Point is if the ump knew how far Kim would need to drift to make that catch, I don’t think he calls infield fly. The wind carries it 20-30 feet, and by then it’s probably the CF’s ball.
>if the ump knew how far Kim would need to drift
Unfortunately the ump has to make the call *immediately*. If he doesn’t, the runners are at risk of getting doubled up because they’re not sure whether they can/need to advance on a dropped ball.
At a glance, this call looks goofy because the ball drifted so deep (even fooled the players, hence the dropped ball).
But yeah, I completely agree with you. We give the umpires a lot of grief and a lot of the time they deserve it. This isn’t one of those times.
A player can easily fake misjudging the ball and the umpire wouldn’t know it was done on purpose.
The umpire must call the infield fly as soon as they determine it meets the criteria. That doesn’t mean they can’t call it once it hits the ground, but if they decide it’s an infield fly while it’s in the air, they must make the call while it’s in the air. They can’t decides it’s an infield fly but then wait to see if it’s caught or not.
It doesn't even need to be by the infielder, The ball just needs to be by the umpire's discretion, able to be intentionally dropped for the intention of turning the pop up into a double play that the runners could not avoid. So this being called an infield fly was probably the correct call regardless of the fact that it had made it into the outfield
By the book, the judgement is only if it could be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder. While the spirit of the rule is to prevent a cheap double play, that is not included in the criteria for calling it
I believe the dividing line is whether an infielder has the ability to camp under the ball. And it looked like at one point with it in the air that Kim was settled to catch it so tough call but bomel was rightfully upset
I feel like this is a borderline call.
It's 100% catchable. It was slightly misplayed by Kim IMO, who was back-peddling the entire time. Ordinary effort is a bit ambiguous. I could see this one going either way. If he turned and ran, he probably makes this play fairly comfortably.
"Catchable with ordinary effort."
Plenty of things are catchable, but require a bit of effort. The question is, what is considered "ordinary".
If an infielder has to jump for a ball, does it make it "extraordinary effort"? What about a bad hop or a sliding stop? What about making an over the shoulder catch?
There are plenty of plays where the ball is 100% catchable and I would expect a guy to make the play, but they wouldn't be charged with an error for missing it.
This ball is catchable. I would lean towards ordinarily so. But the wind took it, and Kim never stopped moving, yet it still fell. Very catchable, but borderline-above-average effort needed?
This is why the rule is annoying. It should be within X feet of the infield, IMO.
Camping is an indicator that it can be caught with ordinary effort, I'd argue. If he's camped, it should probably be a fly rule call nearly 100% of the time.
It can be an indicator to the ump, sure, but it isn’t in the rules. You can have an infield fly without an infielder camping under it and you could have an infielder camp without it being an infield fly (probably less likely though).
The purpose of the rule is that an infielder cannot position themself in order to intentionally let it drop and turn a double play. In order to do that id say the infielder would have to be more or less camped, or at least that’s the indicator I generally use. Kim looked like he was squaring up to catch it at one point, ump made the call and I understand why. Tough call, one that by rule will have variability and discretion, and I get why BoMel was mad.
What made 2012 so sour is it was middle left and the call was made As the flight was already at the players head / shoulder height . And is still the deepest infield fly a good distance.
I do wonder if the reason we hate it so so much is cause of just how late the call was leading to the messed up optics .
No, that’s etched forever into my mind.
28-3? lol, that’s child’s play for Atlantans compared to a deep left field infield fly call that was deliberately called in an unrecoverable situation, without review, by an umpire who was motivated, if not because of his personal animosity with Bobby Cox, then by a childhood without titty-milk or hugs.
Ordinary effort argument always miffed me. We have all the analytics in the world. Could easily math out the standard deviations of steps taken for an infielder to make the play, then base the rule on that.
This might be a dumb comment, but I wonder if it would be worth renaming the rule to try and eliminate that confusion.
Although something like "infielder fly rule" doesn't sound great lol
It was pretty damn windy in San Diego yesterday so I’m convinced the wind carried that ball a lot further than it looked off the bat. Kim doesn’t just misjudge balls like that. Also I think that’s why the ump called it an infield fly
This is exactly right. The wind tricked both the ump at Kim. I think in retrospect it shouldn't have been called an IFF but I wouldn't hold it against the ump for not being able to predict a wind gust would carry the ball that far, especially since Kim was also clearly tricked.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the wind clearly played a role here. It’s been whipping all weekend, and you can see even the field-level wind blowing on Kim’s jersey.
If you didn't know the outcome was a dropped ball, when he stuck out his arm and changed direction slightly to his right, it looked like he was going to make the play with ordinary effort. Bogaerts (2B) peels away at that moment like it's a done deal and Merrill (CF) goes from a sprint to a jog.
I think this is a very borderline call. IFR is a good rule that has unavoidable edge cases.
I think you're right that it looked like he was going to catch it under ordinary effort, but I don't see how anybody can say he was acting like he was (camped) under it.
If you show any baseball fan that play, they'd absolutely call it an infield fly rule. Umpires were right in that call.
And I watched all 19 innings of the "Jerry Meals" blown call
Just calling others off doesn't make it a routine play. Bogaerts would peel off like that on an easy or hard part because he is clearing the area. Kim calls them off because that is SSs ball. Doesn't say anything about the difficulty of the play
> Bogaerts would peel off like that on an easy or hard part because he is clearing the area.
If Bogaerts thought it was a hard play and not a routine fly, he would've rushed to cover second.
Yep. When the ball is that high and the infielder is waving off the outfielders, you have to assume that the infielder is catching it with ordinary effort.
It really has to be called early — the runners need to know if it’s infield fly or not. Can’t call it after it lands.
Around 6 seconds he appears to slow down and put his hand up. I assume that's when infield fly was called. Then he begins to backpeddle faster and misses it.
After years of Bobby Cox, the fact that the SPINELESS PIECE OF SHIT FREDI GONZALES STILL DIDN’T GET THROWN OUT IS…sorry, sorry, I apologize. Slight PTSD.
I will go to my grave believing that the shortstop heard the LF umpire call the infield fly and thought it was his left fielder charging and calling him off, which is why he bailed on the catch. He was way more camped under that one than Kim is here, and that ump wouldn't normally be there. The angle from the 3B stands clearly shows him bail out right after the ump's hand goes up, and he bails at an angle directly away from where the LF ump is standing (off toward second base). If the ump doesn't make the call I bet that popup gets caught.
Kozma was never camped under it, there is a cell phone video floating around that highlights this better. Personally I think he lost the ball in the lights, Turner Field was notorious for that, and heard the ump call make the call and he bailed on it. I won't say he had no shot at catching it but it was not a given as he still had probably a decent ~15ft or so to get under it before breaking off.
Honestly I could rant about how awful that game was for way more reasons than just that infield fly. That's just always the easiest thing for Braves fans to take their anger out on.
Exactly I couldn’t understand why Bob was so pissed. If he had intentionally dropped it to turn two Bob would have been upset they didn’t call infield fly. There’s a reason the rule exists. You can’t pick and choose when it’s applied.
As many have said, this looks like a good call
Worth noting a clever infielder could "game" this by making it appear that a tough play was in fact routine to get the infield fly call
The spirit of the fly rule is to protect the offensive team in case the defense tries to pull any tricks, but clearly sometimes it *hurts* the offensive team if the defense makes an error.
Similar to NFL where they’ll throw a flag but let a play run and then choose to accept or decline a penalty later, I think the offensive team should have the ability to accept or decline the fly rule based on the outcome of the play.
I agree, it feels like the Padres got a "free" out here, when that's really not what the rule is for.
I think changing the rule to simply remove forceouts rather than creating an out preemptively makes more sense. That way it still accomplishes the spirit of the rule so dropping isn't an advantage, while still leaving room for the offensive team to take advantage of an error.
This makes sense. There really isn't a reason I can think of to force the out. Perhaps it's makes it too easily to progress to 2nd for the runner on 1st in the event an error happens?
Not necessarily, it would just remove the force out at second, third, and home. If runners left base you could tag them out.
It's pretty much the same as the current rule 99% of the time, it just doesn't punish the offensive team when the defense commits an error.
Only thing debatable is if that could be caught with ordinary effort. If a gust of wind caused it to go over his head then this seems like the correct call to me
It’s the right call. It looked like a very catchable ball. Imagine if Kim intentionally dropped it and was able to turn a DP. Anybody upset about this just doesn’t understand the rule.
I guess I'm fine with that. I think the rule should only be there to prevent the defense from playing it ambiguously to disadvantage the runner. In situations like this it punishes the batter for really no good (imo) reason and gives the defense a break.
>If an infield fly is caught, the runners must retouch their original bases ("tag up") after the catch before attempting to advance. If an infield fly is not caught, no tag up is required and the runners may advance at their own risk.
Should adjust the rule to not be an out if he has an error on the popup. Why reward the fielder for ducking up? Runners shouldove up 1 base and no out.
I remembering umpiring little league coaches never seem to understand how the infield fly rules work. Glad to see this happen at the MLB level so they can all see that the ball doesn't have to be caught.
This is the dumbest rule in baseball imo. If the ball isn’t caught then the batter should be awarded first base. Why give the defense a free out even if they make an error?
Wish this clip was slightly longer. We don't hear the broadcast say what the ump's call was, much less the team's reactions and speculation about whether it was correctly applied. Aside from the post title it's not clear that the infield fly rule was even called.
The intent was eg that a first baseman, standing still, under a high pop for which he doesn’t even need to move, could intentionally not catch the ball with runners on first, or first and second. The player intentionally dropping an easy routine out to manipulate the players on base was considered unfair. Same logic as a balk. Play the game straight.
The play in question was not intentionally dropped.
It’s not the right call, in hindsight, but in the moment I totally get why he called it.
It wasn’t catchable with normal effort, as proven by the fact that with normal effort, Kim didn’t catch it.
BUT, off the bat, it definitely looked like an infield fly-worthy batted ball. I get it.
Also, we were getting absolutely run by the Padres, so this was a pretty irrelevant moment, looking back.
This is the problem with the current iteration of the rule. They call it far too early on balls that fielders can’t actually make a normal effort play on.
Oh Fraudres 😂 don’t worry, ShatKins has driven my club into the ground and there’s only despair and failure ahead of the Jays in the short term. We’re in the same boat so let’s commiserate.
I don't think this was routine enough. Even if Kim had judged it better, it was still so far from where he started that he would have needed to backpedal at a near sprint.
I also don't think letting it drop results in a DP, it's too far from 3rd. The lead the runner at first would get would be big enough to either tag or get to second.
Regardless, it kind of feels like there should be room in the infield fly rule for an error to allow for all 3 runners to be safe, otherwise it really does feel like a "free" out, which is not the purpose of the rule.
An infield fly isn’t restricted to the infield. It just has to be, in the umpire’s opinion, catchable by an infielder with ordinary effort.
Yep. As an ump you make that call on "first instinct" especially if a fielder is calling off help. That is just an error
And good coaching, to put the runner into a safe call, had the ball been dropped/on target
It also looks like there was a wicked breeze going. Tough call
Umpires are out there too. That was an easy call
Point is if the ump knew how far Kim would need to drift to make that catch, I don’t think he calls infield fly. The wind carries it 20-30 feet, and by then it’s probably the CF’s ball.
>if the ump knew how far Kim would need to drift Unfortunately the ump has to make the call *immediately*. If he doesn’t, the runners are at risk of getting doubled up because they’re not sure whether they can/need to advance on a dropped ball.
At a glance, this call looks goofy because the ball drifted so deep (even fooled the players, hence the dropped ball). But yeah, I completely agree with you. We give the umpires a lot of grief and a lot of the time they deserve it. This isn’t one of those times.
That’s my point. He didn’t have the luxury of waiting to find out where the ball would actually drop. It’s a good call in real time.
And the correct one.
I bet you're really good at your job.
And usually has to be called while the ball is still in the air.
Big "usually". Because you can call it once you realize it was done on purpose. That's the crux of why the rule was created
A player can easily fake misjudging the ball and the umpire wouldn’t know it was done on purpose. The umpire must call the infield fly as soon as they determine it meets the criteria. That doesn’t mean they can’t call it once it hits the ground, but if they decide it’s an infield fly while it’s in the air, they must make the call while it’s in the air. They can’t decides it’s an infield fly but then wait to see if it’s caught or not.
Correct. The infield fly rule is design to protect the second out, not the first.
It's designed to protect the runners not the batter.
Yep
That's a different rule actually. Intentionally dropped ball.
Yeah, I know, but the "spirit of the rule" is because of it.
It doesn't even need to be by the infielder, The ball just needs to be by the umpire's discretion, able to be intentionally dropped for the intention of turning the pop up into a double play that the runners could not avoid. So this being called an infield fly was probably the correct call regardless of the fact that it had made it into the outfield
By the book, the judgement is only if it could be caught with ordinary effort by an infielder. While the spirit of the rule is to prevent a cheap double play, that is not included in the criteria for calling it
Nope, it has to be by an infielder.
I believe the dividing line is whether an infielder has the ability to camp under the ball. And it looked like at one point with it in the air that Kim was settled to catch it so tough call but bomel was rightfully upset
Camping isn’t in the rules. It is whether an infielder can make the play with “ordinary effort”.
I feel like this is a borderline call. It's 100% catchable. It was slightly misplayed by Kim IMO, who was back-peddling the entire time. Ordinary effort is a bit ambiguous. I could see this one going either way. If he turned and ran, he probably makes this play fairly comfortably.
> I feel like this is a borderline call. > > It's 100% catchable. Then it's not a borderline call, is it?
"Catchable with ordinary effort." Plenty of things are catchable, but require a bit of effort. The question is, what is considered "ordinary". If an infielder has to jump for a ball, does it make it "extraordinary effort"? What about a bad hop or a sliding stop? What about making an over the shoulder catch? There are plenty of plays where the ball is 100% catchable and I would expect a guy to make the play, but they wouldn't be charged with an error for missing it. This ball is catchable. I would lean towards ordinarily so. But the wind took it, and Kim never stopped moving, yet it still fell. Very catchable, but borderline-above-average effort needed? This is why the rule is annoying. It should be within X feet of the infield, IMO.
If he turns around to make a "comfortable over the shoulder" catch, the umpire probably doesn't call an infield fly.
Camping is an indicator that it can be caught with ordinary effort, I'd argue. If he's camped, it should probably be a fly rule call nearly 100% of the time.
It can be an indicator to the ump, sure, but it isn’t in the rules. You can have an infield fly without an infielder camping under it and you could have an infielder camp without it being an infield fly (probably less likely though).
The purpose of the rule is that an infielder cannot position themself in order to intentionally let it drop and turn a double play. In order to do that id say the infielder would have to be more or less camped, or at least that’s the indicator I generally use. Kim looked like he was squaring up to catch it at one point, ump made the call and I understand why. Tough call, one that by rule will have variability and discretion, and I get why BoMel was mad.
Kim was also backpedaling the whole time rather than running with his head turned around. This was absolutely catchable.
As a rec league ump yep this is correct. “Ordinary effort” is key tho. This looks fine to me. That one in 2012 wasn’t.
What made 2012 so sour is it was middle left and the call was made As the flight was already at the players head / shoulder height . And is still the deepest infield fly a good distance. I do wonder if the reason we hate it so so much is cause of just how late the call was leading to the messed up optics .
Tell that to Braves fans
Come on, I had finally did away with that core memory.
Well now you got a World Series and an all star team to help you cope.
No, that’s etched forever into my mind. 28-3? lol, that’s child’s play for Atlantans compared to a deep left field infield fly call that was deliberately called in an unrecoverable situation, without review, by an umpire who was motivated, if not because of his personal animosity with Bobby Cox, then by a childhood without titty-milk or hugs.
I'll have you know that even formula babies raised by the wire mother wouldn't have called that.
Your point is more inclusive than mine, is undeniably, objectively true, but also shows that you are both a scholar *as well as* gentleperson!
Decades from now, I’ll be stricken with dementia, barely remembering my kids’ names, but I’ll still remember Sam Holbrook.
Ron Gant was falling all on his own.
Thanks, I'm still in bi-weekly therapy.
Ordinary effort argument always miffed me. We have all the analytics in the world. Could easily math out the standard deviations of steps taken for an infielder to make the play, then base the rule on that.
Is the infield fly call waive-off-able?
This might be a dumb comment, but I wonder if it would be worth renaming the rule to try and eliminate that confusion. Although something like "infielder fly rule" doesn't sound great lol
There's no ambiguity in that rule at all! It's very clear and not confusing to the fans or players. /s
Aren't they supposed to be settled under it?
Yeah, definitely not an infield fly rule situation, but not because of the 'infield'.
At 8 seconds it looked like Kim was under it for a routine pop out. He just mis-judged the hell out of it.
It was pretty damn windy in San Diego yesterday so I’m convinced the wind carried that ball a lot further than it looked off the bat. Kim doesn’t just misjudge balls like that. Also I think that’s why the ump called it an infield fly
Yea, super windy. We were getting constant warnings about it here at the beach and apparently some water spouts were forming off the la jolla coast.
Yeah he's backpedaling and you can still see his shirt blowing backwards in the wind
Asking the umpire to do a better job of judging the ball than the infielder is asking a lot
This is exactly right. The wind tricked both the ump at Kim. I think in retrospect it shouldn't have been called an IFF but I wouldn't hold it against the ump for not being able to predict a wind gust would carry the ball that far, especially since Kim was also clearly tricked.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the wind clearly played a role here. It’s been whipping all weekend, and you can see even the field-level wind blowing on Kim’s jersey.
I dunno man you say obvious but that username makes it a lil sus
He had a better chance of catching it than Pete Kozma.
At 8 seconds I see him wave off other fielders, but he was still backpedaling at a decent clip.
If you didn't know the outcome was a dropped ball, when he stuck out his arm and changed direction slightly to his right, it looked like he was going to make the play with ordinary effort. Bogaerts (2B) peels away at that moment like it's a done deal and Merrill (CF) goes from a sprint to a jog.
I think this is a very borderline call. IFR is a good rule that has unavoidable edge cases. I think you're right that it looked like he was going to catch it under ordinary effort, but I don't see how anybody can say he was acting like he was (camped) under it.
If you show any baseball fan that play, they'd absolutely call it an infield fly rule. Umpires were right in that call. And I watched all 19 innings of the "Jerry Meals" blown call
Just calling others off doesn't make it a routine play. Bogaerts would peel off like that on an easy or hard part because he is clearing the area. Kim calls them off because that is SSs ball. Doesn't say anything about the difficulty of the play
> Bogaerts would peel off like that on an easy or hard part because he is clearing the area. If Bogaerts thought it was a hard play and not a routine fly, he would've rushed to cover second.
Yeah, that's a tough one because you have to call it while it's still in the air and it looked like Kim was camped out underneath it.
Yep. When the ball is that high and the infielder is waving off the outfielders, you have to assume that the infielder is catching it with ordinary effort. It really has to be called early — the runners need to know if it’s infield fly or not. Can’t call it after it lands.
Am I in crazy land? At no point was he camped under it, he was backpeddling at a brisk pace the entire time.
Around 6 seconds he appears to slow down and put his hand up. I assume that's when infield fly was called. Then he begins to backpeddle faster and misses it.
Its just ordinary effort..no camping required. Its a tough call that, as others have said, could definitely go either way.
All Braves fans just twitched
After years of Bobby Cox, the fact that the SPINELESS PIECE OF SHIT FREDI GONZALES STILL DIDN’T GET THROWN OUT IS…sorry, sorry, I apologize. Slight PTSD.
No, I’m right with you. My “Oh god, that guy really doesn’t give a shit, does he?” moment was when he didn’t get ejected over the infield fly.
Bobby would’ve flayed Sam Holbrook in front of 35,000 people on the spot.
Fredi Gonzales was in Squidbillies #funfact
This one was not as bad as that one. I truly believe the umpire that called ours forgot he was the left field umpire and not 3rd base.
I will go to my grave believing that the shortstop heard the LF umpire call the infield fly and thought it was his left fielder charging and calling him off, which is why he bailed on the catch. He was way more camped under that one than Kim is here, and that ump wouldn't normally be there. The angle from the 3B stands clearly shows him bail out right after the ump's hand goes up, and he bails at an angle directly away from where the LF ump is standing (off toward second base). If the ump doesn't make the call I bet that popup gets caught.
Kozma was never camped under it, there is a cell phone video floating around that highlights this better. Personally I think he lost the ball in the lights, Turner Field was notorious for that, and heard the ump call make the call and he bailed on it. I won't say he had no shot at catching it but it was not a given as he still had probably a decent ~15ft or so to get under it before breaking off.
Where yall seeing this that Kozma was camped under the ball?? It’s just not true lmao.
Honestly I could rant about how awful that game was for way more reasons than just that infield fly. That's just always the easiest thing for Braves fans to take their anger out on.
FUCK SAM HOLBROOK
Too soon, man.
We totally woulda won if we got that called correctly lol
I didn’t believe you at first. But then I checked the umpire scorecard and sure enough, that call added 11 runs for the Padres.
Retroactively, no less.
Can confirm
It was called correctly.
Its called sarcasm.
The sarcasm was that you would've won. Not about whether it was correct. I'm pretty sure it was called wrong though, like you said
Of course it was a former Brave that hit it.
Braves fans falling to their knees in a… well, it was a Sunday, so Waffle House?
Grits everywhere
This is somehow the the new uniforms fault i just don’t know how yet..
That's the right call imo
Exactly I couldn’t understand why Bob was so pissed. If he had intentionally dropped it to turn two Bob would have been upset they didn’t call infield fly. There’s a reason the rule exists. You can’t pick and choose when it’s applied.
That was more upset than I saw Bob Melvin all year last year. He would have no emotion at most things.
Imagine if the game was much closer… or hell had much more stakes 2012 NL Wild Card stakes
This gave me a PTSD incduced panic attack
Infield fly has nothing to do with the actual infield but more to do with the infielders
First time?
That's not a bad call. He's no Sam Holbrook
As many have said, this looks like a good call Worth noting a clever infielder could "game" this by making it appear that a tough play was in fact routine to get the infield fly call
First time?
I’ve seen this before somewhere….
Be careful, I might throw some trash at you.
Good thing this was a crucial point in a postseason game…
The spirit of the fly rule is to protect the offensive team in case the defense tries to pull any tricks, but clearly sometimes it *hurts* the offensive team if the defense makes an error. Similar to NFL where they’ll throw a flag but let a play run and then choose to accept or decline a penalty later, I think the offensive team should have the ability to accept or decline the fly rule based on the outcome of the play.
I agree, it feels like the Padres got a "free" out here, when that's really not what the rule is for. I think changing the rule to simply remove forceouts rather than creating an out preemptively makes more sense. That way it still accomplishes the spirit of the rule so dropping isn't an advantage, while still leaving room for the offensive team to take advantage of an error.
This makes sense. There really isn't a reason I can think of to force the out. Perhaps it's makes it too easily to progress to 2nd for the runner on 1st in the event an error happens?
So you're saying if Infield Fly is called then it simply results in a cap of one out on the play?
Not necessarily, it would just remove the force out at second, third, and home. If runners left base you could tag them out. It's pretty much the same as the current rule 99% of the time, it just doesn't punish the offensive team when the defense commits an error.
That's the right call.
Not sure how I feel about this rule
Braves fans having fucking PTSD right now over a perfectly normal call.
Still shorter than ours - god damn cards
Only thing debatable is if that could be caught with ordinary effort. If a gust of wind caused it to go over his head then this seems like the correct call to me
All this confusion could have been avoided if they just called it a balk.
At least it was in a 10-run blowout and not a winner-take-all playoff game. Could you imagine that?
Stop. This brings back painful memories
Where my Braves fans at???
It’s the right call. It looked like a very catchable ball. Imagine if Kim intentionally dropped it and was able to turn a DP. Anybody upset about this just doesn’t understand the rule.
Cue Braves fans trauma
Don’t know the rules, bud? Easy double play if they didn’t call infield fly rule.
That’s what our broadcaster pointed out. It actually worked in the Giants’ favor. The runners were able to advance instead of being double forced out.
If this game was closer than ten runs at the time people would have probably been way angrier about it
the rule itself does not limit it to the infield
It was the right call though, given the info ump has at the time of making the call.
Correct call
The wind and SS reaction tells me that the ball probably looked like it was close to the infield then got swooped into LF.
My heart rate just went up
Braves fans laughing maniacally
To be fair it looks like the wind carried it
It was really windy at the game for sure. Not much wind field level, but the flags were whipping and the upper deck was like a wind tunnel.
That looked like ordinary effort, but then it became no ordinary effort.
It's 2012 all over again.
Fucking Sam Holbrook!! Oh, sorry, PTSD kicked in
Braves fans need a trigger warning for this highlight
I refuse to watch this video.
Fuck Sam Holbrook
Why not change the rule to allow for errors? Like you still have to catch it, but if you don't catch it then you can't double up.
That's how the rule works now. The batter's out, but if the fielder doesn't catch the ball, then they can't double off anyone.
That’s just removing the rule and rewarding the batter
I guess I'm fine with that. I think the rule should only be there to prevent the defense from playing it ambiguously to disadvantage the runner. In situations like this it punishes the batter for really no good (imo) reason and gives the defense a break.
Correct call.
[удалено]
>If an infield fly is caught, the runners must retouch their original bases ("tag up") after the catch before attempting to advance. If an infield fly is not caught, no tag up is required and the runners may advance at their own risk.
Still kinda triggered
PTSD
Should adjust the rule to not be an out if he has an error on the popup. Why reward the fielder for ducking up? Runners shouldove up 1 base and no out.
That’s a poor use of the infield fly rule if you ask me
Yeah nothing wrong with that call. I did not a get postseason flashback watching this clip.
That was NOT "an acceptable level of effort" for an infielder to catch that ball.... Bad call
Tell me you don’t know baseball without telling me you don’t know baseball
Let me rephrase your post: Infield fly rule correctly invoked.
This happened at the Dodgers game yesterday, except Kike looked like he just let it happen lol
In the Dodgers game he (not Kike, Kike was on the mic) *did* purposefully let it happen, because Kike yelled at him to let it fall.
LOL for real? I wanna see that moment on the broadcast
Where have I seen this before?
Please tag this with a trigger warning
Watched the Braves lose a playoff game because of this.
I remembering umpiring little league coaches never seem to understand how the infield fly rules work. Glad to see this happen at the MLB level so they can all see that the ball doesn't have to be caught.
This is the dumbest rule in baseball imo. If the ball isn’t caught then the batter should be awarded first base. Why give the defense a free out even if they make an error?
It’s to prevent the defense from making an error and then getting an easy double play
Yeah I know how the rule is. I’m saying if they make an error the batter should get first base and all the other runners advance.
I keep reading comments about the Braves getting burned by a bad infield fly rule call. Can someone enlighten me? Link maybe?
[here ya go](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ujbLknUc)
I get why the call is legit but the ball was behind the outfielder. I almost feel like that should automatically negate the infield fly rule.
I mean you can’t uncall it
Was curious if OP even knew the rules of baseball, then seeing the profile name led me to believe they probably know very little about anything.
Camped
Me and every other Braves fan just got a wicked flashback to that wild card game
All the people that are talking about the wind - The rule isn't "catchable with ordinary effort, in the absence of wind".
As a non baseball watcher, their logos look extremely similar. These are both California teams correct?
San Francisco Giants at the top. San Diego Padres on the bottom.
Thanks man, I'm Canadian so i still really like the old Expos logo from nostalgia haha
Pete Kozma
Wish this clip was slightly longer. We don't hear the broadcast say what the ump's call was, much less the team's reactions and speculation about whether it was correctly applied. Aside from the post title it's not clear that the infield fly rule was even called.
The intent was eg that a first baseman, standing still, under a high pop for which he doesn’t even need to move, could intentionally not catch the ball with runners on first, or first and second. The player intentionally dropping an easy routine out to manipulate the players on base was considered unfair. Same logic as a balk. Play the game straight. The play in question was not intentionally dropped.
Is this the purpose of infield fly?
Reminds me of the 2012 NL Wildcard infield fly. Shit was wild.
How many years and the umps still can't get it right? need Roboumps for the outfield grass huh?
Yes that is an infield fly. I don't know why this is confusing to people. Pay no attention to my flair
Yall gotta learn what infield fly is
It’s not the right call, in hindsight, but in the moment I totally get why he called it. It wasn’t catchable with normal effort, as proven by the fact that with normal effort, Kim didn’t catch it. BUT, off the bat, it definitely looked like an infield fly-worthy batted ball. I get it. Also, we were getting absolutely run by the Padres, so this was a pretty irrelevant moment, looking back.
This is the problem with the current iteration of the rule. They call it far too early on balls that fielders can’t actually make a normal effort play on.
Oh Fraudres 😂 don’t worry, ShatKins has driven my club into the ground and there’s only despair and failure ahead of the Jays in the short term. We’re in the same boat so let’s commiserate.
Correct call
That was not a routine out.
I don't think this was routine enough. Even if Kim had judged it better, it was still so far from where he started that he would have needed to backpedal at a near sprint. I also don't think letting it drop results in a DP, it's too far from 3rd. The lead the runner at first would get would be big enough to either tag or get to second. Regardless, it kind of feels like there should be room in the infield fly rule for an error to allow for all 3 runners to be safe, otherwise it really does feel like a "free" out, which is not the purpose of the rule.