Issue: Was "infield fly" the correct call in the Braves/Cardinals game?
Short Answer: Yes. And I knew it would take something like this to get me writing again.
Reasoning: First, let me just say, calm down. I didn't say I liked the call, I just said it was correct. And, in order to ascertain why it was correct, we must break down the rule itself. So, without further ado, Rule 2.00, Definition of Terms, in the Major League Baseball rulebook, states:
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...When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners....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.
Whew. That certainly sounds like it was written by a bunch of lawyers. Unfortunately. So, since I was trained as a lawyer (sort of), I will try to walk you through this a bit. First, one should notice that the author of this rule used the term "ordinary effort". I'm not sure someone could come up with a more vague or ambiguous phrase, and that's how you know a lawyer wrote it. The rule book goes on to define "ordinary effort" as: "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." One must then ask if Pete Kozma, the Cardinals shortstop, could have made that play with ordinary effort. The answer is a resounding YES. I would expect most high school shortstops (and maybe even Little League shortstops) could catch that ball with ordinary effort. For a Major League shortstop, that ball should be caught with less than ordinary effort. And, if you watch the video, Kozma is going after that ball with NO MORE than ordinary effort. He is not sprinting. He is not panicking. He is cruising, waiting to open his back pocket so the ball to fall into it. I think we can all agree on this. Here is the video just so you can review:
The second thing I notice about the rule is the fact that an infield fly can be called even if the ball is eventually fielded by an OUTFIELDER, if the ball in question "could have been as easily handled by an infielder." Folks, the ball was being called, with waving arms, by an infielder. It doesn't matter that the ball fell to the ground in the outfield 225 feet from home plate. Now, I will play the good lawyer and argue the other side of this. What if someone hit a sky high fly ball, 300 feet from home plate, which gave an infielder ample time to run all the way out there and call the ball. Is this an infield fly? The answer is yes. HOWEVER, I would like to think most umpires would use their best judgment and not call that an infield fly. I think the whole situation is implausible in the first place, but, under the rule, the umpire would been absolutely correct if he called it an infield fly. In the case Friday night, Kozma went 225 feet out to make a play he has made 1,000 times in his life. He was camped. He was waving. If I was the umpire, I would have let the play go, but, it is not the wrong call.
Continuing on, we seem to have a contradiction in the rule and in the comment following the rule. In the rule it says "[w]hen it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners." (emphasis added) Then, in the comment it states "The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately." (emphasis added). What gives? Well, when deciphering this rule (or any rule or law) one must look at the actual rule. The comments are there to help in deciphering the rule. In this case, when the comment says the decision should be made immediately, it only refers back to the rule that says the call should be made immediately, after it seems apparent that the ball could be fielded by an infielder. In this case, the umpire had to wait until he saw who was going to take control of the play. I think if Matt Holliday is doing his job and comes in screaming off Kozma, the umpire lets the play happen. Since the ump saw Kozma take control, waving his arms, he then called the infield fly rule. Late, yes. Correct, yes. Unfortunate that the ball hit the turf, no question about it.
Finally, as in law school, one must look at the intent of the original rule. And, I must say, this is the ONLY reason I believe this call was incorrect. But seriously, are we going to hold umpires to knowing every rule, and the intent of every rule? Maybe at the Major League level, but I still think that's a stretch. The intent of the infield fly rule was this: "To prevent the defense by making a double play by subterfuge, at a time when the offense is helpless to prevent it, rather than by skill or speed."* Now, there is absolutely zero chance that, if Kozma were to have dropped that ball on purpose, that he would have turned a double play. In fact, he may have been lucky to get one. Although, seriously, if he were going to drop it on purpose, he would have done so by letting the ball drop in front of him, therefore ensuring that he got at least one out. However, the spirit of the rule dictates that it was put into the rulebook to avoid double or triple plays because of trickery. Under that intent, the call on Friday night was wrong. Kozma wasn't being tricky. He mistakenly thought he was being called off by Holliday or he heard the umpire call infield fly which caused him to peel off (possibly thinking it was Holliday calling him off). As a former ball player, when you are going out to make a play on a pop-up, part of you is just waiting to be called off, because outfielders are taught to take control. But, I digress. Umpires aren't taught to take the intent or spirit of the rule into account when making a call. They are taught the rule and how and when it applies. Under that logic, the rule was applied correctly, period.
Again, I'm not saying I like the rule. I'm not saying I like the call (especially because it helped the Cardinals advance...is there any chance they don't ride this to another World Series title? I hope that isn't the case). However, everyone crying foul, saying this call was wrong, is, well, wrong. A bad call and a wrong call are two completely different things. And this call was not wrong. Bad, on the other hand? You be the judge.
*H. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years (1960)
No comments:
Post a Comment