Jump to content

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

Case Play 2017-9 - The Deflected Error Triple

Recommended Posts

A batted ball deflected into the stands in Toronto concluded with the batter-runner awarded third, not second, base as umpires considered an odd sequence caused, in part, by Rogers Centre's turf and short right field wall. Trumbo loses a baseball into the stands.The Play: With none out and none on...

[[ 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
9 hours ago, Gil said:

A batted ball deflected into the stands in Toronto concluded with the batter-runner awarded third, not second, base as umpires considered an odd sequence caused, in part, by Rogers Centre's turf and short right field wall. Trumbo loses a baseball into the stands.The Play: With none out and none on...

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

View the full article

It was "thrown" into the stands. 2 bases TOT. HP should have been awarded unless the BR hadn't touched 2B at TOT. Maybe umps thought he only had touched 1B at TOT or they had spectator interference (Thats their story...). No protest, no problem.

Edited by Jimurray
Added Spec Int as remote possibilty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right: it has to be treated as a "thrown" ball because it would not have gone into the stands without the fielder contacting it (it was bouncing off the wall back into the field of play).

MLB treats TOT awards VERY conservatively (which explains why the BR was returned to 3B), but I think there's some evidence that HP would be the correct award here.

A comment on Gil's site thought that Gorman overruled the PU on the award, but the award is not PU's call. I think PU just assumed this would be 2 bases TOP when the ball went out of play. I'm sure he thought that he was communicating Gorman's call to the runner, not announcing his own, independent call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maven said:

Right: it has to be treated as a "thrown" ball because it would not have gone into the stands without the fielder contacting it (it was bouncing off the wall back into the field of play).

That seems to be common sense, but do the interps agree? I don't see how this could be ruled as intentional, or that he had complete control before knocking it out. 

From the PBUC manual: 

Screen%20Shot%202017-09-12%20at%2011.39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PBUC guidance seems not exhaust the logical space, but addresses only some cases. In particular, it addresses the "deflection" of a ball not in flight—where the original force of the ball takes it out of play, via contact with a fielder—and clear cases of throwing or kicking in the ordinary senses of those words.

It does not seem to address the case where a batted ball is "redirected" by contact with a fielder causes the ball to gain a new force that sends it out of play, which is another kind of deflection.

It is possible that PBUC means to do away with the old distinction between a "mere" deflection and a "redirection" by the fielder, which used to be the basis in these plays between a TOP and TOT award (respectively). But I don't know that what you've quoted expresses that intention, and I guess I'd need to have it spelled out more explicitly to me. Maybe a recent grad knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maven said:

Right: it has to be treated as a "thrown" ball because it would not have gone into the stands without the fielder contacting it (it was bouncing off the wall back into the field of play).

MLB treats TOT awards VERY conservatively (which explains why the BR was returned to 3B), but I think there's some evidence that HP would be the correct award here.

A comment on Gil's site thought that Gorman overruled the PU on the award, but the award is not PU's call. I think PU just assumed this would be 2 bases TOP when the ball went out of play. I'm sure he thought that he was communicating Gorman's call to the runner, not announcing his own, independent call.

The clip doesn't make it clear but viewing the game on MLBtv makes it clear that the runner was past 2B and it should have been obvious to the umps. Gorman went out leisurely on what looked like a can of corn. He is not in any of the video frames showing the "throw out of play" but I think he booked it to the stands fence out of any video frame and would have had a view of the fielder's back, some outstretched spectator arms extending in front of the fielder who was facing away from Gorman and then a ball going into the stands. They need to hang their hat on spectator intereference or get gigged for kicking a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see it being ruled fan interference, because the official scoring has it as a double with an error.   It would be a triple with fan interference.  The play should have been a triple, with Hernandez advancing home on the error.

 

Gibbons (who is not qualified to manage a hot dog stand) needs to argue a little more vehemently here OR ask for a review OR file a protest (which would have been moot, since they won - but at least he would have been doing his job).   He had no clue that Hernandez should not have been awarded third.  He historically argues when he is wrong, and is silent when he should be arguing.

Likewise, Showalter needs to do the same, to argue Hernandez should only get second.  IMO both managers should have protested.  He either gets second or home, not third.  I believe home, based on Trumbo creating the impetus for the ball going out of play, regardless of his possession.

If the umpires actually believed Hernandez hadn't yet reached second (highly unlikely - he was almost at third when Trumbo touched it) is that reviewable?

If the umpires actually believed there was fan interference, is that reviewable?

 

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  

×