Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
interloper

Rooting for the Nats because it probably pisses off Angelos

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

This is not entirely correct. 

Rule 6.06

”If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpires judgement unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.”

The ball should have been called dead.

And the interference (or contact) was before he made the throw, not after.

No.  It looked like the ball was already past Wieters when he was struck by the bat.  It did not interfere with his opportunity to secure or block the ball, in my view.  The timing is whether it was before his opportunity to secure the ball, not when he makes the throw it after retrieving it.  In games I umpire, I would kill the play out of safety concern for the catcher, but I'm not umpiring games in which men are being paid to play.  My point was that it seems a bit harsh to blame Wieters  for losing the game, given that he was struck on the head by the bat.  I don't think the umpires erred on the play, however.  As I mentioned, I was surprised that the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to check on Wieters after the play as a precaution.  As someone else mentioned, the New York review that allowed the leg whip at second base to stand seemed to be more of an umpiring miss than this particular play, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Did they give Wieters a passed ball on that?  Tough pitch.  I thought it could have just as easily been scored a wild pitch.  Wieters also got hit in the head by the bat on the back swing.  The announcers thought he was telling the ump it was a foul ball, but he was questioning whether his being hit by the bat constituted interference on the play.  It isn't interference on a play like that, since the batter did nothing out of the ordinary to cause Wieters to be struck by the bat, but that was the discussion, not whether it was a foul ball.  I'm surprised the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to make sure Wieters was OK.  His decision to throw to first was certainly questionable, since the batter/runner was nearly to first when he let go of the throw.  The catchers interference occurred shortly thereafter.  I have to wonder if Wieters may have been just a bit groggy.

You kidding? The ball went directly thru his legs on the fly. It didn't hit the ground until it was underneath him. It was the poster child for all passed balls. If he catches the ball its the third out and the Nats are only down 5-4, instead the inning continues until the Nats are down 7-4. It was a Billy Cundiff moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No.  It looked like the ball was already past Wieters when he was struck by the bat.  It did not interfere with his opportunity to secure or block the ball, in my view.  The timing is whether it was before his opportunity to secure the ball, not when he makes the throw it after retrieving it.  In games I umpire, I would kill the play out of safety concern for the catcher, but I'm not umpiring games in which men are being paid to play.  My point was that it seems a bit harsh to blame Wieters  for losing the game, given that he was struck on the head by the bat.  I don't think the umpires erred on the play, however.  As I mentioned, I was surprised that the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to check on Wieters after the play as a precaution.  As someone else mentioned, the New York review that allowed the leg whip at second base to stand seemed to be more of an umpiring miss than this particular play, IMO.

I believe the reason they let the call stand at 2nd base was because the fielder threw the ball well before any contact was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought maybe the replay review umpires were focusing on whether the runner maintained his hold on the base and somehow overlooked the leg whip.  When the leg whip occurs, relative to the throw leaving the hand, isn't really the issue.  The leg whip is illegal.  I was surprised, given the point of emphasis this type of play has been given for umpires, that that particular ruling wasn't overturned.  In past years, there would have been no doubt that it was a legal slide, since he clearly went to and maintained contact with the base.  Not so much now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

You kidding? The ball went directly thru his legs on the fly. It didn't hit the ground until it was underneath him. It was the poster child for all passed balls. If he catches the ball its the third out and the Nats are only down 5-4, instead the inning continues until the Nats are down 7-4. It was a Billy Cundiff moment.

If he was credited with a passed ball, then the official scorer apparently agrees with you.  The plate umpire was bailing out on the play, so I'm not so sure that he thought it was an easy play for the catcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

The Nats were 78-35 when Wieters started, 19-27 when he didn't, so I doubt they'll DFA him and eat $12 mm. I'm not saying he's the reason they won when he played, just that he didn't materially hurt them so I doubt they'll eat his contract.   

That said, I didn't see the inning where Wieters had his defensive miscues. The Nats could play "what if" with this game for the next 25 years.    So many of the Cubs' runs scored on fluky plays, and then Lobaton gets picked off after a lengthy replay review to kill a rally when Davis looked to be falling apart.    I'm glad I'm not a die-hard Nats fan; that's a tough loss to live down.   

 

 

 

4 hours ago, webbrick2010 said:

 

The Nats want to win a WS. They will look to improve in any area of weakness, and Wieters is a weakness

You can't put a game on one player.... but if Wieters doesn't have a passed ball (on a strike 3), a throwing error directly scoring a run, and a catchers interference in the same inning than the Nats are in the NLCS. I'm sure folks in the Nats front office will be thinking the same thing. I think Wieters will be "Cundiffed".

 

 

 

3 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Yes, the Nationals have wanted to win a World Series since 2012, but have not managed to get beyond the NLDS since then. 

 

If the Nationals had not blown a 2-run lead with 2 outs in the 9th inning of the 2012 NLDS, they would have advanced to that season's NLCS.

If the Nationals had scored more than 1 run in an 18-inning game (at home) against the Giants in Game Two of the 2014 NLDS, they might well have advanced to that season's NLCS.

If Max Scherzer, Marc Rzepczynski, Blake Treinen, Sammy Solis, and Shawn Kelley had not collectively folded in the 7th inning of the 5th and deciding game of the 2016 NLDS, they would have advanced to that season's NLCS.

 

If, if, if ........ if the Nationals rid themselves of the choking and inept Matt Wieters, they will certainly be better prepared to win the World Series in 2018.

 

o

 

 

2 hours ago, Redskins Rick2 said:

 

Roy:

 

I respect your opinion ...... well, usually.

I refuse to call Wieters "inept."

Baseballs is a game of inches and breaks (like Frobby posted.)

That's not ineptness.

 

o

 

Rick ........ read my entire post again, see whom I was responding to (after Frobby), and then adjust your sarcasm detector. 

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Sounds pretty interesting but my work internet blocks access to social media sites such as Twitter.   Can anyone clue me in on the 4 events that occurred in one inning last night, or do I have to wait until I get home around 7:30 to read it?

TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Sounds pretty interesting but my work internet blocks access to social media sites such as Twitter.   Can anyone clue me in on the 4 events that occurred in one inning last night, or do I have to wait until I get home around 7:30 to read it?

TIA.

Last 4 Cubs reached base on an intentional walk, a passed-ball strikeout, catcher's interference and a hit by pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Sounds pretty interesting but my work internet blocks access to social media sites such as Twitter.   Can anyone clue me in on the 4 events that occurred in one inning last night, or do I have to wait until I get home around 7:30 to read it?

TIA.

Sorry about that, it didn't even enter my mind that anyone woudln't know what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sorry about that, it didn't even enter my mind that anyone woudln't know what happened.

I did, though I had forgotten the intentional walk.   Was thinking that Wieters error might be thing #4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So glad the Nats lost. I was willing to have to root for the Yankees or Sox in a WS against them. 

They aren't just the cute, cuddly, NL team. They're our direct competition for revenue. Any success by them cuts into our money. 

Now it's time to root for anyone but the Yankees. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 3:38 PM, OFFNY said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

o

 

Rick ........ read my entire post again, see whom I was responding to (after Frobby), and then adjust your sarcasm detector. 

 

o

Lol, sorry, thanks! :)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



Rumors and News






×