Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

For years I have complained about the extra umpires that are used in the playoffs. They are not needed but baseball continues to use them and they continue to screw up the biggest games of the year.

The infield fly call in the Cards - Braves game was horrible. Instead of having bases loaded with 1 out, the Braves had 2 on and 2 out.

The rule is in place to prevent a team from intentionally dropping a ball to get a double play, not to bail out fielders who miscommunicated with each other and let a ball drop between them.

The Braves got screwed.

I agree.

The Braves shouldn't have committed 3 errors though... But it was a bullshit call. I am sure there will be an apology tomorrow but it will do ZERO good.

screw Chipper, Screw the Braves, and screw their classy fans. Adios losers.

Chipper Jones got a retirement gift single in the 9th. He was out.

SoCalAg wrote:screw Chipper, Screw the Braves, and screw their classy fans. Adios losers.

You forgot to say SCREW YOU with a rusty railroad spike.

CitadelGrad wrote:Chipper Jones got a retirement gift single in the 9th. He was out.

Maybe, but so what. Two wrongs don't make right. The call that went against the Braves was much bigger, and a much worse call.

CitadelGrad wrote:Chipper Jones got a retirement gift single in the 9th. He was out.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the "Timeout K-HR call"

I don't think the call was a bad call. The IF clearly had a reasonable chance to catch the ball. It was called a little late though. But it was called when the player was almost under the ball.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

jmufan wrote:I don't think the call was a bad call. The IF clearly had a reasonable chance to catch the ball. It was called a little late though. But it was called when the player was almost under the ball.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

It was a bad call. At no time did it look like the Cards were trying to drop the ball on purpose. Besides, even if they were, they weren't going to turn a double play there. The Cards screwed up and the ump bailed them out be screwing up even worse.

BlueHen86 wrote:

jmufan wrote:I don't think the call was a bad call. The IF clearly had a reasonable chance to catch the ball. It was called a little late though. But it was called when the player was almost under the ball.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

It was a bad call. At no time did it look like the Cards were trying to drop the ball on purpose. Besides, even if they were, they weren't going to turn a double play there. The Cards screwed up and the ump bailed them out be screwing up even worse.

I'm pretty sure the IF rule makes no mention of the umpire being able to discern if the player is planning on dropping the ball on purpose or not. The IF rule only mentions if an infielder (and truth be told, doesn't even need to be an infielder making the play as long as an infielder is close by) has a reasonable chance to catch a ball with ordinary effort. Nor does it take into account whether they would be able to turn a double play or not.

Controversial call for sure considering the outcome, but by the letter of the rule, it was a pretty defensible call.

GannonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
It was a bad call. At no time did it look like the Cards were trying to drop the ball on purpose. Besides, even if they were, they weren't going to turn a double play there. The Cards screwed up and the ump bailed them out be screwing up even worse.

I'm pretty sure the IF rule makes no mention of the umpire being able to discern if the player is planning on dropping the ball on purpose or not. The IF rule only mentions if an infielder (and truth be told, doesn't even need to be an infielder making the play as long as an infielder is close by) has a reasonable chance to catch a ball with ordinary effort. Nor does it take into account whether they would be able to turn a double play or not.

Controversial call for sure considering the outcome, but by the letter of the rule, it was a pretty defensible call.

Then what is the point of the rule then? Using your logic anytime a fielder drops a ball with a runner on base the batter can be called out. No more errors, the umpires are now fielders.

Hiding behind a poorly written rule does not make it a defensible call.

GannonFan wrote:Controversial call for sure considering the outcome, but by the letter of the rule, it was a pretty defensible call.

The radio announcers said the same thing.

Gil Dobie wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Controversial call for sure considering the outcome, but by the letter of the rule, it was a pretty defensible call.

The radio announcers said the same thing.

The TV announcers said it was a bad call.

The problem is the extra umpires. The call wasn't made by one of the regular infield umps, it was made by an umpire who is not used to standing down the left field line. He gets a different perspective of the game and sees things that may not be there. Had the ump been standing where the 3rd base ump was standing he might have seen that there was some confusion between the fielders and let things play out.

I'm not saying the Braves should ahve won the game, even with bases loaded and 1 out, they were still down by 3 runs, no guarantee that they score, but they should have had the chance.

There was no reason to make that call. Let the players play.

Chipper Jones made the last out of the game, but the ump called him safe at 1st when he was clearly out. I guess that's a better retirement gift than a gold watch.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Chipper Jones got a retirement gift single in the 9th. He was out.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the "Timeout K-HR call"

That too.

CitadelGrad wrote:Chipper Jones made the last out of the game, but the ump called him safe at 1st when he was clearly out. I guess that's a better retirement gift than a gold watch.

You already posted that. Are you that much of a homer that you can't admit your team had a little help from the umps tonight?

BlueHen86 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm pretty sure the IF rule makes no mention of the umpire being able to discern if the player is planning on dropping the ball on purpose or not. The IF rule only mentions if an infielder (and truth be told, doesn't even need to be an infielder making the play as long as an infielder is close by) has a reasonable chance to catch a ball with ordinary effort. Nor does it take into account whether they would be able to turn a double play or not.

Controversial call for sure considering the outcome, but by the letter of the rule, it was a pretty defensible call.

Then what is the point of the rule then? Using your logic anytime a fielder drops a ball with a runner on base the batter can be called out. No more errors, the umpires are now fielders.

Hiding behind a poorly written rule does not make it a defensible call.

It's not poorly written - it's a very straight forward rule. Guys on 1st and 2nd (or bases loaded) and the infielder is capable of making a routine catch and the ump calls infield fly. Even in this case, even with the ump calling it late, he didn't wait until the ball dropped. He made the call later than he should've, but he made the right call. You're making up a scenario where the ump waits for the ball to drop and then calls infield fly - that didn't happen tonight. Nothing's wrong with the IF fly rule and it was appropriately called tonight, although it was called later than it should have. It still could've been caught when he called it so the call was legit.

Frankly, the bigger story in my opinion is the behavior of the fans. For all the botched calls to go against Philly in the past, you;d never see that kind of behavior. Shameful, just shameful.

GannonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Then what is the point of the rule then? Using your logic anytime a fielder drops a ball with a runner on base the batter can be called out. No more errors, the umpires are now fielders.

Hiding behind a poorly written rule does not make it a defensible call.

It's not poorly written - it's a very straight forward rule. Guys on 1st and 2nd (or bases loaded) and the infielder is capable of making a routine catch and the ump calls infield fly. Even in this case, even with the ump calling it late, he didn't wait until the ball dropped. He made the call later than he should've, but he made the right call. You're making up a scenario where the ump waits for the ball to drop and then calls infield fly - that didn't happen tonight. Nothing's wrong with the IF fly rule and it was appropriately called tonight, although it was called later than it should have. It still could've been caught when he called it so the call was legit.

Frankly, the bigger story in my opinion is the behavior of the fans. For all the botched calls to go against Philly in the past, you;d never see that kind of behavior. Shameful, just shameful.

There was no reason to make that call. Just because you can make a call, doesn't mean that you should. You are attempting to apply the MLB version Nuremberg defense, "I was only following orders".

And if the rule says that you should make that call then it's a poorly written rule. It's not a routine catch if the shortstop and left fielder are about to run into each other. The rules aren't there to bail out the fielders, which is what the umpire did in this case.

I agree regarding the fans behavior, it was in excusable. But no matter what happens, Philly will always be perceived as having the most unruly fans.

GannonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
It was a bad call. At no time did it look like the Cards were trying to drop the ball on purpose. Besides, even if they were, they weren't going to turn a double play there. The Cards screwed up and the ump bailed them out be screwing up even worse.

I'm pretty sure the IF rule makes no mention of the umpire being able to discern if the player is planning on dropping the ball on purpose or not. The IF rule only mentions if an infielder (and truth be told, doesn't even need to be an infielder making the play as long as an infielder is close by) has a reasonable chance to catch a ball with ordinary effort. Nor does it take into account whether they would be able to turn a double play or not.

Controversial call for sure considering the outcome, but by the letter of the rule, it was a pretty defensible call.

I'm sure that rule will be revisited in the offseason. Sucks for the Braves tho, completely killed their momentum (the call combined with the 20 minute delay because of the fans). But they did have their chances. They didn't lose this game because of the call, but it didn't help their chances.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm pretty sure the IF rule makes no mention of the umpire being able to discern if the player is planning on dropping the ball on purpose or not. The IF rule only mentions if an infielder (and truth be told, doesn't even need to be an infielder making the play as long as an infielder is close by) has a reasonable chance to catch a ball with ordinary effort. Nor does it take into account whether they would be able to turn a double play or not.

Controversial call for sure considering the outcome, but by the letter of the rule, it was a pretty defensible call.

I'm sure that rule will be revisited in the offseason. Sucks for the Braves tho, completely killed their momentum (the call combined with the 20 minute delay because of the fans). But they did have their chances. They didn't lose this game because of the call, but it didn't help their chances.

Agreed. I thought they lost the game in the bottom of the 4th when Simmons tried to bunt with 1 out and runners on 1st and 3rd. It was a stupid play. Best case scenario is that the bunt works and the bases are loaded with 1 out and the pitcher batting. Simmons needs to try and drive the run in and not leave it up to the pitcher.

GannonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Then what is the point of the rule then? Using your logic anytime a fielder drops a ball with a runner on base the batter can be called out. No more errors, the umpires are now fielders.

Hiding behind a poorly written rule does not make it a defensible call.

It's not poorly written - it's a very straight forward rule. Guys on 1st and 2nd (or bases loaded) and the infielder is capable of making a routine catch and the ump calls infield fly. Even in this case, even with the ump calling it late, he didn't wait until the ball dropped. He made the call later than he should've, but he made the right call. You're making up a scenario where the ump waits for the ball to drop and then calls infield fly - that didn't happen tonight. Nothing's wrong with the IF fly rule and it was appropriately called tonight, although it was called later than it should have. It still could've been caught when he called it so the call was legit.

Frankly, the bigger story in my opinion is the behavior of the fans. For all the botched calls to go against Philly in the past, you;d never see that kind of behavior. Shameful, just shameful.

Curt Schilling says it was a bad call:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8467393

I have the solution to the whole thing: put clenz out there. He's the best baseball umpire in history, so why not use him? He's guaranteed not to blow someone's perfect game with a bogus safe call at first, or make an incorrect infield fly call....

SuperHornet wrote:I have the solution to the whole thing: put clenz out there. He's the best baseball umpire in history, so why not use him? He's guaranteed not to blow someone's perfect game with a bogus safe call at first, or make an incorrect infield fly call....

Here's a suggestion:

Stick with 4 umpires. They know how to position themselves, the extra 2 umps just get in the way.
Use replay, not for judgment calls, but for safe/out, fair/foul, home run/in-play etc.

Ken Rosenthal also thinks it was a bad call...

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/umpi ... use-100512

Did someone just compare the argument in favor of the ump to the Nazis? Wow