Game Ending Int!

[hogsfan787]

http://wap.mlb.com/play?content_id=28147081

 

http://wap.mlb.com/play?content_id=28147081

 

Good call! and I like the way he turns Matheny when he comes out to argue!

[Thunderheads]

he's not even close to 2nd base! LOL

[johnnyg08]

What pi$$es me off is that Matheny is even arguing something that obvious. Unreal.

[grayhawk]

he's not even close to 2nd base! LOL

 

Not to mention the leg kick!

[Thunderheads]

What pi$$es me off is that Matheny is even arguing something that obvious. Unreal.

reminds me of something I told my partner the other night after a stupid comment from a coach ....

 

I said;  "how long have you been doing this? you should EXPECT something stupid every time you step on the field!"

 

This situation with Matheny is similar and just as stupid..... A guy who played AND MANAGES ....yet he's arguing for the sake of arguing!  Crazy

[Mudder]

As the runner IF was well after the tag of the base by F6 (which he missed), can you justify just calling only BR out on that play, if the ump felt the runner did not interfere with the tag of 2B.  I realize this was a neighbourhood play, but what if F6 missed the base by a lot more than what he did?

[johnnyg08]

As the runner IF was well after the tag of the base by F6 (which he missed), can you justify just calling only BR out on that play, if the ump felt the runner did not interfere with the tag of 2B.  I realize this was a neighbourhood play, but what if F6 missed the base by a lot more than what he did?

No, you get two on this type of play. Willful and deliberate interference w/ the intent of breaking up a double play. Must get two.

[BigUmpire]

Is it becoming expected for all MLB managers to come out and yammer on all close calls?

 

No wonder ball games are so long.

[noumpere]

As the runner IF was well after the tag of the base by F6 (which he missed), can you justify just calling only BR out on that play, if the ump felt the runner did not interfere with the tag of 2B.  I realize this was a neighbourhood play, but what if F6 missed the base by a lot more than what he did?

I think he kicked the corner of the base with his back (right) foot as he went by.  Calling the miss (if there was one) or even looking for it here would be a prime example of being a plumber.

 

On Matheny (or whatever his name is) -- in his defense I think we've seen similar / worse not being called.

[maven]

1. This is not a neighborhood play: F6 tagged the base. MLB on down is in the process of eliminating the neighborhood play. (The neighborhood play occurs when a fielder trying to turn 2 has the ball in the neighborhood of the base and is credited by the umpire with having tagged it when he has not.)

 

2. The OBR standard for getting 2 outs for runner INT is: did the runner obviously attempt to prevent a double play? IMO, this is pretty obvious: not sure how much more you'd want!

 

3. You'll still see some skippers come out when this is called. 30 years ago, this provision was almost never enforced; now it is almost always enforced. Some guys are old school, and they struggle to keep up with the game.

 

4. Since the INT provisions at 2B are being enforced, there is far less reason to give fielders the neighborhood play, so my points 1 and 3 are related. New school is: make fielders tag the base, and make runners touch it.

[Mudder]

1. This is not a neighborhood play: F6 tagged the base. MLB on down is in the process of eliminating the neighborhood play. (The neighborhood play occurs when a fielder trying to turn 2 has the ball in the neighborhood of the base and is credited by the umpire with having tagged it when he has not.)

 

2. The OBR standard for getting 2 outs for runner INT is: did the runner obviously attempt to prevent a double play? IMO, this is pretty obvious: not sure how much more you'd want!

 

3. You'll still see some skippers come out when this is called. 30 years ago, this provision was almost never enforced; now it is almost always enforced. Some guys are old school, and they struggle to keep up with the game.

 

4. Since the INT provisions at 2B are being enforced, there is far less reason to give fielders the neighborhood play, so my points 1 and 3 are related. New school is: make fielders tag the base, and make runners touch it.

 

Got it.  I totally agree with the call on the field and the 2 outs, but my question was more if F6 did miss the base, by enough for you to normally call the miss, would you still get the 2 outs even though R1 was probably 10' before the bag when F6 tagged the bag for the our. I got the answer in the last couple of posts....yes if the runner made an obvious and deliberate attempt to break up a DP

 

On a different note, its marginal, but do you think that was a no stop balk?

[maven]

Got it.  I totally agree with the call on the field and the 2 outs, but my question was more if F6 did miss the base, by enough for you to normally call the miss, would you still get the 2 outs even though R1 was probably 10' before the bag when F6 tagged the bag for the our. I got the answer in the last couple of posts....yes if the runner made an obvious and deliberate attempt to break up a DP

 

On a different note, its marginal, but do you think that was a no stop balk?

Yes. 6.05(m) does not distinguish between cases where the interfering runner has or has not yet been put out.

 

And no, I thought he stopped.

[noumpere]

 

Got it.  I totally agree with the call on the field and the 2 outs, but my question was more if F6 did miss the base, by enough for you to normally call the miss, would you still get the 2 outs even though R1 was probably 10' before the bag when F6 tagged the bag for the our. I got the answer in the last couple of posts....yes if the runner made an obvious and deliberate attempt to break up a DP

 

On a different note, its marginal, but do you think that was a no stop balk?

Yes. 6.05(m) does not distinguish between cases where the interfering runner has or has not yet been put out.

 

And no, I thought he stopped.

 

I think theres some play in MLBUM or somewhere that's similar to this where only one out is obtained.  hmm....maybe its a good thing this item wasn't on the espn quiz.

[BigUmpire]

 

As the runner IF was well after the tag of the base by F6 (which he missed), can you justify just calling only BR out on that play, if the ump felt the runner did not interfere with the tag of 2B.  I realize this was a neighbourhood play, but what if F6 missed the base by a lot more than what he did?

I think he kicked the corner of the base with his back (right) foot as he went by.  Calling the miss (if there was one) or even looking for it here would be a prime example of being a plumber.

 

On Matheny (or whatever his name is) -- in his defense I think we've seen similar / worse not being called.

 

Was there dirt on it?

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

Got it.  I totally agree with the call on the field and the 2 outs, but my question was more if F6 did miss the base, by enough for you to normally call the miss, would you still get the 2 outs even though R1 was probably 10' before the bag when F6 tagged the bag for the our. I got the answer in the last couple of posts....yes if the runner made an obvious and deliberate attempt to break up a DP

 

On a different note, its marginal, but do you think that was a no stop balk?

Yes. 6.05(m) does not distinguish between cases where the interfering runner has or has not yet been put out.

 

And no, I thought he stopped.

 

you probably should use 7.09.. 6.05 is the batter who interferes..

[JHSump]

 

 

As the runner IF was well after the tag of the base by F6 (which he missed), can you justify just calling only BR out on that play, if the ump felt the runner did not interfere with the tag of 2B.  I realize this was a neighbourhood play, but what if F6 missed the base by a lot more than what he did?

I think he kicked the corner of the base with his back (right) foot as he went by.  Calling the miss (if there was one) or even looking for it here would be a prime example of being a plumber.

 

On Matheny (or whatever his name is) -- in his defense I think we've seen similar / worse not being called.

 

Was there dirt on it?

 

Oh, yeah!  Those MLB umpires know their jobs!  And, the whys and what fors!  

[maven]

 

Yes. 6.05(m) does not distinguish between cases where the interfering runner has or has not yet been put out.

 

you probably should use 7.09.. 6.05 is the batter who interferes..

 

Thanks for the tip, but you're wrong.

6.05 A batter is out when—

(m) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a

fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to

complete any play:

      Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for

deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline

for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying

to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play.

[Thunderheads]

From MLBNetwork last night ................ pretty cool!

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=28179043&topic_id=7417714

[noumpere]

Cool I guess but the wrong rule was sited.  You'd think someone would ask why that rule applies since it specifically says "batted ball or fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball" and the interference was not with either of those.

[Thunderheads]

Cool I guess but the wrong rule was sited.  You'd think someone would ask why that rule applies since it specifically says "batted ball or fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball" and the interference was not with either of those.

moreso that it was featured and the Culbreth was given props for the correct call ......... I understand your point, ...should have been 6.05

[maven]

Hey, he stuck his nose in the book and gave props to FC. I'll take it!

[Thunderheads]

Hey, he stuck his nose in the book and gave props to FC. I'll take it!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that was more my intent

[maven]

 

Hey, he stuck his nose in the book and gave props to FC. I'll take it!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that was more my intent

 

 

Cool. I guess I've just never heard of him referred to as "the Culbreth."