I have to admit that I love major league baseball, and I root for the Atlanta Braves (I live in Birmingham, AL.) So I was gravely disappointed when they lost the game yesterday to St. Louis. And losing the way they did was especially disheartening. The Braves had 12 hits, but could only manage to score 3 runs, while the Cards 6 hits produced 6 runs-greatly due to 3 abnormal errors from the Braves. The game will probably be remembered for the infield fly rule call in the 8th inning however, which, if it hadn't happened would have loaded the bases for Atlanta with only 1 out. With the umpire's call there were 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. Needless to say the homefield fans were upset by this call and immediately threw trash onto the field, causing a 20-minute delay. I was very upset myself and if I could have done it I would have thrown something onto the field as well from here in Birmingham--I guess only Superman or maybe the Hulk can do that. It made me question the rule and I've looked it up. According to the rule it seems to apply to the situation that happened. However...I have one big gripe...which is that the players who could have caught the ball must have been able to...and here's my distinction...with ordinary effort. Every situation in every game where this rule could be called is going to be slightly different. It is a judgement call by the umpire whether or not the rule can apply to the given situation. Sometimes the umpires decide that there are no players who could have made a catch with ordinary effort when a ball is popped up over the infield. It happened in 2008 in the 5th game of the world series when Pedro Feliz of the Phillies hit a pop up against the Tampa Bay Rays-there it was not called because of swirling winds. So there is a precedence for some sort of mitigating factor disrupting a catch of the ball. I put it to the umpires, and MLB, that there was such a factor in the Braves vs. Cardinals game yesterday. And this was that neither of the players that had run over to catch the ball were committed to catching it. Both of them had given up on the ball, apparently due to a miscommunication on their part as to who was going to catch it. Is not a miscommunication between players a disruptive factor? I contend that, yes the ball could have been caught if they had not had such a miscommunication, but since they weren't on the same page so to speak, and both gave up on the ball, the rule should not count in this instance. (just like when some other disruptive influence keeps a popup from being caught).
This is a photo of the two players involved in the play,
and they don't seem to be on the same page to me.
It's unfortunate that the umpires didn't see it this way or think to consider that someone's ordinary effort could be affected by anything other than bad weather. The game was played under protest but shortly after the game Joe Torre, MLB vice president of operations, denied the protest citing umpires judgement. Boo.
Since either they don't want to ruffle feathers, or they just don't care, there's nothing anyone can do now but forget about this and get ready for next year.
You know, it'll be funny if St. Louis goes on to win the World Series after this. They won it last year after beating Atlanta.
No comments :
Post a Comment