The play that ended the game

[Gurgi]

I bet the umpire has been waiting for years to end a game just like this.  And finally his wish came true.  

[Malike]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I was responding to this.

”The player could see it was a pop up to SS, why even leave the bag?”

Were you being sarcastic or funny and I missed it?

No, I articulated what I wanted to say poorly. He saw the ball was a popup and where it was hit and the IF fly rule was called and was very nonchalant in getting back to the bag. The whole rule is stupid and I doubt the players even knew about it. Like I said I'd have rather they lost the game fair and square than have it end on a call like that. Vaughn was watching the popup as he went back to the base, lesson learned for everyone in baseball I guess. 

[Malike]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Btw…I guess technically the ump didn’t screw up here. However, this is an ump show type call and it just seems like umpires get worse all the time.

If it happened in the bottom of the 3rd instead of ending the game it's not a big deal. It's a terrible way to end a game when the White Sox had a ton of momentum in that inning and should never have been called even though it's technically the correct call.

[DirtyBird]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Btw…I guess technically the ump didn’t screw up here. However, this is an ump show type call and it just seems like umpires get worse all the time.

Gunnar still have about 5 full seconds to camp under the ball. You really have to stretch the definition of "hindered" to the finest thread to determine that he was hindered on that play.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Malike said:

If it happened in the bottom of the 3rd instead of ending the game it's not a big deal. It's a terrible way to end a game when the White Sox had a ton of momentum in that inning and should never have been called even though it's technically the correct call.

I think you're correct but I think it was pretty poor the more I think about it...bottom of the 3rd, doesn't really matter, either.  I do believe SG is right, too....no one shows up to a game to watch an umpire make a call like that, even if it's technically correct. 

It helps to know the rulebook inside and out but umpires also should be exercising some agency on what's legit and what's a bit ticky-tack...and this moment, this rule that I don't think anyone knew...was ticky tack. 

Once more, I'd say there's close to a 100% chance that Hyde or Fredi Gonzalez didn't know it...McDonald and whoever the KB replacement last night didn't know it....I don't think any journalist would have written about it if it didn't get called.  

Practically NO ONE seemed to understand that rule before last night...only that umpire did.  And that's ticky tack.

[Malike]

1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:

Gunnar still have about 5 full seconds to camp under the ball. You really have to stretch the definition of "hindered" to the finest thread to determine that he was hindered on that play.

Apparently, they explained it as any contact at all whether it had an effect on the play is an automatic out by the rule. Stupid rule.

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think you're correct but I think it was pretty poor the more I think about it...bottom of the 3rd, doesn't really matter, either.  I do believe SG is right, too....no one shows up to a game to watch an umpire make a call like that, even if it's technically correct. 

It helps to know the rulebook inside and out but umpires also should be exercising some agency on what's legit and what's a bit ticky-tack...and this moment, this rule that I don't think anyone knew...was ticky tack. 

Once more, I'd say there's close to a 100% chance that Hyde or Fredi Gonzalez didn't know it...McDonald and whoever the KB replacement last night didn't know it....I don't think any journalist would have written about it if it didn't get called.  

Practically NO ONE seemed to understand that rule before last night...only that umpire did.  And that's ticky tack.

Valentine is probably one of only a few umps that make that trash call.

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Malike said:

No, I articulated what I wanted to say poorly. He saw the ball was a popup and where it was hit and the IF fly rule was called and was very nonchalant in getting back to the bag. The whole rule is stupid and I doubt the players even knew about it. Like I said I'd have rather they lost the game fair and square than have it end on a call like that. Vaughn was watching the popup as he went back to the base, lesson learned for everyone in baseball I guess. 

Ok.  Got it.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Malike said:

Valentine is probably one of only a few umps that make that trash call.

Yeah, he seems to have that reputation.

[Frobby]

In case anyone would like a sampling of White Sox fans reaction, here’s the thread from Soxtalk.   Only a 7 page thread for the whole game; not a lot of interest in following White Sox games these days I guess.  

[Aristotelian]

4 minutes ago, Malike said:

Apparently, they explained it as any contact at all whether it had an effect on the play is an automatic out by the rule. Stupid rule.

 

3 minutes ago, Malike said:

Valentine is probably one of only a few umps that make that trash call.

Is it a stupid rule or trash call? Those are different things. I strongly disagree that we should encourage umpires to enforce the rules only in certain situations. That is just asking for trouble. 

I do think there should be a clarification or exception to the rule for interference during an infield fly but from what I gathered in the game thread, the infield fly is an auto out for the batter but it is not a dead ball so the ump got it right.

[Hallas]

The rule is explicit, and this was called correctly.  This was clear interference, and impact on the play doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.

Quote

If interference is called during an Infield Fly, the ball remains alive until it is determined whether the ball is fair or foul. If fair, both the runner who interfered with the fielder and the batter are out. If foul, even if caught, the runner is out and the batter returns to bat.

 

It does feel a little overly punitive.  The counter-argument to that is that, the WS did 2 separate, unrelated things wrong on this play, so it makes sense to penalize them for both.

 

Maybe the rule should be, if you interfere and infield fly is called, the ball is dead and runners have to go back to their previous bag?  But I get why the rule exists too, you don't want to allow any reason to incentivize interfering with the fielder.

[RarityFlaherty]

3 minutes ago, Malike said:

I get it, watch where the ball is hit and get back to the base. IF fly rule has been in effect forever, I've never seen a player make contact with a fielder in 45 years. It may have happened before, but nobody has ever seen it. You can read a popup off the bat while on 2B, the fielder is looking up in the air to make the catch, they can't move out of the way of the runner. It's a stupid rule, but to say that an IF fly rule called when a runner on 2B is a lose-lose situation isn't correct. It was a terrible call, I'm not defending it, what I said was that some people here for certain would have blamed the runner on base and not the ump.

I’m just saying that this specific situation puts the runner in a lose- lose situation, not that all IF fly rules called with a runner on second are lose-lose. You’re always going to be off the bag to start, so it makes sense for the umpire to at least give the runner a little leeway to get back to the bag. Otherwise, the runner is left with three options that could all result in him being called out. He could return to the bag like he is supposed to and risk being called for interference like in this situation. He could also run around the position player and possibly be called out for being outside the baseline. Or he could stay where he is until the position player passes and risk getting doubled up anyway. I definitely agree with you that many people here would blame the runner, but I definitely would not. 

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

 

Is it a stupid rule or trash call? Those are different things. I strongly disagree that we should encourage umpires to enforce the rules only in certain situations. That is just asking for trouble. 

I do think there should be a clarification or exception to the rule for interference during an infield fly but from what I gathered in the game thread, the infield fly is an auto out for the batter but it is not a dead ball so the ump got it right.

Yes, it is both. 

[RZNJ]

9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think you're correct but I think it was pretty poor the more I think about it...bottom of the 3rd, doesn't really matter, either.  I do believe SG is right, too....no one shows up to a game to watch an umpire make a call like that, even if it's technically correct. 

It helps to know the rulebook inside and out but umpires also should be exercising some agency on what's legit and what's a bit ticky-tack...and this moment, this rule that I don't think anyone knew...was ticky tack. 

Once more, I'd say there's close to a 100% chance that Hyde or Fredi Gonzalez didn't know it...McDonald and whoever the KB replacement last night didn't know it....I don't think any journalist would have written about it if it didn't get called.  

Practically NO ONE seemed to understand that rule before last night...only that umpire did.  And that's ticky tack.

Well, I didn’t know the rule down to its last letter but I knew it.   Technically, on any slow grounder to the 2B, with a runner on 1st, the 2nd baseman can stop right in the runners path and force the runner to stop, go around, interfere.   You can’t make contact with a fielder in pursuit of making a play. 
 

Of course, if you’re already on a base the fielder has to deal with it if you’re in the way.

Edited May 24 by RZNJ