Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Maineac

Orioles Triple Play vs. Red Sox

45 posts in this topic

Interesting end to the 8th inning in Boston tonight. Hopefully this Link works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
6 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Did the BR not run to 1B?

I think he might have gotten to first, but later went into the dugout and is obviously out for abandonment 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

I think he might have gotten to first, but later went into the dugout and is obviously out for abandonment 

If that's the case, there wouldn't any force in effect. Sooooo what I'm surmising is the BR thought he'd be out and conceded the catch (which didn't happen), leaving the force in effect. R2 was tagged out off the base, 2B was touched for the force on R1, then 1B was touched to put out BR.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Bradley ran to first base, but didn't touch it because Pedroia was there.  Had he run to 1B and touched it, it would only have been a double play.   You can see him (Bradley) walking in foul territory at the end of the video.  So yes, the force was on throughout the play.    Red Sox are playing like middle schoolers of late.    Grrrrr.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

added footage

 

anyone care to comment why IFF wasn't called?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stkjock said:

 

 

added footage

 

anyone care to comment why IFF wasn't called?

It was probably judged to not have been catchable with ordinary effort. I agree with the non-call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't it be kind of hard to call the IFF with the fielders back to the infield. to me that's not ordinary effort

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JoeC said:

wouldn't it be kind of hard to call the IFF with the fielders back to the infield. to me that's not ordinary effort

 

His back wasn't to the infield at the apex which is where it might be called or not called. I've seen both in MLB. Seems like ordinary effort but maybe after a previous call of IFF in MLB in that territory they are shy of calling it. Can't win for losing. I would have called it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

His back wasn't to the infield at the apex which is where it might be called or not called. I've seen both in MLB. Seems like ordinary effort but maybe after a previous call of IFF in MLB in that territory they are shy of calling it. Can't win for losing. I would have called it..

Wind was pushing it away, I'd bet.    Fenway is notorious for having almost it's own jet stream of wind ever since they built those luxury boxes behind home plate.  

He didn't even get his glove on the ball, and appeared to be struggling with the direction of the ball or perhaps lost it above the lights.   No way I'd call that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between this play and the IFF call in the playoffs a few years back, is in the playoff game, F6 was camped under the ball, then inexplicably peeled off. Here, we have an F6 calling off F7, but never getting under it to the point where one might say he's got it with ordinary effort. That said, I would have no issue with an IFF call here. Judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pedro Martinez and Mike Lowell butchering the IFF rule on MLB as I type. Even though Amsinger is trying to explain in the playoff game F6 was camped under the ball, therefor, IFF, Pedro and Lowell continue to "argue" the post season ball was too deep to be an IFF and this one tonight was an IFF because it wasn't that deep.  :banghead:.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 10s, looks like F6 has settled under it. I wouldn't hate seeing it called IFF.

 

But 2s later, it's clear he's not near enough, I wouldn't hate seeing it not called IFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a great time to compare this play to the 2012 Wild Card IFF play. Holbrook on the crew for both games (made the call in 2012, crew chief in 2017).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Richvee said:

Pedro Martinez and Mike Lowell butchering the IFF rule on MLB as I type. Even though Amsinger is trying to explain in the playoff game F6 was camped under the ball, therefor, IFF, Pedro and Lowell continue to "argue" the post season ball was too deep to be an IFF and this one tonight was an IFF because it wasn't that deep.  :banghead:.

Last night Betances had a pitch slip out of his hand with the bases loaded.  Ball never crossed a foul line, so a balk was called.  Listening to Michael Kay and John Flaherty butcher the call was painful. Flaherty couldn't understand why it was any different if a ball stopped 5' short of the plate as opposed to a slip that went to the screen.

Uh... they're called "rules".  Should check them out.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys ......   that's IFF ......  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If U3 went out like he is suppose to I think he could tell that the fielder had misplayed it when it looks like he was camped. the ball ends up landing 10 ft behind where he camped out at first. I think it's a good call. It could have also went the other way and I'd say the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IFF is the first thing which came to my mind as well. As Rivhvee said just judgement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the outcome, it's easy to think that the offense should have been protected with an IFF call. Hindsight, 20/20, all that.

If all we knew was the route that F6 took to the ball and the swirling winds at Fenway, I'm not so sure the call would be so obvious.

F6 made it look like a non-routine play, but I can see an argument that an infielder misplaying a popup is not grounds for an IFF no-call.

Good discussion play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on the outcome, it's easy to think that the offense should have been protected with an IFF call. Hindsight, 20/20, all that.
If all we knew was the route that F6 took to the ball and the swirling winds at Fenway, I'm not so sure the call would be so obvious.
F6 made it look like a non-routine play, but I can see an argument that an infielder misplaying a popup is not grounds for an IFF no-call.
Good discussion play.

I would not have called this IFF in real-time and for the purpose of the rule, I think it's justifiable.

Both runners would be 'halfway' (arbitrary distance honestly) in case the ball is dropped and BR is live. No way the defense should have been able to get a cheap double play with runners 'doing what they should have been doing' (although I do hate it when anyone uses that mentality for rules/umpires).

Mechanics-wise: it's ever important to be loud and proud when signaling/verbalizing IFF. Difficult situation all-around when it is judged to not be an IFF in such a gray situation.

I agree, good discussion.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ElkOil said:

R2 was tagged out off the base, 2B was touched for the force on R1, then 1B was touched to put out BR.

I wasn't going to quibble with this statement, but Gil's site has a cool photo of something we seldom see in pro ball: a runner forced to advance put out while touching the base he was forced from:

jim-wolf-dp-tp.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, conbo61 said:

Last night Betances had a pitch slip out of his hand with the bases loaded.  Ball never crossed a foul line, so a balk was called.  Listening to Michael Kay and John Flaherty butcher the call was painful. Flaherty couldn't understand why it was any different if a ball stopped 5' short of the plate as opposed to a slip that went to the screen.

Uh... they're called "rules".  Should check them out.

In was watching. Yes, Kay has a painful lack of rules knowledge. Just last week when Judge made a catch and fell into the stands he butchered the reason they "allowed" R2 to take 3B.  Shocked that a ML catcher didn't know the pitch vs. balk rule. 

 

To the credit of the YES production staff, an inning later, Kay got the "memo" about a "pitch" not passing the foul lines being a balk with runners on. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Richvee said:

In was watching. Yes, Kay has a painful lack of rules knowledge. Just last week when Judge made a catch and fell into the stands he butchered the reason they "allowed" R2 to take 3B. He said something like. Shocked that a ML catcher didn't know the pitch vs. balk rule. 

 

To the credit of the YES production staff, an inning later, Kay got the "memo" about a "pitch" not passing the foul lines being a balk with runners on. 

I had my hopes up when he started quoting a rule: "The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery;.." and waited for him to continue, only to be left high and dry.  

I think he may even have referenced it as 8.05 (OK, free pass on not having an updated manual.)  But it seemed to take a while to get the CORRECT reason.

I agree with you, a former MLB catcher should have a better handle on that.  If he were an outfielder,  understandable, but an F2?  Disappointing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now