2019 WS - Nationals vs. Astros - Gamethread

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,719
Washington, DC
The controversy about the interference call shouldn't be about the call itself, which was correct -- Turner was on the wrong side of the line, and his presence there hindered Gurriel from finishing the play. The issue is that that call is almost never made unless the interference is comically egregious. So the 7th inning of a close WS elimination game is a helluva weird time to start getting all strict constructionist with the rule book.
I still don’t see how the call can be considered correct. Turner’s presence interfered with Gurriel only just as he stepped on the bag, and the comment on the rule gives the runner the right to be inside the line right at the bag: “The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.” The bottom line is that Turner’s entire route to first to that last step would not have had any effect on the ability of Peacock to make the throw or of Gurriel to catch it had the thrown not been right into the base line.

2561B512-3390-4DAB-856D-6902E8B7027E.jpeg
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I still don’t see how the call can be considered correct. Turner’s presence interfered with Gurriel only just as he stepped on the bag, and the comment on the rule gives the runner the right to be inside the line right at the bag: “The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.” The bottom line is that Turner’s entire route to first to that last step would not have had any effect on the ability of Peacock to make the throw or of Gurriel to catch it had the thrown not been right into the base line.
That feels a little like a special pleading, though, since he didn't exit the three-foot lane for the purpose of touching first base, he entered it (sort of, almost). It's not at all clear to me that he would have presented the same problem for Gurriel had he been heading toward the bag from the lane, with most of his body still in it, instead of the other way round.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Regardless of whether the call was correct, baseball could solve this question entirely by adopting the "double first base" they use in Little League (sometimes).
 

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,719
Washington, DC
That feels a little like a special pleading, though, since he didn't exit the three-foot lane for the purpose of touching first base, he entered it (sort of, almost). It's not at all clear to me that he would have presented the same problem for Gurriel had he been heading toward the bag from the lane, with most of his body still in it, instead of the other way round.
Maybe I haven’t paid enough attention to it, but I don’t think that I have ever seen a runner trying to beat out a throw at first stay to the right of the foul line and step over it only on their last stride to get to the bag.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
That feels a little like a special pleading, though, since he didn't exit the three-foot lane for the purpose of touching first base, he entered it (sort of, almost). It's not at all clear to me that he would have presented the same problem for Gurriel had he been heading toward the bag from the lane, with most of his body still in it, instead of the other way round.
Not exiting the lane. That’s correct, and dispositive.

People seem to hate, and not understand, the rule. Which maybe means it should be changed.

Changing the rule will lead to plays where the catcher does not have a good play, including on dropped third strikes, FWIW, unless he can throw the ball over the runner or has time to take two steps left or right.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Maybe I haven’t paid enough attention to it, but I don’t think that I have ever seen a runner trying to beat out a throw at first stay to the right of the foul line and step over it only on their last stride to get to the bag.
He only has to when the ball is fielded behind him. Twitter is outraged because they say a runner never runs in the running lane. He almost never has to because he is never in danger of interfering with the throw in all but very limited circumstances. Like a grounder to second. You can run a straight line because you have no liability to interfere with the throw. Or a single. Or even a weak grounder to third.

The rule is there to give the catcher, and very rarely athletic pitchers, a clean throw. That’s it.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
That feels a little like a special pleading, though, since he didn't exit the three-foot lane for the purpose of touching first base, he entered it (sort of, almost). It's not at all clear to me that he would have presented the same problem for Gurriel had he been heading toward the bag from the lane, with most of his body still in it, instead of the other way round.
I still think the ump was wrong. Here's the rule again.

(11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of ) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of ) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball
The most important part is "in doing so." At the point where contact was made, he was no longer in the process of doing his running outside the line. He was exactly where he should be when reaching first base.

The rule exists to give a throwing lane when a ball is coming from behind the runner. That wasn't the case in this play, either. It was a bad throw up the line. Maybe they can make the rule more explicit so that it only applies when the ball is thrown from the area immediately around home plate, but the play last night fit neither the letter nor the spirit of the rule.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
The highlight of the night for me was the MLB Tonight postgame. Notable idiot Greg Amisinger asked Pedro if he ever came out of the bullpen in the playoffs and for how many innings and Pedro just laughed at him.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Maybe I haven’t paid enough attention to it, but I don’t think that I have ever seen a runner trying to beat out a throw at first stay to the right of the foul line and step over it only on their last stride to get to the bag.
I don't know about never, but I agree that runners routinely ignore the rule as written, and do exactly what Turner did, and don't get called out. Which makes it a problem when the umps suddenly decide to go letter-of-the-law at a pivotal moment in a do-or-die game.
 

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,719
Washington, DC
He only has to when the ball is fielded behind him. Twitter is outraged because they say a runner never runs in the running lane. He almost never has to because he is never in danger of interfering with the throw in all but very limited circumstances. Like a grounder to second. You can run a straight line because you have no liability to interfere with the throw. Or a single. Or even a weak grounder to third.

The rule is there to give the catcher, and very rarely athletic pitchers, a clean throw. That’s it.
I guess my complaint is that Peacock had a clean throw and Turner couldn’t have interfered with it if he hadn’t thrown the ball across the baseline.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I don't know about never, but I agree that runners routinely ignore the rule as written, and do exactly what Turner did, and don't get called out. Which makes it a problem when the umps suddenly decide to go letter-of-the-law at a pivotal moment in a do-or-die game.
Can you find me a play where they ignored it? They call it when the rule applies, which is rarely.

The Bellinger play is the only play cited in this discussion that I have seen that is a possible case of “ignoring” the rule, but I posted a link about a great discussion of that play above. If Vazquez makes a throw at the runner instead of trying to go around him, he almost certainly gets called out. But in any event, that wasn’t ignoring the rule, at most it was a questionable judgment. It was much closer than last night.

I though last night was an easy call. Live, I said, “he’s out” and was surprised it took so long to be called. The only question to me was whether the runner had already obtained the base before interference. He hadn’t. It was close. But replay showed they got a banger correct.

The toughest part of this call is that the foul line is in the lane so you only need to touch the chalk. The HPU was staring the play down the line and he nailed it. Turner was well inside the chalk.

If that play had happened against the Red Sox and the opponent ended up with second and third I would be apoplectic.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,247
The highlight of the night for me was the MLB Tonight postgame. Notable idiot Greg Amisinger asked Pedro if he ever came out of the bullpen in the playoffs and for how many innings and Pedro just laughed at him.
and I thought Reynolds was the biggest dumb. Reynolds was asking Strasburg exactly how he was tipping and of course he wouldn't answer that, Pedro was shoo-shooing that question immediately.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
I feel bad about how happy I feel that JV has lost so many games in the World Series without a win.
I feel the same way and my interpretation of my own feelings is that it's the same way I felt about Jeter: He was so continuously adored by all the commentators, that when he screwed up, it was satisfying. Really good player, it's not his fault that his run into the stands gets legend status while Pokey Reese's similar play is forgotten. But it's annoying. Anyway, Verlander seems really good but over-adored, and that's why I rejoice in his failure.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
He only has to when the ball is fielded behind him. Twitter is outraged because they say a runner never runs in the running lane. He almost never has to because he is never in danger of interfering with the throw in all but very limited circumstances. Like a grounder to second. You can run a straight line because you have no liability to interfere with the throw. Or a single. Or even a weak grounder to third.

The rule is there to give the catcher, and very rarely athletic pitchers, a clean throw. That’s it.
Peacock had a clean throw. He didn't make it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,374
Regardless of whether the call was correct, baseball could solve this question entirely by adopting the "double first base" they use in Little League (sometimes).
This is exactly what I was going to post. Here's the point of contact:



The runner is squarely on the first base bag. Where ELSE is he supposed to be? The double first base bag makes a world of sense. On a grounder, the runner runs to, and touches, the foul half of the bag (which would be painted orange or whatever, to distinguish it from the fair white portion). On a hit to the OF, the runner can run to the fair white portion as he rounds first. This way on a grounder, he can (must) run in the foul running lane, which allows him a clean run through the foul orange part of the first base bag. It's a completely simple, stress-free solution that has literally no drawbacks that I can think of.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,374
The highlight of the night for me was the MLB Tonight postgame. Notable idiot Greg Amisinger asked Pedro if he ever came out of the bullpen in the playoffs and for how many innings and Pedro just laughed at him.
No way. That cannot be a true story.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,050
Alamogordo
I'm kind of torn. I really want the Nats to win this game. But Zach Greinke is one of my 10 favorite non-Sox players of the current century.

I think my dream scenario is Greinke and Scherzer going 8 each, with the Astros up 1-0 after 8 innings. Osuna comes in and walks the first guy, then Zimmerman hits a ball so hard off of Osuna's forehead that it clears the wall in center field for a home run, and the Nats close it out to win 2-1. And Osuna never pitches on a baseball field again.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
The highlight of the night for me was the MLB Tonight postgame. Notable idiot Greg Amisinger asked Pedro if he ever came out of the bullpen in the playoffs and for how many innings and Pedro just laughed at him.
Tell you the truth, I thought Pedro was trying to dodge 2004 ALCS game 7 discussion by laughing. Then he dove into the 1999 6 inning game right away. Also, is Amsinger dumb or was he just playing straight man asking Pedro if he ever came out of the pen? I always thought he was decent for the kind of role he has (kind of a foil).
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
I don’t think 2004 entered Pedro’s mind at all. They were talking about how many innings Cole could go in Game 7 and I believe it was Reynolds or DeRosa said they thought 2 innings. Amsinger then turned to Pedro and asked if he had ever come out of the bullpen in the postseason and Pedro laughed at him and said yes. Then he asked how many innings and he said I went 6. It genuinely seemed like he couldn’t believe Amsinger didn’t know about Cleveland in 1999 which is obviously one of the most infamous pitching appearances in baseball history.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I'm kind of torn. I really want the Nats to win this game. But Zach Greinke is one of my 10 favorite non-Sox players of the current century.

I think my dream scenario is Greinke and Scherzer going 8 each, with the Astros up 1-0 after 8 innings. Osuna comes in and walks the first guy, then Zimmerman hits a ball so hard off of Osuna's forehead that it clears the wall in center field for a home run, and the Nats close it out to win 2-1. And Osuna never pitches on a baseball field again.
This is inspired! I support your platform.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
I don’t think 2004 entered Pedro’s mind at all. They were talking about how many innings Cole could go in Game 7 and I believe it was Reynolds or DeRosa said they thought 2 innings. Amsinger then turned to Pedro and asked if he had ever come out of the bullpen in the postseason and Pedro laughed at him and said yes. Then he asked how many innings and he said I went 6. It genuinely seemed like he couldn’t believe Amsinger didn’t know about Cleveland in 1999 which is obviously one of the most infamous pitching appearances in baseball history.
Maybe you're right about Amsinger not knowing about that game in 1999. If he didn't he doesn't meet the qualifications of his job, part of which would be knowing a good deal about at least recent baseball history, including the career highlights of the guys sitting on his panel. Maybe he was busy working software fixes in 1999 to prevent computers, airplanes, etc. from crashing on 1/1/2000.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
This is exactly what I was going to post. Here's the point of contact:



The runner is squarely on the first base bag. Where ELSE is he supposed to be? The double first base bag makes a world of sense. On a grounder, the runner runs to, and touches, the foul half of the bag (which would be painted orange or whatever, to distinguish it from the fair white portion). On a hit to the OF, the runner can run to the fair white portion as he rounds first. This way on a grounder, he can (must) run in the foul running lane, which allows him a clean run through the foul orange part of the first base bag. It's a completely simple, stress-free solution that has literally no drawbacks that I can think of.
I need to stop, but I like rules and rules questions. I wish this play had happened to the Astros, because I really think that people would at least be more receptive to understanding the rule. I really think the laundry -- and in the media people's desire to see a game 7 -- is affecting the outrage factor.

The rule deals with exactly what you're asking. (Actually, the comment does.) It recognizes that the runner needs eventually to go out of the lane to touch the bag. So, it deals with that by saying he can take his last step into fair territory, out of the lane, so long as he does so from the lane. In the picture posted above, this moment would not have been interference if Turner had run where he was supposed to run and then ended up in this position from the runner's lane.

The bottom line here is that Turner wanted to beat out a ball that he knew was going to be a close play, so he didn't want the extra split second it would have taken him to run the less direct route that the rule requires. 99 percent of the time that will be the right decision -- the benefit of trying to beat out the throw is greater than the liability of potentially being in a position where you can be called for interference. If the throw is a better throw, he's safe.

Does the rule penalize bad throws sometimes? Yep.

The A-Rod answer to that "problem" (which I would call a non-problem) is that umps should use "common sense." Can you fucking imagine? You're on your fourth week at Hunter Wedlestedt's camp. Your head is full of 80 year well worn advice on positioning and mechanics, and you've had to learn 50 rules that will come into play once or twice in your lifetime and you have to get right in real time with very talented players playing the position. And then when you're about to leave your instructor says, "oh, and use common sense too." What the fuck does that mean? Call the rules.

I know we hate the racist Guriel and the domestic violence enabling Astros and that we like our Red Sox to have the greater claim to century dominance, and whatever else are the reasons we root for the Nationals in this series. But Turner made a choice and was out. It would have been an injustice for the Nats to have second and third in this situation. Peacock could have made a better throw, but first basemen field not perfect throws cleanly all the time.

The dead ball result is harsh. A good outcome on this play would be man on second one out. But the rules are pretty consistent about runner placement after dead balls.
 

DeltaForce

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2001
2,909
Can you find me a play where they ignored it? They call it when the rule applies, which is rarely.
I can think of one glorious example:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8WXdHzvAdc


I think you've made a strong overall case about the rule interpretation, but it seems to me that, in this particular instance, Turner's route to first didn't cause the interference -- he was where he was allowed to be at the point of contact and the only reason the play couldn't be completed was that the throw was off-target.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,374
I need to stop, but I like rules and rules questions. I wish this play had happened to the Astros, because I really think that people would at least be more receptive to understanding the rule. I really think the laundry -- and in the media people's desire to see a game 7 -- is affecting the outrage factor.

The rule deals with exactly what you're asking. (Actually, the comment does.) It recognizes that the runner needs eventually to go out of the lane to touch the bag. So, it deals with that by saying he can take his last step into fair territory, out of the lane, so long as he does so from the lane. In the picture posted above, this moment would not have been interference if Turner had run where he was supposed to run and then ended up in this position from the runner's lane.

The bottom line here is that Turner wanted to beat out a ball that he knew was going to be a close play, so he didn't want the extra split second it would have taken him to run the less direct route that the rule requires. 99 percent of the time that will be the right decision -- the benefit of trying to beat out the throw is greater than the liability of potentially being in a position where you can be called for interference. If the throw is a better throw, he's safe.

Does the rule penalize bad throws sometimes? Yep.

The A-Rod answer to that "problem" (which I would call a non-problem) is that umps should use "common sense." Can you fucking imagine? You're on your fourth week at Hunter Wedlestedt's camp. Your head is full of 80 year well worn advice on positioning and mechanics, and you've had to learn 50 rules that will come into play once or twice in your lifetime and you have to get right in real time with very talented players playing the position. And then when you're about to leave your instructor says, "oh, and use common sense too." What the fuck does that mean? Call the rules.

I know we hate the racist Guriel and the domestic violence enabling Astros and that we like our Red Sox to have the greater claim to century dominance, and whatever else are the reasons we root for the Nationals in this series. But Turner made a choice and was out. It would have been an injustice for the Nats to have second and third in this situation. Peacock could have made a better throw, but first basemen field not perfect throws cleanly all the time.

The dead ball result is harsh. A good outcome on this play would be man on second one out. But the rules are pretty consistent about runner placement after dead balls.
I hear you. But all this is avoided with the double bag. It's an extremely simple, straightforward solution with zero drawbacks. And, it's much safer on top of it - reducing the likelihood of a collision at first. Win-win. No reason NOT to do it, really.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
I was thinking last night that it would make sense if they eliminated the lane and just told runners they had to run on the dirt and if they touched the grass past 30 or 40 feet, then they could be called for interference, but the tricky thing is that if your feet are where they should be, your arm is still out to the left and potentially in the way of a throw. Still I think that would make sense, but not totally sure.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I can think of one glorious example:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8WXdHzvAdc


I think you've made a strong overall case about the rule interpretation, but it seems to me that, in this particular instance, Turner's route to first didn't cause the interference -- he was where he was allowed to be at the point of contact and the only reason the play couldn't be completed was that the throw was off-target.
The 1998 one is really close, isn't it? We had better replay angles yesterday to show that Turner wasn't already on the bag when the ball hit him. I think that's true here and they missed it, but it's had to tell from behind the runner.

Which actually I think raises a great question -- you should be able to use replay to review not the judgment aspect of interference but whether the runner was already safe negating interference. It's kind of the same call as is made on close plays at first base all the time. I think the rules kind of artificially divide the world into "judgment' and not judgment calls even though there are some objective aspects of judgment calls that replay could be used for.
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
17,360
I need to stop, but I like rules and rules questions. I wish this play had happened to the Astros, because I really think that people would at least be more receptive to understanding the rule. I really think the laundry -- and in the media people's desire to see a game 7 -- is affecting the outrage factor.

The rule deals with exactly what you're asking. (Actually, the comment does.) It recognizes that the runner needs eventually to go out of the lane to touch the bag. So, it deals with that by saying he can take his last step into fair territory, out of the lane, so long as he does so from the lane. In the picture posted above, this moment would not have been interference if Turner had run where he was supposed to run and then ended up in this position from the runner's lane.

The bottom line here is that Turner wanted to beat out a ball that he knew was going to be a close play, so he didn't want the extra split second it would have taken him to run the less direct route that the rule requires. 99 percent of the time that will be the right decision -- the benefit of trying to beat out the throw is greater than the liability of potentially being in a position where you can be called for interference. If the throw is a better throw, he's safe.

Does the rule penalize bad throws sometimes? Yep.

The A-Rod answer to that "problem" (which I would call a non-problem) is that umps should use "common sense." Can you fucking imagine? You're on your fourth week at Hunter Wedlestedt's camp. Your head is full of 80 year well worn advice on positioning and mechanics, and you've had to learn 50 rules that will come into play once or twice in your lifetime and you have to get right in real time with very talented players playing the position. And then when you're about to leave your instructor says, "oh, and use common sense too." What the fuck does that mean? Call the rules.

I know we hate the racist Guriel and the domestic violence enabling Astros and that we like our Red Sox to have the greater claim to century dominance, and whatever else are the reasons we root for the Nationals in this series. But Turner made a choice and was out. It would have been an injustice for the Nats to have second and third in this situation. Peacock could have made a better throw, but first basemen field not perfect throws cleanly all the time.

The dead ball result is harsh. A good outcome on this play would be man on second one out. But the rules are pretty consistent about runner placement after dead balls.
BS. Umps make judgement calls every damn game. If the throw last night had come from short right field from a player in a shift resulting in the 1st baseman having to try to catch the ball over the bag, there is no fucking way that the base runner gets called out just because he didn't exit the running lane with his next to last step.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I hear you. But all this is avoided with the double bag. It's an extremely simple, straightforward solution with zero drawbacks. And, it's much safer on top of it - reducing the likelihood of a collision at first. Win-win. No reason NOT to do it, really.
Yeah, sorry, didn't respond to that point. I see no problem with a double bag. Might give a runner a slight advantage that drives the purists crazy because it raises OBP averages .00001, or whatever.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
BS. Umps make judgement calls every damn game. If the throw last night had come from short right field from a player in a shift resulting in the 1st baseman having to try to catch the ball over the bag, there is no fucking way that the base runner gets called out just because he didn't exit the running lane with his next to last step.
Seriously. Check swings, fan interference, and balks all require the umpires to use their best judgment. The rule was created to prevent a runner from getting in the way of a throw from behind them. That was not what happened last night.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
As long as we've moved onto talking hypotheticals, imagine all the arguments about the intent of rule if this call last night had benefitted the Red Sox
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
869
Maryland
I'll amend the old adage "the law is an ass" to "the rule is an ass." As least as written. While it is not unreasonable for a batter from the LH batter box to be able to stay to the foul side of the baseline, such an expectation is unreasonable for a batter coming from the RH batter's box. I don't think I've EVER seen a RH batter veer right to run entirely on the foul side of the line. As others have noted, Turner was exactly where he needed to be - on the base- when he allegedly interfered with Gurriel. To call that "interference" is ludicrous.

Yes, it's a judgment call, but that's just incredibly bad judgment. Another factor here, as Smoltz suggested in his commentary, is that Houston was probably trying to get an interference call here - he says that on these types of plays, pitchers are told to throw the ball into the runner to try to get the call. And it certainly appeared that Gurriel was more interested in trying to make contact with the runner than he was in trying to catch the ball - he didn't even have his right foot on the base.

To avoid this problem in the future, they should either (1) add the second, double bag on the foul side of the first base line so that the runner will be in foul territory when they play is being made; or (2) amend the rule to state that the runner is not guilty of interference if he runs in a straight line from the batter box to first base (as Turner did here). If the catcher has to make a throw from in front of the plate, they can do what they do on dropped third strikes - take a step or two towards the mound before throwing it, if they have to, to avoid hitting the runner.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
not at all. Nats could have had a three-headed monster, although Giolito took until this year to break out.
And I bet if Reynaldo Lopez played for the Astros, Rays or other organization with a clue, he’d be a Cy Young contender with that stuff he has and occasionally flat out dominates with.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,529
In the simulacrum
If a first baseman pings a runner in the back trying to get a forceout at second, but the runner was headed straight to the bag, tough luck. The same sense of fairplay and justice should apply here. The lunacy is that the runner's channel to the bag does not line up to the bag. Would it really kill the history of baseball and the meaning of the game to give the runner the 15" here? It is stupid on its face that the runner's corridor only contacts the goal of the running in a catty-corner way.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
How long have we gamethreaded together, ITP? You still don’t get my shtick?
Nah. I am not tuned in to "shtick." I have been with the same man since 1982 and I still have to say all day long, "Are you joking or what?" Kinda pitiful, I know.
GEAUX, NATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. MLBN is running the game now, for those who missed it.
 
Last edited:

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
If a first baseman pings a runner in the back trying to get a forceout at second, but the runner was headed straight to the bag, tough luck. The same sense of fairplay and justice should apply here. The lunacy is that the runner's channel to the bag does not line up to the bag. Would it really kill the history of baseball and the meaning of the game to give the runner the 15" here? It is stupid on its face that the runner's corridor only contacts the goal of the running in a catty-corner way.
All kind of inconsistencies in the rules about whether the fielder or the runner gets the right of way, with some very fucked up wrinkles, like whether the ball has passed a fielder or whatever. Some are very hard to call. Different rules for batter-runners and runners, etc.

To me, this rule is primarily about dropped third strikes that bounce forward. We don't want runners who strike out ending up on third base.

But, yeah, there are all sorts of embedded policy judgment in the rules about who should get the benefit of the doubt, and I guess the idea with the runners lane is fuck batters that can't get it out of the infield -- the game is designed so those shouldn't often be hits anyway -- and ensure that sac bunting actually is more likely to be a sacrifice not a two base error.

I have no problem with those who advocate rules changes that favor the offense or the defense consistently, but there are so many unintended consequences with each rule change.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Yeah, sorry, didn't respond to that point. I see no problem with a double bag. Might give a runner a slight advantage that drives the purists crazy because it raises OBP averages .00001, or whatever.
A double bag will give the idiots, that slide headfirst rather than running through, the opportunity to separate both shoulders.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
A double bag will give the idiots, that slide headfirst rather than running through, the opportunity to separate both shoulders.
Not sure why no one ever mentions this, but most of the players that do this don't do it because they falsely believe it is faster (or because they are 'idiots'), they do it to try to avoid a hard collision that might put them on the IL. I guess the double bag would help avoid at least some of these and so there would be less sliding into 1B.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
I still don’t see how the call can be considered correct. Turner’s presence interfered with Gurriel only just as he stepped on the bag, and the comment on the rule gives the runner the right to be inside the line right at the bag: “The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.” The bottom line is that Turner’s entire route to first to that last step would not have had any effect on the ability of Peacock to make the throw or of Gurriel to catch it had the thrown not been right into the base line.

View attachment 26497
It's an idiotic rule if for no other reason than how the base is positioned; as a lefty, my last stride onto the base is with my left foot, whereas for a righty, it's his right foot; if you stay in within the two lines as a righty, you have to basically cross over step to step on the base. As a lefty, I used to straddle the line and hit the base at the end. For a righty, you have to stay to the left of the line to hit the base correctly.........….just a dumb rule.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
It's a dumb rule, but it's dumber that it's not subject to replay.

Fair or foul balls are a judgment call as well, and can be reviewed and overturned. The technically correct assessment that Turner was on the "wrong" side of the foul line running to first goes away if replay is used to determined whether he actually interefed with Gurriel's attempt to catch the ball. Remember, that's what Torre said after the game -- that Turner was called out for the glove contact, which happened when it was obvious that he would have beaten the throw.

thankfully, the call didn't end up mattering. what it did do was expose flaws in the rule, how it's interpreted and the silliness of not being able to get the call correct through available means
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Can you find me a play where they ignored it? They call it when the rule applies, which is rarely.

The Bellinger play is the only play cited in this discussion that I have seen that is a possible case of “ignoring” the rule, but I posted a link about a great discussion of that play above. If Vazquez makes a throw at the runner instead of trying to go around him, he almost certainly gets called out. But in any event, that wasn’t ignoring the rule, at most it was a questionable judgment. It was much closer than last night.

I though last night was an easy call. Live, I said, “he’s out” and was surprised it took so long to be called. The only question to me was whether the runner had already obtained the base before interference. He hadn’t. It was close. But replay showed they got a banger correct.

The toughest part of this call is that the foul line is in the lane so you only need to touch the chalk. The HPU was staring the play down the line and he nailed it. Turner was well inside the chalk.

If that play had happened against the Red Sox and the opponent ended up with second and third I would be apoplectic.
JC Martin. 1969. Earl Weaver wouldve gone apeshit and gotten ejected, if he hadn't already been ejected for arguing balss and strikes.:
https://www.sportsgrid.com/real-sports/mlb/a-postseason-game-being-decided-on-a-walkoff-bunt-it-also-happened-in-1969/
26504
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
8
Not sure why no one ever mentions this, but most of the players that do this don't do it because they falsely believe it is faster (or because they are 'idiots'), they do it to try to avoid a hard collision that might put them on the IL. I guess the double bag would help avoid at least some of these and so there would be less sliding into 1B.
I don't know about your belief about the runner's intentions. I've often seen it happen on throws where the first baseman is stretched out away from the bag. I've been watching baseball for a long time and don't recall ever seeing it at least through the '80s. It was also uncommon to see an outfielder dive for a ball.

Other things I didn't see often decades ago, were trailing runners running into easy outs and batters taking close pitches with 2 strikes. It was always, "2 strikes, gotta protect the plate".
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
How old were you then? 35? Did you see it live? :0)
:cool:
I was 8. Sitting in the back seat of a friend's car parked in front of the synagogue in Brooklyn, and we were pleading with his mother to let us listen to the bottom of the 10th, even though we were already a few minutes late for Hebrew school. I think I can still hear Lindsey Nelson's call.