<I don't agree that the umpire made an error. He should have called the infield fly sonner but it's not like the call was wrong.>This is the crux of the argument IMO. I did not see or hear anyone say or show that a call like this has ever been made in a MLB game. I HAVE seen many times where an outfielder and infielder converged on the ball in a similar manner. In fact I would say it is not a particularly unusual situation. While the ball is usually caught by one or the other, I have seen enough of them drop in either by the old Alphonse and Gaston routine or by both fielders running into eachother.The fact that it may be allowable under a literal interpretation of the rule does not explain how or why it has never been called before. Is it as simple as a fifth or sixth umpire in a playoff game typically has few calls to make so they may be tempted to put themselves into the game?Those who focus on the errors miss the point IMO. Coco Crisp's drop in game two cost the A's two runs. Yet they scored a run in the next inning to retake the lead. So they had a chance to win if they held on. Instead they again gave up the tying run on a wild pitch and lost it in the 9th. So after the game his drop is considered the difference in the game. A two run error in a one run loss certainly sticks out. Yet the fact that the team once again was in the lead afterwards will often get overlooked or ignored. I feel bad for Chipper and the Braves in that their very successful 162 game season ended in a one game elimination where they did not play like they did for most of the season. So I do understand them not looking to blame the call for their losing. Yet the call did prevent them from having a reasonable shot at getting themselves back into the game. We see variations of this all the time as a strike three call is often shown to be outside, low or high with the high tech pitch locater. We also see the reverse with ball four called on pitches that were clearly strikes. Then there are the did he swing or not calls that happen all game long. I don't like when they are wrong, but there is always a human element involved. At least these are regularly occuring calls. I just don't like seeing calls that have never been made before that defy common sense. As I have said the whole idea of the infield fly rule is to protect the baserunners, not to assist the fielders. This call did the opposite by giving a gift to the fielders and did not help the baserunners. If it can be interpreted the way it was then MLB needs to go back and revisit the rule. Would they prefer to eliminate similar future calls or would they mind having it blow up in their faces during a key WS game? B
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra