MLB  > Atlanta Braves  > Umps made the CORRECT call
October 5, 2012, 11:06 PM
"I was under it," Kozma said. "I should have made the play. I took my eyes off it. I was camped under it."

???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 [emphasis added], 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.

The fans are confused because the ball was hit out of the infield, but the rule doesn't state that the ball needs to be hit in the infield for the rule to apply.

When asked after the game if he DOUBTED whether he made the right call after the boos and debris started raining down, umpire Sam Holbrook said succinctly, "ABSOLUTELY NOT."
October 5, 2012  11:18 PM ET


October 6, 2012  06:45 PM ET

Yes, he did make the correct call, no matter how many Braves fans wish he hadn't. Not that it would have mattered, since it was a judgement call.

IMO, what was WRONG was what the fans did after that!

Comment #3 has been removed
October 7, 2012  08:00 AM ET

I'm not going to argue an umpire's judgement call. Based on the rule, it's the correct call. Did y0ou by chance see the Harold Reynolds video, breaking the play down, step by step while explaining the rule? I can't find it now but please look for it.
Here's the video of Torre and the umps explaining the call ic_id=vtp_manager_postgame

October 7, 2012  08:21 AM ET

Harold Reynolds video: hy-the-infield-fly-rule-was-the-right-call/

Comment #6 has been removed
October 7, 2012  03:48 PM ET

That call was just about as bad as the Green Bay debacle. These replacement Umps suck!! Oh wait, these Umps are the real thing. lol. That ball was obviously not an infield fly. Not even close. It was clearly in the outfield. I guess you could now call it "The Outfield Fly Rule". There is no phony explanation of breakdown of the rules that can defend that STUPID call. The pointless explanation by Harold Reynolds or anyone else satisfies exactly NO ONE. If it looks like **** and smells like ****, it IS ****. That being said Atlanta would have lost the game anyway, seeing as how they wouldn't know what to do with an opportunity if it landed right on their heads, the Chokers. The Cardinals punk the Braves once again

"Contrary to popular belief, the infield fly rule does not only apply to balls hit on the infield, with the rules specifically stating that no arbitrary limitation such as the grass or base line shall prohibit an umpire from declaring an infield fly away from the infield. The rule pertains to the fielder, not to the location of the ball and may be more accurately described as, "The infielder fly rule." "

Again it's a judgement call and no one has disputed it. Sorry

Comment #8 has been removed
Comment #9 has been removed
October 7, 2012  08:03 PM ET

Exactly, its a judgement call and the wrong judgement was used. And the Braves did dispute it by playing the rest of the game under protest.By definition of the rule, the call could be made on a fly ball at the warning track as long as an infielder had time to get under the ball. And that would still be the wrong call, just like in this instance. The letter of the law was not violated but the spirit of it was.The IF fly rule was put in place to protect the team at bat. This was so an IF could not drop a routine fly ball in hopes of getting multiple outs. This ball was not routine. It traveled more than half the distance it would have had to to be a home run. The player never really was set, and the call was not made until the ball was dropping. The call should have made no later than when the ball was at its apex.Torre works for MLB, ofcourse he is going to defend it, that's what he is getting paid to do. Reynolds while supposed to be objective is also collecting checks from the leagues MLB network.If the SS had been posistioned in the area of where the play took place I would agree. But he wasn't, he had to travel a hefty distance to get under it. Again, the letter of the law was not violated but the spirit of it absolutely was. Making this the wrong call.

The "wrong judgement"? Exactly what is the "wrong judgement"? :-/

There isn't a wrong judgement. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Comment #11 has been removed
October 7, 2012  08:05 PM ET

Look, I'm sorry you all disagree with the damned call but it is what it is.

Have a nice night

October 7, 2012  08:06 PM ET

*Hugs SGB*Stay strong, girl.

Thanks, DJ! I'm trying but some days are worse than others

Comment #14 has been removed
Comment #15 has been removed
Comment #16 has been removed
Comment #17 has been removed
Comment #18 has been removed
October 8, 2012  07:52 AM ET

it was a bad call, and a late call... and the fans pay good money to go to that game and if it gets jeopardized by a horrible call they are in the right to trash the field.... glass houses

It was late because the ump had to wait for the ball to start falling

October 8, 2012  07:56 AM ET

And because you like it it means it's right. Right? What is funny is that if the situation was reversed against your team i'd bet anything you would have been complaining about that call.

Who said I liked it? Can I change it, if I **** loud enough? Nope

It's a "judgement" rule that is open to interpretation and I personally hate any rule like that


Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.

Truth & Rumors


  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
  2. 2
    No return timetable for Lightning MVP
  3. 3
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
  4. 4
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
  5. 5
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss

SI Photos