Harold Reynolds Explains Baseball's Infield Fly Rule
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2024
- Learn more about the complicated mess that is the infield fly rule: www.baseballeb...
October 5, 2012 there was a controversial Infield Fly Rule call during the NL Wild Card game between the St. Louis Cardinals and Atlanta Braves.
The call was widely criticized in the immediate aftermath but Harold Reynolds breaks down the play, step-by-step, and explains why the umpire got it right.
Video courtesy of MLB Properties
baseballEBM:
www.baseballEBM.com
Twitter: / baseballebm
FB: / baseballebm
Instagram: / baseballebm
Pinterest: / baseballebm
Email: fanclub@baseballEBM.com
Subscribe: www.patreon.co...
baseballEBM is an approved media outlet of Major League Baseball
![เปิดใจ "อาจารย์เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม" อดีตเคยสุดทุกทาง ถ้าใช้หนี้หมดไปบวชแน่ l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IxeE0xVhy08/mqdefault.jpg)
at 0:46 the fielder raises one hand towards the outfielder calling for the ball, at 0:48 he raises both hands out wide signifying he has lost the ball, at 0:56 he has taken two steps and is clearly bailing out of the way and finally at 0:58 the umpire raises his arm to signify the Infield Fly Rule is in effect. I usually like Harold's input and candidness but this time he clearly got it wrong!!
I'm going to split atoms with you here based on your timeline used. :46 the fielder raises one hand towards the outfielder to signify HE IS TAKING CONTROL OF THE PLAY, at :48 he raises both hands out wide to signify HE IS IN POSITION AND HAS FULL CONTROL OF THE PLAY, at :56 he has taken two steps away from his position AND RELINQUISHES CONTROL OF THE PLAY because he believes the outfielder is calling him off, proof because of his reaction and the way he looks back at Holliday....and the rest is history. Loud stadium is the ultimate culprit here....but the text book way of handling that play. But of course it isn't if you are a Braves fan.
@@x--WarHawk--x Let's get our atoms in order here...1st of all, Kozma extends his arms (beautifully) that signals to his teammate that he will ATTEMPT to locate this fly ball and catch it. However, he's not in position nor has ANY control of the situation. Then at 0.56, he begins to move forward and away from where ball will drop. To relinquish control, a fielder must have it first...Kozma never did. Whether he thought MH was calling him off is irrelevant since Holliday had already given up with his lips zipped. In (video) "textbooks", this is a fine example of an unsuccessful attempt to catch a fly ball and beyond "ordinary".
@@x--WarHawk--x well put WarHawk, it can't be any clearer.
@@beyondthepale9071 If the account name Warhawk speaks for an ancestry of military leadership, a thanks for his service and dedication. However, Warhawk's knowledge of baseball is at the Little League level.
Pete Kozma began moving quickly into LF and then extended his arms indicating he was the fielder attempting to handle this very high pop-up. Unfortunately, he was unable to track the flight of the ball and gain control of the play. Therefore, there's nothing to relinquish. One comment made repeatedly over the years is whether Kozma thought he was being called off by his lazy LF Holliday. MH had slowed to a light trot and decided it was Kozma's play. He was never "in position".
Warhawk's assertion about ballpark noise as the "ultimate culprit" is comical because it had NOTHING to do with Kozma'a beyond ordinary attempt.
The greatest laugh is this was not a TEXTBOOK way of handling a defensive chance. Koz's path backward was like starting in the center of a wall clock and traveling between the 11 and 12. It proved too steep for this right-handed fielder. Writers could include this example as where the infielder tried to cover too much ground and should have yielded to his teammate moving forward. Holliday could have made it there but he & Koz did not communicate. This play is descriptive of a very POOR effort by an outfielder in a post-season game. While sitting in the LF pavilion at Coors Field, I've seen then Cardinal M. Holliday charge in very hard for a high fly behind 3B barely 40 ft out. If only he had shown that effort at Turner Field.
Textbook writers might also create a section discussing Ron Darling's (TBS) insightful statement "it's what happens when you have extra umpires on the field; sometimes you get extra calls". We'll never know, but as a former pitcher his observation is noteworthy.
Certainly educated baseball people know better than to become a disciple of this novice and false advocate. Cardinal fans are among them.
Warhawk is history.
@@captainc7160 exactly
Hello, I'm an Australian just getting into Baseball. Could you please explain to me the reason why the Infield Fly Rule is actually used. From what I can get from the Internet, it's so that the bases don't get loaded. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for any replies in advance. Cheers.
Welcome to the game and thanks for the great question! The infield fly rule is complex and difficult to understand but its origin is strongly rooted in the concept of fair play, which is the backbone of all the rules of baseball.
MLB rule 2.00, the Infield Fly Rule, was established in 1895 so the rule has been around nearly as long as the game itself. It was created to stop infielders from intentionally dropping the ball so they could turn a double play with less than two outs and runners on.
It only applies to a fly ball, in fair territory, which could easily be caught with ordinary effort by an infiedler. This, naturally, excludes both bunts and line drives. It is relevant only when two or more bases, one of which must be first, are occupied and there are less than two outs.
Only the umpire can determine the infield fly rule applies. Any fielder, including pitcher, catcher and outfielder, who position themselves in a spot to handle the ball while in play, for example when the batter indicated bunt, are considered infielders for the purpose of the rule.
The intent of the rule is not to avoid fully loaded bases, it is to avoid the easy out of a lead-off runner by dropping the ball. Practically speaking, if the ball is in the shortstop territory the runner at 2nd or 3rd is going to wait for the catch and release to judge if they have time to run. If, however, the fielder lets it drop and the runners go, it could turn into a double, or triple, play situation if the runner pulls off the bag. If the lead bases are occupied and people have no choice but to move, they shouldn't be forced into an automatic out situation based on what would normally be judged an error.
In scoring terms we have an error, against the fielder, for dropped balls that could otherwise be caught and forceouts, for times when the runner couldn't do anything about being out because the bases were loaded. The infield fly rule was established to make a clear distinction that would avoid the scoring questions of a dropped ball. If the infielder intentionally drops the ball does that go against the fielder as an error or against the runner as a poor running choice for leaving the bag? The infield fly rule avoids having to score it either way through the umpire's discression.
@@baseballebm Well, I must say, that this is one very good reply to my question. And I'm very grateful for your response. From what you've outlined the Infield fly rule does seem complicated at first. But I will reread it a few more times and look for some videos to fully understand it.
Since I've "Discovered" baseball, I have found that I definitely like the game a lot more than Rugby League and Cricket which are the major sports here in Australia. Our baseball competition is very small compared to other countries, especially the USA and Japan. To the point where it's nearly non existent. Which I find strange as baseball is a huge sport. However I'd say that this is because of the culture and not the game.
I'm still learning all about the game and I do thank you for your reply.
Take care mate.
And have a good one. Cheers. 🇦🇺
I did not learn what the infield fly is.
Hi Spicer, did you read the article, linked in the description? This video is a mere example of one of the many ways the infield fly rule will be applied.
Ball goes up. Infielder can catch it. Ball is fair. Batter is out.
What Harold really failed to recognize is that the fielder waved both hands in the air to signify he had lost the ball and had no idea where it was and clearly started to bail out before the umpire even raised his arm to signify infield fly. His entire argument is that the umpire is waiting to make sure the ball would be caught and that clearly was not the case.
the fielder did not wave his hands to indicate he had lost the ball. He first put his right hand up to show the LF he had the ball. It wasn't until after that that his left hand went up. HArold didn't fail to recognize anything. He called it as it was.
@@beyondthepale9071 Kozma (the fielder), extended his arms which signaled to his teammate (the Holliday loafer, at least on this play) that HE was going after this high fly. At NO point did he ever identify where this ball would land. As Harold said, he was "in control"...as in of what? His mind, his body, but not the play. Harold called it to fit a means to justify Holbrook "awarding" the Cardinals the out. On the comparison example (Cubs Castro), provided by MLB, this fielder correctly identified where this fly ball would land. He settled into position, then the umpire signaled IF, then he caught it...clearly ordinary effort. Kozma...beyond ordinary.
@@chialpha8450 here is my original comment again > the fielder did not wave his hands to indicate he had lost the ball. He first put his right hand up to show the LF he had the ball. It wasn't until after that that his left hand went up. Harold didn't fail to recognize anything. He called it as it was.
@@beyondthepale9071 "your incorrect, incomprehensible OPINION, is not correct"...This statement you made contains a double-negative...I've taught 9th grade English. Since you're heavily focused on OPINIONS, let's be clear they are rarely seen as correct or incorrect...perhaps merits or credibility is the better fit. Your opinion of Kozma "having it" is poorly supported. So let's go from there.
This SS (with much more sub-ML experience) was on a path to no-man's land when it came to catching this TX League fly. His path was immediately offline and by the time of his jump-step, pivot, he was 8-10 ft away from being in position for a catch (and was facing the WRONG direction the entire time). Further, Kozma didn't know his "loafing" teammate had become a spectator. He NEVER "had it" as you and others have tried to claim...Holbrook should have noticed. Kozma's extending his arms was but a signal to MH that he was making the "attempt" and nothing more.
The real grounds for controversy lies with whether "ordinary effort" adequately applies to this defensive chance. From an official scorers chair, it resoundingly does NOT since neither fielder located where this fly ball was to drop. True, umpires can rule differently, but it's a rare occurrence.
Harold should receive some credit for discussing how umpires will look at the flight of a ball to its peak before ruling either Infield Fly or live play. Harold's/MLB "comparison" play (Castro...Wrigley Field) was a much easier angle along with the fielder demonstrating he "had it" (catch made of course).
Perhaps it's time to take the saddle off of your dead horse since Kozma couldn't track this one with the accuracy needed to catch it...a FACT, not an opinion.
th-cam.com/video/7nl8MqsCi6o/w-d-xo.html (start at 21:10)
The above clip is from NLCS Game 4 (2019) where Gold Glove 2B K Wong tracks this one (facing the correct direction) but then mis-communicates with his teammate Martinez, thus ball drops. NO infield fly called here...some in your camp think it should have been. But of course, no arguments, no controversy.
@@chialpha8450 obviously you should stay in the classroom teaching English to 9th graders since your Little League level opinions are very telling. No baseball player ever has put a hand up to indicate they are "going after" a ball. They do it to communicate they "have it." Good luck dude. It's not complicated LMFAO
"Under control," "in the grass," and "lost sight of the ball" are all irrelevant. The rule is that if an infielder could have caught the ball with ordinary effort (and less than 2 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd), then its an infield fly.
Ordinary effort is judged based on the typical ability of an infielder at the level of play, so an IF call in MLB can be different than an IF call in other leagues.
BTW, the pitcher signaled IF right away, so he knew what was going on.
Under control always matters when it comes to a catch call in baseball. Lost sight of the ball is relevant, if it is the ump who loses sight, because s/he's the one making the call. Same goes for ordinary effort. It is based on the observations, and judgement, of blue.
The umpire actually made up his own rule here. The umpire did NOT have it right. Insanity.
On the field, the umpire determines the play in real time. Watching from the luxury of your bedroom, in slow motion, with replay at your finger tips is a whole different game.
@@baseballebm And that interpretation, given those circumstances, is unfathomable.
U know wat ass a baseball player since I play t ball infield is only before the dirt wants its past the dirt from the grass to b clear its called outfield that never close to b a infield catch but either or that's in the grass n that's not a infield fly rule in my books that's half ways or either it passes the infield its not a infield fly rule make the game that I love more boring for our new commers b smart n go half ways don't b a million dollar players n b lazy come on bull shit infield fly rule wen its past the infield bullshit
Came here confused left even more confused
We totally get it. Reading the accompanying article mentioned in the description might be helpful. Here's the link: www.baseballebm.com/single-post/2017/04/18/infield-fly-rule