Baseball does it again...

[BlueHen86]

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

Well, the SS was involved.

[SuperHornet]

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.

Or go the other way. Make it 6 umps all the time and let them get their responsibilities worked out in one spring training.

[BlueHen86]

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.

Or go the other way. Make it 6 umps all the time and let them get their responsibilities worked out in one spring training.

That would be an improvement, although I'd prefer to see replay used.

[SuperHornet]

I'm a traditionalist through and through, 86, but on THAT issue, I'm starting to come around to your position. The problem I still see with it, though, is how one would administer it. Do you go back to the beginning of football's use of it, where the replay official beeped the ref, and the head coaches had no say? Do you give managers carte blanche on challenges, thereby slowing the game down needlessly? I can see having a set number of challenges as in tennis now, but you can't tie them to anything like timeouts in football, because those don't exist. Do you leave the decisions in the hands of the booth official (old football replay) or let the crew chief get under a hood with guidance from the booth official (new football replay). What constitutes a "reviewable" play? What's reviewable in football right now is better than it used to be, but could be a whole lot better. If replay DOES happen in baseball (and it had better be for more than fair-or-foul on long fly balls), they had better get a diverse group of people including umps, managers/coaches, and older players to nail EVERYTHING down before they implement it. I REALLY don't want to see a manager come barrelling out of the dugout (or hit the first base ump in the head with a red hanky), only to be told that it's not reviewable when everyone can see on the jumbo tron what a dumb call was just made. To me, that would make a mockery of the whole process.

[BlueHen86]

I'm a traditionalist through and through, 86, but on THAT issue, I'm starting to come around to your position. The problem I still see with it, though, is how one would administer it. Do you go back to the beginning of football's use of it, where the replay official beeped the ref, and the head coaches had no say? Do you give managers carte blanche on challenges, thereby slowing the game down needlessly? I can see having a set number of challenges as in tennis now, but you can't tie them to anything like timeouts in football, because those don't exist. Do you leave the decisions in the hands of the booth official (old football replay) or let the crew chief get under a hood with guidance from the booth official (new football replay). What constitutes a "reviewable" play? What's reviewable in football right now is better than it used to be, but could be a whole lot better. If replay DOES happen in baseball (and it had better be for more than fair-or-foul on long fly balls), they had better get a diverse group of people including umps, managers/coaches, and older players to nail EVERYTHING down before they implement it. I REALLY don't want to see a manager come barrelling out of the dugout (or hit the first base ump in the head with a red hanky), only to be told that it's not reviewable when everyone can see on the jumbo tron what a dumb call was just made. To me, that would make a mockery of the whole process.

Use a 5 man umpiring crew, 5th man is in the booth. Let him watch the instant replay at the same time the TV audience is watching it. If he sees a call that needs a closer look, he can hold up the game. Managers can also come out and request a review.

I don't believe there is currently a rule in place that limits the number of times a manager can question a call, so I don't think you need to limit the use of replay. I don't think adding replay will significantly slow the game down; most plays don't need it, and it may shorten games that would otherwise be delayed by arguments. Limit it to safe/out, fair/foul, homer/in play.

[SuperHornet]

That's a good argument, 86. I'm not sure what else could be of practical use. Balks are a straight judgment call, and I'm not sure that outside of a COMPLETELY botched call, that replay would help. Infield fly rule, maybe? Or perhaps HBP? On the whole, though, I think you have it right there. It would be completely NOT worth the time investment for the official scorer to use it to distinguish between passed ball and wild pitch, right?

[GannonFan]

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.

Again, you're just making up details about the play that didn't happen. They weren't about to run into each other - they were still several feet apart. Stick to the play, not what you think could've happened.

The fact is, the shortstop ranged to left field, and was under the ball. By the rule, with the runners where they were, it's a simple application of the infield fly rule. The rule is pretty simple, and that's what was applied. I agree the ump could've been quicker with the call, but he called it while the ball was still in the air and while the infielder looked to have it lined up for an easy catch. That's all the rule is meant to cover and it did and the ump applied it correctly. Just because Curt Schilling and Ken Rosenthal agree that they think it was a bad call doesn't make it so.

[BlueHen86]

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.

Again, you're just making up details about the play that didn't happen. They weren't about to run into each other - they were still several feet apart. Stick to the play, not what you think could've happened.

The fact is, the shortstop ranged to left field, and was under the ball. By the rule, with the runners where they were, it's a simple application of the infield fly rule. The rule is pretty simple, and that's what was applied. I agree the ump could've been quicker with the call, but he called it while the ball was still in the air and while the infielder looked to have it lined up for an easy catch. That's all the rule is meant to cover and it did and the ump applied it correctly. Just because Curt Schilling and Ken Rosenthal agree that they think it was a bad call doesn't make it so.

The purpose of the infield fly rule is to prevent a double play. It's supposed to protect the team that is batting. The ball was hit deep enough into the outfield that a double play was not going to happen. There was no reason to make that call, that's why the call sucks.

When applying a rule, you need to know why the rule was created, that's where judgment comes in. It was a judgment call, and the umpire blew it.

The rule also requires "ordinary effort". That play required more than ordinary effort from the SS, he had to run out to left field to make the catch. The ump didn't call the infield fly rule earlier because he wasn't sure if the ball would be caught.

It was a horrible call. It didn't meet the letter or the spirirt of the rule. I'm right, Rosenthal is right, Schillling is right, and you're wrong.

[CAA Flagship]

I have been siding with the umps on this from the beginning. But this morning I heard on the radio that the farthest IF hit went approx. 180 feet and this one went 225 feet.

After viewing the replay again, I agree that the ball could have been hit 225 feet from home plate.

Then, after plotting this, I have determined that the ball landed approximately 135-140 feet from third base.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the double play. Well there is no way to get the runner at first so the only option to complete the double play is to throw to third and then to second. This would require, say, a 135 foot throw and a 90 foot throw to complete. The runner on first has no reason to stay close to first as the ball is in the air travelling to shallow left field so he does not have to begin his advance to second from 90 feet away if the ball is not caught.

So my conclusion is that it would be nearly impossible to complete the double play by throwing 135 ft to third and having the third baseman throw 90 ft to second while pivoting to his right.

This is a lot to think about for an umpire in the moment. I think he made the call correctly by rule but in reality, I don't believe the call prevented the double play. I think once you get beyond a 60 foot throw to third, it is difficult to complete the 6-5-4 double play.

[BlueHen86]

I have been siding with the umps on this from the beginning. But this morning I heard on the radio that the farthest IF hit went approx. 180 feet and this one went 225 feet.

After viewing the replay again, I agree that the ball could have been hit 225 feet from home plate.

Then, after plotting this, I have determined that the ball landed approximately 135-140 feet from third base.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the double play. Well there is no way to get the runner at first so the only option to complete the double play is to throw to third and then to second. This would require, say, a 135 foot throw and a 90 foot throw to complete. The runner on first has no reason to stay close to first as the ball is in the air travelling to shallow left field so he does not have to begin his advance to second from 90 feet away if the ball is not caught.

So my conclusion is that it would be nearly impossible to complete the double play by throwing 135 ft to third and having the third baseman throw 90 ft to second while pivoting to his right.

This is a lot to think about for an umpire in the moment. I think he made the call correctly by rule but in reality, I don't believe the call prevented the double play. I think once you get beyond a 60 foot throw to third, it is difficult to complete the 6-5-4 double play.

Exactly.

Had the umpire been stationed at 3rd base he might have realized that the ball was too deep for a DP to happen. Because he was stationed in the outlield he didn't have the proper perspective of that play.

[CAA Flagship]

I have been siding with the umps on this from the beginning. But this morning I heard on the radio that the farthest IF hit went approx. 180 feet and this one went 225 feet.

After viewing the replay again, I agree that the ball could have been hit 225 feet from home plate.

Then, after plotting this, I have determined that the ball landed approximately 135-140 feet from third base.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the double play. Well there is no way to get the runner at first so the only option to complete the double play is to throw to third and then to second. This would require, say, a 135 foot throw and a 90 foot throw to complete. The runner on first has no reason to stay close to first as the ball is in the air travelling to shallow left field so he does not have to begin his advance to second from 90 feet away if the ball is not caught.

So my conclusion is that it would be nearly impossible to complete the double play by throwing 135 ft to third and having the third baseman throw 90 ft to second while pivoting to his right.

This is a lot to think about for an umpire in the moment. I think he made the call correctly by rule but in reality, I don't believe the call prevented the double play. I think once you get beyond a 60 foot throw to third, it is difficult to complete the 6-5-4 double play.

Exactly.

Had the umpire been stationed at 3rd base he might have realized that the ball was too deep for a DP to happen. Because he was stationed in the outlield he didn't have the proper perspective of that play.

Here is the problem with that particular call. The call should have been "pre-determined" based on where and how far it was hit.

I had a "polite discussion" with the ump at my 9 yo son's game in June. There were runners on first and second with one out and my son was playing third. The batter hit a sharp one hopper just to his left that he stabbed while standing directly in the baseline. He made a slight move to turn to his right to run the 10 feet or so to step on third for the forceout when he realized that the dumbass kid on second was running as hard as he could right at him. My son quickly realized he had a shot at a tag and throw to second for a double play. So he stepped towards the approaching runner while straddling the "baseline". The runner made a move towards left field to avoid the tag. My son had his throwing hand on the ball and the ball in the glove trying to apply a two-handed tag. But in the process of reaching to tag the runner, his hand and ball separated slightly from the glove when his glove tagged the runner. The umpire stationed between second and third called the runner out by tag. The third base coach, seeing the ball separate from the glove during the tag, appealed to the home plate ump and he agreed and called the runner safe. All hell broke loose at this point on a number of levels.

The problem is that the field umpire should have called the kid out for being out of the baseline (the limit is a mere 3 feet in either direction of the "baseline"). It is nearly impossible to avoid a tag within three feet of a defensive player that is straddling the baseline. This should have been a "pre-determined" call as well and I told him that. (I was on the protest committee for this game that had to ensure the proper rule was applied so I had the attention of the umpire).

There are certain plays that make no sense to try to judge while the play is happening, and this is where the "pre-determination" comes in. In the case of a defensive player holding a ball while straddling the baseline and facing the oncoming runner, the only way that runner can be safe is if the ball is dropped. There is no way to avoid the tag without going outside 3 feet of center. And in the case of this infield fly rule, a ball hit to left field beyond a certain point should not be called regardless if the infielder or outfielder is camped under it. You can't pick up a ball, and make a 135 ft throw and a 90 ft throw for a double play to get a runner that only has to run maybe 70 feet (from first to second) once the ball hits the ground. Prince Fielder can make it to second in that amount of time.

[GannonFan]

I have been siding with the umps on this from the beginning. But this morning I heard on the radio that the farthest IF hit went approx. 180 feet and this one went 225 feet.

After viewing the replay again, I agree that the ball could have been hit 225 feet from home plate.

Then, after plotting this, I have determined that the ball landed approximately 135-140 feet from third base.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the double play. Well there is no way to get the runner at first so the only option to complete the double play is to throw to third and then to second. This would require, say, a 135 foot throw and a 90 foot throw to complete. The runner on first has no reason to stay close to first as the ball is in the air travelling to shallow left field so he does not have to begin his advance to second from 90 feet away if the ball is not caught.

So my conclusion is that it would be nearly impossible to complete the double play by throwing 135 ft to third and having the third baseman throw 90 ft to second while pivoting to his right.

This is a lot to think about for an umpire in the moment. I think he made the call correctly by rule but in reality, I don't believe the call prevented the double play. I think once you get beyond a 60 foot throw to third, it is difficult to complete the 6-5-4 double play.

The key point is that the ump made the "call correctly by rule". Nowhere in the rule does it apply a maximum distance for the umpire to judge and anything outside of that maximum distance is exempt from the IF fly rule. Heck, there's an official comment by MLB in the rulebook that says you can't judge the rule based on where it is - as long as an IF is there to make the play, and in this case he was there in plenty of time to make the play - hence the "ordinary effort" part being satisfied here), then the rule is to be applied.

I find it odd that we would actually want the umpire to throw his own judgement into this and have the umpire, in those few seconds, decide that the rule isn't written perfectly and he's going to substitute his own interpretation of the rule. The ump followed the rule perfectly - the call was made exactly how the rule reads. I'm sure people would love for there to be an arc drawn on the outfield showing the extent of where the IF fly rule should exist, but then I'm sure there would be an even greater number of people complaining about how the added line on the field distracts from the "beauty" of the field and how it's uneccesary. Fact of the matter is, the ump made the right call based on the rule. I haven't heard anyone with a convincing argument of how the rule was not followed properly.

[89Hen]

The key point is that the ump made the "call correctly by rule". Nowhere in the rule does it apply a maximum distance for the umpire to judge and anything outside of that maximum distance is exempt from the IF fly rule. Heck, there's an official comment by MLB in the rulebook that says you can't judge the rule based on where it is - as long as an IF is there to make the play, and in this case he was there in plenty of time to make the play - hence the "ordinary effort" part being satisfied here), then the rule is to be applied.

And I learned the catch can even be about to be made by an outfielder and still be an IFR.

[CAA Flagship]

The key point is that the ump made the "call correctly by rule". Nowhere in the rule does it apply a maximum distance for the umpire to judge and anything outside of that maximum distance is exempt from the IF fly rule. Heck, there's an official comment by MLB in the rulebook that says you can't judge the rule based on where it is - as long as an IF is there to make the play, and in this case he was there in plenty of time to make the play - hence the "ordinary effort" part being satisfied here), then the rule is to be applied.

And I learned the catch can even be about to be made by an outfielder and still be an IFR.

Yes, and what drives that is location of the ball. Again, if it is that deep, don't call it regardless of how "ordinary" the catch is because a double play can not be turned anyway.

[89Hen]

So my conclusion is that it would be nearly impossible to complete the double play by throwing 135 ft to third and having the third baseman throw 90 ft to second while pivoting to his right.

One thing to keep in mind is that on a ground ball DP, the runners are running on the ground ball.

[CAA Flagship]

So my conclusion is that it would be nearly impossible to complete the double play by throwing 135 ft to third and having the third baseman throw 90 ft to second while pivoting to his right.

One thing to keep in mind is that on a ground ball DP, the runners are running on the ground ball.

True, and on a fly ball (pop-up) the runners advance as far as they can to be able to get back in time if the ball was caught. So for a pop-up to the left side, the runner on first can get a bigger "lead" than the runner on second (probably 1/3 the distance to second base). The runner on first is the second out of the forceout-forceout DP.
Factor in the long throw and the unfavorable turn that the third baseman has to make (catch and turn body to his right rather than to his left) and it is very difficult to turn two.

[BlueHen86]

I have been siding with the umps on this from the beginning. But this morning I heard on the radio that the farthest IF hit went approx. 180 feet and this one went 225 feet.

After viewing the replay again, I agree that the ball could have been hit 225 feet from home plate.

Then, after plotting this, I have determined that the ball landed approximately 135-140 feet from third base.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the double play. Well there is no way to get the runner at first so the only option to complete the double play is to throw to third and then to second. This would require, say, a 135 foot throw and a 90 foot throw to complete. The runner on first has no reason to stay close to first as the ball is in the air travelling to shallow left field so he does not have to begin his advance to second from 90 feet away if the ball is not caught.

So my conclusion is that it would be nearly impossible to complete the double play by throwing 135 ft to third and having the third baseman throw 90 ft to second while pivoting to his right.

This is a lot to think about for an umpire in the moment. I think he made the call correctly by rule but in reality, I don't believe the call prevented the double play. I think once you get beyond a 60 foot throw to third, it is difficult to complete the 6-5-4 double play.

The key point is that the ump made the "call correctly by rule". Nowhere in the rule does it apply a maximum distance for the umpire to judge and anything outside of that maximum distance is exempt from the IF fly rule. Heck, there's an official comment by MLB in the rulebook that says you can't judge the rule based on where it is - as long as an IF is there to make the play, and in this case he was there in plenty of time to make the play - hence the "ordinary effort" part being satisfied here), then the rule is to be applied.

I find it odd that we would actually want the umpire to throw his own judgement into this and have the umpire, in those few seconds, decide that the rule isn't written perfectly and he's going to substitute his own interpretation of the rule. The ump followed the rule perfectly - the call was made exactly how the rule reads. I'm sure people would love for there to be an arc drawn on the outfield showing the extent of where the IF fly rule should exist, but then I'm sure there would be an even greater number of people complaining about how the added line on the field distracts from the "beauty" of the field and how it's uneccesary. Fact of the matter is, the ump made the right call based on the rule. I haven't heard anyone with a convincing argument of how the rule was not followed properly.

Baseball is a game of judgment calls, balls and strikes are judgment calls.

If you are right, how come all 6 umpires didn't make the call? Why did the Braves protest? and why are so many people criticizing the call?


If the effort was ordinary the call would have been immediately and the shortstop would have caught the ball.

[GannonFan]

The key point is that the ump made the "call correctly by rule". Nowhere in the rule does it apply a maximum distance for the umpire to judge and anything outside of that maximum distance is exempt from the IF fly rule. Heck, there's an official comment by MLB in the rulebook that says you can't judge the rule based on where it is - as long as an IF is there to make the play, and in this case he was there in plenty of time to make the play - hence the "ordinary effort" part being satisfied here), then the rule is to be applied.

And I learned the catch can even be about to be made by an outfielder and still be an IFR.

Well, only if the IF is right there too to make the catch or if the OF was positioned in the infield to start the play.

[GannonFan]

And I learned the catch can even be about to be made by an outfielder and still be an IFR.

Yes, and what drives that is location of the ball. Again, if it is that deep, don't call it regardless of how "ordinary" the catch is because a double play can not be turned anyway.

There's nothing in the rule for an umpire to make that evaluation. The rule specifically says that the play can be made anywhere where an "ordinary" effort can be made. What you're arguing may be true, potentially, but it is clearly not the intent of the rule. The rule is very clear that if an IF can catch a fly ball with runners where they were, then it's an IF fly rule.

[GannonFan]

The key point is that the ump made the "call correctly by rule". Nowhere in the rule does it apply a maximum distance for the umpire to judge and anything outside of that maximum distance is exempt from the IF fly rule. Heck, there's an official comment by MLB in the rulebook that says you can't judge the rule based on where it is - as long as an IF is there to make the play, and in this case he was there in plenty of time to make the play - hence the "ordinary effort" part being satisfied here), then the rule is to be applied.

I find it odd that we would actually want the umpire to throw his own judgement into this and have the umpire, in those few seconds, decide that the rule isn't written perfectly and he's going to substitute his own interpretation of the rule. The ump followed the rule perfectly - the call was made exactly how the rule reads. I'm sure people would love for there to be an arc drawn on the outfield showing the extent of where the IF fly rule should exist, but then I'm sure there would be an even greater number of people complaining about how the added line on the field distracts from the "beauty" of the field and how it's uneccesary. Fact of the matter is, the ump made the right call based on the rule. I haven't heard anyone with a convincing argument of how the rule was not followed properly.

Baseball is a game of judgment calls, balls and strikes are judgment calls.

If you are right, how come all 6 umpires didn't make the call? Why did the Braves protest? and why are so many people criticizing the call?


If the effort was ordinary the call would have been immediately and the shortstop would have caught the ball.

Judgment calls are great, but there is no room in judgment for an umpire to simply disregard a rule in the rulebook. The ump doesn't get to decide which rules to follow and which rules to discard. Balls and strikes are one thing - deciding he doesn't like a particular rule the way it's written and he'll substitute his own interpretation of it has nothing to do with judgment calls.

Not sure why all 6 umps didn't call it, but clearly this guy was the closest one to the play so if anyone was going to call it this guy should've. The Braves protested because they were going to lose - it's not the first time a protest was lodged on something and the mere act of protesting doesn't mean you're right. And people are criticizing the call because that's what we do these days - we complain a lot. Again, that doesn't mean the rule didn't exist the way it does.

[BlueHen86]

Baseball is a game of judgment calls, balls and strikes are judgment calls.

If you are right, how come all 6 umpires didn't make the call? Why did the Braves protest? and why are so many people criticizing the call?


If the effort was ordinary the call would have been immediately and the shortstop would have caught the ball.

Judgment calls are great, but there is no room in judgment for an umpire to simply disregard a rule in the rulebook. The ump doesn't get to decide which rules to follow and which rules to discard. Balls and strikes are one thing - deciding he doesn't like a particular rule the way it's written and he'll substitute his own interpretation of it has nothing to do with judgment calls.

Not sure why all 6 umps didn't call it, but clearly this guy was the closest one to the play so if anyone was going to call it this guy should've. The Braves protested because they were going to lose - it's not the first time a protest was lodged on something and the mere act of protesting doesn't mean you're right. And people are criticizing the call because that's what we do these days - we complain a lot. Again, that doesn't mean the rule didn't exist the way it does.

The umpire used ihs judgment to determine that it was "ordinary effort'. I guess you are okay with their judgment when it agrees with your stance.

[GannonFan]

Judgment calls are great, but there is no room in judgment for an umpire to simply disregard a rule in the rulebook. The ump doesn't get to decide which rules to follow and which rules to discard. Balls and strikes are one thing - deciding he doesn't like a particular rule the way it's written and he'll substitute his own interpretation of it has nothing to do with judgment calls.

Not sure why all 6 umps didn't call it, but clearly this guy was the closest one to the play so if anyone was going to call it this guy should've. The Braves protested because they were going to lose - it's not the first time a protest was lodged on something and the mere act of protesting doesn't mean you're right. And people are criticizing the call because that's what we do these days - we complain a lot. Again, that doesn't mean the rule didn't exist the way it does.

The umpire used ihs judgment to determine that it was "ordinary effort'. I guess you are okay with their judgment when it agrees with your stance.

You're missing the point. The rule specifically calls for the umpire to use his judgement to determine if the catch required "ordinary effort". You, and the other poster argued, that the umpire should've used his judgement to decide if he thought the rule was a good one or not and to disregard the rule if he felt it wasn't written correctly. The umps get to make a judgement call on the first case - they don't have that luxury in the second.

[89Hen]

BTW, did the Cardinal SS ever say it was the umps calling of the IFR that made him stop pursuing the ball? That's a HUGE part of this. Obviuosly if the SS makes the catch, this isn't even mentioned the next day.

[BlueHen86]

The umpire used ihs judgment to determine that it was "ordinary effort'. I guess you are okay with their judgment when it agrees with your stance.

You're missing the point. The rule specifically calls for the umpire to use his judgement to determine if the catch required "ordinary effort". You, and the other poster argued, that the umpire should've used his judgement to decide if he thought the rule was a good one or not and to disregard the rule if he felt it wasn't written correctly. The umps get to make a judgement call on the first case - they don't have that luxury in the second.

If the ball is hit high enough an infielder can run a long way to make a catch. Theoretically they can get to the warning track. That doesn't make it an ordinary effort, and even if it was, I would hope the the umpire would use his judgment and not call the infield fly rule on a bell hit deep into the outfield. You are arguing that the umpire must call infield fly if the infielder can make the catch with what the umpire judges to be ordinary effort.

[BlueHen86]

BTW, did the Cardinal SS ever say it was the umps calling of the IFR that made him stop pursuing the ball? That's a HUGE part of this. Obviuosly if the SS makes the catch, this isn't even mentioned the next day.

I don't think so. But since the runners are allowed to advance, I doubt if the SS let the ball drop since the runners could conceivably advance more than one base on a dropped ball.

It looked to me like the SS was called off by the left fielder, but I haven't heard what the SS had to say about the play.