The play that ended the game

[Aristotelian]

Just now, Malike said:

We'd be every bit as pissed as they are. They had a legitimate chance to win that game.

Absolutely horrible way to end the game but I'd like to think I would blame the rule rather than the ump after a minute or two to think about it. Some of the smarter ones on the Sox thread read it that way and Grifol admitted it. 

[DirtyBird]

23 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.

But the language of the rule is "hindered", not "any contact at all"

[Hallas]

5 minutes ago, Malike said:

If it caused him to not make the catch, I think that would have been accepted a bit more. It was a freak play that we'll probably never see again in our lifetimes, it's hard to parse out I guess. I just think it was an awful way to lose a baseball game when it didn't affect the catch. I guess if they are going to call every interference then fine, but it's just one of those game-ending plays that left a bad taste with me as an Orioles fan.

The ball is technically live after an infield fly so the ball would need to be dead if interference is called.  The typical penalty for interference is supposed to be that the runner is out, and they changed the rules in 2013 to explicitly say that both the batter and runner are out if interference is called on an infield fly, because this happened in 2012 and it took the umpires 20 minutes to decide the outcome.  Now that it's happened again... it kind of does feel wrong.... called correctly but kind of a tough way to lose if I'm a WS fan.

[RZNJ]

Just now, RarityFlaherty said:

Yeah, you’re probably right there, but what happens if a ball is being fielded right in the basepath between the runner and the base? What does the runner do? He can’t get back to the base because the fielder is in the way and he can’t go around the fielder or he’ll be out of the baseline. He just has to wait for the fielder to make the play and then he’s likely out anyway. Just doesn’t feel like the runner has any good options in that scenario. 

That’s right.  He can go around the fielder and hope they don’t ticky tack him with a running out of the baseline.  It happens more frequently on ground balls to the 2B.  If the fielder has to come in on the ball and gets in the baserunners way it’s up to the base runner no to interfere.

[DirtyBird]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

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.  

I hate whoever this woman is for speaking as if it was obviously the correct call

[Aristotelian]

Just now, RZNJ said:

We all know the batter is out.  What about Vaughn?

The interference rule says the runner is out. On the infield fly the batter is out automatically but the runners can advance so that's still a live ball. You could imagine a scenario where the runner interferes with the catch allowing the runners to advance. That wasn't the case here but that appears to be what the rule is trying to prevent. 

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/infield-fly

If you want to eliminate this situation you have to change infield fly to make it a dead ball and then clarify the interference rule that it doesn't apply.

[Sports Guy]

28 minutes 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.

Yep..thus why i think it’s bs

[RZNJ]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

The interference rule says the runner is out. On the infield fly the batter is out automatically but the runners can advance so that's still a live ball. You could imagine a scenario where the runner interferes with the catch allowing the runners to advance. That wasn't the case here but that appears to be what the rule is trying to prevent. 

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/infield-fly

If you want to eliminate this situation you have to change infield fly to make it a dead ball and then clarify the interference rule that it doesn't apply.

Thanks.  I know all that.  I was asking Hallas to explain something he said.

[Hallas]

4 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

But the language of the rule is "hindered", not "any contact at all"

The way the rule has been applied, contact in any shape or form constitutes "hindered" and you can interfere even if the runner doesn't make contact; merely forcing the fielder to go around you is runner's interference.

[Sports Guy]

One thing I will say is that if you were to make this call in the 2nd inning, you make it there too.

A pet peeve of mine in pro sports are fans, analysts, players, coaches, etc…saying “you can’t make that call in that situation”.

If it’s the rule, you make the call. It’s just that the call should never be made.

Umps ignore the rule book strike zone all game long, so why enforce something as mundane as this?

[Hallas]

9 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

We all know the batter is out.  What about Vaughn?

By current rules? It's clear runner's interference, and the rule explicitly says that runners interference on an infield fly is a double play, with both the batter and the offending runner out.

 

Does that rule suck?  Yeah, kind of.  I'd be in favor of calling the ball dead on runner's interference on an infield fly, and just telling the runners to go back to their starting base.

Edited May 24 by Hallas

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Hallas said:

By current rules? It's clear runner's interference, and the rule explicitly says that runners interference on an infield fly is a double play, with both the batter and the offending runner out.

 

Does that rule suck?  Yeah, kind of.  I'd be in favor of calling the ball dead on runner's interference on an infield fly, and just telling the runners to go back to their starting base.

The 2nd paragraph is what I’m asking about.  You would just keep Vaughn at 2B, which is no penalty at all on that play because he wasn’t trying to advance.  Right?

[Hallas]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

The 2nd paragraph is what I’m asking about.  You would just keep Vaughn at 2B, which is no penalty at all on that play because he wasn’t trying to advance.  Right?

 

Yes, if it were up to me, I would change the rules so that on an infield fly with interference called, the ball is dead and the runners go back to their original base.  So Vaughn would be at 2nd, and whoever was at 1st would stay there.  Not because he wasn't trying to advance, but because the play needs to be called dead due to runner's interference and it doesn't feel fair to call him out for that, when the fielder doesn't really need to field the ball to make an out.

Edited May 24 by Hallas

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

I think Kimbrel would have gotten the final out and it was a cheap call. But if this happened to the Orioles my biggest complaint would be don’t spot the other team a six run lead going into your last at bat.

And hearing Yankees fans seethe amuses me when they still celebrate this play in their team’s history.

[jdwilde1]

1 hour ago, DocJJ said:

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?

 

 

You must not drive on military installations that often.