You can read Paul White’s attempted defense here. Next, please make sure to read the whole rule in full which you can find there. You will note that Mr. White quotes neither the full text of the rule nor even the whole paragraph of the rule’s explanation.
Here is why he is wrong:
(1) The last two sentences of the rule explanation (not quoted by Mr. White) state–“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.” The call is to be immediate. It was not. Watch the replay as many times as you like.
(2) Note also White’s correct summary of the purpose of the rule–“The rule exists so an infielder doesn’t purposely drop the ball so he can get force outs for a double or triple play.” Does anyone serious believe, based on where the ball actually was on the field, that a double or triple play could have been attempted much less achieved? Also note that the argument that the runners were protected anyway since they both advanced a base does not work because on a ball this deep they would have advanced 1/2 to 2/3 of the way on the fly ball before going back if it were caught–thus what happened to the runners would have happened anyway which provides no protection whatsoever.
(3) Note next the exact text of the explanation as given by White–“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 key word is the word “easily,” and this was not a play that fits that definition, it could be made, and made with difficulty, indeed one of the reason why the call was made so late was because the infielder and outfielder were so close together which only happens when an infielder is way into the outfield. It could NOT have been handled “easily.” Also, the reason the umpire’s call was in no way immediate is because all the way until the very last seconds it was not clear whether the infielder or the outfielder was going to make the play.
(4) Finally I defy Mr. White to examine all the times this rule has been applied and to find how many similar balls THIS FAR INTO THE OUTFIELD were ever subject to the infield fly rule being called. Rules to be applied properly must be applied similarly in similar circumstances. No fan if his or her team were the other team would have felt this was a fair or reasonable application of this rule, both in terms of its actaul language, and especially its intent–KSH.
Update: Hal Bodley of mlb.com has it right:
But in 54 years of covering Major League Baseball, I’ve never seen the fly rule called when a fielder isn’t under the ball. The infield fly is a complicated rule, designed to prevent infielders from intentionally dropping a popup with more than one runner on base to perhaps get an extra out.
It wasn’t even close in this case. As Holliday charged in, Kozma, his glove outstretched, took a few steps back, deeper into the outfield.
.Another update: Alex Hall disagrees.
Yet one further update:According to an ESPN article:
To put Friday’s controversial play into context, in the past three seasons, there were six infield flies that were not caught in the majors, according to Baseball Info Solutions, the longest measured at 178 feet.
Friday’s infield fly was measured at 225 feet from home plate, according to Baseball Info Solutions.
MLB channel showed a similar location for a ball ruled an infield fly in a game earlier this season.
I guess I’m glad I didn’t watch this game . . . .
The infield fly rule is one of the Mysteries of baseball, along with what is a balk and not a balk.
#1 that doesn’t help because you don’t say anything about the circumstances, and because the question is its use over a large sample (say 7 seasons). What matters is apples to apples–for example, when did the umpire call the rule in your instance, and was the infielder camped under the ball beforehand?
I have now updated the article with historical information from ESPN. Based on this, the information in #1 is incorrect.
#4: You are incorrect about my incorrectness:)
In a May 16, 2012 game at Wrigley Field between the Cubs and Phillies the infield fly rule was invoked when a ball was hit to the same vicinity in left field. Cubs SS Starlin Castro caught the ball. The information you post about the distance of infield flys from home plate only considers balls that weren’t caught-an example of selectively quoting the stats in support of his/your cause. Your caps, not mine: “how many similar balls THIS FAR INTO THE OUTFIELD werer ever subject to the infield fly rule?” Since umps have to make the call before knowing if a ball will be caught it’s a moot point.
Sorry # 5 but that is incorrect. As I pointed out in my comment, it is based on stats provided by Baseball Info Solutions and cited by ESPN. If you disagree you can take it up with them–it was not on the same place on the field based on those numbers, and that includes the games in 2012. I am quoting not caught, versus not caught, that is true, but my sentence as it stands is incorrect, and as ESPN notes it is comparing Apples to Apples on balls not caught (I was following ESPN). The key stat is like 5 years of all infield fly rule balls (which I would be interested to see), and you still haven’t dealt with the issue of the lateness of the call OR the fact that the fielder in question was NOT camped under the ball.
When the ump makes the call and where the fielder is and runners (are) are also key factors.
#6: We are comparing apples to apples. The same infield fly rule applies to all the cases where the ump invokes it wherever it is and whenever it’s called, including this one. It’s strictly left up to the ump in his judgement and can’t be appealed because there are so many variables. That doesn’t mean that fans and players can’t question the call. Maybe it should be called “the infielder fly rule” since there is no distance from home plate designated. In fact the rule says that such decisions shall not be arbitrary. The rule also says it shall be applied immediately, but in reality the ump has to see where the ball is coming down and if the player can catch it “using ordinary effort.” I’ve seen some question the ump for not considering that Kozma was a rookie player, that he’d botched the double play earlier, the crowd noise, etc. That seems like a lot to ask of an ump in the moment. The pro’s seem to be split 50/50 on this one. Love this game.