The play that ended the game

[RZNJ]

Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot or that was game 7 of the WS?    It may have been runner interference by the letter of the law.  I’d have to read the rule.   However, that is just a horrible call.  How about a little common sense?   It didn’t affect Henderson’s ability to make the play.  I file that under minimal, incidental contact.  No harm, no foul.  The crew chief should have had some balls and overruled it.   Good for us but a game shouldn’t end on a BS call like that.

[Spy Fox]

It was egregious and inexplicable. 

Also egregious was MASN's inability to show a clear replay or explain what happened. Talked about this in the game thread already but-- the Sox feed shared on Twitter showed multiple clear replays of the actual interference call within the first ~minute after the play, and the announcers were crystal clear about what had happened. MASN never showed a full clear replay of the contact (at least not before commercial break), and the whole announcer crew just generally acted befuddled. 

[Malike]

It was a stupid call and I also don't care if it's a violation by the letter of the law. I do think Kimbrel would have gotten us out of the mess that Heasley created and Cano threw some gas on the fire. I would have rather have lost the game than have it end like that. I would have preferred seeing the team actually get the final out.

[Aristotelian]

14 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot or that was game 7 of the WS?    It may have been runner interference by the letter of the law.  I’d have to read the rule.   However, that is just a horrible call.  How about a little common sense?   It didn’t affect Henderson’s ability to make the play.  I file that under minimal, incidental contact.  No harm, no foul.  The crew chief should have had some balls and overruled it.   Good for us but a game shouldn’t end on a BS call like that.

Grifol acknowledged they called the rule correctly. It definitely sucked for them but also imagine if Gunnar had run into the guy and we lost the game that way. At least they learned their lesson in a game that doesn't mean anything to them. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/umpire-explains-why-made-controversial-162650454.html

 

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

Grifol acknowledged they called the rule correctly. It definitely sucked for them but also imagine if Gunnar had run into the guy and we lost the game that way. At least they learned their lesson in a game that doesn't mean anything to them. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/umpire-explains-why-made-controversial-162650454.html

 

If Hays or Mullins or McKenna (when he was here) ran into the guy this board would be blaming the player and not the ump. I have very little doubt about that.

[Gurgi]

I was watching the game and my wife got home real late and starting women talking and confusing me and I went up to bed and thought the Orioles had already won.  I woke up and my Google alert said the Orioles win in a controversial call at end.  What?  One I was shocked the game was not over.  Then I was pissed off the new dude Headley sucks at an epic level.  And then to find the Orioles did not even get three outs in the win.   We won in some miracle.  

Hope the suck Orioles manage to get good again and actually dominate teams and not limp around looking for ways to lose.  

[RZNJ]

7 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Grifol acknowledged they called the rule correctly. It definitely sucked for them but also imagine if Gunnar had run into the guy and we lost the game that way. At least they learned their lesson in a game that doesn't mean anything to them. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/umpire-explains-why-made-controversial-162650454.html

 

There’s a little leeway in that rule.  “ a runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not."

Again, it’s up to the umpire to judge if the fielder was hindered.   It’s like giving someone a speeding ticket for going 1 mph too fast.

[DocJJ]

Definitely a "letter of the Law" vs "the spirit of the law" thing....

That was like being handed a speeding ticket for going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone.  Yeah, sure in the strictest terms it's a violation, but come on....really?

 

 

[Yossarian]

If anyone asks, this demonstrates how a fielder can record an unassisted triple play without ever touching the ball. 

Runners on first and second with nobody out.  Batter hits a pop fly near shortstop.  Umps impose infield fly rule (batter out, first out).  Runner on second doesn't go back to the bag.  Runner on first thinks the ball is hit to the outfield and passes runner that is off second base (Runner on first is called out - two outs).  The third out can happen in one of two ways: Runner on second interferes with shortstop attempting to catch the pop up, or; pop up lands and bounces up and hits runner in front of shortstop (runner on second out - three outs).  Shortstop is fielder nearest the ball and gets credited with unassisted triple play and doesn't even have to touch the ball.

[Just Regular]

I didn't get to see it until just now and wow was that lame.

I remember when the Ravens figured out everybody could hold when I think they were trying to burn the final seconds on a last play punt, and the video was pretty comical.

I guess any infield fly rule play, the defense has a shot at a free double play if they can run into a guy stepping back to their base.

I admit like Jeter faking a hit by pitch, I did on first watch wonder if Gunnar knew the rule and kind of took a bad route.

[RarityFlaherty]

9 minutes ago, Malike said:

If Hays or Mullins or McKenna (when he was here) ran into the guy this board would be blaming the player and not the ump. I have very little doubt about that.

I don’t know how you can blame the player in that situation. The rule puts him in a situation where he’s likely out either way. He can go back to the bag and risk the interference, or he can wait and not return to the bag until after Gunnar passes but then he risks getting doubled up anyway. I’m really not sure what is expected of the runner in that situation. Feels like a lose-lose situation for the runner.

[Aristotelian]

3 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

There’s a little leeway in that rule.  “ a runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not."

Again, it’s up to the umpire to judge if the fielder was hindered.   It’s like giving someone a speeding ticket for going 1 mph too fast.

He definitely forced Gunnar to take a circuitous route. 99/100 it's not going to make a difference but kind of like calling a touch foul in basketball, you can't wait til the play is over to decide whether to call it. You see the foul, you call the foul. And Grifol admitted it was correct, his only issue was with the rule, although I'm not sure how a better rule would be worded. Maybe there needs to be an exception for infield fly. 

[Aristotelian]

1 minute ago, RarityFlaherty said:

I don’t know how you can blame the player in that situation. The rule puts him in a situation where he’s likely out either way. He can go back to the bag and risk the interference, or he can wait and not return to the bag until after Gunnar passes but then he risks getting doubled up anyway. I’m really not sure what is expected of the runner in that situation. Feels like a lose-lose situation for the runner.

I would coach the player to take the possible-unlikely double play over the immediate automatic double play.

[RarityFlaherty]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I would coach the player to take the possible-unlikely double play over the immediate automatic double play.

Well, it’s not an automatic out if the umpire doesn’t call it that way. And how would the runner make that determination in the moment, especially when he doesn’t see where the fielder is? It feels like Vaughn was doing the right thing in that situation by going back to the bag, he just got unlucky. 

[Moose Milligan]

I posted this in another thread, but here:  

I'm kind of 50/50 on it.  Happy that it allowed us to escape a game that was looking like it could have been headed for disaster but also seemed to be a bit ticky-tack.