The Orioles Won Because They Didn't...

[25 Nuggets]

...play the Cardinals. Among other reasons. As soon as the 8th inning infield fly was called by Holbrook, I immediately thought...NO IT'S JEFFREY MAIER ALL OVER AGAIN! THE HORROR!

Then I realized I was watching the wrong game.

[crawjo]

That call was nowhere near as bad as the Maier call. Not even remotely close. People are really overreacting to the infield fly rule call.

[25 Nuggets]

The preceding message was written tongue-in-cheek. Why do you think the Orioles won because of what they didn't do?

(http://forum.orioleshangout.com/foru...bring-in-Strop)

[isestrex]

That call was nowhere near as bad as the Maier call. Not even remotely close. People are really overreacting to the infield fly rule call.

The infield fly rule was the correct call. The Jeffery Maier no call was the incorrect call.

Braves fans got screwed but I have a feeling that if something like that happened at Camden Yards, our fans wouldn't throw things on the field like that. I lost absolutely all respect I had for Braves fans last night. Completely disgraceful.

[sevastras]

The infield fly rule was the correct call. The Jeffery Maier no call was the incorrect call.

Braves fans got screwed but I have a feeling that if something like that happened at Camden Yards, our fans wouldn't throw things on the field like that. I lost absolutely all respect I had for Braves fans last night. Completely disgraceful.

The ball was further on the outfield grass than most infield fly calls, and the call was made by the outfield ump and not the infield ump. It was an unfortunate call, but wasnt the reason they lost. How about all of those errors? I was working during the game and commented to a braves fan that as bad as the O's were at the beginning of this season, their errors didnt look that bad.

[DrungoHazewood]

That call was nowhere near as bad as the Maier call. Not even remotely close. People are really overreacting to the infield fly rule call.

I really don't think it's overreacting when they call the infield fly rule on BY FAR the deepest hit ball I've ever seen the rule invoked, and it's at a crucial moment of an elimination playoff game. If I were a Braves fan I'd be irate. Just being a baseball fan, this makes me fairly annoyed. How does that ball fit the rule when it was a much easier play for the left fielder? That was almost what I'd call medium-deep left.

[DrungoHazewood]

The infield fly rule was the correct call. The Jeffery Maier no call was the incorrect call.

Braves fans got screwed but I have a feeling that if something like that happened at Camden Yards, our fans wouldn't throw things on the field like that. I lost absolutely all respect I had for Braves fans last night. Completely disgraceful.

It was "correct" in the sense that the rule is so poorly written and defined that technically it would be correct any time the ump invoked it. Technically it would be correct if the ump used his judgment and invoked the rule on a ball hit 350' from the plate.

[OFFNY]

I really don't think it's overreacting when they call the infield fly rule on BY FAR the deepest hit ball I've ever seen the rule invoked, and it's at a crucial moment of an elimination playoff game. If I were a Braves fan I'd be irate. Just being a baseball fan, this makes me fairly annoyed. How does that ball fit the rule when it was a much easier play for the left fielder? That was almost what I'd call medium-deep left.

I agree with all of this, and to make matters worse, the umpire didn't make the call until the very last second. The whole purpose of the rule is to call it as early as possible, so that the base-runners know what's what.

Also, the fact that both runners, A) were several steps off of the bag, and not actually on the bag, and, B) both made it easily to the next bases without being forced out is further proof/vindication of just how horrible of a call it was.
O

[OFFNY]

It was "correct" in the sense that the rule is so poorly written and defined that technically it would be correct any time the ump invoked it. Technically it would be correct if the ump used his judgment and invoked the rule on a ball hit 350' from the plate.

Another great point, and if nothing else, I believe that there is a good chance that MLB revisits this rule in the off-season as a result of this travesty, and rewrites it.

I was on another site, and when someone pointed this out (that an umpire could technically call the infield-fly rule at the warning track), I couldn't believe it. I was sure that the rule was that it the ball needed to be either in the infield, or only a few steps beyond the infield regardless of whether or not an infielder or an outfielder was closest to the ball. In some cases, infielders play well into the outfield while the pitcher is pitching on shifts for certain hitters (like Jim Thome, Mark Teixeira, etc.) I really was shocked to read it written the way that it was/is.

[DrungoHazewood]

Another great point, and if nothing else, I believe that there is a good chance that MLB revisits this rule in the off-season as a result of this travesty, and rewrites it.

I was on another site, and when someone pointed this out (that an umpire could technically call the infield-fly rule at the warning track), I couldn't believe it. I was sure that the rule was that it the ball needed to be either in the infield, or only a few steps beyond the infield regardless of whether or not an infielder or an outfielder was closest to the ball. In some cases, infielders play well into the outfield while the pitcher is pitching on shifts for certain hitters (like Jim Thome, Mark Teixeira, etc.) I really was shocked to read it written the way that it was/is.

I'd love to see a team shift an infielder into a position as a 4th outfielder (it's happened before), and the ump invoke the rule on a ball hit to the track. It would be legal by the rule as written. And also a mockery.

Also, I think Cal was the only one to bring this up last night: the whole reason the rule exists is to keep infielders from intentionally dropping a pop up and creating a situation where the runners have no options and it's an almost automatic double play. That was the furtherest thing from anyone's mind when that play developed. At the very least, invoking the rule in that situation clearly violated the spirit of the rule if not the letter.

[backwardsk]

Smoltz made a good point saying that the OF ump didn't have to move to make that call. If it's a regular season game, then the 3b ump runs out to LF to make the call, giving him a better perception of how deep the ball was.

Also, it looks like the ump was very late on the call. That call has to be made early to give warning to the runner.

It was a poor call, but that didn't cost the braves the game.

[Ori-Al]

This gentleman says the ump made the right call:


http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/6/34...nals-wild-card

Others, including Harold Reynolds after the game, said the same.

Maybe MLB should ditch the extra umpires for postseason.

[DrungoHazewood]

This gentleman says the ump made the right call:

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/6/34...nals-wild-card

Others, including Harold Reynolds after the game, said the same.

Maybe MLB should ditch the extra umpires for postseason.

I'm not disagreeing that the call was technically wrong. But if that was a correct interpretation and call, the rule is extremely poorly written, and that specific call had nothing at all to do with the original intent of the rule.

It's like the balk rule. Both rules can be distilled down to "don't do weird things deceive the baserunner." But there's so much leeway for interpretation in each that bizarre calls sometimes crop up that have absolutely nothing to do with deceiving the baserunner.

[25 Nuggets]

I have failed.

[/humor]

Mods, please move or merge this thread to the appropriate forum.