Stay classy Atlanta

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

After much analysis, I think the written rule is very good. It is the way Holbrook applies it that is faulty.

Holbrook misinterprets the rules to mean it is about whether that specific fielder could catch the ball with ordinary effort, where the definition for "ordinary effort" in the rules specifically states it is not about that particular player. It is about an average skilled fielder exerting ordinary effort.

If applied as written, the call is made fairly soon after the ball is hit. The umpire sees the ball's trajectory and decides whether an average skilled infielder can make the catch with ordinary effort, or decides that it might be beyond ordinary effort. If the former, he makes the call immediately. If the latter, he makes no call.

The rule, as written, does not say that you observe this particular player and wait for them to look like they might catch it. This interpretation has the call made too late to give any benefit to the runners. Only applying it as written serves the purposes of the rule.

I started out thinking the rule was bad, but now believe it is the application of the rule that is bad. If they applied it as written, it would work fairly well and serve its purpose.

The rule, as written, asks umpires to take consideration in the specific environmental factors, and observing what players on the field are doing is a good way of doing that.

The rule also asks for the umpires to call it quick, but it's not a mandate, because a mandate would not have been enforceable all the time.

I don't think the rule is bad, and I don't think the call is bad. I also believe within the rule, the umpire could have called it either way and both would have been fine.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The rule, as written, asks umpires to take consideration in the specific environmental factors, and observing what players on the field are doing is a good way of doing that.

Holbrook's quotes don't appear to support what the rulebook says. What do you think of them?

"I saw the shortstop go back and get underneath the ball where he would have had ordinary effort and would have caught the baseball, and that's why I called the infield fly."

"It's all judged on what the fielder does. Once that fielder establishes himself and he has ordinary effort on the ball, that's when the call is made. So it wouldn't matter whether it was from third base or on the line out there. But, again, it's all based on what the fielder does, that's what I went on, and that's what I read."

He seems to think the particular player has to get underneath the ball for him to make the call, but that isn't what the rules say. It doesn't say "that fielder" needs to establish anything. The rule says:

"An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out."

"ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions."

None of this says that he needs to observe the player establishing anything. The requirement is only that it be a fly ball that an infielder could catch, based on the definition of ordinary effort.

Are Holbrook's statements not indicative of his use of a different standard?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Holbrook's quotes don't appear to support what the rulebook says. What do you think of them?

"I saw the shortstop go back and get underneath the ball where he would have had ordinary effort and would have caught the baseball, and that's why I called the infield fly."

"It's all judged on what the fielder does. Once that fielder establishes himself and he has ordinary effort on the ball, that's when the call is made. So it wouldn't matter whether it was from third base or on the line out there. But, again, it's all based on what the fielder does, that's what I went on, and that's what I read."

He seems to think the particular player has to get underneath the ball for him to make the call, but that isn't what the rules say. It doesn't say "that fielder" needs to establish anything. The rule says:

"An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out."

"ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions."

None of this says that he needs to observe the player establishing anything. The requirement is only that it be a fly ball that an infielder could catch, based on the definition of ordinary effort.

Are Holbrook's statements not indicative of his use of a different standard?

Holbrook's statement simply implies that he believe Kozma is a fielder of average skill, and what he did can representative for ordinary effort.




And I think you read the rule wrong. The rule did not say one needs to observe the player, but it also didn't say one can't observe the player. You are trying to create an unnecessary level of burden that's not in the rule. How does one judge what effort is ordinary? Use what's happening as a framework, and adjust from that based on your understanding of the factors.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And I think you read the rule wrong. The rule did not say one needs to observe the player, but it also didn't say one can't observe the player. You are trying to create an unnecessary level of burden that's not in the rule. How does one judge what effort is ordinary? Use what's happening as a framework, and adjust from that based on your understanding of the factors.

Which part am I reading wrong?

Also, I suppose I am overestimating the ability of a 14 year veteran umpire to gauge ordinary effort of average players without having to watch them do it. If he is making his judgment based on observed actions of each particular fielder, then "ordinary effort" ceases to be an objective measure and is dependent upon the particular fielders out there at any given moment. The rules seem to specify otherwise.

In order for Holbrook to make that call, he should believe that an average shortstop, starting from the same defensive position Kozma held on that play, will be able to make that play with ordinary effort. This means that every time he sees a fly ball like that, with a shortstop in a similar position that otherwise meets the infield fly requirements, he will call an infield fly. It took him 14 years to find out an average fielder can do it, but now by the rules it becomes an infield fly whenever these circumstances occur again.

The problem is that I don't think he used the standard called for in the rules. Based on his words, I think he considers each one of these a one-off incident that holds no precedent going forward. He doesn't even consider ordinary effort to be a factor UNTIL the player is in position to make the catch, which discards a significant portion of what the rules define it as.

[Tekneek]

Here is another question regarding Holbrook's reasoning. Would he have called it an infield fly if Holliday had come in and caught it? By the wording of the infield fly rule, he would've had to do that (if the call is legitimate):

The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Here is another question regarding Holbrook's reasoning. Would he have called it an infield fly if Holliday had come in and caught it? By the wording of the infield fly rule, he would've had to do that (if the call is legitimate):

The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder.

Hypotheticals don't change anything but since you introduce them let's give you another hypothetical. If Kozma had slipped and fell just as he turned to get that ball, the umpire could quite properly call it an IF. In other word the umpire does not even need an infielder to attempt to catch the ball. He can simply judge by the standard already outlined.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RchW

Hypotheticals don't change anything but since you introduce them let's give you another hypothetical. If Kozma had slipped and fell just as he turned to get that ball, the umpire could quite properly call it an IF. In other word the umpire does not even need an infielder to attempt to catch the ball. He can simply judge by the standard already outlined.

Of course (I've already arrived at an understanding that the umpire has to make the call based on what an average fielder could accomplish with ordinary effort - which is actually already written in the rules), but Holbrook's reasoning that the fielder has to establish position, be underneath the ball, etc (all things not in the rule) wouldn't have worked if Kozma had fallen down (makes me believe he wouldn't have made the call, because otherwise why did he wait so late to do it? The timing of his call is consistent with his statements, neither of which are consistent with the written rules).

If this exact play is ever an infield fly then it always is no matter who catches the ball. Holbrook's reasoning, and even how long it took him to make the call, don't reflect this though. By his actions, and his statements, he very clearly believes that the fielder must be underneath the ball, establish himself, and then be able to make the catch in order for him to make the call. None of this could be done and satisfy the part of the rule I posted.

I don't see how Holbrook is applying the rules properly, given that his actions and statements don't really reflect it. Especially when you consider how all of his reasoning for when you call an infield fly leave out a portion of it completely.

If the rules specifically call for infield fly calls that an infielder doesn't catch, but might have been able to as easily if they had tried, all of the arguments that he needs to observe the player making the play are void.