Horrible call, not only horrible but very late.

It looked for a minute like they were using replacement NFL referees !!!

Don't have time to deal with a protest.

What if they had rain and lightning or a power outage and had to postpone the game, do they have time to do that !!!

Absolutely the right and proper call.  The fielder camped under the ball and waved off the outfielder.  Thus the criteria for "ordinary effort by an infielder" was met  - no ifs ands or buts.

The fielders then turned it into a clusterr-mess.  Their problem - not the umpire's.

Don't apply LL skills to MLB players. Ordinary effort varies by level. What is impossible for a LL player is routine for a MLB SS.

Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the

ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder—not by some arbitrary limitation such as the

grass, or the base lines. 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. The

infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the

decision should be made immediately.

Pro umpires are taught to NOT make the call until it is on the way down AND they see the infielder in position to catch it.

The runners were NOT hindered. They had to tag anyhow assuming it would be caught unless they were incredibly stupid. The notion that it kept them from advancing is pure BS.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.