2019 World Series (ASTROS vs. NATIONALS)

[JR Oriole]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

at least last nights call, regardless of right or wrong, did not change the outcome of the game, unlike back in 96.

We played decently in Yankee Stadium that year.  But we lost every single game we played against the Yankees at Camden Yards that season, including all three in the ALCS.  We always focus on the Maier interference, but our biggest problem was the Yankees absolutely owned us in our own yard. 

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

at least last nights call, regardless of right or wrong, did not change the outcome of the game, unlike back in 96.

And as much as that call bothered me the Yanks were the better team.  

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, JR Oriole said:

We played decently in Yankee Stadium that year.  But we lost every single game we played against the Yankees at Camden Yards that season, including all three in the ALCS.  We always focus on the Maier interference, but our biggest problem was the Yankees absolutely owned us in our own yard. 

Zeile throwing the ball away didnt help, Davy having a thin pen, didnt help either.

But, that wrong call will continue to haunt us and give us a bad taste in our memory banks forever.

[Number5]

12 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I have looked it up. I know the rules. People are using the same website to back up the ruling. 

That throw was a throw that Gurriel catches does he not? 

 

This is the play.  The runner is clearly on the base, as he is legally entitled to be, ahead of the throw.  The ball is partially visible between the fielders glove and the runners knee.  Whether or not the runner was previously out of the runners lane is irrelevant, as he is in legal position here at the time in question.  No interference.  That the first baseman then dropped his glove is, of course, of no consequence.  The biggest mistake here is Torre's apparent ruling that a judgment call is not reviewable.  That is absurd on its face, and a replay will have shown the timing of the play that at the time in question the runner had every right to be where he was.

[JR Oriole]

4 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Zeile throwing the ball away didnt help, Davy having a thin pen, didnt help either.

But, that wrong call will continue to haunt us and give us a bad taste in our memory banks forever.

I was at Game 3.  I swear in a matter of 5 pitches the game went from 2-1 Os in the 8th to 5-2 NY.  The Yankees were the better team, and I don't honestly think we would have won the series even if we won Game 1.  I am much more haunted by Benitez in the 97 ALCS.  He was the true MVP of that series....for Cleveland.

[eddie83]

7 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 

This is the play.  The runner is clearly on the base, as he is legally entitled to be, ahead of the throw.  The ball is partially visible between the fielders glove and the runners knee.  Whether or not the runner was previously our of the runners lane is irrelevant, as he is in legal position here at the time in question.  No interference.  That the first baseman then dropped his glove is, of course, of no consequence.  The biggest mistake here is Torre's apparent ruling that a judgment call is not reviewable.  That is absurd on its face, and a replay will have shown the timing of the play that at the time in question the runner had every right to be where he was.

Gurriel’s ability to make a play on the ball was impacted by the runner staying inside the lane. He has to manuever his body around a player who is running illegally down the line. Part of the intent of the rule is to protect the fielder. That didn’t happen here  

This particular play is not reviewable. 

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, JR Oriole said:

I was at Game 3.  I swear in a matter of 5 pitches the game went from 2-1 Os in the 8th to 5-2 NY.  The Yankees were the better team, and I don't honestly think we would have won the series even if we won Game 1.  I am much more haunted by Benitez in the 97 ALCS.  He was the true MVP of that series....for Cleveland.

As much as I hate NY, 97 was much worse. We were the better team that year.  

[Number5]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

Gurriel’s ability to make a play on the ball was impacted by the runner staying inside the lane. He has to manuever his body around a player who is running illegally down the line. Part of the intent of the rule is to protect the fielder. That didn’t happen here  

This particular play is not reviewable. 

No.  At this point the runner absolutely has every right to be where he is.  It is obvious that a clear picture isn't enough to convince you that the timing of this play was such that the runner was already legally touching fist base at the time in question, so further words are unnecessary.  We will simply never agree.

[eddie83]

Just now, Number5 said:

No.  At this point the runner absolutely has every right to be where he is.  It is obvious that a clear picture isn't enough to convince you that the timing of this play was such that the runner was already legally touching fist base at the time in question, so further words are unnecessary.  We will simply never agree.

That’s fine. We will not agree. 

[JR Oriole]

3 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

As much as I hate NY, 97 was much worse. We were the better team that year.  

I agree completely.  In a way, it was like 2012.  The 12 team was such a fun team to follow and even though we lost Game 5 in NY, I felt like we went as far as we could that year.  Just a great season that I will never forget.  The 96 team was fun because we were back in the playoffs again and we spent a good chunk of that season being lousy until we picked it up in the last few months.  But again, I thought NY was just a little better.  In 2016, I never thought we would go anywhere in those playoffs because our team plate discipline had reached peak awfulness. 

1997 and 2014 are where the most painful memories are for me.  The images of the Grissom and Fernandez homers, only to be followed 17 years later by the Gordon homer and then what had to be 15 bloop base hits over a 4 game stretch, are still awful memories.  We should have gone to the WS in both of those seasons, and missing our window was brutal.  The only consolation was that in both of those years, the team that beat us suffered brutally painful 7th game 1 run losses. 

[Just Regular]

32 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 

This is the play.  The runner is clearly on the base, as he is legally entitled to be, ahead of the throw.  The ball is partially visible between the fielders glove and the runners knee.  Whether or not the runner was previously out of the runners lane is irrelevant, as he is in legal position here at the time in question.  No interference.  That the first baseman then dropped his glove is, of course, of no consequence.  The biggest mistake here is Torre's apparent ruling that a judgment call is not reviewable.  That is absurd on its face, and a replay will have shown the timing of the play that at the time in question the runner had every right to be where he was.

FWIW, in the postgame show the FOX guys were giving Gurriel credit for smarts and maybe stealing a play.  The idea was Turner was beating the throw and Gurriel knew it so Gurriel basically hit Turner's hip going by with his glove hand to muddle the play. 

[ledzepp8]

2 hours ago, eddie83 said:

Wrong, the runners lane is on the foul side of the bag. There is no inside running lane that protects the runner from an interference call. 

You can’t ask the umpire to not make the correct call because of the setting. Of course the contact with the glove was why the call was made. He knocked his glove off. 

 

Exactly right.  I guarantee this doesn't get called if he's in the running lane the entire time, even if he still knocks Gurriel's glove off.  Turner never set foot in it.  It's arguable that if he's in the running lane, then Peacock has a better ability to make an accurate throw because he doesn't have a runner right in the path of his throw.  Plus John Smoltz can't have it both ways.  He can't say it's a bad call and also say that he, as a player, was taught to aim at the runner in those situations.

[ledzepp8]

2 hours ago, Number5 said:

I don't think that is true.  As I said above, I don't believe that in this case he should have been called out.  The rule requires that a good throw be made and for there to be an interference occurring while the runner is out of the runners lane.  As he is touching first base he is, by rule, not required to be in the runners lane.  Again, because the play in question occurred as he was touching first base and he would have been exactly where he was whether he had previously been running within the runners lane or not, no interference occurred.  This is my opinion based on what I see.  If the umpire is saying that the contact and interference occurred prior to the last step (for which he is legally entitled to be in fair territory) that would be different and should certainly be a question that replay can answer.  Torre's assertion that judgment calls are not reviewable seems to be absurd.  Every close play that is reviewed is, obviously, a judgment call.

But he's out of the runners lane the entire time.  He never sets foot in it.  I get your point but like I said, if he's in the runners lane the entire 45 feet, I guarantee interference isn't called even with knocking off Gurriel's glove.

 

[ledzepp8]

2 hours ago, Number5 said:

A runner is never out because the fielder lost his glove.  He would only be out if he violated a rule.  No rule was violated in this case if rhe play in question occurred while he was legally touching first base.  Your assertion that a runner is out for running out of the runners lane is simply wrong.  An interference must occur while he is required to be in the lane and not there in order for an out to be called.  The runner is quite obviously legally entitled to be in fair territory as he steps on first.  There is no other way to say this to you.

What if it played out exactly the same way but Turner was running in a zig zag but still doesn't "interfere" until he's going to touch 1b?  At what point are the umpires supposed to apply the entire rule?

[Spy Fox]

Whether or not the rule was applied correctly, hopefully we can agree that it's arbitrary and stupid that "judgement calls" can't be reviewed.

I can't think of any compelling reasons why anything should be unreviewable, except I guess called balls and strikes in the current system.