That Holliday Play

[Harry Hooper]

Close Call Sports has a feature up on the Matt Holliday play at 1B in Saturday's game.

The TL;DR version: according to CCS, retired runner Holliday has the same right to do a bona fide slide to break up a play at 1B as any retired runner has to do a bona fide slide to break up a double-play attempt at 2B.

Whether you judge the CCS take as compelling or not, I still think that Moreland's avoiding contact with Holliday rather than making an attempt to field the throw reduced the chances of getting the interference call.


CCS also has a story on the most recent successful MLB protest.

 

[BuellMiller]

I have two problems with their analysis.
1. "but if Holliday legitimately believes the force has been removed, he is permitted to try and return to his base of origin."
Looking at the video, and obviously this is pretty subjective, but Holliday clearly looks back at Moreland as he throws it, and he (Moreland) is a good 6 feet or so off the bag, so he (Holliday) should have known he didn't force Ellsbury out already. (again, obviously, it was a split second thing, but still, the argument can be made, IMO).
2. "As for the play at Fenway Park, since Holliday entered his slide (prior to or concurrent with Bogaerts retiring him) in a legitimate attempt to run the bases" -> Did he really enter his slide before or concurrent with Bogaerts retiring him? Maybe this doesn't really matter, and again, it's up to interpretation to when he "starts his slide", but it looks like he's starting his slide just as the ball is entering the frame (around the 1:39 mark of the video embedded at the bottom of the linked page), so he's already been forced out a good second or so before that, right?

(edited for clarity of pronouns)

 

[snowmanny]

Why wouldn't runners do this (almost) every single time? The second they see the throw to second, turn around and run back to first and try to get in the way of the throw/catch?

 

[lexrageorge]

Why wouldn't runners do this (almost) every single time? The second they see the throw to second, turn around and run back to first and try to get in the way of the throw/catch?

Normally, players are further along their path to 2nd base. And I imagine there is some risk of injury to the runner going from home to first.

I've heard one of the main reasons the Sox filed the protest was to ensure that plays like this do not become the norm. FWIW, I think the Close Call article was trying to justify the league's stance as their first priority.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Normally, players are further along their path to 2nd base. And I imagine there is some risk of injury to the runner going from home to first.

I've heard one of the main reasons the Sox filed the protest was to ensure that plays like this do not become the norm. FWIW, I think the Close Call article was trying to justify the league's stance as their first priority.

I think the absurdist view is that (on a clear DP ground ball) the lead runner would just stand 6" off of first base in an attempt to block the relay.

Or just turn around and tackle the first baseman above the ankles.

The whole thing needs better explanation. It's obvious that their ruling depends on intent...but does the rule really pivot on intent? This should be taken up by the Rules Committee next season.

 

[Byrdbrain]

Yeah I dont' think that article represents the league view. I think the league is basing the call on point 10 where it clearly states intent is required.
If you just say as long as it is a "legitimate" slide they you could do this on a fairly regular basis.

If you go by intent then there is no real ongoing issue since it is a very rare play where the baserunner can claim he was unaware he was out by force and he needed to get back.
Holliday is clearly a moran who should have known he was out but I think pretty obviously didn't.

 

[bankshot1]

The intent issue is sticky.

Going forward

IMO it should not be the defensive team at risk for an offensive player being unaware of the game situation. Once the force at 2nd was completed, Holliday (as an example) should lose his right to occupy 1st. or be a factor in any future part of the play.

spilled milk.

 

[Harry Hooper]

This is from the 2016 Official MLB Rules:

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b) Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out. If, in a run-down between third base and home plate, the succeeding runner has advanced and is standing on third base when the runner in a run-down is called out for offensive interference, the umpire shall send the runner standing on third base back to second base. This same principle applies if there is a run-down between second and third base and succeeding runner has reached second (the reasoning is that no runner shall advance on an interference play and a runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base).

It says "batted ball" in the first sentence, but then the example of a run-down play that follows would seem to be referring to a thrown ball situation, so it seems to apply to both batted and thrown balls. The question of intent, then, matters if Holliday is seen as having "contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional."

In reality, the runner Holliday is already (unintentionally) interfering with Moreland before the runner has regained contact with the 1B bag, but Holliday never made contact with Moreland. If Moreland were a RH 1B, he likely puts his right foot on the corner of the bag closest to the mound and stretches for the throw despite Holliday barreling towards him. The rule needs further clarification & development.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

I've heard one of the main reasons the Sox filed the protest was to ensure that plays like this do not become the norm. FWIW, I think the Close Call article was trying to justify the league's stance as their first priority

It's a judgement call for the umpires. That judgement will ensure that plays like this do not become the norm.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I think the absurdist view is that (on a clear DP ground ball) the lead runner would just stand 6" off of first base in an attempt to block the relay.

Absurd

 

[Harry Hooper]

Absurd

I think it was in Ron Luciano's book, but one of the umps working that game told the 2B ump that he thought Russell dropped the liner on purpose..I believe this would have meant dead ball, batter out, and runners return to their original bases.

 

[LoweTek]

1st and 2nd less than two outs; it's arguably an infield fly rule if catchable with "ordinary effort." Hard to argue more than ordinary effort was required to catch a softish liner, right to Russell at his knee on his glove side.

Batter is out, runners advance at their own risk. Munson knew it at 2B. It's the only explanation for why he returned to the bag seeing Russell had "dropped" it.

Completely blown call. Wonder if it would be reviewable today? Probably not because it's a judgement call?

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

Sorry if posted already, but protest was denied.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/242686092/red-soxs-protest-of-saturdays-loss-denied/

 

[StuckOnYouk]

I thought I heard the Sox were aware of Holliday doing this before in his career and perhaps they wanted the league to start keeping an eye on him

 

[geoduck no quahog]

The way I see rule 6.01.a:

A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. ...If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. ...

1. A runner (Holliday) who hinders a fielder is out - regardless of intent. Holliday was called out (albeit on the force play)

2. If Holliday had contact with 2nd base and intentionally hindered the throw to first (1B at that time was not a legally occupied base for him since it belonged to the batter), then it would have been a double play.

3. There seems to be no ruling on calling a double play if the runner intentionally hinders the fielder but isn't standing (in this example) on 2B

It's a stupid rule.

 

[Harry Hooper]

1st and 2nd less than two outs; it's arguably an infield fly rule if catchable with "ordinary effort." Hard to argue more than ordinary effort was required to catch a softish liner, right to Russell at his knee on his glove side.

Batter is out, runners advance at their own risk. Munson knew it at 2B. It's the only explanation for why he returned to the bag seeing Russell had "dropped" it.

Completely blown call. Wonder if it would be reviewable today? Probably not because it's a judgement call?

Well, we're off on a tangent. Munson went back to 2B because he thought Russell would catch it and he'd be doubled off the bag. It's a line drive, so not high enough to invoke the infield fly rule.

Rule 5.09a (12) applies: Batter is out when "An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases;

APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies."