and 90' (in the scenario where the ball dropped in CF rather than LF)?
 
Buzzworm said:
Mark Teixeira and Ryan Howard were on baseball tonight yesterday saying it was the worst call they had ever seen and I wouldn’t call them Braves fans.
JS
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t even say it was the worst call in Braves postseason. Cheating Hrbek was worst imo opinion. Also Eric “I want to **** on his grave” Gregg entire strike zone were far more egregious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top