How in the **** did they screw that up so bad?
Okay, its an infield fly rule that was never called. The umps screwed up but okay, thats the right call according to the rule book. Batter is out and runners back to 1st and 2nd. How did they end up at 2nd and 3rd?

And if they advanced on their own as was their choice, the guy got tagged out at 2nd base. If its a live ball, why are the umps calling time on their own? If its not a live ball, why are the runners on 2nd and 3rd in scoring position to possibly end the streak on a base hit?
[Reply]

The only thing I can think of is they called infield fly, so batter is out no matter what. I suppose at that time it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a force play at any of the bases since they are running after an out at first meaning they needed to tag the runner at 3rd for an out. They did tag the runner after he rounded 2nd, but the ump for some fricking reason called timeout before the tag.

The thing I wonder is if it is infield fly wouldn’t you need to tag up before advancing? They should have stepped off and thrown to the base of whoever didn’t tag the base before advancing.
[Reply]

Its advance at your own risk and no need to tag up after infield fly rule is called. Ump just completely fucked it up calling time.
[Reply]

Yes, had they tagged the runner at 3rd initially instead of stepping on the base it would have been game over. I wonder if the ump just wasn't heard. It is strange all around. You don't run if you hear the infield fly called, or at least you should be damn sure you can make it, and that certainly wasn't the case.
[Reply]

It was called - umpire at 3b clearly put his arm straight up as Arenado pursued the fly. That was when the IF fly was called (and why the runner at 1b was still declared out).

At that point the rule is that the force is no longer in order and any runner has to be tagged. So when DeJong took the relay at 3b, tagged the bag and fired to 2b, nothing actually happened and that runner is still safe. The throw to 2b was also not a force.

The problem comes with the umpire at 2b. He made an 'out' call at 2b, presumably because he missed the infield fly call. In calling the runner out on the force, he presumed the runner vacated the bag after being called out. That's when the umpire realized he fucked up and called time.

Since he called time before the tag was put on the runner, he waived off the out (even though the tag should've secured the out). The problem is that his presumption was incorrect - the runner had overrun the bag independent of the out call. Calling time was A) wrongheaded and B) just wrong. It was based on a faulty assumption and frankly even if it wasn't, the umpire doesn't get to just call time mid-play like that.

The runner at 2b should've been out (runner at 3b safe) but the ump at 2b gacked the call and then the crew chief backed his guy.
[Reply]

Based on that, then the runners should have scored in the ATL playoff game?
[Reply]

They didn’t advance in that game. The butthurt in Atlanta was that the infield fly shouldn’t have been called in the first place.
[Reply]

Make that 16 now. And the magic number is uno.
[Reply]

At least one of my teams is playing well right now.
[Reply]

Another wacky way to end the game. Tuned in to see Schildt get tossed
[Reply]

He gets tossed all the time. I love that guy.
[Reply]

Nice article summing up what has driven the recent streak.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/y...yoff-position/
[Reply]

And the IF fly rule is the simplest rule imaginable yet it ALWAYS gets screwed up somehow.

I got in an argument with a buddy on a slow-pitch team where he popped up a ball with a runner on 1b to SS and walked down the line. The umpire didn't call IFF, the ball hit the ground and the SS went ahead and turned the DP.

He was pissed that IFF fly wasn't called - it isn't supposed to be. He was wound up because the IFF is designed to keep the 'intentional drop, turn the DP' thing from happening. I had to explain to him that it doesn't consider a batter being lazy or throwing a temper tantrum and getting himself forced out at 1b for the DP.

There has to be 2 baserunners who are in a 'force out' position (i.e. 1st and 2nd or 1st, 2nd and 3rd) and less than 2 outs. If there are runners at 2nd and 3rd, no IFF. If there's just a runner at 1b, no IFF because the idea is that the runner at 1st still runs to 2b and the runner at the plate replaces him at first if the ball is dropped. If there are 2 outs there's no IFF because there is no utility in letting the ball drop.

It's really damn limited. And its impact is also super straightforward. It's really bizarre to me that fans, players and occasionally even umpires will mess this up. The best I can figure is that the confusion springs up when players just don't hear the call.

And yes, the Braves play was absolutely an IFF call even though it was in the OF grass because Kozma (an IFer) had settled under the ball and could've let it drop, then fired to 3rd for one and back over to 2b for two.
[Reply]

The rule also states "ordinary effort." Kozma was probably 100 feet from his position and the only time he really "settled" under anything was at the exact moment he peeled off of the play and let the ball drop as it landed another 10 feet behind him.

Even if he intentionally let the ball drop in front of him there's no way a double play is made as he was so deep in the outfield both runners were taking leads on the play. The runner on 2nd was 20 feet off the bag when Kozma was "settling under the ball."

How far would you say that ball would need to travel from where it dropped to 3B and then to 2B? 300 feet, give or take? Even if they are throwing the ball 90mph with picture perfect placement on the throw and record speed on transfers, it's mathematically impossible to get that ball to 2B before an even below average MLB runner, that's at least 1/3 of the way to 2B, could get there. The throw would get there at least 1 second late. And in terms of throwing a baseball 90mph 90 feet, 1 second means the 3B hasnt even released the ball yet.
[Reply]

Loser say what?
[Reply]