Active Community: Message List - NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:44:10 GMT

The fielder was waving off everyone with both arms. Thats what they do to signal they have it in the bag.

Ordinary effort FOR A MLB SS

This was a MLB game.

Right call!

You're too locked in on what a LL or HS player can do. Forget it - This is MLB.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:23:09 GMT

Mark, are you sure you've seen the play in question? A - he was not camped, but was still going back... and I'm not saying that it wasn't ordinary effort, although I question that to some degree. B - That first throw is a LOT longer than the one in a 5-4-3, which at most is only 90', and usually a little less. The ball landed 225' from home, so at best (if it were down the LF line), you're talking about a 135' throw to F5(who probably wasn't covering 3B).

All that being said, would you wait until the ball was 20' from the ground before you'd call it?

In one of the articles posted about the play, there was a stat posted about dropped/missed IFF balls, the longest one about somewhere around 190' from home.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:46:15 GMT

I'm with Rich on this one. By rule, it was absolutely the right call. Was it ordinary effort? Yep. Was the fielder camped under the ball? Yep, he even waved off F7 and he deferred to the infielder. In the pro game, this is definitely an IFF. Could the defense have turned a double play on this one? Dunno. I wasn't watching the runners to see where they were. It is certainly possible though. The throws from where F6 was weren't going to be much longer than a 5-4-3 double play if they had tried to go 6-5-4.

All of that being said, and I've seen some pretty deep IFF calls in the pros, would I have made that particular IFF call? I'm not sure. I have zero problem with the call being made in this situation as it certainly was made in accordance with the rules. I'm just not sure I, personally, would have made it.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:21:55 GMT

There's not a chance in hades that the defense turns a DP on a ball that's hit 100' beyond the baselines, unless the baserunners are napping or legally handicapped.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:05:29 GMT

Without the Infield-Fly rule, would the defense have played this for a double play? (I presume this something they would practice and would not have played as it was).

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:10:21 GMT

I still think the infielder that's 225' away from home plate should at least be camped... but Kozma was not. He was still backpeddling when the call was made... and the call was made WAY too late to be meaningful to any runners, nor was it even necessary if one is calling WITH the rules rather than by the rules.

There was a stat that surfaced regarding dropped balls this year that had been called IFF... the deepest of which was around 178' from home plate. Yes, it's a judgement call, but only poor judgement leads to calling IFF on a ball hit 225', IMHO.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:08:20 GMT

Watch a lot of MLB. You'l see a lot if infielders go deep to catch popups.

That's what I meant in my post - for those of us doing LL or even HS ball it wasn't ordinary effort.

But for a MLB infielder it was.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:47:45 GMT

Dawg,

Can't argue with you. It's 100% judgement as you pointed out.

But I still think that U7 has his head wedged up his a$$ so far he needed a glass navel to see the play! He ruled by the rules, not with the rules.

Mike CVUA

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:08:53 GMT

Mike,

Despite the purpose of the rule, which is, as you say, to prevent the cheap double play, the rule, as written, defines the IFF as one that could be caught by an infielder using ordinary effort. Period. There's no other judgment to be made.

So, when Kozma stops under the ball, that's when Holbrook judges "ordinary effort", which is sufficent to make the IFF call.

NL wildcard OFF rule, err, IFF ruling :-)

guest — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:51:54 GMT

Rich I hear ya, but......

I agree that the lateness of the call was REQUIRED because you needed to determine is an infielder had a chance. I had the same sitch where I made the a non-call (NO IFF) until I was conviced that F6 was camped under the ball. It was a higher level game than LL, so I had to respect the talant as you point out.

But a ball that was 275 feet from home plate is NOT one that needed the IFF to prevent a "cheap double play" which is the foundation of the rule in the first place.

If the fielder had intentionally dropped that fly ball--and R1 and R2 were out half way--there is NO WAY a cheap double play was going to happen.

Therefore, this was a gardern variety fly ball, IMO, and it neither met the intent of the IFF rule, and I respefully disagree that the ordinary effort criterion was met.

U7 blew that one all the way to Keokuck, Iowa!

Sorry, JMO!

Mike CVUA