If you could call a review...

[WhatkindofnameisRFAA?]

The Tiger dropping controversy started when the rules committee reviewed footage after "being prompted by a television viewer."

So, if you could go back to any sport/any game and have a play reviewed (even if the sport doesn't otherwise have replay), with the intention of changing the outcome, which sport/game would you choose and why?

 

[Shmuley]

92 Bama. Barker fumbled. Absolute ********.

 

[TheBigDA]

Pig's punt return and the phantom flag.

 

[Faustdog]

An LSU player fumbled the ball out of the back of the endzone against us in 2000. It was either was Dominic Davis or Lebrandon Toefield. It should have been a safety and our ball, but they were given a touchdown. They beat us in overtime. That would have been two in a row over the tigers.

 

[WhatkindofnameisRFAA?]

Easy, and typical for me. World Cup 2002. Handball, Germany, on the goal line against US. The US outplayed Germany all day long. Even the Germans said so after the game. The US gave up a set piece goal and nearly scored several times at the end.

But the US had a goal stopped by a handball on the line which would have tied the game. The US was eliminated. Still a ******** call (or no-call) to this day.

 

[121Josey]

I remember some controversy over this play. But there's no way that it could have been a touchdown instead of a safety. Probably should have been a touchback.

 

[drt7891]

Atlanta's "infield fly" last year in the wild card game.

 

[Faustdog]

It was definitely a fumble. There is a picture of it somewhere that shows him fumbling before he crosses the goal line. Whether it would have been a touchback or safety, it still cost us the game.

 

[missouridawg]

Atlanta's "infield fly" last year in the wild card game.

You should read a baseball rulebook on that play. The umps got the call right, according to the rule book.

Should the rule be changed? Probably... but by the rulebook, the call was made correctly.

 

[missouridawg]

There's a couple that come to mind...

2 of them happened in the span of about 1 minute...
1) The non-walk call in the SECCG against UK. Barry Steward was playing defense... we were up with under 30 seconds left.
2) The John Wall lane violation on the free throw that wasn't called (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgWWmktsJQw)

The Don Denkinger call against the Cards in 1985... I was only 3 at the time... but I hate seeing that **** replayed all the time.

 

[msstate7]

Atlanta's "infield fly" last year in the wild card game.

Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

[drt7891]

I have absolutely read the rulebook and I absolutely know what the rule states

and the spirit of the rule. I've called my fair share of baseball games and have called more than one infield fly. I'll also ignore the fact you are a Cardinals fan and obviously there is a bias where you would say "of course the call was correct, it was in our favor and against Atlanta..." But I digress...

The rule states with runners on at least first and second, less than two outs, if a fly ball is hit and an infielder can catch it WITH ORDINARY EFFORT, then the batter is automatically out (runners can also advance if they tag up). The spirit of the rule is to prevent a dropped ball from getting forceouts at more than one bag because the runners are forced to tag up (an unfair advantage, which I will discuss later).

There are some clear things wrong with that call:
1. What "ordinary effort" causes the shortstop to run halfway out into the outfield to ATTEMPT to catch a fly ball?
2. The left fielder used more "ordinary effort" to get in a position to make the play, but was waved off by the shortstop hauling *** backward, who in turn thought the left fielder had the play
3. The ball was dropped because of a miscommunication by the players as to who had the play.
4. 95% of the time, that is scored an F7 because the left fielder makes that play
5. The outfield umpire called it... not the third base or second base umpire, not the home plate umpire... the outfield umpire... which the point should also be made the ball dropped PASSED him, well beyond the infield.
6. Where else in the history of baseball was that the call made in that situation? Please show me. Runners at first and second with less than two outs is a fairly common situation and SHIRLEY there has been a fly ball somewhere in that vicinity as that one. Show me where the precedent is to call an infield fly. 5-10 ft beyond the dirt, I've seen those called before. 60 ft in the outfield? No way.

Just because an infielder has a CHANCE to make that play, doesn't mean it's an infield fly. What advantage would St. Louis even gain from dropping that? O, I know... Bases loaded and 1 out... no force outs even remotely could have been taken advantage of because of the drop (MAYBE third).

Because the call went in favor of your Cardinals, doesn't mean it was the right call. I am a baseball purist at heart. Hell, I was pissed 2 years ago when the braves beat the Pirates in 19 innings on a blown call at the plate, and I'm a damn braves fan. It absolutely was the wrong call.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

The ball four call in South Bend (Jay Powell) in 1993.

 

[missouridawg]

Like I said, the rule should probably be changed (maybe add a line to the field that's a some distance outside of where the dirt turns to grass in the infield).

But you forgot to include the part of the ruling that says "It's at the umpire's discretion to determine ordinary effort". There are arguments both way on this play that could be stated on whether this was ordinary effort or not. If an infielder camps under the ball and waves his arms (like Kozma did) to catch a ball... to me, that seems like ordinary effort.

And you can keep on dreaming that I'm stating this line of thought process because I'm a Cards fan. I umpired high school baseball during college and love debating rules like this.

You're just pissed cause you're a Braves fan. See how easy it is to cop out of the argument with that statement?

Another question you could use to determine if this should really be an infield fly rule or not... is if Kozma could intentionally drop the ball and turn the 6-5-4 double play. He probably couldn't have in this situation... leading towards NOT calling this an infield fly rule... but the rule isn't stated like that. The rule is stated "ordinary effort"... and by Kozma getting under it, calling for it by waving his arms, it's easy to justify "ordinary effort" in that situation.

We can go round-and-round all day about this... but the rule was enforced properly. You just disagree with the judgement part of it.

 

[patdog]

No. The rule is good. The application was horrible in that case. It would have taken a lot more than an ordinary effort for the SS to catch that ball and no infield fly rule should have been called. But the rule is written correctly.

 

[drt7891]

I am not pissed because I am a Braves fan, there were far more chances for Atlanta to win (or not lose) the game than just that call.. I'm pissed because nowhere else in the history of baseball have I ever seen that called an infield fly.

The ball was hit high enough in the air he had time to run out 100+ feet (the left fielder had a MUCH easier chance at making that catch... but the infielder has the right of way every time) and stand for a second, then duck because he thought the outfielder had the call. There are pop flies in MLB all the time where the infielder could theoretically run into the outfield and have a chance to make the catch. So I guess if that's the case, you can buy an infield fly call because the infielder has time to run up under the ball hit well into the outfield, even if the outfielder is in much better position (in terms of distance) to make the catch? That alone makes it not "ordinary effort."

Then, on top of that, the spirit of the rule is so the defense cannot gain an unfair advantage by dropping the ball and getting multiple forceouts. He MIGHT have gotten the runner at third, but there would be no way he could get more than one forceout from that position.

I've called ball at the high school level before, too, and have watched tons of baseball. I have never seen a play like that called an infield fly, nor understand why that one was ruled one.

 

[PBRME]

The Braves didn't lose because of an infield fly rule. 3 errors by one of the best defensive teams in all of baseball was too much to overcome. It's as bad as Cubs fans blaming Bartman for their loss to the Marlins. No one looks at how the teams choked when the pressure was put on them.

 

[Faustdog]

You're right Mizzou. It was a perfectly fine call according to the rules.

 

[missouridawg]

It was called that way because of an umpire's judgement.

Should the rule be changed to not allow the umpire's judgement to get in the way? Maybe so. But the call in the Braves/Cards game was well within the spirit of the rulebook.

 

[msstate7]

It was called that way because of an umpire's judgement.

Should the rule be changed to not allow the umpire's judgement to get in the way? Maybe so. But the call in the Braves/Cards game was well within the spirit of the rulebook.

It would have been perfectly fine if he didnt call it too. That's why it sucked for braves fans

 

[msstate7]

How bout hrbek pushing Ron gant off of 1st in the World Series? That play really pissed me off

 

[SwampDawg]

The Tiger dropping controversy started when the rules committee reviewed footage after "being prompted by a television viewer."

So, if you could go back to any sport/any game and have a play reviewed (even if the sport doesn't otherwise have replay), with the intention of changing the outcome, which sport/game would you choose and why?

Don't remember the year, but when our defensive back stripped the ball from the Florida player when he was about a step away from the goal. I have the picture but don't know how to post it.

 

[msstate7]

The Braves didn't lose because of an infield fly rule. 3 errors by one of the best defensive teams in all of baseball was too much to overcome. It's as bad as Cubs fans blaming Bartman for their loss to the Marlins. No one looks at how the teams choked when the pressure was put on them.

I don't blame the loss on that play, but it certainly didnt help. I'm not disputing the call, but if it wasn't called no one would have objected. It was more controversial to call it than it would've been to not call it. You're right though, the defense was awful.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I agree. That call was ********, and one of the worst in the history of baseball. A ball that far out is in no way "ordinary effort" for an infielder.

 

[drt7891]

I challenge anyone to find another call in the history of the game

But the call in the Braves/Cards game was well within the spirit of the rulebook.

Where an infield fly was called 60 feet in the outfield and the outfielder was much closer position to make the play. I've looked all day, and cannot find another instance. It hasn't happened.

It was a bad call, and absolutely think it was out of line for the outfield umpire halfway between third and the foul pole to make that call right in front of him. I know I can't possibly convince you of this, but I'm a much bigger fan of the game than Atlanta. I can't tell you how pissed when Atlanta won over Pittsburgh over a horrible call. Same thing here... Calling fly balls fairly deep in the outfield "infield flies" by an outfield umpire simply because an infielder had time to get under it (even though he wasn't even the player in the best position BY FAR to make the play) is absurd. That's not "ordinary effort," and that's why it was a bad call. If you made that call in any high school game, you'd be guaranteed to be tossing a coach because they'd be lighting you up. You couldn't possibly argue your way out of calling it.

And Atlanta did not lose that game because of that call, Chipper Jones had 2 errors that gave up key runs, and I was more pissed about that because of how much he talked about wanting a huge season... and how sick I was watching Atlanta continually choke when the season was on the line. It was a big situation that COULD have resulted in a win, but there were more glaring mistakes in the game than that call alone.

 

[missouridawg]

I'm not going to argue much longer on this... but it's pretty clear that you and I differ on the expectations of output when it comes to "ordinary effort.".

To me, an infielder who has enough time to get under a pop-up and wave his arms to call for the ball has made a pretty ordinary effort to get there. To you, that's apparently an over-exertion of the players' capabilities.

 

[drt7891]

Not "player capabilities..." and this is my last post on this..

I made the point earlier that there are many instances where an infielder theoretically has time to get under a pop fly even fairly deep in the outfield (even deeper than this one). Just because the infielder has time to get under it does not make this "ordinary effort."

In this situation, If I were actually calling a game, before making any call, I would ask myself "is this a situation where an unfair advantage be created because of a drop?" Clearly not in this case, and even if there had been an intentional drop and a perfect situation resulted for the defense to create a DP forceout situation, no double play could have possibly resulted from that drop.

1. The runner occupying second base stood almost halfway between second and third because he had time plenty of time to tag up if the ball was caught
2. Since the ball was dropped, the lead runner would have made it a VERY close play at third because he had time to get a sizeable lead without the risk of being doubled up
3. The same situation between first and second, except that runner could get an even bigger lead than the lead runner, further reducing the chance of two outs resulting from even a perfect drop and attempted DP

No unfair advantage could have been, even if they had intentionally dropped the ball and attempted a DP from that far in the outfield.

This is my last post on this.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

These situations seem to be a dime a dozen

Somebody mentioned the Ky/MSU SEC Tourney game, as Cousins say, call me...that was big, no NCAA bid.

I'm gonna move to 2009 MSU vs Houston, and our midget (but likeable) QB gets called for passing across the line of scrimage.
Good call we likely win, but bad call...oh ****!

Like I said these calls are a dime a dozen.

That means 10 cents for 12 of them. Plentiful...

 

[vhdawg]

The fumble into the endzone for a TD for LSU in 2000.

We win that game, we win the SEC West and go to Atlanta. They don't get that TD, the game never goes to overtime, we win.

 

[HD6]

Dick 17'n Pace for the win.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

 

[HD6]

I mean damn it, the ref is right there! He's right there, how on earth could anybody miss that? I could tell that was a touchback and my seats were in the opposite damn endzone.

 

[NCDawg.sixpack]

92 Bama. Barker fumbled. Absolute ********.

Totally agree. I was there close to the play. No question it was a fumble.

 

[NCDawg.sixpack]

It was Toefield. Fumbled on about the 2 yard line-fumbled the ball out of the endzone. Should have been State's ball on the 20.

 

[DancingRabbit]

Took me a minute - was thinking that ref's name was Thibadeaux or Boudreaux

but not quite so obvious - that field judges name is Bobby Aillet, Jr.

La Tech's stadium is named for his daddy - Joe Aillet Stadium.

He should have been run out of the profession based on that photo alone. Cheatin' *******.

http://www.lsusports.net/src/data/lsu/assets/docs/fb/00stats/ls08.htm

 

[PBRME]

Somebody mentioned the Ky/MSU SEC Tourney game, as Cousins say, call me...that was big, no NCAA bid.

I'm gonna move to 2009 MSU vs Houston, and our midget (but likeable) QB gets called for passing across the line of scrimage.
Good call we likely win, but bad call...oh ****!

Like I said these calls are a dime a dozen.

That means 10 cents for 12 of them. Plentiful...

This. That game against Houston was the difference in us going bowling and sitting at home in 09.

 

[msstate7]

This. That game against Houston was the difference in us going bowling and sitting at home in 09.

Well and us completely blowing it at the goal line against lsu. Terrible play calling...

 

[gymdawg.sixpack]

lets say the ball is hit so high that it carries to the wall. the left fielder falls and breaks an ankel, unable to get back.as a result the SS runs out and easily camps under it, but drops the ball. well i guess the drop is irrelevant. but u get the scenario. would that also be ok to call? no...i dont care what the rule is. thta ball was way too far out to have been in the area of that rule.

 

[121Josey]

No bias either way. But it was clearly a terble call. The call kills the play. At worst, if the play continues, the runners are in the same position as the play began.

No problem with the way the rule is written because the SS (or other IF) could play at differing depths or in a shift.

 

[FlabLoser]

When Tebow came here, a Florida WR fumble acroo the goal line and should have been a touchback. A synchronized replay from 2 angles showed this conclusively after the replay official made a quick decision to let the TD stand.