Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BrianC14

Interference? Why or why not?

37 posts in this topic

In this case..."advance" does not necessarily mean in a counter-clockwise motion. He was "advancing" to first base..."advance" isn't a great verb for this...but that's how it's written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 8:19 PM, Gfoley4 said:

Yep, I agree with you. Maybe there is some other verbiage in other manuals? PBUC doesn't really add anything

Wendelstat's seems to say that "advancing" is just interpreted as running in either direction

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for you guys that wear a bucket... PLEASE TAKE THE F*&^%$# thing off your head.. looks lazy and I'm bored as sh%t

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this retreat to 1B becomes "a thing" (I hear this isn't Holliday's first time doing this), I'm wondering how many occurrences it'll take before umpires start ruling that this is not running the bases normally.
#bambozzle

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

If this retreat to 1B becomes "a thing" (I hear this isn't Holliday's first time doing this), I'm wondering how many occurrences it'll take before umpires start ruling that this is not running the bases normally.
#bambozzlement

Feel free to call it if you deem intent rather than normal base running. Need examples of Holliday and or others previous attempts 

Share this post


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

Feel free to call it if you deem intent rather than normal base running. Need examples of Holliday and or others previous attempts 

Holliday previously doing this, I read about ...hearsay....no video evidence...yet.
I'm talking about future occurrences of this brilliant bambozzlement. I can't imagine that it'll be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The protest was denied.  John Farrell said it wasn't a video review but when they were on the headsets a rule interpretation.  Expand review.  Why go to headsets for just a rule interpretation?  So someone in New York gave their rule interpretation of the play.  How many clinics have we all been to where you will hear the same rule interpreted differently on different occasions?  For the pros that's pretty lame.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys are thinking that Halliday deliberately came back to first, knowing he was out, and slid in to the bag. Now, you've got Halliday's foot on the bag, Ellsbury about to tag it on the dead run, and leaving Moreland nothing left to tag but maybe the top (where Jacoby's foot is about to be)?

I'm thinking they're lucky there wasn't a 3-car pileup with somebody carried to the dugout. (Most likely Ellsbury with an ankle/knee; he's got a history). Think Matt's following him to the dugout and hearing "Nice heads-up baserunning, Matt", or more likely "WTF were you doing"?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I'm writing it off as a fustercluck, and letting it be.....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ricka56 said:

If this retreat to 1B becomes "a thing" (I hear this isn't Holliday's first time doing this), I'm wondering how many occurrences it'll take before umpires start ruling that this is not running the bases normally.
#bambozzle

Look on the Internet. Hundreds of our brethren are smarter than OBR, the MLB crew on the field, the MLB crew in New York, and MLB who denied the protest. Those umpires would still call interference even though there is zero support to do so. So...to answer your question...it's already happening. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Look on the Internet. Hundreds of our brethren are smarter than OBR, the MLB crew on the field, the MLB crew in New York, and MLB who denied the protest. Those umpires would still call interference even though there is zero support to do so. So...to answer your question...it's already happening. 

Of course there is support for calling interference if an umpire judges that a runner is not running the bases normally, 6.01a(5). The only controversy is the judgment of the play (not any rule to support a call). On-field umpires judged that the runner was running the base normally ... that means you have nothing. Given the judgment made, the rule application (or lack thereof) was correct, so the protest was denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 10:45 AM, ricka56 said:

Of course there is support for calling interference if an umpire judges that a runner is not running the bases normally, 6.01a(5). The only controversy is the judgment of the play (not any rule to support a call). On-field umpires judged that the runner was running the base normally ... that means you have nothing. Given the judgment made, the rule application (or lack thereof) was correct, so the protest was denied.

 

On 7/19/2017 at 9:43 AM, johnnyg08 said:

Look on the Internet. Hundreds of our brethren are smarter than OBR, the MLB crew on the field, the MLB crew in New York, and MLB who denied the protest. Those umpires would still call interference even though there is zero support to do so. So...to answer your question...it's already happening. 

My only opinion on the judgment, and the guidance that is given on "running the bases normally" is the amount of leeway/forgiveness that is currently granted said retired runner.  The current instruction seems to mandate running the bases in either direction is normal, with no real guidance to what a runner should or should not know about his own status...I'd want the line shifted a little and put more onus on a professional ball player to know when they are out, to keep them out of the way of subsequent plays.  That is, the instruction seems to be that as long as they're running the bases properly in either direction they're forgiven.  

A batter/runner who grounds out to first, where F3 tags first, and U1 clearly calls him out,who continues to run the bases and then slides into third base, and impedes a play on R3 who was in a rundown between home and third, should not get total forgiveness just because he was running the bases normally.   There has to be a reasonable expectation that at some point he reasonably knows he has been put out, and not make the defense deal with him simply because he was running the bases normally.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0