2012 MLB Season

[Mings]

I mean in my opinion its a crappy call, and man do I hate the Cardinals, but the Braves didn't exactly do much to win the game either.

[Cujo]

You can't commit three errors and leave twelve guys on base and then complain about losing a baseball game.

This comment sums it up best.

Atlanta had no business winning this game. Blown call or not, St. Louis was advancing to the next round regardless.

[The_Admiral]

Don't worry... maybe next year the Cubs will catch a break.

No. There will be no breaks, and we will be told at some point that we are, for one reason or another, Bad Fans. I'm used to it, don't worry!

[Drew22]

Meh, yeah the more I look at it, sure we got screwed by that call, but we got screwed harder by awful fielding.

[NJTank]

They so rarely reverse a call that a protest of the game is just wasting your breathe. I think the last reversal was the Pine Tar Home Run.

[cmm]

Apparently the protest has been denied. I think when the umpires were on the phones earlier, that they were in contact with MLB....and that's when the ruling of "Denied" was made.

According to Retrosheet, the last time a protest was successful was in 1986:

http://www.retrosheet.org/protests.htm

This one didn't have a chance, it appeared to be a botched/delayed call, not a misinterpretation of the rules.

[pcgd]

No matter what i say its clouded in Cardinals red, and ive been on record saying i totally inderstand all the hate of the cardinals. if i didnt grow up where i did, id hate them too.

But this is what an infield fly needs to be:

1) less than 2 outs

2) runners on first and second or loaded

3) a fair ball

4) catchable by an infielder with ordinary effort

Not landing on the dirt, not within 10 feet of the bases, easily caught by an infielder.

Considering Kozma had camped under the ball but moved out of the way, it seems reasonable he could have caught it.

It's a controversial call for sure, questionable defiantly, but its not as cut and dry as its been made out to be. And it didn't take runs off the board, and they were down by 3. The next pitch could have been a double play. It could have been a stike out, or it could have been a grand slam and the cardinals could have come back and won.

It's the same situation as Bartman in Chicago. We'll never remember the double play ball going through the shortstop's legs, or the fact it wasn't the end of the game, or that it was game 6, just bartman.

This will be the infield fly game forever.

[Magnum]

And the umpire plays it cool during the interview.

... At least Denkinger and Joyce admitted they blew it during their controversial calls.

[HedleyLamarr]

No matter what i say its clouded in Cardinals red, and ive been on record saying i totally inderstand all the hate of the cardinals. if i didnt grow up where i did, id hate them too.

But this is what an infield fly needs to be:

1) less than 2 outs

2) runners on first and second or loaded

3) a fair ball

4) catchable by an infielder with ordinary effort

Not landing on the dirt, not within 10 feet of the bases, easily caught by an infielder.

Considering Kozma had camped under the ball but moved out of the way, it seems reasonable he could have caught it.

It's a controversial call for sure, questionable defiantly, but its not as cut and dry as its been made out to be. And it didn't take runs off the board, and they were down by 3. The next pitch could have been a double play. It could have been a stike out, or it could have been a grand slam and the cardinals could have come back and won.

It's the same situation as Bartman in Chicago. We'll never remember the double play ball going through the shortstop's legs, or the fact it wasn't the end of the game, or that it was game 6, just bartman.

This will be the infield fly game forever.

Infield fly rule judgments are supposed to be immediate calls.

This call was made 2 seconds before the ball hit the ground, if that. And was called by the outfield line umpire. And like 40-50 feet or more outside the infield dirt.

[Kramerica Industries]

Joe Saunders, 0-6 with a 9.37 ERA lifetime in Arlington, threw 5.2 innings of 1 run ball tonight.

Orioles Magic. Unreal.

[CS85]

I love the collective cardinals hate....yes....YES....

[NJTank]

They are not the Cardinals come October they are the Troll Birds

[pcgd]

No matter what i say its clouded in Cardinals red, and ive been on record saying i totally inderstand all the hate of the cardinals. if i didnt grow up where i did, id hate them too.

But this is what an infield fly needs to be:

1) less than 2 outs

2) runners on first and second or loaded

3) a fair ball

4) catchable by an infielder with ordinary effort

Not landing on the dirt, not within 10 feet of the bases, easily caught by an infielder.

Considering Kozma had camped under the ball but moved out of the way, it seems reasonable he could have caught it.

It's a controversial call for sure, questionable defiantly, but its not as cut and dry as its been made out to be. And it didn't take runs off the board, and they were down by 3. The next pitch could have been a double play. It could have been a stike out, or it could have been a grand slam and the cardinals could have come back and won.

It's the same situation as Bartman in Chicago. We'll never remember the double play ball going through the shortstop's legs, or the fact it wasn't the end of the game, or that it was game 6, just bartman.

This will be the infield fly game forever.

Infield fly rule judgments are supposed to be immediate calls.

This call was made 2 seconds before the ball hit the ground, if that. And was called by the outfield line umpire. And like 40-50 feet or more outside the infield dirt.

Well it's immediate when it becomes apparent, that's open to interpretation. And the location of the ball has nothing to do with the rule as written.

I do think it was a bad call cause if it wasnt made, the cardinals wouldnt have said one word that it should have been called.

It was a bad call that went the cardinals way, but it alone did not cost the braves the game.

[HedleyLamarr]

Well it's immediate when it becomes apparent, that's open to interpretation. And the location of the ball has nothing to do with the rule as written.

I do think it was a bad call cause if it wasnt made, the cardinals wouldnt have said one word that it should have been called.

It was a bad call that went the cardinals way, but it alone did not cost the braves the game.

Aside from the infield part of the rule's title, you're exactly right.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the defensive players from getting a cheap double play because of the established runners being nearly 90 feet from their next base. Are we in agreement there?

The infielder had run about 50 feet into the outfield (with his back to home plate for a majority of the time), then was "set" in a catching position for maybe two seconds at most. Not jogged, but running. And when the ball did drop, the runners had plenty of time to get to the next base. It was pretty evident that the infielder wasn't trying to get a cheap double play.

There's a reason why all the infields in baseball are either entirely dirt or have a chalk/painted line. When you sprint 50 feet into the outfield, you're no longer in the infield.

Let it be known that a couple pages ago, I mentioned that the errors and stranded runners were more to blame for the Braves losing than the umpire's wrong ruling.

[Kramerica Industries]

Three pitches, three strikes.

Gotta wonder if that's how Josh Hamilton's Rangers career ends.

[HedleyLamarr]

Three pitches, three strikes.

Gotta wonder if that's how Josh Hamilton's Rangers career ends.

[Magnum]

Looks like the birds ran away with tonight's show.

[pcgd]

Well it's immediate when it becomes apparent, that's open to interpretation. And the location of the ball has nothing to do with the rule as written.

I do think it was a bad call cause if it wasnt made, the cardinals wouldnt have said one word that it should have been called.

It was a bad call that went the cardinals way, but it alone did not cost the braves the game.

Aside from the infield part of the rule's title, you're exactly right.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the defensive players from getting a cheap double play because of the established runners being nearly 90 feet from their next base. Are we in agreement there?

The infielder had run about 50 feet into the outfield (with his back to home plate for a majority of the time), then was "set" in a catching position for maybe two seconds at most. Not jogged, but running. And when the ball did drop, the runners had plenty of time to get to the next base. It was pretty evident that the infielder wasn't trying to get a cheap double play.

There's a reason why all the infields in baseball are either entirely dirt or have a chalk/painted line. When you sprint 50 feet into the outfield, you're no longer in the infield.

Let it be known that a couple pages ago, I mentioned that the errors and stranded runners were more to blame for the Braves losing than the umpire's wrong ruling.

I agree it would not have been caught with ordinary effort and therefore was not infield fly. I disagree that it matters where the ball lands. I disagree that he should have called it sooner cause the rule says when it's apparent which could be as soon as its hit or after its caught. The problem with calling it too soon is if the ball drifts too deep after the call is made. Umpires frequently wait until a player is camped under the ball.

It's frequently called without us knowing well outside the defined infield.

[Kramerica Industries]

Oof.

Machado just broke the Rangers' back.

[FiddySicks]

This is the best looking post season I've ever seen.

Now watch the Yankees win it all and totally ruin it.