Braves/Cardinals Wild Card Game Infield Fly Rule [explained] with 28-yr MLB Umpire Jim Evans
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 10. 2019
- Brian sits down with 28-yr Major League Umpire Jim Evans to talk about the infamous Infield Fly call in the 2012 National League Wild Card Game between the St. Louis Cardinals and Atlanta Braves. They'll discuss why the call on the field was not only correct, but the exact type of play that the Infield Fly Rule was put in the baseball rule book for in the first place.
Hear more from Jim as he also talks about how plays like this are always hyped up in the postseason, with umpires even receiving death threats, discussing the 1975 World Series Armbrister-Fisk play as an example (*also a correct call).
Follow @LukeBrianTour on all the things and Subscribe to the Officially Speaking podcast if you’d like to listen to what we’re doing and where we’re doing it! You can also call-in to the podcast with rules or other questions via the Anchor.fm app from the Officially Speaking Profile page.
DONATE to my UmpsCare Charities 100-hole Golf Marathon Fundraiser I'll be headed to in Phoenix for my 40th birthday weekend this November!
give.UmpsCare.com/LukeBrianTour
Jim Evans’ San Diego Clinic runs Oct. 20-26, with an Advanced Course lasting through the 28th. Find out more about attending the clinic @ www.umpire.org
Keep an eye out for West Coast Umpire Camps’ Reno Camp next Fall!
www.WestCoastUmpireCamps.com
Lizzy Diddy’s Lavish Travels covers her trips with the hype guy of the Luke Brian Tour, Luke Hamilton!
Follow her @ AmericanFlyGal.home.blog - Sport
Ridiculous opinions here. That ball was half way in the outfield, the infield fly rule was Implemented to protect the offense, this call did everything but protect the offense. The call was made Simultaneously with the ball hitting the ground. Obviously more than 90 feet from the infield
This was of the worst calls in mlb history
Hey!!!!!forget the infield outfield thing!!! You REALLY DONT GET THIS RULE!! STUDY IT
Daphne Desrochers was the rule not implemented to protect the offense from the fielder letting the ball drop to turn a double play? Do u really think that’s what happened? Do u really think he could’ve even turned two from from that far away?
@@mattharry6114 that's *one reason yes, but an umpire doesn't have the luxury of choosing which fly balls can/can't be turned into a double play, as long as an *infielder has demonstrated the "ordinary effort" portion of the rule (in part, because that's not the only advantage to be gained by any MLB player with a high baseball IQ). The determination of ordinary effort is made at the point when this specific infielder [Pete Kozma] shows ordinary effort to the umpire, and it was indeed observed and then signaled at the exact moment Kozma squared to make the catch (by multiple umpires). There's gonna be a delay while the umpire's hand is going up, and it's a big league pop fly falling quickly, so its all gonna happen fast. I'm sorry you have a problem with the signal seeming to come up when the ball hit the ground, but it's very clear to see the beginning of the umpire's signal just after Kozma turns and squares the ball up [this was literally all spelled out with visuals in the video].
It's done this way because ordinary effort isn't some term umpires made up. Its defined, by rule, stating that *the level of play* is to be considered when making the determination for ordinary effort, i.e. this would most likely not be an infield fly with you at shortstop. This is, however, ordinary effort for a big league shortstop. I'm guessing I'm the only one with experience umpiring the exact shortstop within this discussion (see other post where you assume Double & Triple-A Crew Chiefs "referee Little League" lol), so we'll go with my experience for this conversation: This is ordinary effort for Pete Kozma.
But that's not all, I even brought in 29-yr MLB umpire Jim Evans in for this video, but it seems the great Matt Harry knows more than all of these people who are at the top .1% of their jobs. Seriously, take a step back and tell me that makes sense. You called umpires "referees", but you're a baseball rules expert!? Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
*another reason any quick-thinking MLB shortstop might let this fly ball drop is to create a different runner situation on 1st and 2nd base. HOWEVER, just as umpires don't get to take into account whether an infielder actually WOULD HAVE turned a double play, we also don't get to make that determination about which runner the defense may want standing in scoring position at the end of the play.
@@daphnedesrochers9599 the word "infield" in the rule isn't referring to where the ball must be for an infield fly to be called. "Infield" refers to the type of fielder.
Jim Evans, the best instructor of umpires! I asked him to come out to Sacramento a couple times in the late 90's. He and his crew of professional umpires did a great job!
I still think they should change the rule so that if the ball drops and everyone reaches safely, the infield fly call gets ignored.
I think that's a reasonable happy medium to potentially add in the future. Are you gonna tell MLB or should we? :)
Also, there are other advantages to be gained other than a double play. A ball like this one for example, without the infield fly rule called Kozma may let it drop and get the [faster] lead runner at 3rd base, leaving the catcher in scoring position instead. These players are the best in the world, they absolutely think that fast.
You see, my logic is baseball already has a call that gets ignored when play makes the penalty unnecessary: the balk. So why not add the infield fly rule to that list?
The problem is that such a suggestion falls very low on the MLB’s priority list.
@@sparkyshore3543 I think it's such a low percentage play that its not high on the agenda, so I'd agree with you there. The only reason this was a big deal was because it was a playoff game.
Let us know how that goes. This is coming from a lifelong Braves fan whose blood pressure and temperature still rise every time this ‘call’ gets mentioned (there are many of us). Particularly during the postseason, and maybe even during the regular season ... perhaps calls like this should be reviewable via a challenge initiated by the offensive team’s manager, or at the discretion of the umpiring crew.
A part of the current rule states, and I’m paraphrasing, that ‘game conditions’ can be a consideration for an infield fly call. During the game in question, the noise level at Turner Field was very high. We can hear this clearly on the rebroadcast. In consideration of this ‘game condition’ (elevated noise level), would it be reasonable to assume that neither Kozma nor Holliday were able to hear Sam Holbrook make that call? Would it also be reasonable to also assume that it would not haven been possible for Kozma to hear Holliday calling for the catch (irrespective of what Holliday did or didn’t do)? If yes to the latter, then it could be reasonably assumed that Kozma was not aware of Holliday’s exact or even approximate position in the outfield, and combined with him probably not being able to hear Holbrook, then risking a deliberate no-catch would have been unwise and probably would not have been a decision the defensive player would normally make at such a critical juncture in an important postseason game. If yes to both questions, and based on Kozma’s “hands in the air” reaction immediately before the sinking ball put a big witness mark in the Turner Field outfield grass, a reasonable conclusion could be drawn that Kozma probably lost site of the ball.
In reference to the comment about letting such plays conclude before invoking ‘infield fly’, I think that’s reasonable. If the true purpose of the rule is to eliminate ‘chicanery’ or deceptive play by the defense, then allowing the sequence to run its course before applying the rule should allow the outcome to always work out best for the offense.
This is the perfect example of the letter of the law being enforced over the intent of the law. Technically, it's a correct call given the rule book's definition. Although "ordinary effort" can be easily argued against, the type of effort displayed is an umpires judgement call. HOWEVER, the intent of the rule is to protect the offense from being duped into either a double play or duped into picking off the lead runner that might have great speed. In this specific circumstance, the ball was so deep that it would have been impossible to have tricked the offense. To make my point clear, let's say that the shortstop was positioned in shallow to mid left field and a fly ball was hit to deep left field. The shortstop could very easily catch the ball with "ordinary effort." In that scenario there's no way an IFR would be called in spite of the fact that technically the letter of the law would be followed. The umpire in this case should have used his "best judgement" to not make the call based solely on the INTENT of the rule.
you cannot word it better. good job brother.
I agree with almost everything you stated. However, it still "technically" was not the correct call. The issue here is that the term "ordinary effort" was added after the rule was created in the 1890's in an effort to REMOVE the umpire's judgement of whether the ball could have been easily caught. However, like a lot of well-intended things, this ended up backfiring, allowing for a judgement call to be made in spite of the intent. It was not and never will be the correct call, technically or not.
That's because the runners were halfway between the bases. Had they been standing on their respective bases ready to tag, this could have been an easy double play for a major leaguer.
Like the other person, I agree with most of what you said, but this was not the correct call from the rulebook’s perspective either. There is a huge difference between the words “easy” and “ordinary.” The rulebook says “ordinary.” Let me illustrate this by describing an opposite scenario. Let’s say an outfielder runs to the pitcher’s mound and camps under a ball. That is an EASY play for him. It is NOT an ORDINARY play for him. There is no scenario where a reasonable person could argue that an infielder making a play almost an entire infield’s length into the outfield is “ordinary.” You can argue that it was an “easy” play for him. But for an infielder, by definition, his “ordinary” efforts include making plays inside the infield and MAYBE 20 ft into the outfield where it would require less effort from him than from an outfielder, anything beyond that is either extraneous or extraordinary effort. Both of which are mutually exclusive with “ordinary.” Put simply, no matter how EASY the play is, an infielder doing outfielder’s job for them when the outfielder is perfectly prepared to make the play is NOT “ordinary effort” from the infielder. And vice versa for outfielders doing an infielder’s job for them.
They are umpires, they wont throw their people under the bus
They are umpires, they know the rules far better than casual fans.
can we just like, start calling it the infielder's fly rule? like do we need to wait for an official announcement? if we all just start doing it then that's what it'll be
Holbrook raised his hand a split second before the fucking ball landed on the goddamn turf!!
If this is the right call then I’m praying for a rule change
NO KIDDING! OR GIVE IT THE TUCK RULE TREATMENT!
😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
@@keronstewart9446 AMEN! Tuck that rule right in the garbage along with Walt Coleman, Sam Holbrook and Drew Cobble!
For some reason this video came up on my feed. I think one of the issues that's been so frustrating for fans with this rule over the years--especially looking back on this incident--is how some umpires who talk about it seem to pretend that these sorts of calls are just black-and-white, when, in reality, it comes down to the umpire making a judgment call. In this example, here it's up to the umpire to determine whether the SS is exerting "ordinary effort". In this case, it's being claimed in the video that Kozma exerted ordinary effort when he turned to try to catch the ball in left field. But one could just as easily argue that Kozma's bolting from his position in SS all the way out to left field, and the fact that he quickly lost the ball because he feared a collision with the left fielder, are facts which support the argument that this umpire's assessment of "ordinary effort" was off. Also, the core of the rule is that it's meant to protect baserunners and not give a free out to the defense. So, one can make the case that the assessment of ordinary effort here was highly debatable and that the intent of the rule was ignored. But the fact remains that there are no objective metrics for assessing "ordinary effort," and so this was a judgment call, plain and simple. On that basis, one can argue that it's just the way it is and a fair application of the rule. One can also argue (more convincingly imo) that this was a bad call, and that it materially impacted the outcome of the game. Personally, I have a hard time imagining that a call like this one wouldn't be overturned in today's MLB with replay.
Enjoyed reading your "mini epistle"...several excellent points you've made. Well said, calls like these are highly subjective and not black/white. While this SS demonstrated he could cover a lengthy distance into outfield, he did NOT at any point become oriented sufficiently to where ball would come down. Kozma's path was too shallow and after 15 full strides, his stylish pivot, ball dropped behind him out of reach. There's no grounds to think he feared colliding with Holliday since he didn't know where his teammate was. Like your statement of how "ordinary effort" has no objective metrics and has been debatable in how well it applies to this attempt. About two years before the Holbrook fiasco, a spokesman from Central Maryland Umpires posted an 8-10 min. presentation (YT) on the fundamentals of infield fly's. When he raised the question "what is ordinary effort?", he replied "it really can't be defined....it's up to the umpires." (subjective viewpoint). The commentator also stated that when fly balls are headed to shallow outfield depths, he looks for the infielder to show he can come back in a step before making the call. Kozma never made it there. Great post.
These guys are NOT helping umpires look less foolish and unreasonable than they already do. To quote Dickens, if that’s the law (rule), “the law is a[n] ass.”
It’s highly unlikely that the call was correct even under the letter of the rule. It is indisputable that the call was abominably wrong under the spirit of the rule. You’re doing the profession no favors here. These guys’ takes in this video are the equivalent of Angel Hernandez’s and Doug Eddings’s careers - notoriously and embarrassingly incompetent. (No personal offense intended; just pretend I’m a drunk fan in the cheap seats.)
I think the other factor is would this be called the same with a 4 man umpire crew?
I dont know of any examples of it that say otherwise, but the reason the call seems wrong is because it wouldnt normally be called. No way an umpire at 3rd base would call an infield fly that deep at turner field......but an extra umpire further up the line would be more inclined to do so.
Six umps seems to cause as many problems as it solves. The line umpires aren't used to being there or when to make calls relative to the base umpires.
Here is a play which is nearly identical;
czcams.com/video/DEYHRKVJTiU/video.html
I'm still not sold that the call was right. Also you made it very clear from the start that you weren't interested if the call was right/wrong but were just trying to defend it.
If you're saying we're here to defend correct calls... you're right.
@@LukeBrianTour and some INCORRECT calls as well it seems.
@@ihop4no14 good one? I guess?
Great video. I use this video as part of my training of new umpires.
Appreciate it!
So you can show them how to misinterpret a common sense rule so that it ruins baseball for the rest of their lives?
@@LukeBrianTour I use COMMON SENSE as part of my explaining why this rule was called incorrectly on that infamous day in 2012.
You see if it didn't matter where the fly ball was when the umpire used his otherwise poor judgement to RUIN the team he hated chances to advance, then it would have been named the Fly Ball Rule.
Now seeing that the ball was 90 in the outfield while the infielder backpedaled to intentionally drop it so he could then run 90 feet to third base, hopefully beating out the runner at second who already had a 10-12 foot lead, so the fielder could then throw to second base for a double play, well that just defies common sense.
@@ihop4no14 lol, the Infield Fly Rule was named for the type of fielder it applies to, not some arbitrary measurement such as the infield grass. It literally says that last part within the rule, but I understand based on your comment that this might be using too much common sense for you.
@@LukeBrianTour You're correct sir, in that it was named for the type of fielder it applies to, i.e. an infielder. However, common sense (which isn't all that common anymore) leads one to believe that an infielder is not going to run 90 feet backwards into the OUTFIELD to intentionally drop a ball so he can get a double play.
If the ONLY reason the infield fly rule was called in this case was because an infielder was the one attempting a play, can you with any assurance say that an OUTFIELDER in the EXACT SAME POSITION on the field would have caused an umpire to invoke the infield fly rule? An Outfielder charging the infield, Matt Holiday in this case, would have had a much better chance of getting a double play that Kozma, who was backpedaling the whole way.
jogging 100 ft into the outfield is not ordinary effort. running to my mailbox is ordinary effort, walking my neighborhood and then checking mail on the way in is not.
Once the infielder is in position to make the catch, it becomes ordinary effort regardless of how far he ran to get there.
Joshua, good illustrative thought. Actually, Kozma back peddled about 70 ft. from his spot on the infield to his final pivot. All in vain since he didn't locate where he needed to be to catch this sky high fly...it was a very difficult angle outward. So much for ordinary effort when ball hits turf like a nine-iron to the green.
@@chialpha8450 Kozma was under the ball waving others off. He would make that catch 99% of the time.
@@alanhess9306By that logic, ANY catch that is physically possible can be defined as “ordinary effort” because making a catch necessitates first being in position to make the catch (this should be obvious, but by definition, if it is physically possible for you to make a catch when it comes time to make the catch, then you’re in position to catch it), which according to you constitutes ordinary effort. That’s not how it works. This would be the same concept if an outfielder runs to the pitcher’s mound and camps under the ball. Yeah, he can easily make the play, but by no means is that “ordinary” by any logical definition of the word. As an outfielder, by definition, “ordinary” is confined to plays made firmly within the outfield and, being generous, maybe 5 ft onto the infield dirt if absolutely no one else can make the play. As an infielder, by definition, “ordinary” is confined to plays made firmly within the infield and, again being generous, maybe a 20 ft area into the outfield where it’s not possible for an outfielder to make a play. Ordinary would be the outfielder making a play in the outfield. There is no scenario where an infielder making a play nearly an entire infield’s length into the outfield is “ordinary.”
Yet, the announcers, Holliday, everyone in the stadium, and everyone watching at home on TV (including myself) were all shocked when that ball dropped to the ground. Why? Because everyone with a working brain knew that any major league shortstop should have been able to successfully catch that pop-up with ordinary effort.
This call also has no precedent. How many times, especially during the regular season, does a play like this happen and an infield fly rule isn’t called? Many instances you’ll have miscommunication between an infielder going out and an out fielder coming in and this call is never made. Horse shit call, forever.
Still think it was a bad call,there should be a limit to how far the infielder can go out to catch a ball
So your issue is with the rule, not the call. The call is absolutely correct.
@@tylerrogers3782 BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT CALL WAS NOT ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
@@tylerrogers3782The call was not correct. There is no reasonable way to argue that running almost an entire infield’s length into the outfield is “ordinary effort.” Especially when the outfielder is right there poised to make the play. By definition, “ordinary effort” for an infielder are those efforts necessary to make plays within the infield and ONLY those plays in the outfield that physically cannot be made by an outfielder, but can be easily made by an infielder. The problem of people saying this call was correct, including the umpire in this video, is that they’re conflating the word “easy” with the word “ordinary.” Those two words do not mean the same thing. If an outfielder runs to the pitcher’s mound and camps under a ball, that is an EASY play. But because he’s an outfielder, running all the way to the pitcher’s mound does not fall under his ORDINARY duties, and therefore requires extraneous effort in order to make the play. And extraneous effort is mutually exclusive with “ordinary effort.”
Funny how we can spend a half hour on an obvious outfield fly ball but can’t use instant replay on a regular basis
You're saying instant replay isn't used on a regular basis? Are you in this century?
That type of fly ball is hit all the time. How many other times has it been called infield fly?
Didnt realize u had a CZcams channel
Why isn’t it called the “infieldER fly rule”?
It absolutely should be... it would eliminate a lot of confusion about the rule.
If the SS was Speedy Gonzales instead of Pete Kozma, then the entire field would be subject to the Infield Fly Rule. Why? Because Speedy, an infielder, would be able to catch the ball from anywhere with "ordinary effort." He doesn't have to actually catch it. He just has to be able to catch it.
Since (Speedy) P. Kozma (with less than 50 ML games to his credit) couldn't locate where this ball was to drop, his ability, (at least on this play) renders the question of whether "ordinary effort" adequately applies to this attempt.
@@captainc7160 Excellent point.
Not sure why this showed up 3 years later, but that was the worst call I have ever seen. How could it possibly be ordinary effort by a short stop if he looks a little lost and then gets called off by the outfielder in the outfield? By the logic in this video, all an infielder needs to do is trot somewhat underneath the ball and then throw his hands up like he is going to catch it, and it would be an infield fly rule. If it was such an ordinary play, how did it get so confused that it dropped?
I love the breakdown here! Great explanation of the rule. Wasn't that guy on Sports Science episode from ESPN years ago?
Yes he was! Nice eye!
So frustrating watching “professional” umpires that don’t know the rules .
The umpires know the rules, and correctly called the IFF. You don't know the rule.
They know the rules but lack sound judgment, like so many people today. And that is why their job is gradually being outsourced to computers and remote workers.
@@alanhess9306 The rule was not invented to protect fielders from terrible errors. It was invented to protect runners from being forced-out by an unfair loophole in the rules. Whether it was the infielder or the outfielder who fielded it, there would be no advantage to the throw in. You wouldn't call this on a pop up to shallow left, would you? The umpires did not have to make the call, but they also could have done the right thing and awarded the Braves bases loaded with no outs. The cardinals very clearly made a mistake that let the ball drop. If you try to argue that the rule has any application towards protecting the defending team, you are out of your mind.
@@KarazolaX I know the rule and the reason for it.
On this play, there were runners on first and second base, there were less than two outs and the ball was hit into the air which could be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort. All the elements necessary for calling the infield fly. The umpires called it when it became apparent Kozma could make the catch. The umpires don't wait to see the result of the play.
To award the Braves bases loaded with no outs, would absolutely be the wrong call and that would be a valid reason for SL to protest the game.
I think they should have left it alone because it was obviously a miscommunication, they both could have caught it, and they were both waiting on it. That ordinary effort seems ridiculous to me because it was so obviously not intentional
Hello Drew, please note the perception of "mis"communication is better stated by "no" communication between the two fielders. The SS was not ever aware of where his LF was or that he had slowed to a light trot. The SS could not get an accurate read on this high fly to locate the position for a catch. The LF had a better chance had he kept running forward...not a major-league effort.
Such orginally effort. Then why wasn't caught?
Can you not see the left fielder bearing down behind him? Who knows what he heard? All irrelevant once he's displayed ordinary effort. Better to let those who've umpired Pete Kozma determine what ordinary effort is for him, and at this level.
oml lol what a dumb comment
There was an analysis that this ball was, by far, the farthest one on which the IFF rule was called that year. If a SS races way into LF and 'camps under it', that doesn't make it 'ordinary effort'. Better to let things play out and call IFF retroactively. A group of umps will always back themselves.
The SS was camped under the fly ball until he heard the signal from the umpire. Why is it always, and it always is, the team that supposedly benefits from the infield fly rule that argues against it's inclusion?
@@sonnybowman Correction, the SS was in a "camped" position but not for the catch...he turned in too shallow (he missed)...from your statement above, which team benefited from this call?
@@sonnybowman Point is, he was never “camped under it”. He never set his feet or faced the infield. That’s ‘ordinary effort’. Having the baseline umpires is another factor. They cause more problems than they solve because the usual crew of four isn’t used them and calls get made that would never happen normally. Since fair/foul calls get review, keep it to four.
Terrible take. Matt Harry below nailed it. This rule is clearly to protect offense. The catch wasn’t made bc of miscommunication. We see this every year and it isn’t called an infield fly.
The term mis-communication has often been overused in regard to this play. In reality, there was NO communication between the fielders. Kozma had no clue where Holliday was or that he had given up on tracking this fly ball.
@@captainc7160 few thoughts here… first off you have no idea if there was communication on that play. I was there actually and have no idea. Nevertheless, the play happened and the call was what it was.
I will leave it at this; that same play occurs multiple times every year and it is almost never called an infield fly. Appreciate your viewpoint but watching baseball for the last 40+ years I can’t say that I’ve ever seen it called in a similar situation.
225 feet from home plate......100 feet from the left field wall ...that's where the ball landed. he stated when the rule was written the infield was a 90 foot square...again, the ball landed 225 feet from home plate....135 feet from what is defined as the infield...
Hello Mr. Bible: The fact that the SS drifted between 65-70 ft. from his position on the infield dirt and still could not reach the precise location to catch this one may be the more "scriptural" basis for ruling this play live. It plays well into the assertion that a fly ball so difficult to track doesn't qualify under "ordinary effort."
@@captainc7160 Nothing will ever convince me that this was an infield fly. I honestly think it is one of the worst calls I've ever seen.
@@brandonbible9643 A hearty Amen to the above. I've seen a few that may have been worse, but there's been comments that the call may have resulted from having an extra umpire, the norm for playoff games.
To also help this call it should never be called when the ball lands behind the guy making the “no effort” catch. He wasn’t even under the ball. Blown call that should have been over turned at protest…umps ego and desire to be right is the only reason we talk about it today…it was the wrong call plain and simple.
It looked like ordinary effort cause the infielder lazily backing up to a ball he completely misjudged. A good rule of thumb if the ball is halfway to idaho it's not an "infield" fly and then you don't have to worry how easy the infielder is making it look (before he comes up far short of a ball trailing away from his misjudgement). there's a reason no ball this far out has been called an infield fly since...
THIS NEEDS TO GET THE TUCK RULE TREATMENT!
😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
Seriously! Between the Braves and the Raiders, officials making the "correct call" have just about ruined sports for me!
Still don't get how you can call this an ordinary effort. The fielder was sprinting backwards, then had to turn around to back pedal and relocate the ball. If he would have made this catch I think it would have still been pretty impressive. If you watch where the ball lands I'm not sure he would have even caught it had he stayed where he was. People tried to say he thought he was called off, but looking at it now, I think he couldn't relocate it and decided to try and see if the fielder would help him out. In the end it's a judgement call, but I think if a fielder has to make that much of an effort to even get to the ball and it's that deep, there needs to be a common sense factor to know if he drops it intentionally he isn't going to get a double play anyway.
At Kozma's pivot point, he was facing the wrong direction with ball ticketed to land behind him. No wonder he stepped forward and then only to watch ball hit the turf well out of reach. Even with a quick pick-up by Holliday, the Cards had no play anywhere. Yes, many have tried to fabricate the SS being called off. Kozma drifted back between 65-70 ft. but still could not position himself for a catch. Well beyond ordinary.
If you can't make the catch, "camp out" and the ump will call the IFF.
@@danknauer5091 Fool the ump. If they were smart they would make it to where they can go back and overturn the call if it results in a double play. I see no advantage to calling it early like they do.
EXACTLY! Common sense clearly was not at play here. Backpedaling 90 feet into the OUTFIELD to intentionally drop the ball so he could then run to the closest bag at third to hopefully beat out the runner at second and then throw to second or first for a double play does not invoke common sense at all!
There's "judgement calls" and then there's ridiculous!
While this was the correct call, they really should change the rule in some way to keep from including fly balls that are too deep to potentially turn a double play. We now have managers who are getting very creative with their defensive positioning beyond just the now standard infield overshift, such as playing four outfielders, all of them positioned deep, in certain late game situations. However, one of those outfielders is still technically an infielder. This leads to a potential situation where that infielder accidentally drops a routine fly ball on the track that should technically be called under the infield fly rule!
I could see the shift possibly having an affect on this rule at some point, absolutely.
correct call my ass
Maybe they should call it the Infield(er) fly rule.
I read all of the comments here. One thing stands out. It's easy to tell the umpires in this thread from the non-umpires. Anyone who has read the rules, understands them, and understands the reason for the various rules is almost always someone who has been an umpire who took the craft seriously. The pinned comment is exactly what some beer swilling fan in the bleacher seats would think. The ignorance of the majority of these commenters is mind boggling.
It's easy to tell the umpires here because they're the ones defending the bad calls. They're like the cops of baseball - they never throw their own under the bus. Even when there's video and thousands of people watching them who saw exactly what they did.
@@ihop4no14 It's easy to tell the umpires here because they're the ones that know the rule. How can people saying he was not camped or it was too deep in the outfield be taken seriously? They obviously don't know the rule.
The fact that people say that this is the wrong call and are pissed off about it lets me know that they don't know much about it in general.
The second baseman is backing up to catch the ball, that means it's an infield fly brother...
He stopped because he didn't want him in the left fielder to collide and because at the same time he probably heard the empire call it. Lol.
If the second baseman in range and is about to catch it then the umpire calls it.
Because it's the second baseman is in range to catch the pop-up then it's an infield fly.
Its just that simple. 😂
Obviously it's ordinary effort if he's backing up and not moving forward to catch it.
If the ball wasn't caught it, it shouldn't be an out.
Learn what the infield fly rule it and then we'll talk.
@@LukeBrianTour I could say the same to you! There's a reason it's called the INFIELD fly rule! No outfielder (or an infielder backpedaling 90 feet into the outfield) will EVER be able to intentionally drop the ball, pick it up, run or throw to the closest bag to beat the runner and then throw to another fielder for a second out. If the location of where the fly ball is irrelevant, then it would have been called the Fly Ball Rule.
@@ihop4no14 there is a reason it's called that, and I just told it to you. You can continue to be a great example of how society only reads the headlines, or you can actually learn the rule from those who understand it. It's up to you.
@@ihop4no14 Wow more foolish and incorrect responses from this guy? Now it’s getting humorous how wrong you are.
Of course a former ump would defend that bullshit. They always defend their own and that why trash like Hernandez, West, and Buckner can have long careers.
They're like the cops of baseball. "He was resisting, so I HAD to whup him, Sarge!"
at the end of the day, there was no way, even without the miscommunication, that the infielder could have purposely let that ball drop and the cardinals turn a double play. THAT is the whole point of the infield fly rule, any time it is applied in a situation that could not result in a double play, it was applied WRONG.
Well stated.
Umpires must make the call when it happens. They don't wait to see the outcome of the play to decide.
@@alanhess9306 no where in my comment does that counter what you said. if you can't see they can't turn a double play before the ball drops from that spot, i don't know what to tell you.
@@lavs8696 These are ML players and you cannot be certain a double play could not be completed if the ball is allowed to drop. That's nothing more than your opinion. With runners on first and second base and less than two outs, the infield fly fly is called when the infielder demonstrates the catch can be made using ordinary effort. The idea that a double play might not be possible is not something that is considered.
@@alanhess9306 "The idea that a double play might not be possible is not something that is considered." I understand that, which is why I made the comment in the first place, that it is something that should be considered. And sorry to say, there was 0 chance of the ball being allowed to drop and a double play being turned.
Bad call. If the rule were meant to be applied this way, hardly a day during the regular season would go by without a game turning on such an inexcusable call. How many times have we seen a high pop fly drop between 3 fielders just beyond the infield, at least one of which is an infielder and all of whom could have caught it, and they don't call it an infield fly?
The explanation is 100% on point and the people disagreeing here are not hearing the explanation. The umpires correctly applies the rule as written and the only thing to dispute is ordinary effort. That is a judgement call and the only thing in dispute. Given the level of ball and how the shortstop behaved, I tend to side with the umpire.
Braves fans still mad about this lol
Rightfully so! Between Kent "fat-ass" Hrbek pulling Ron Gant off the bag at first and this BS call, it's a wonder why the Braves even bother showing up! They know some umpire or official (I'm talking to YOU Joe Torre) are going to ruin it for them!
While hate to admit it, the umps were correct. The confusion is name of the rule 'Infield Fly Rule' and should be called 'InfieldER Fly Rule'. Because, the rule states 'If infieldER could catch the ball with ordinary effort'. So, it does NOT have to do with infield of play, it has all to do with location of infielders when the play starts. As example, imagine a shift where all of the players move to right side of infield. Then, if batter hits a pop-up that lands right next to third base ... its NOT infield fly rule, because none of the infielders could have caught it with ordinary effort. {sigh ... I am a Braves fan}
So by that rationale, if Pete Kozma, the Infielder, had NOT made any effort and it was Matt Holliday hustling the whole way from left field and the ball landed EXACTLY in the same place it landed, it would have just been a dropped ball?!? Interesting....
Terrible breakdown. So according to them a infielder can run all the way to the outfield call off the outfielder then miss the catch and be considered a infield fly rule.
Yeah... terrible breakdown by the 29-yr MLB umpire. smh, figure it out shooter.
YES!!!! A million times yes!!!!!
So ur saying every bloop single in the outfield where the player is close to catch it should be an infield fly, this is way your reffing little league
Nope, that's not what I said at all if you were paying attention. And since you inquired about our qualifications, this channel is run by two former Minor League umpires, one AA Crew Chief and one AAA Crew Chief. We now both umpire NCAA D1 as well as in six different countries together so far. I even brought in 29-yr MLB veteran umpire Jim Evans for this vid, but apparently the great Matt Harry knows more than any expert, in any field of work, ever.
Luke Brian Tour Obama has a great resume doesn’t mean he’s worth a dam
@@mattharry6114 says the rules expert calling baseball umpires "referees". Dunning-Kruger Effect... look it up.
Luke Brian Tour bro this was a trash call and you say that you would call it as well. I just feel sorry for the kids that have to deal with ur shit
@@mattharry6114 actually everyone calls it this way, because both of us, plus the umpire that made the call, plus the 29-yr MLB Veteran you know more than, ALL instruct umpires worldwide. You go ahead and stick to what you were told in Little League, and we'll continue to educate those that can see past the name of the rule. Btw, this same umpire also nailed the runner's lane interference call in last year's World Series. I suppose you're an expert on that rule too?
I would have called it as soon as he had his feet set. Even in college. High school, I think not.
And it's all based on each individual play really, with part of the equation being the average skill for that level/classification. Having umpired Kozma across the Texas and Pacific Coast Leagues, I [Brian] have him displaying ordinary effort here.
Anytime an infielder (Kozma-SS) drifts back (nearly 60 ft)on a fly ball to LF, turns and instantly knows he has NO play on the descending pop-up has made a great effort! However, it's beyond "ordinary". Here we had a fly to shallow left that SHOULD have been caught be the left fielder. However, his lazy efforts (sometimes ordinary for Holliday) turned him into a spectator. Comments in this segment regarding once he (Kozma) was "comfortable" when he pivoted is nonsense when it comes to getting the IF call. He wasn't there and any competent umpire could have seen it...runner D. Uggla certainly did. It would now be worthy of note to compare the 1st inning pop-up in NLCS game 4...A few feet closer in and a 2nd baseman who COULD have caught this one with less effort than Kozma showed, However, Wong became distracted with his right fielder and they (all 3) muffed the play...sure enough, no call...live TX league hit.
@@markcolby9019 Kozma was under the ball waving other players off. He could have made the catch with ordinary effort. That was absolutely the correct call.
Under the ball?? Had he been, he'd have caught it! His "ordinary effort" was to no avail and thus no play. No doubt had the ruling been "live ball, all safe" there would have been NO discussion or question as whether the call was correct. No incorrect call here. We had a defensive chance that SHOULD have been handled by an outfielder, but since Holliday gave up too quickly, there's no grounds for an out to be handed to the defense based on a SS "acting" like he has a play (as stated by Harold "happens all the time" Reynolds).
@@markcolby9019 Yes Kozma was under the ball and would have easily made the catch if he didn't bail because he thought Holliday called him off. The ball landed two foot from where Kozma was positioned. Were there runners on first and second base? YES. Were there less than two outs? YES. Was there an infielder who could have caught the ball with ordinary effort? YES. That is why the call of infield fly was correct, even if the left fielder ended up catching the ball. And yes, there are grounds for an out to be called based on the fact that the SS would have easily caught that ball. You obviously don't know how the rule works.
The first INFIELD fly rule to be called on a ball in the OUTFIELD.
Not even close. It happens all the time.
@@michaelwalzak8071 for example? This is no doubt the highest profile, highest stakes situation i know of
Watch much baseball, do ya? The infield fly rule has been called on balls on the outfield grass at every level of baseball from Little League on up. All day, every day it is called on the outfield grass all across the world during baseball season. I can't even begin to count how many times I've called on a fly ball on the grass in 3,000 games as an umpire from LL up to the college level.
@@inquizition9672 and highest stakes means it's never happened before? If you can't get over the title of the rule, you don't belong in this conversation.
This is such bullshit. The type of play that the Infield Fly Rule was put in the baseball rule book for was NOT this!
Still waiting on someone to explain to me how you can be camped under a ball that you clearly have zero clue where it is.....worst call in baseball history....should have replayed the game
Please explain/elaborate?????
no where near the worst call if you assume it was the wrong call to make...this play for instance wasnt as bad as Jim Joyce taking a perfect game away from Gallaraga...or Denkinger's bad call in the 85 series
If Kozma didn't know where it was, he did an excellent acting job for the umpires. (Most likely, he foolishly decided at the last second that the left fielder would be able to make an easier catch despite having already called him off.) The umpires clearly saw him in position to make the catch, and that's all that matters.
Yeah you guys should quit umping if you think that’s ordinary effort he turned his back for half a second and moved immediately
We love armchair umpires... please tell us more of your expertise.
57 seconds: If the infielder did not have a chance to catch the ball, why would the announcer say "he'll take it" with such a dull tone like it was an easy catch?
Can the infielder catch that ball with ordinary effort? *Stevie Wonder* could catch that ball with ordinary effort.The infielder is literally just standing there like he's waiting for the ball. There is no superhuman effort when you're just standing there.
No way you can call that an ordinary effort. That man was sprinting like crazy, then twisting around backwards and trying to relocate the ball. Not just that, but if you watch where the ball lands, no way he would have caught it where he was standing at. So he really never was under it. Sure it was catchable, but it was hardly an easy catch. Honestly looking at it, I'm not sure he ever actually knew where it was when he moved. People tried to say he moved because he thought he was called off, but it looks more like he couldn't find it and moved so the outfielder could come get it.
If S. Wonder could catch this high fly then why didn't this young SS track the flight of this ball sufficiently to catch it? When he reached his pivot point he still didn't know where ball would drop. No wonder he stepped forward (bailed as some have stated)....he was NOT "called off" by Holliday.
it clearly wasn't ordinary effort because he didn't make the play lol
It was a bad call. Plain and simple.
It wasn't difficult call if you take the time to understand the rule beyond it's name.
Leave it to baseball to over complicate things. Keep it simple. Use the dirt line. Done!
You do realize how good and smart these guys are though?! An MLB SS and 2nd baseman would be salivating over that rule change. Any pop up just on the edge of the grass now with base loaded or R1/R2 allowed to fall to the ground, easy double play turned, maybe even a triple play. Because that's what it would turn in to. The rule is fine as written, it just needs to be better understood by some fans. Umpires understand it, these guys nailed it and while it looked odd in the end, it was the right call.
@@alcoraces Subjective judgement calls are seldom referred to as "right" or "wrong". Even a few commentators who support the Holbrook ruling have stated there would have been no controversy had this fly ball been ruled live. THEY are right. From your comments above, yes, infielders would "salivate" on pop-ups that would land say 10 feet away from 2nd or 3rd, but NOT 60 ft into LF where no infielder (including Kozma) tracks the flight of the ball well enough to catch it.
@@chialpha8450 Good point! 10 feet away from the infield bases = salivate. 90 feet backpedaling into the outfield does NOT = salivation. That was a tough catch - no easy effort at all -and there's no way he could have intentionally dropped it, run to the closest bag, in this case third base, beat the runner from second, who already had a 10-12 ft lead, and then throw to another bag for a double play!