The play that ended the game

[Spy Fox]

33 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The play that ended tonight’s game was much better. 

You could say that Colton interfered with that ball going over the fence. 

[RZNJ]

11 hours ago, emmett16 said:

I finally saw the play and don’t  understand why it’s been the talk off the league all day.  It was a clear and obvious interference call.  Doesn’t matter if there is contact and doesn’t matter if it’s intentional and doesn’t matter how easy the play is or if it was made.  Maybe the rule needs to be changed but the umpire shouldn’t be getting any flack for making a correct call.  

It is interesting, if the report is true, that MLB told the WS after the game, that the umpire can use his discretion there.   According to that, it would seem that he didn’t have to call interference if he didn’t think it affected the outcome of the play.  My common sense, absent of any rule, tells me that nothing bad was intended and nothing bad happened.  No harm, no foul.

[PeregrineT]

21 hours 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.  

Yeah, I dont have an issue with the rule as there are many other circumstances its important, but just the judgement there.  I reallllly dont like it on an infield where the batter is already out, absolutely should have been better judgement.  Was way too minor to be a call(on something that didnt effect anything) even if "technically" correct.

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, RZNJ said:

It is interesting, if the report is true, that MLB told the WS after the game, that the umpire can use his discretion there.   According to that, it would seem that he didn’t have to call interference if he didn’t think it affected the outcome of the play.  My common sense, absent of any rule, tells me that nothing bad was intended and nothing bad happened.  No harm, no foul.

While I Mostly agree with you, I think things get messy when you start to police people’s intentions and hypothetical situations.  It’s the actions on the field that need to be policed.  If he doesn’t make that call because he thinks it’s an easy play, Gunnar misses it or trips going around him, and he calls interference after the play, it gets really ugly.  It was just an unfortunate situation and one that the runner likely had no outcome controlling.  Perhaps MLB needs to take a look and provide both the umps and teams with some guidance so everyone is on the same page.  

[Number5]

I think it would be inviting trouble if we increase "umpire's discretion" on basic rules.  Interference gets called against one team, then not against the other team in the same game -- now you've really got a problem.  The rule is fine.  Tell your players to be aware of where the fielders are when you're on base - which they should be doing already.  Much ado about nothing, imo.

Edited May 25 by Number5

[Spy Fox]

Hmm... 

 

[Aristotelian]

15 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

Hmm... 

 

Amazing, I had never seen this play and then it happens twice in a week. More evidence the "sources" who said MLB corrected the umps were wrong.

[Mooreisbetter27]

19 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

Hmm... 

 

That seems way more egregious. Soto slowly walks back to the base and then at the last second, basically hip checks the shortstop?? Wtf. 

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, Mooreisbetter27 said:

That seems way more egregious. Soto slowly walks back to the base and then at the last second, basically hip checks the shortstop?? Wtf. 

I didn’t really see it that way.  The runners advance at their own risk on an infield fly rule play, so Sosa needs to be standing on the base when the ball is caught.  Not sure where else he was supposed to go.  It seems like the 2B drifted back at the last possible second.  Sosa couldn’t have anticipated that.  It’s really nobody’s fault.  

[Mooreisbetter27]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I didn’t really see it that way.  The runners advance at their own risk on an infield fly rule play, so Sosa needs to be standing on the base when the ball is caught.  Not sure where else he was supposed to go.  It seems like the 2B drifted back at the last possible second.  Sosa couldn’t have anticipated that.  It’s really nobody’s fault.  

I admit to being a Soto hater.  But it just had a weird look at the end where he thrust his body towards second like that.  

I just watched again on my laptop and I can kinda see what you're saying.  Looks like he was trying to go around the SS and the SS either misjudged or the wind blew it so he had to back pedal and Soto quickly tried to get to the base.  So I'll admit, I was a litle harsh watching it before.  Weird we've seen that play now twice in a week.  

[spleen1015]

It's the runner's responsibility to avoid the fielder. Dems the rules.

[Frobby]

Just now, spleen1015 said:

It's the runner's responsibility to avoid the fielder. Dems the rules.

Seems to me the runner is entitled to be on the base.   A comment to Rule 6.01(a) states that if a runner is in contact with the base when he hinders a fielder, the runner shall not be called out unless the umpire judges that the hindrance was intentional.   

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, spleen1015 said:

It's the runner's responsibility to avoid the fielder. Dems the rules.

The base runner has a right to the base.  Soto gets back to the base before Neto initiates contact with him.   Now, the umps could be saying that Soto turned his back to Neto and could have avoided Neto AND still held the bag.   This is different than the play against the WS.    
 

I’d like to hear the umps explanation on this because Soto definitely makes contact with the bag before Neto backs into him.

[RZNJ]

8 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Amazing, I had never seen this play and then it happens twice in a week. More evidence the "sources" who said MLB corrected the umps were wrong.

The report said that MLB  told the WS that it’s the umps judgement.  They didn’t say they were wrong just that it’s their judgement if interference occurred.   The play last night doesn’t prove the league didn’t have that conversation with the WS.

[RZNJ]

Let’s take this to the extreme.  The runner has a right to the bag but he doesn’t have the right to have one foot on the bag and stick his other leg out to trip the fielder.  Now, did Soto do anything intentional there?  I don’t think so.  Could he have done more to get out of the way?   I think this is the only argument the umps can make.  He could have gotten back to the bag sooner, watched Neto, and done more  to avoid contact.