Matt Holliday 11th inning today

[Guest Jonny B]

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?

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, noumpere said:

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.

 

7 minutes ago, lawump said:

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.

 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, maven said:

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.

That's a lot of leeway.   I understand that this is how umpires are instructed, and how they handle this at the upper levels.  And if it's done consistently, it can be made to work.  Umpires far smarter than I am agree on this.  And as far as I can tell this umpire called the play as he was instructed.  Not only will the protest lose, but I think it will also be confirmed that the umpire used sound judgment.  But I don't think that was ever the initial intent and spirit of the rule, specifically the comment about advancing the bases.

The rule was intended to, IMHO, one, get retired runners the Hell out of the way, and two, recognize that it can be reasonable, sometimes, for a retired runner to not realize/know they are out, and to afford them the privilege that simply running the bases, in and of itself, is not INT - something else has to occur.  It also provides some leeway in completing a continuing act, and not requiring a runner at full sprint, or mid-slide, to immediately stop and change direction.   It was not meant to give them carte blanche on simply running back and forth between bases under the guise of what's plausible.   That is... "running the bases properly, on its own, is not INT" vs "as long as he's running the bases properly it's never INT".

I think the bar needs to shift a bit to what a runner should reasonably know...when he should reasonably know he's out, to how long after that did his normal running of the bases create a hindrance.   If the umpire judges that it's reasonable and probable that the runner didn't know he was out throughout the entire course of the play, then so be it.   Though it may be plausible Holliday thought the force was off, I don't think it's probable.  What the umpire thought is his business (and all that matters here).

It may be ticky-tack (or picking fly crap out of pepper) to call INT here and give the defense the second out, but I think it's ticky-tack to let the offense benefit from an offensive maneuver (whether it was a mistake, or depraved indifference).  If Holliday continues to second, or veers right to get out of the way, or magically teleports to the dugout as soon as he is out, Boston completes the double play.

He was out, he probably should have known he was out, and he hindered F3's attempt to catch a thrown ball.

There's a fundamental difference between a retired runner drawing a throw or even getting in a rundown that allows another runner to advance, or momentarily distracting a fielder deciding where to throw the ball (the defense should know he's out) versus getting in the way of a play on a different runner.

IMHO they have lost the primary focus of the rule (prior to the comment being added) that a retired runner causing INT does not require intent, and that a retired runner can't impede a play on a different runner.   That's the most important part of the rule.  The comment is meant to provide SOME leeway to run the bases, not total forgiveness.

 

Please forgive the manifesto.

[celt62]

I was actually at this 6 hour marathon last Saturday.  Because it was under review they can show it on the large scoreboard which they did repeatedly from different angles.  My favorite angle was the one from first to second base.  It clearly showed Holliday turn his head with the ball and watch Bogaerts touch second then he turned around and headed back to first.  The throw was not far offline but to the plate side of first which for a gold glover like Moreland would be an easy grab if not impeded. There were arguments that he thought maybe Moreland had touched first base so he was avoiding being doubled up with a force being off but he clearly was looking at Moreland in front of the bag.  Then they reviewed it twice.  Why?  I dunno....

[stkjock]

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/242686092/red-soxs-protest-of-saturdays-loss-denied/?topicId=27118122

 

stolen from the other thread 

[BrianC14]

7 hours 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.

Oh come on.   He's a good 8 feet off the bag.   If Holliday is 10 years old that might be an excuse, but what MLB player takes 2, 3, 4 steps off to make a throw 90 feet away?