hbk314

Try to not to hit yourself in the head with the bat as you cover your ears since, you know, they're inseparable and all...

I'm guessing it was a "call stands" decision.

I know I'm very late to the party here, but this is exactly what I saw. He essentially launched himself into the catcher. It's a targeting ejection all day in football.

How much protection does the fielder get when he moves into the line between 1st and 2nd? As Gil said, "Instead, we look at the runner's legs and cleats (both on the ground), while bearing in mind that the runner twists as he makes contact with the fielder; either way, one buttock does contact the ground prior to the point at which he would have contacted the fielder had the fielder not jumped toward the runner." I agree with this statement. "This can be interpreted in one of two ways: either the runner is attempting to protect himself from the collision, in which case the slide is legal, or the runner is attempting to alter the fielder's throw with a hard quasi-rolling slide, in which case the slide is illegal and interference should be called." Ultimately I believe the runner was trying to protect himself and deserves the benefit of the doubt as the fielder moved into an area where I don't believe he's protected.

Could he have been better positioned? Regardless, I think the lack of attempt to slow up or avoid the contact is enough for MC even without the lowering of the shoulder. I don't think you get a collision that violent unless the runner's trying for it.

Frankly, I believe both calls were missed. On the first call, the angle isn't great, but I believe the runner's slide was affected by his trying to protect himself from the fielder coming down on top of him. On the second call, the runner can see the catcher being led into the baseline by the throw. He certainly, in my opinion, had the opportunity to try to avoid the contact or protect himself. Instead he chose to lower his shoulder and take the catcher out. I have malicious contact, out, ejection and no run. Even though I have the benefit of replay, I still don't really see how this wasn't called in real-time.

I agree that you should get two full game fees. If there's an additional travel fee, I don't disagree with only getting one as yes, you were already there.

That's the toughest part of this for me. The fact that they both missed it. I'm sure we've all had a pretty bad miss at some point. It's just kind of bizarre that it happened to these two on the same play.

https://deadspin.com/two-umpires-suspended-after-teaming-up-to-make-worst-ca-1827745836 Both PU and U1 were suspended for the remainder of the Mexican League season over this call. I just have no idea how this could happen. Both PU and U1 missed it. It reminds me of, I think, Ed Rapuano a few years back on a play at first involving the Tigers, but that was just one umpire. It's just very strange. I'd ask if there's an issue of sports official corruption in Mexico, but that wouldn't even make sense here. It's the 0-1 pitch. Does anyone have any ideas? It's just mind-boggling.

Maybe there should be a "wait around fee," especially if there's going to be a significant amount of time between games. I can certainly see how a "travel fee" would only be given once, as I imagine that's supposed to cover your costs to get there, and you didn't drive back home between games, did you?

I always got at least two game checks for a double header. There were even a few cases where I got paid extra to have the plate for both games or to pick it up on short notice.

I agree with the commenter on the site. Replay was put in place to fix the obvious wrong. In this case, he missed the tag. Runner should be safe. Nitpicking that the runner's foot briefly came off the base isn't what I see as the purpose for replay, and it's different that a runner over-sliding a base. There needs to be a preset, enforced time limit for reviews. If it takes more than a minute to make a decision, whatever was called on the field should stand. I believe the NFL had a rule like that initially. EDIT: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-time-to-change-the-slide-rule/ An interesting article on the topic. I'm not sure how realistic their proposal is, but I do think it would improve the game.

Other than the silly argument about whether or not there was a shove(there were two), he's right about the argument itself. I didn't watch the game, so I can't speak to his comment about earlier pitches.

Going off of the ground rules posted above, I guess this rule is unique to Houston(and perhaps other stadiums with similar wall design)? Batted ball strikes higher wall or railing and rebounds over lower wall: Home Run. It seems as though if a similar play had happened in Houston, it would have been a home run? Also, just watching that play in Kansas City, I feel like that "should" be a home run. I understand why it wasn't, but it still "looked" like a home run.

https://www.mlb.com/video/altuves-odd-ground-rule-double/c-2060415683?tid=63817564 That happened in today's Astro's-Indians game. Certainly not something you see every day. I didn't catch all of it, but I believe the explanation given on the telecast was that the ball was no longer "in flight" after it hit the fence. I'm a little surprised this is treated differently than a ball bouncing off the top of the wall given the rarity of this happening.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21745264/mlb-umpire-dale-scott-retires-rather-risk-more-concussions

The problem, in my eyes, is that his call can be supported by the rule as written. If he deemed there to be no interference, why should what's written in the comment even matter if the rule it's commenting on doesn't apply? Obviously Torre's made clear how MLB wants this ruled going forward.

I agree with you. MLB has certainly made its view clear now. Unfortunately the ambiguity in the rule book allowed this situation to occur. My issue is that Torre is basically throwing Layne under the bus even though his ruling can be supported by the rule book. And as much as I hate to make a weak "common sense" argument in a rules discussion, his ruling allowed things to play out fairly, in my opinion. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21174468/joe-torre-confirms-wrong-call-made-passed-ball-nlds-game-5-cubs-nationals

The way I would read the rule book, the comments are there to clarify rules as you apply them. The relevant rule is 6.03(a)3, but Layne judged no interference, so I don't care what the comment says because the rule doesn't apply. Clearly MLB doesn't agree with that interpretation. They should fix the rule book, because Layne's call can be supported in black and white.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21174468/joe-torre-confirms-wrong-call-made-passed-ball-nlds-game-5-cubs-nationals I assume he's referencing something in the MLB Umpires Manual? The way it's written in the rulebook, the correct call was made.

Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm very tired, but wouldn't that make it a foul tip for strike three in their eyes?

The only thing I don't like about it, and I have this problem with replay in the NFL too, is that I like replay to fix the obvious miss. Not the split second off the bag cheap out.

In my view as the two rules that the comment applies to don't apply here, in Layne's judgment, you don't even need to read the comment as it doesn't apply either.

I think the relevant portion is 6.03(a)(3) And the comment that everyone is citing: Paired with Layne's explanation, I'd say the comment holds no relevance, as Layne ruled the minor contact didn't qualify as interference since the pitch went to the backstop and the runners only advanced at that point. I'd say his explanation has rule support.

Wieters admitted he should have blocked Scherzer's pitch, but he attempted to appeal the play by citing interference on Baez's backswing. Home-plate umpire Jerry Layne, the crew chief, told Wieters the rule only applies when a runner is attempting to steal a base. "Backswing interference is a play where a guy is stealing or there's a play being made by a runner hindering the catch. It was a wild pitch and went past him," Layne said. "That is no longer in that particular description, in my judgment. In my judgment, the passed ball changed the whole rule around to where, in my judgment, it had nothing to do with everything [that happened]. Therefore, it didn't have any effect on it, in my judgment."