Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Sign in to follow this  
Gil

Boston Files Protest Over Odd Interference No-Call

Recommended Posts

Boston filed a protest alleging interference by Yankees baserunner Matt Holliday as umpires determined no rule infraction occurred during a peculiar sequence Saturday afternoon at Fenway Park. Is Holliday guilty of interference in Boston?The Play: With none out and one on (R1) in the top of the...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

I agree with Gil: correct call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2017 at 6:53 AM, maven said:

I agree with Gil: correct call.

When one (1) grows up in the Boston suburbs and (2) the Red Sox are a religion...one's phone tends to blow up when a "crazy rules" play happens.  As I told my family on Saturday: the umps got it correct.  Therefore, I agree with Gil and Maven.

Of course, my family disagrees with my analysis.  I believe the word bullsh!t was texted to me several times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is a correct call (which I don't), then get ready for this to show up at every level of play.  Penalize the guilty party, period! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, after the judgement call of Intentional or not, only then do you make the INT/No INT. Their assessment of non-intentional (apparently) rules out INT. 

If you're gong to "penalize" a runner that UNINTENTIONALLY gets in the way of a thrown ball, you'll have fielders drilling the baserunners every time. (Although the game will go much quicker ;)). 

Remember Reggie Jackson "leaning in" to the throw at first? THAT's INT (IMHO). 

Now, a couple things: (1) if he did it intentionally, it's a dumb idea. He could have easily tripped Ellsbury coming across the bag and injured him. (2) nobody scored that inning, and even if the protest is upheld, it didn't affect the game, and will change nothing.

BTW, this from a rabid Sox fan. Didn't think it was INT then, don't think it was now.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sthomas13100 said:

If this is a correct call (which I don't), then get ready for this to show up at every level of play.  Penalize the guilty party, period! 

It's not going to happen. You could really only "get away with it" in the eyes of the opposing team if it's a situation like this where Holliday is running around with his head cutoff. You try doing this on a ground ball to short and I guarantee that runner is getting a fastball to the back next inning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jjb said:

Sorry, after the judgement call of Intentional or not, only then do you make the INT/No INT. Their assessment of non-intentional (apparently) rules out INT. 

If you're gong to "penalize" a runner that UNINTENTIONALLY gets in the way of a thrown ball, you'll have fielders drilling the baserunners every time. (Although the game will go much quicker ;)). 

Remember Reggie Jackson "leaning in" to the throw at first? THAT's INT (IMHO). 

Now, a couple things: (1) if he did it intentionally, it's a dumb idea. He could have easily tripped Ellsbury coming across the bag and injured him. (2) nobody scored that inning, and even if the protest is upheld, it didn't affect the game, and will change nothing.

BTW, this from a rabid Sox fan. Didn't think it was INT then, don't think it was now.....

Just to be clear he was a retired runner. He would be penalized for unintentionally interfering with a thrown ball once he abandons normal base running. 

Share this post


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

Just to be clear he was a retired runner. He would be penalized for unintentionally interfering with a thrown ball once he abandons normal base running. 

"If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders."

 

I've always interpreted this comment differently than authoritative figures have, based on my thoughts on the spirit and intent of the rule.  I have thought it to mean that literally just running the bases was not in itself INT.  Not that continuing to run the bases properly forgave you of INT.     Otherwise, any retired runner could continue to advance or retreat between bases and see what happens - maybe he'll draw a throw, or get in the way somewhere.  As long as he could sell that he didn't know he was out...and who knows - what guideline are the umpires following in that regard?  Are they just determining if he is actually running bases properly - or are they judging whether or not it's reasonable for that retired runner to not know they're already out?

 

 

 

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  

×