The play that ended the game

[RZNJ]

Again, infield fly rule.  Umps have to use some common sense.   

[spleen1015]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

Again, infield fly rule.  Umps have to use some common sense.   

They're separate calls on the same play. Interference is called when it happens because the ball is dead when it is called. They're not going to wait until the play is over to call it.

Saying all of that, I do think more judgement needs to be part of the equation. I've seen a situation in a game where there's a slow groundball to the second baseman, they charge the ball and it's clear they're likely not going to get an out, so they take a step or 2 backwards to force the runner going from first to second to run into them, causing interference.

We used to teach the SS to stop in front of the runner if they're close to them to get the interference call so that the lead runner gets out.

[Rbiggs2525]

People are looking way too far into this. The runner can see where everything and make a decision to go around. He decided not to and was called out. I understand that he has a right to the bag but the baseline is also 3 feet each way to go around the fielder. The umpires normally give you more discretion to go around as well. Same if it was a ground ball to Gunnar at Shortstop. The runner can run in front and behind him. 

[RZNJ]

3 minutes ago, spleen1015 said:

They're separate calls on the same play. Interference is called when it happens because the ball is dead when it is called. They're not going to wait until the play is over to call it.

Saying all of that, I do think more judgement needs to be part of the equation. I've seen a situation in a game where there's a slow groundball to the second baseman, they charge the ball and it's clear they're likely not going to get an out, so they take a step or 2 backwards to force the runner going from first to second to run into them, causing interference.

We used to teach the SS to stop in front of the runner if they're close to them to get the interference call so that the lead runner gets out.

In this case the infield fly rule is called before the incident occurs.  Common sense.   The base runner doesn’t make contact intentionally.  In fact it’s the fielder who initiates contact while Soto has his foot on the bag.  The “interference” has no affect on the play.  Common sense.

Umps judgement.

[RZNJ]

3 minutes ago, Rbiggs2525 said:

People are looking way too far into this. The runner can see where everything and make a decision to go around. He decided not to and was called out. I understand that he has a right to the bag but the baseline is also 3 feet each way to go around the fielder. The umpires normally give you more discretion to go around as well. Same if it was a ground ball to Gunnar at Shortstop. The runner can run in front and behind him. 

Except Soto did go around him.  Soto was on the bag and Neto backed into him.  If Neto is already there that’s a different story.   If I’m standing on 1B and the 1B comes directly on the bag to make a catch do I have to vacate the bag to avoid contact?  No.

[spleen1015]

58 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

In this case the infield fly rule is called before the incident occurs.  Common sense.   The base runner doesn’t make contact intentionally.  In fact it’s the fielder who initiates contact while Soto has his foot on the bag.  The “interference” has no affect on the play.  Common sense.

Umps judgement.

Contact happens a split second after Soto gets his foot on the bag. The step he takes to get to the bag puts him in the direct path of the Neto backing up.

It's a tough call that can go either way. I think in this case, Soto is just an unfortunate victim of the rules.

If no interference is called and the ball heads out into CF, allowing Soto to advance, there's a bigger problem. That's why interference is called immediately.

 

[dystopia]

What if they changed it so that instead of interference resulting in the runner being out automatically, it only results in him being out if he doesn’t return to his bag, i.e. no advancement? 

[Aristotelian]

3 hours ago, RZNJ said:

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.

I think the argument would be Soto needs to show he is aware of the fielder and trying to get out of the way. Just standing there isnt enough.

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think the argument would be Soto needs to show he is aware of the fielder and trying to get out of the way. Just standing there isnt enough.

That must be the justification for the call.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm just tacking this one because I don't think it's really worthy of its own thread.

Here is a short video on the McCann Interference call from last night.

 

[spleen1015]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm just tacking this one because I don't think it's really worthy of its own thread.

Here is a short video on the McCann Interference call from last night.

 

This was a BS call. This is 10u little league BS done by teams who know they can't beat the team they're playing so they try to pull this kind of crap.

[Aristotelian]

I was watching the Yankees game yesterday and there was a similar play with the Twins 1B running into Soto who had gone back to occupy the bag. In this case there was even physical contact. The ump laughed and patted Soto on the back as they had a word about it. I guess it is just completely judgment dependent. MLB needs to clarify the rule ASAP because the Soto play was the same as Vaughn, maybe even worse. 

[Mooreisbetter27]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm just tacking this one because I don't think it's really worthy of its own thread.

Here is a short video on the McCann Interference call from last night.

 

I've heard some commentators say that catchers may need to have a box they can't go past similar to the batter's box.  That was more in line with them trying to frame pitches by standing close to the plate and getting hit with a bat but I think it pertains to this.  He was so far up on McCann that HE initiated contact. Ridiculous.  

[RZNJ]

2 hours ago, spleen1015 said:

This was a BS call. This is 10u little league BS done by teams who know they can't beat the team they're playing so they try to pull this kind of crap.

I’m not sure the catcher dropped the ball on purpose to draw the call.  It’s possible.  Either way, McCann is in the box and not leaning out over the plate.  Just a terrible call.  I’d guess the league will have a quiet word with that ump.  He blew it and I think the crew chief knew he blew it but didn’t want to overrule him.

[Malike]

Even the Toronto guys after watching the replay said Jansen went into the batter's box and that Hyde would be even more pissed when he saw it on the iPad.