So because the same call was made earlier in the season that automatically makes it the right call. Got it.

There is no "right or wrong." It's a judgement. However, the complaint I've heard most isn't that the rule was called "wrong." It wasn't, if you read the official rule, it was called within the standards of that rule. It's that the umpire made it too late. Not true. The May 16th call was just one example. I'm sure you could find many others where the call was made at a similar time to when the ball is in the air. The other argument has been "the catch wasn't made." Great. That doesn't matter, and that's partly why the rule was put into place to begin with. It effectively makes the result of the catch (or drop) irrelevant.

...and what is entirely relevant is that there is no way that the defense turns a double play from that spot on the diamond. No way that the infield fly should have been called.

Just ask yourself one question....what is the intent of the rule? If you understand the intent of the rule, then you will understand that the call should never have been made.
If you take the infielder out of this play and make it a line drive to left field that the left fielder charges and short hops...do you still think he can turn a DP? ....By throwing to third who then throws to second? Absolutely NO WAY.

HitsRus;1289188 wrote:...and what is entirely relevant is that there is no way that the defense turns a double play from that spot on the diamond. No way that the infield fly should have been called.

Just ask yourself one question....what is the intent of the rule? If you understand the intent of the rule, then you will understand that the call should never have been made.
If you take the infielder out of this play and make it a line drive to left field that the left fielder charges and short hops...do you still think he can turn a DP? ....By throwing to third who then throws to second? Absolutely NO WAY.

What you say is good logic, but the rule is not written to give the umpire that latitude in judgement. The only judgement involved is if the fly is fair, and can be handled with ordinary effort. Earlier in the thread I gave my suggestion on how to tweak the rule to make it better.

but the rule is not written to give the umpire that latitude in judgement

I disagree. You cannot deny what the intent of the rule is, and hence any judgement should serve that intent. That the rule is worded to try to best describe the situation in which it is to be called, but fails in this particular instance to provide a clear directive, does not take away from the intent and why the rule is in place. What is more important here?...intent of the rule or semantics? There is more judgement here than just fair or foul...but "ordinary effort". An infielder who sprint halfway into the outfield and then 'squares' at the last moment can be judged to be giving extraordinary effort.

I will agree with you that the wording of the rule needs to be changed to be more accurate in describing under what circumstances the rule is to be invoked....especially in light of some of the extreme defensive shifts being applied to hitters nowadays.. I will not agree that the rule itself needs to be changed, because it is pretty clear why it should be invoked.

Judgement call, can't win that protest