If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Remember Sam Holbrook, the ump who made the infield fly call in the NL Wild Card game? MLB has sent him home for the winter. Just kidding - he is a part of the ALCS crew   (espn.go.com) divider line 39
    More: Asinine, Sam Holbrook, NL Championship Series, Major League Baseball, League Championship Series, Chris Guccione, Gary Cederstrom, Jeff Kellogg, Matt Holliday  
•       •       •

638 clicks; posted to Sports » on 14 Oct 2012 at 2:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-14 02:41:42 PM  
I wonder what koman coulibaly thinks of this.
 
2012-10-14 02:47:38 PM  
Ah yes, this farker. I remember him.

Holbrook became the story of the game when he ejected starting pitcher Zack Greinke in the first inning after Greinke had thrown just four pitches. Jordan Schafer led off the bottom of the first with a sharp liner to center field that Carlos Gomez misplayed. Schafer ended up at third base. Jose Altuve followed with a ground ball between first and second base that Corey Hart laid out to snare. Greinke quickly raced to cover first base and seemed to arrive at about the same time as Altuve. Holbrook signaled safe. Greinke took a few steps toward second base and spiked the ball into the dirt.

Up went Holbrook's thumb and Greinke was tossed. Ron Roenicke came out to argue and was told to join Greinke in the clubhouse.

It did not appear that Greinke was disputing the call as he did not say anything to Holbrook, nor did he make eye contact with the umpire. It appeared that Greinke was frustrated at himself for not getting to first base more quickly. He appeared to tell Holbrook as much following the ejection. But Holbrook's the law in these here parts and the law said to hit the showers.


I've hated him for a while.

http://www.brewcrewball.com/2012/7/7/3143731/holbrooks-the-law-around - here-greinke-ejected-after-four-pitches-in-6
 
2012-10-14 02:50:09 PM  
Yep, I remember him, tardmitter. He made the right call.

/not a fan of either team.
 
2012-10-14 02:51:05 PM  
Didn't MLBN figure out it was the correct call, with examples from the regular season as well?
 
2012-10-14 02:51:34 PM  
Your team still would have lost, submitter.
 
2012-10-14 03:01:10 PM  

Scruffinator: Didn't MLBN figure out it was the correct call, with examples from the regular season as well?


There was a nearly identical play in a Cubs regular season game, yeah.

That doesn't necessarily make the call correct, it should be noted, as it's certainly possible to disagree with the judgement portion. But the call was 100% within the rules.
 
2012-10-14 03:12:19 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Scruffinator: Didn't MLBN figure out it was the correct call, with examples from the regular season as well?

There was a nearly identical play in a Cubs regular season game, yeah.

That doesn't necessarily make the call correct, it should be noted, as it's certainly possible to disagree with the judgement portion. But the call was 100% within the rules.


The call was correct, but it was made very late.
 
2012-10-14 03:17:34 PM  

NeoCortex42: The call was correct, but it was made very late.


The only way you can make that claim is by saying that the call was so obvious that it was apparent to Holbrook several seconds earlier, but he waited to call it for some reason. Which is sorta the opposite of what most people are saying.

Besides, it explicitly says that the speed of the call is for the runners' benefit, and they advanced anyway. If anything, the timing of the call helped the Braves.
 
2012-10-14 03:27:17 PM  
The call was the right one. Sam Holbrook is still awful. C.B. Bucknor awful. Not quit as awful as Angel Hernandez, but awful nonetheless. He shouldn't be doing regular season games, much less postseason.
 
2012-10-14 04:01:36 PM  
Hey... every bloop single to the shallow outfield should be ruled an infield fly.
 
2012-10-14 04:06:46 PM  

zamboni: Hey... every bloop single to the shallow outfield should be ruled an infield fly.


Do infielders usually camp under every bloop single?
 
2012-10-14 04:15:06 PM  

dave2198: zamboni: Hey... every bloop single to the shallow outfield should be ruled an infield fly.

Do infielders usually camp under every bloop single?


Oh... Hi. You must be one of those people who actually understands the infield fly rule. Unlike, say, the majority of the other people in this thread.
 
2012-10-14 04:21:00 PM  

dave2198: zamboni: Hey... every bloop single to the shallow outfield should be ruled an infield fly.

Do infielders usually camp under every bloop single?


would that have been a single? or an E6?
 
2012-10-14 04:42:21 PM  

JPINFV: dave2198: zamboni: Hey... every bloop single to the shallow outfield should be ruled an infield fly.

Do infielders usually camp under every bloop single?

Oh... Hi. You must be one of those people who actually understands the infield fly rule. Unlike, say, the majority of the other people in this thread.


It just doesn't make sense that an infield fly rule can be called 70 feet away from the infield.
 
2012-10-14 04:47:11 PM  

NeoCortex42: DeWayne Mann: Scruffinator: Didn't MLBN figure out it was the correct call, with examples from the regular season as well?

There was a nearly identical play in a Cubs regular season game, yeah.

That doesn't necessarily make the call correct, it should be noted, as it's certainly possible to disagree with the judgement portion. But the call was 100% within the rules.

The call was correct, but it was made very late.


Very late, the ball was withing 30 feet of the turf before he put his arm up.
 
2012-10-14 04:59:49 PM  
This is more a problem with the wording of the infield fly rule than Holbrook's call, but the rule is designed to prevent the defense from turning a double play by dropping a pop-up. Shouldn't it be a requirement that it be possible for the defense to turn a double play to invoke that rule? Looking at the position of the baserunners and the infielder, there's no chance the Cardinals could have turned a double play from that location.

Besides, the official MLB line is always that the umpire is always right, so sit down and shut up and we'll trot the same idiots out season after season no matter how bad they are at their jobs.
 
2012-10-14 05:51:40 PM  
Just because you don't like the call doesn't mean it's a bad call.
 
2012-10-14 06:24:59 PM  
Eh, it wasn't like he blew a call in a real playoff game.
 
2012-10-14 08:15:40 PM  

edmo: Just because you don't like the call doesn't mean it's a bad call.


This is true, but it was still a bad call.
 
2012-10-14 10:50:51 PM  
You are an idiot if you think that call was correct.

* was called too late to serve any purpose for the runners that it is supposed to protect
* the shortstop was not displaying ordinary effort. Even if we would have made the catch, it would still be a play that would require a respectable amount of effort. (By virtue that this was not caught kinda proves this point.)
* I suppose the shortstop was "camped out" but it would have been nice if he was actually underneath the ball
* the ball landed 1/3 the distance from the back edge of the infield dirt to the outfield fence. Common sense, alone, will tell you that it is out range of an infield fly

Very bad call by a prima donna umpire.
 
2012-10-14 11:06:57 PM  

westpointer: * was called too late to serve any purpose for the runners that it is supposed to protect


So, if it had been called earlier, what would the runners have done?

westpointer: * the shortstop was not displaying ordinary effort. Even if we would have made the catch, it would still be a play that would require a respectable amount of effort. (By virtue that this was not caught kinda proves this point.)


That's not what ordinary effort means. Kozma could've laid down and taken a nap on the play, and infield fly would still be an acceptable call within the rules.

westpointer: * I suppose the shortstop was "camped out" but it would have been nice if he was actually underneath the ball


See above.

westpointer: the ball landed 1/3 the distance from the back edge of the infield dirt to the outfield fence.


And yet, according to the rules, that's not an issue in the slightest.

westpointer: Common sense, alone, will tell you that it is out range of an infield fly


Ok, so, you've demonstrated that the rules may not follow common sense. Good to know.
 
2012-10-14 11:23:02 PM  

westpointer: You are an idiot if you think that call was correct.

* was called too late to serve any purpose for the runners that it is supposed to protect
* the shortstop was not displaying ordinary effort. Even if we would have made the catch, it would still be a play that would require a respectable amount of effort. (By virtue that this was not caught kinda proves this point.)
* I suppose the shortstop was "camped out" but it would have been nice if he was actually underneath the ball
* the ball landed 1/3 the distance from the back edge of the infield dirt to the outfield fence. Common sense, alone, will tell you that it is out range of an infield fly

Very bad call by a prima donna umpire.


Lol this again. There is no distance maximum in the rules for infield fly. Every single umpire I have talked to, including myself feel that it was a proper call as the rule is written.
 
2012-10-15 12:14:24 AM  

gimmegimme: It just doesn't make sense that an infield fly rule can be called 70 feet away from the infield.


I agree that it doesn't make sense. That, however, doesn't change the rule that says that an infielder (as defined as anyone positioned in the infield, so you can't just swap your outfielders for your infielders) who can catch a fly ball under ordinary effort. Arguably, if an infielder has time to camp under the ball, then ordinary effort has been achieved for that player. The call is correct... it's the rule that's screwed up.

Rule 2.0
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.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2011/Official_Baseball_Rules.pdf
 
2012-10-15 01:40:11 AM  

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: He made the right call.


Do you mean "right call" as "theoretically within the letter of the rules, sort of, though far outside the spirit" or do you mean "right call" as in "not the right call"?
 
2012-10-15 01:44:09 AM  

Scruffinator: Didn't MLBN figure out it was the correct call, with examples from the regular season as well?


No, They could find no example from the regular season in which the infield fly rule was invoked anywhere close to that far in the outfield. They said that they stood by the call and disallowed the protest, kind of like Galarraga's perfect game ruined by a bad call on the last out. There is a world of difference between "it was the correct call" and "we stand by that call, and we're not going to change what the umpire called".
 
2012-10-15 01:46:28 AM  

DeWayne Mann: But the call was 100% within the rules.


No, it wasn't. Although you could argue that since hard play by an infielder made it possible for him to catch the ball, the rules explicitly say the call should be made "immediately". This wasn't. It was also far outside the spirit of the rule, since a double play would have impossible from that distance.
 
2012-10-15 01:49:26 AM  

dave2198: Do infielders usually camp under every bloop single?


No, they don't.

You and I have very different definitions of "camping" - you seem to believe it means "chased after the ball, but never even made it to the point where the ball finally fell", whereas I believe "camping" means "ceasing motion for at least a second or two at the position where the ball actually falls".

Besides, "camping" under the ball is not referenced by the infield fly rule, so it doesn't even matter.
 
2012-10-15 01:53:53 AM  

jibern: would that have been a single? or an E6?


This was waaaaayyy outside a shortstop's normal range, and should have been caught by the left fielder, so it would have probably been scored an E7, probably not a single.

The main reason I'm pissed is a big part of baseball is taking advantage of errors; The Cardinals took advantage of three on the part of the Braves, and when an error gets taken away by a blown call like that because "well, he could have made that catch", it seems like fans aren't getting to see the fair athletic competition they paid to see,
 
2012-10-15 01:56:54 AM  

gimmegimme: It just doesn't make sense that an infield fly rule can be called 70 feet away from the infield.


Under the rules, anything can be called an infield fly - it's a "judgement call". However, this was piss-poor judgement, and the fact that it wasn't invoked until the ball was almost to the ground, as opposed to the "immediately" specified in the rules, makes it beyond a horrible call.
 
2012-10-15 02:04:19 AM  

JSam21: Every single umpire I have talked to, including myself feel that it was a proper call as the rule is written.


Well, then that makes it okay, then. Wouldn't want you to feel like the umpire made a mistake that affected the outcome of the game, and MLB was too proud to admit it. 

The rule was written to protect the baserunners. There is no way invoking the rule in this way could have protected any of the baserunners. Therefore, it was not proper to invoke the rule. And it sure as hell wasn't invoked "properly"; the rule as written says that it must be invoked "immediately". It wasn't.
 
2012-10-15 02:25:29 AM  

ox45tallboy: jibern: would that have been a single? or an E6?

This was waaaaayyy outside a shortstop's normal range, and should have been caught by the left fielder, so it would have probably been scored an E7, probably not a single.

The main reason I'm pissed is a big part of baseball is taking advantage of errors; The Cardinals took advantage of three on the part of the Braves, and when an error gets taken away by a blown call like that because "well, he could have made that catch", it seems like fans aren't getting to see the fair athletic competition they paid to see,


I say e6 because he called for the ball and that's why the left fielder backed out
 
2012-10-15 02:44:35 AM  

westpointer: You are an idiot if you think that call was correct.

* was called too late to serve any purpose for the runners that it is supposed to protect
* the shortstop was not displaying ordinary effort. Even if we would have made the catch, it would still be a play that would require a respectable amount of effort. (By virtue that this was not caught kinda proves this point.)
* I suppose the shortstop was "camped out" but it would have been nice if he was actually underneath the ball
* the ball landed 1/3 the distance from the back edge of the infield dirt to the outfield fence. Common sense, alone, will tell you that it is out range of an infield fly

Very bad call by a prima donna umpire.


Hhhmmm.... another farking idiot who doesn't understand the basics of the infield fly rule.

/you, sir, are a farking idiot.
 
2012-10-15 02:54:33 AM  

gimmegimme: It just doesn't make sense that an infield fly rule can be called 70 feet away from the infield.


And home runs! They're not at my home, they're at the stadium! And don't get me started on the effort the players make after they hit the ball over the fence. These guys aren't running! It might be more of a jog. This is not a home run; this is a stadium trot.
 
2012-10-15 03:01:43 AM  

ox45tallboy: No, They could find no example from the regular season in which the infield fly rule was invoked anywhere close to that far in the outfield.


You are an AMAZING troll. Quite spectacular.

Here, watch this video. Or not, because it completely proves you wrong, and we can't have that, right?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/harold-reynolds-ha d- good-explanation-why-infield-fly-154426000--mlb.html?utm_source=dlvr.i t&utm_medium=twitter

ox45tallboy: the rules explicitly say the call should be made "immediately"


I like how, apparently, you are capable of COMPLETELY ignoring the phrase "When it seems apparent."

Unless you're arguing that the call was SO obvious, it was actually apparent to Holbrook several seconds earlier. Is that what you're arguing? 

Of course, you're ALSO ignoring the line about "for the benefit of the runners." How would the runners have benefited from an earlier call?
 
2012-10-15 05:12:36 AM  

jibern: I say e6 because he called for the ball and that's why the left fielder backed out


Hmmm... I'm with you that it should have been scored an error, but that's far outside the SS's normal zone of responsibility. I don't think you can call a catch in that location "ordinary effort" on the part of the SS, so it's hard to award the error there. I say E7, as the left fielder not only started out closer, but also wound up closer to where the ball eventually landed, and it looked like he called the SS off, as he should have - that was his ball, and with him moving forward as opposed to the SS who was backing up, he should have taken it.

Then again, perhaps it should have been considered a hit. But there is no way it should have been an infield fly when there was no possibility of a double play.
 
2012-10-15 06:17:56 AM  

DeWayne Mann: You are an AMAZING troll. Quite spectacular.


Trolls post things other than what they believe in order to get a reaction. I'm butthurt over something that won't change no matter how much I say "Waaah" about it, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to stop saying "Waaah".

It's silly to call someone you disagree with a "troll" just because you disagree with what they say. It means you don't know what a troll actually is.

DeWayne Mann: Here, watch this video. Or not, because it completely proves you wrong, and we can't have that, right?


Okay, they were able to show one example of a play in that general vicinity from the regular season in which the infield fly rule is invoked (never mind the fact that it wasn't applied correctly there either, as there wasn't an opportunity for a DP) . This is supposed to indicate some kind of consistency on the part of MLB umpiring.

How about Derek Jeter doing the same thing on Sept. 13, with runners on 1st and 2nd, one out, and a pop-up that would have been catchable if the SS was was covering 2nd so the 2B could play out a little, but nope, no infield fly rule.

Here's another pop-up, this one by Chris Giminez on September 3, that lands less than 10 feet out of the infield. Runners on 1st and 2nd, 1 out, no infield fly called, although it should have been an E4.

This one from September 9, bases loaded, 1 out, this time the 2nd baseman doesn't go for it, but distance wise, we're about the same. And remember, the rule says it doesn't matter who actually fields it, just whether or not someone playing in the infield could have fielded it. If the SS could have fielded the Wild Card Game play, then the 2nd baseman could have gotten to this one.

See, the commentator was able to find, with all the resources at his disposal, one play from the entire season in which the infield fly rule was invoked in a situation somewhat similar to the one st the Wild Card Game. And this is supposed to show "consistency", when I was able to Google around for just a couple of minutes and find three plays in which it wasn't invoked - just in the past month. So no, I'm not sold by this commentator.

DeWayne Mann: Of course, you're ALSO ignoring the line about "for the benefit of the runners." How would the runners have benefited from an earlier call?


They wouldn't have. Because there is no way the runners could have benefited, there was no reason to invoke the infield fly. Duh.

DeWayne Mann: I like how, apparently, you are capable of COMPLETELY ignoring the phrase "When it seems apparent."


The same way people who believe the rule was applied correctly seem to ignore the phrase "ordinarily have been handled by an infielder."

As I said, it's all a bunch of butthurt. My team lost, and I believe they did not lose in a fair contest of athletic skill. I do, however, accept the fact that there is no way of changing it, but I hope that MLB will make some kind of adjustment to the infield fly rule to keep this sort of thing from happening again.

It seems that most people that believe the rule to have been applied correctly are referencing the "letter of the rule", which more or less says it's a judgement call, and the people stating that it was applied incorrectly are pointing to the "spirit of the rule", in which is was designed to prevent double plays from intentional drops. There is simply no way that an intentional drop of that ball could have resulted in a double play, or even a single out, as evidenced by the fact that it did drop and all runners advanced safely, even though they were technically (based on the wording of the infield fly rule) advancing "at their own risk" as none had waited to tag. It didn't happen. Two defensive players were there, and neither could pick the ball up fast enough to even force out the runner at third - much less get a double play at second.

I really hope that MLB umpires and administrators will make some kind of adjustment to the rules to keep this situation from happening in the future.
 
2012-10-15 06:58:05 AM  
Baseball is boring.
 
2012-10-15 11:23:22 AM  

ox45tallboy: DeWayne Mann: But the call was 100% within the rules.

No, it wasn't. Although you could argue that since hard play by an infielder made it possible for him to catch the ball, the rules explicitly say the call should be made "immediately". This wasn't. It was also far outside the spirit of the rule, since a double play would have impossible from that distance.


This is the point. How on earth could anyone see a ball that far into the outfield and say that the LF or SS could have easily let it drop then the two throws necessary for the double play be made in time? Maybe if the base runners were Fernando Valenzuela and David Wells. The whole point of the rule was to prevent the defense from using that easy single-out situation to create a double play, so regardless of the fact that the rule does not state anything about where the ball lands or would have landed, it will still a bad judgement call. The fact that it was late only exacerbated things.
 
2012-10-15 12:53:07 PM  

Cubs300: The call was the right one. Sam Holbrook is still awful. C.B. Bucknor awful. Not quit as awful as Angel Hernandez, but awful nonetheless. He shouldn't be doing regular season games, much less postseason.


But is he Joe West bad???
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report