Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Jonny B

Matt Holliday 11th inning today

Question

30 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
25 minutes ago, Guest Jonny B said:

https://streamable.com/fmbb6

In this play, is there any grounds for calling a double play for interference on Holliday? And if not, why don't baserunners do this more often?

Might be wrong link. He was running the bases normally as a runner or retired runner. No INT unless deemed intentional which it was not. Advancing retired runners can slide into 2B and 3B if the slide is legal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0
28 minutes ago, Guest Jonny B said:

https://streamable.com/fmbb6

In this play, is there any grounds for calling a double play for interference on Holliday? And if not, why don't baserunners do this more often?

Double play on a home run?  Check your link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Might be wrong link. He was running the bases normally as a runner or retired runner. No INT unless deemed intentional which it was not. Advancing retired runners can slide into 2B and 3B if the slide is legal. 

He was out by a mile at 2B, ran back to 1B and got in the way there.    See my post in "Professional" category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
40 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

Normal my eye.   "Abby Normal."

So a knowingly retired runner at 2B on a force should not slide into 2B? Not that the OP was knowingly retired. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

So a knowingly retired runner at 2B on a force should not slide into 2B? Not that the OP was knowingly retired. 

2B wasn't the issue.    The retired runner went back to 1B and interfered with F3 fielding a throw from 2B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
44 minutes ago, Kckumpire said:

I am banging the runner out at first. To me it looked like he interfered with the first baseman catching the ball. 

So? What rule makes what he did illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I can't call that normal base running but what is the criteria for interference in this sitch? Would it need to be intentional since it was a thrown ball?

I wish there was a better view of the runner when he gets back int the vicinity of the base. Other than wonky base running it doesn't look like he did anything intentional to cause interference. A better throw probably would have gotten the BR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Mussgrass said:

I can't call that normal base running but what is the criteria for interference in this sitch? Would it need to be intentional since it was a thrown ball?

INT by a retired runner is any hindrance of play by the defense EXCEPT what results from continuing to run the bases. It need not be intentional.

The umpire applied the correct standard and rule. A protest will fail.

His judgment that the exception applies is plausible. Ordinarily when supervisors score officials' judgment calls on video review, they defer to the officials UNLESS there is decisive video evidence that they missed the call. That's not the case here: we have video of a runner who thinks he's in a rundown reversing direction when the ball is thrown to the other base.

Correct call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, maven said:

INT by a retired runner is any hindrance of play by the defense EXCEPT what results from continuing to run the bases. It need not be intentional.

The umpire applied the correct standard and rule. A protest will fail.

His judgment that the exception applies is plausible. Ordinarily when supervisors score officials' judgment calls on video review, they defer to the officials UNLESS there is decisive video evidence that they missed the call. That's not the case here: we have video of a runner who thinks he's in a rundown reversing direction when the ball is thrown to the other base.

Correct call.

I agree -- and I hope that MLB comes out publicly with the ruling (even if they rule the opposite) and an explanation so all can learn from this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

People tend to not give MLB players credit to how devious they can really be, and how capable they are to make these decisions, and pull them off in real time.

I tend to give more credit to the pros for a lot of talent and savvy.

I'm more inclined to believe that Holliday knew he was dead at second base and made the decision to go back to first in an attempt to prevent a double play.

Is it possible he genuinely believed that F3 touched first base from eight feet away before throwing toe second?  Or was just confused?  And that he genuinely believed he was in a rundown?  Sure, I guess anything's possible.  I like to deal in probability rather than possibility.  I believe that Holliday probably knew exactly where F3 was positioned, and probably knew that F3 probably did not touch first, and that any reasonable MLB base runner would probably know he is forced to second there. 

It would depend on what the umpire judged.  Did he judge that Holliday thought he was in a rundown, making it normal baserunning.  Or did he simply judge that Holliday is free to go back to first all he wants....that going to first or second is normal baserunning for R1, regardless of circumstance.

Be careful on how MLB rules on this, or how they word the language on the ruling.  It needs to be clear that the umpire made a judgment call that Holliday genuinely thought he was in a rundown, and that if an umpire concludes that is not the case then INT would apply.  Otherwise you might start seeing R1 going back to first on all hard ground balls directly to infielders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From the video the throw to 1st appeared to be complete garbage as well... not that a pro F3 should not be able to scoop it but a throw at the letters versus at R1s butt on the ground would most likely have achieved the double play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

asset_1800K.jpg.e6daa3fa289baadebb4ead99327f5780.jpg

Ball in Moreland's hand, in the act of throwing to second base.  Where are the eyes of Holiday?  Don't fall for it, Holiday knows the situation and his trying to bust up a double play. 

And, as an Oklahoma State grad, I like Holiday and respect his Dad.  No bias, just a player trying to gain an advantage.  Intent isn't required for interference, but if you judge this is normal base-running, then his intent does matter.  He knows Moreland is off the base and is turning a 3-6-3 double play.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, sthomas13100 said:

asset_1800K.jpg.e6daa3fa289baadebb4ead99327f5780.jpg

Ball in Moreland's hand, in the act of throwing to second base.  Where are the eyes of Holiday?  Don't fall for it, Holiday knows the situation and his trying to bust up a double play. 

And, as an Oklahoma State grad, I like Holiday and respect his Dad.  No bias, just a player trying to gain an advantage.  Intent isn't required for interference, but if you judge this is normal base-running, then his intent does matter.  He knows Moreland is off the base and is turning a 3-6-3 double play.  

Where did he catch it?  How many steps did he take before throwing? If first had been tagged he would still be throwing to 2B. Sorry but one frame doesn't tell the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Rich, watch the video, Brian C posted it.  I just pulled out a clip to show that Holiday knew the play.  His eyes are on the ball. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
56 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Where did he catch it?  How many steps did he take before throwing? If first had been tagged he would still be throwing to 2B. Sorry but one frame doesn't tell the story.

He caught it right there - the only step he took was the one in making the throw.  Holliday knew Moreland didn't touch first base and knew he was dead at second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
37 minutes ago, sthomas13100 said:

Rich, watch the video, Brian C posted it.  I just pulled out a clip to show that Holiday knew the play.  His eyes are on the ball. 

Please understand: no highly trained umpire (MLB, MiLB, NCAA D1) has the least doubt that the no-call is correct. Though I probably shouldn't speak for them all, they are trained to "call felonies, not misdemeanors," to "not pick fly shït out of the pepper," and to "not be a pioneer." INT by a retired runner has to be BIG and totally OBVIOUS to everyone in the ballpark. If the runner is at all plausibly continuing to run the bases, he gets the exception, and the defense will have to play around him.

So all the folks in the thread who think the runner is savvy or sneaky or trying to gain an advantage, please understand that this no call is not controversial except among fans and a few amateur umpires. We have some highly trained umpires in the forum: if I'm wrong, I invite them to weigh in as @lawump has already done.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, sthomas13100 said:

Rich, watch the video, Brian C posted it.  I just pulled out a clip to show that Holiday knew the play.  His eyes are on the ball. 

Holiday's eye is not on the ball when it's fielded. Unfortunately the video doesn't pick up Holiday until after F3 starts his throwing motion.

 

to say Holiday was so savy that he knew the base wasn't touched is a stretch, plus with his limited 1B experience, he's probably worked on drills for such 3-6-3 DPs and would think a ball hit near the base that F3 is getting the sure out the speedy Ellsbury and the slow R1

 

 

 

 

Ho.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

MLB's decision, I am sure, will read, in its entirety: "Protest Denied." 

They do not need to explain anything.  Since the Yankees did not score that inning, the umpire's ruling...if it were, in fact, incorrect (which it is not)...did not materially affect the outcome of the game.  Historically speaking, when the protesting team goes on to lose the game, but the play that is being protested clearly did not materially affect the outcome of the game, MLB usually just states that the protest is denied without further explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×