|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 598 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-04-14 | | Jim Bartle: I saw that. The catcher couldn't tell if the first baseman had tagged the runner, but he should have tagged the runner coming home anyway. On the other hand, if the catcher saw the safe sign by the first-base umpire, then he did the right thing, and the run should not count. why should he tag the runner if the umpire has indicated the force is still on? So Melvin was right to argue. A team should not be punished because a player played on according to a call which turned out to be wrong. |
|
| Jul-04-14 | | Jim Bartle: Say a base stealer is called out on the tag but overslides the base by five feet. The fielder could easily have tagged the runner again. The hitting team's manager challenges the call and the runner is called safe, and there he is standing happily on second. But had the original call been correct, the fielder would have tagged the runner again. But he played according to the original call. Replay still has problems. |
|
Jul-04-14
 | | Phony Benoni: Here is a section of rule 9.02 (c):
<"If the umpires consult after a play and change a call that had been made, then they had the authority to take all steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretions, to eliminate the results and consequences of the earlier call that they are reversing."> This is from an older edition of the rules, but I imagine the principle still applies. So the question becomes, how should they have eliminated the consequences of the "safe" call on the tag? I'm sure the catcher saw the call. The umpire was in his line of sight, and he received the throw stretched out like a first basemen. Had he thought a tag was necessary, he would have been in a different position better suited to applying it. Also, he pointed to the first base umpire after the play. So the wrong call clearly affected the course of play, and the question is how to eliminate the consequences. That is very tricky. You can argue that the catcher would or would not have had time to tag the runner. You could argue that the catcher would made the play differently. You could argue that, had the runner known the force was out, he would have tried to slide or evade it. (I doubt that the runner saw the umpire, but the catcher's stance would have told him it was a force situation.) Perhaps they should have simply declared the ball dead after the wrong decision, eliminating anything that happened after the tag at first, leaving the bases loaded and no run scored. Unfortunately, Oakland wound up winning, so the appeal was cancelled. The doubt the decision would have been overturned. And I'm willing to bet there's another sentence or two in the next rule book because of this play. |
|
Jul-04-14
| | Phony Benoni: By the way, this is not strictly a replay problem. The call could have been reversed before; replay just makes the process easier and more common. |
|
| Jul-04-14 | | Jim Bartle: Right, very confusing. But no way should the run have counted as the catcher was simply following the call as play continued. |
|
Jul-04-14
| | Phony Benoni: Another think to consider is the reaction of the first baseman. There was one out, so if he had tagged the runner, he just has to run over to first to complete the double play; no need to throw home. I don't think the runner on third could have beaten him. But hearing the safe call, he made the right play by going home to cut off the run and take one out. So it's a situation where two defensive players make the right play and gave up a run, when either making the wrong play would have saved the run! I saw an explanation from the umpires later to the effect that they couldn't move the runners back on a play like that, but had to take the result of the play as was. Maybe that's right, but it does seem unfair. I'm sure the Rules Committee will look into this, as with replay it's a situation likely to reoccur. |
|
| Jul-04-14 | | Jim Bartle: Good points. |
|
Jul-04-14
 | | WannaBe: How many no hitters took place on July 4th, and can you name the last 2 teams that were involved in a no-no on July 4th? Bonus points for naming the winning pitcher. |
|
Jul-04-14
| | Phony Benoni: All I remember offhand is Dave Righetti. |
|
Jul-04-14
| | WannaBe: <Phony Benoni> You get the bonus points! |
|
Jul-05-14
| | Phony Benoni: http://m.mlb.com/video/v34196007/75... |
|
| Jul-05-14 | | technical draw: Anybody remember a baseball game when the runner on first tried to steal second and slid about 10 feet from the bag? I saw it live but can't remember the players or the teams. It was really hilarious. |
|
Jul-05-14
 | | perfidious: The no-hitter was Red Sox-Yankees, 1983:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b... |
|
Jul-05-14
| | WannaBe: <perfidious> Correct!! The 'history' behind that trivia, was I was invited to a BBQ (Imagine that!!!) yesterday and the SF-SD game was on TV. The announcers were talking about that no-no, because Dave have been the pitching coach for SF Giants since 2000. |
|
Jul-05-14
| | Phony Benoni: <td> I had a vague idea it was Manny Ramirez, but couldn't find it. Still, it's always fun to look at one of his blooper reels: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd5C...
Guy could play, but he was born 75 years too late. Would have fit right in with those Dodger teams of the 1920s. |
|
| Jul-05-14 | | technical draw: <Phony> Thanks for those bloopers. I think the early slider was with the Reds. |
|
| Jul-05-14 | | Jim Bartle: Willie Stargell called timeout while trying to steal: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ194... |
|
| Jul-05-14 | | Travis Bickle: Hey Phony, I was on vacation last week down in Florida. I went deep sea fishing hoping to catch a Marlin for my basement wall. I actually hooked a shark! Then I lost the damned thing... http://img.loquenosabias.com/tops10... |
|
Jul-05-14
| | Phony Benoni: Hey, Travis, are you sure it wasn't the shark losing you? |
|
| Jul-05-14 | | Travis Bickle: Mr Benoni I didn't see that great white, the glare of the sun obstructed my view! P.S. You should have seen the bait I used. ; P |
|
| Jul-05-14 | | Travis Bickle: Mr Benoni, all kidding aside with all your baseball expertise, what do you think of this Cubs A's deal yesterday? Is Theo shrewd or is he throwing away 2 good pitchers? http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb... |
|
Jul-05-14
| | Phony Benoni: Travis, as a Tigers fan, I'm not fond of the deal. Oakland's major question mark was their starting rotation, and that's been taken care of. From the Cubs' point of view, the trade is easy to understand. They're not going to win now, so are looking for long-term prospects, they have a number of holes in the line-up, and both of the traded starters are around 30 and headed for free agency this year or next. They would be long gone before the Cubs got good anyway. McKinney should help in the outfield, where the Cubs are weak. Put picking up a shortstop in Russell is surprising, since the Cubs already have an excellent young shortstop in Castro. Somebody will probably change positions, or there may be another trade in the works. |
|
Jul-05-14
| | WannaBe: Think them A's got tired of losing to Detroit two years in a row in the play-offs? |
|
Jul-06-14
| | Phony Benoni: Up 7-4 in the top of the 8th, one out. Batter needs a triple for the cycle, tries to stretch a double and is thrown out. Acceptable play, or selfish? http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/700897... Could be justifiable, trying to get to third with one out. But it's close. |
|
Jul-06-14
| | perfidious: Oakland may win now, but if they don't, that trade will be a huge failure--they have little chance, if any, of keeping Samardzija long term. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 598 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
