The Tainted Game - Bunselpower32's Blog

Bunselpower32's Blog

The Tainted Game

Posted on October 6, 2012 at 01:52 PM.

(1)

Of course all of you baseball fans know what I'm talking about, as many will remember this as a tainted win for the St. Louis Cardinals. I, however, will not.

Let me get out of the way early - as if you couldn't already tell from my avatar - I am a Cardinals fan. Last year was the most incredible finish to a baseball season I have ever seen, and this year is getting off to quite an ending as well. But let me say, I am first and foremost a student of the game, which is why my first instinct before I formed any kind of opinion was to go to the rulebook.

I've been hearing a lot of talk around the interwebs about the "call that lost the Braves the game." I've heard everything from the paying off of umpires to a simple mistake, but I have heard of no one doing what should have been done as soon as this situation arose - consult the rules.

People have been using every argument in the book as to why this was the incorrect call. "It wasn't in the dirt, how can it be an infield fly?" "He had to run really far to get it, too much effort was exerted." "He wasn't camped under it at all." "The call was too late." "It was the deepest infield fly in history."

Lets go to the rulebook. Major League Baseball's Official Rules state the following on an Infield Fly:

Quote:


	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. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule. 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. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare �Infield Fly, if Fair.� The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul. If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly. 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. When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05(l). The infield fly rule takes precedence.

Here is the link to the video, many of you have seen in a million times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Z5MIaISrU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuuCD5IWchs

First off, ESPN says that there was no ordinary effort exerted. If you watch the approach, Kozma is drifting, while Holliday is running hard to get there. It seems like an easy ball for the SS to handle.

Second, I hear that he wasn't camped under it at all. I don't know who can say this, but right before the ball hits, Kozma has come to a complete stop, and was waiting for the ball to come to him. Holliday would have had to exert more effort than Kozma did to get to that ball.

Third, the SS doesn't have to catch it. It has to be able to be handled by an infielder with ordinary effort, it even says in the rule that the outfielder can catch it.

Fourth, the umpire's call was so late because he was determining if Kozma could actually get there in time, plus, lets face it, he assumed that ball was going to be caught, and it never occured to him that there could be a drop. The umpire judged that "the ball could have been easily handled by and infielder", which it was extremely obvious once Kozma camped under it and waited for it to fall, after drifting, not sprinting, to the landing spot.

I could go on listing all of the points of the rule that the umpires followed, but it would be pointless. If you read that rule, then look at what the umpires did and how they determined it, there is nothing that they did wrong.

Baseball is a funny game. Things happen that you've never seen before, that's the beauty of the game. But let me pose this question. If Kozma had let it drop on purpose, they were only a shortstop's normal throw to first base's distance from third base, and gotten the lead runner and there had been first and second with two outs instead of first and third, or even more, if the runner on first had turned tail back to first base and ended up getting double off of first because Kozma let it drop, would Braves' fans - and ESPN - been shouting for an infield fly rule? If you can honestly say that those situations would have been O.K. with you, then fine, we'll just agree to disagree. But they weren't that far into the outfield, one out was quite possible if that had been an intentional drop, and two was slim but nevertheless possible, as the first base runner was only about three steps off of first when the camera panned out.

The Braves missed their chances all game long. This is convenient to hide behind, but this did not directly affect the score, and there is no indication based on the Braves' performance that this situation would have been any different.

After all is said and done, I agree that this was a tainted game. It really brought out ESPN's slant and showed quite obviously a disregard for the way the rules were written. It further evidenced what a certain Redskins kicker just a few years ago called the "lawsuit generation". It showed a severe lack of understanding of the rules of baseball, and no desire to know what the rules are before forming an opinion. But worst of all, it showed fans of all sports that we are no better than the hooligans at the World Cup who riot and kill people over a soccer game. It showed that if fans don't like a call they can just throw stuff and get the game delayed or even postponed. So yes, this game was tainted, but it had nothing to do with the game itself.