Jump to content

The play that ended the game


RZNJ

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • Mountcastle, despite the vitriol thrown at him from some folks in the game threads, leads Vladdy in rWAR, fWAR, and OPS+.
    • Again, the rough sex myth. The only person out there having sex like that is Ted Bundy. Bauer is out there seemingly choking every woman he encounters out. He’s a sick hombre. He felt bullied in high school, then at UCLA, so now he’s bullying these women and choking them out.  It’s not Normal.  https://meaww.com/ted-bundys-ex-sandy-details-how-serial-killer-tried-to-drown-her-and-choked-her-during-sex Educate yourself on Ted Bundy aka Trevor Bauer. The fanboys that root for a man that wants to take advantage of someone weaker is pathetic. 
    • Here’s a quote from an article today by MLBTradderumors’ Anthony Franco “The past few days haven’t been good for teams looking to acquire controllable starting pitching. On Friday, Angels southpaw Patrick Sandovalcame out of his start shaking his arm. The Halos put him on the 15-day injured list the next day with an elbow strain. One day later, the Marlins announced that Jesús Luzardo was being shut down with a lumbar stress reaction in his back. Miami almost immediately put him on the 60-day injured list — ruling him out into August.”   It seems that the pitching pool has shrunk even more. So here’s a thought: how about bludgeoning our opponents instead of pitching them? Just accept that our pitching going forward is going to be fraught with walks and long, sometimes very long fly balls, and insure that we give back much better than we get? There’s no doubt that some teams have better pitching, but nobody has better offense. So, instead of paying ever higher prices for pitching that won’t necessarily be worth the price or adequate to fill the need, let’s just admit the problem and solve it with a potent offense? That would require sit downs for Mullins, Cowser, and Hays, but they should be fairly easy to replace? What sayeth the crowd?
    • I think the Blue Jay fans are shutting down.
    • Voted all Orioles. I would rather vote for Hays over Judge.
    • There are multiple starter targets that make sense to me, to varying degrees, if their teams would be agreeable to dealing them. Tarik Skubal (27) from the Tigers, with 2.5 years of control.  Cal Quantrill (29) of the Rockies, with 1.5 years of control.   Jack Flaherty (28) of the Tigers, who is a FA after the season. Erick Fedde (31) of the White Sox, who has 1.5 years remaining on his 2/$15m contract. Tyler Anderson (34) of the Angels, who has 1.5 years remaining on his 3/$39m contract. As I detailed earlier, I would not prefer we seek to trade for Crochet at this time, nor Soriano from the Mets.  JP Sears is someone that's pitched poorly this season, so I think I'd not look his way either. The closer we get to the deadline, more teams will sell, adding more starters to this short list.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...