Jump to content
grayhawk

Finding Interesting Plays

Recommended Posts

Here’s how little I thought of the runner’s movements ... I kept watching the batter over and over trying to figure out what you were talking about with arm flails and leg kicks.

Yeah, I got nothing on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Here’s how little I thought of the runner’s movements ... I kept watching the batter over and over trying to figure out what you were talking about with arm flails and leg kicks.

Yeah, I got nothing on it.

 

The arm flails are nothing - it's him balancing himself as he pivots.

I missed it the first time, but on the initial throw from F2 to F5, you see R3 do a bit of a "dance" with his foot. It appears he's kicking it out in an attempt to deflect the ball. I've attached a photo with his leg outstretched. If you watch that section of the replay, it's definitely not an attempt to move or pivot.

kick.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe -- or, it's part of the move and he realizes he might be in the way, so pulls the leg back, and that's what makes it look like an attempt to interfere.

So, HTBT.

Share this post


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

The arm flails are nothing - it's him balancing himself as he pivots.

I missed it the first time, but on the initial throw from F2 to F5, you see R3 do a bit of a "dance" with his foot. It appears he's kicking it out in an attempt to deflect the ball. I've attached a photo with his leg outstretched. If you watch that section of the replay, it's definitely not an attempt to move or pivot.

kick.jpg

 

I finally saw it (when I posted that), but it took several times of looking for it after reading the posts.  Like I said, that’s how significant it really was.  Initially I thought the question was going to be on the batter’s stutter step (note the catcher double pumps) so I kept looking at that. (Still got nothing there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Here's one to teach new umpires to wait on the 'foul' call.  Cardinals / Giants, bottom of the first.  Paul DeJong hits a ball that lands 10 feet foul.  Then physics take over...

https://www.mlb.com/video/dejong-s-strange-single

Oh yeah, I’ve lost count of the putz partners I’ve had who are CALLING that foul immediately.

Ugh. :Facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have had a few of those........

Hmmm.....putz partner....... I like that.  I think I'm going to use that.  I can just see it now.........

Partner:  Why did you keep yelling PP during the game?  Hey PP, I'm on the line.......Hey PP, I'm staying home....etc? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last play of the top of the 8th in the Cubs/Mariners game. It involved a back throw, bad baserunning, a time play, one upheld review and one review not allowed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RLI play as requested by @Richvee in the Balk thread.  I let it play so the idiot color commentator could illuminate us with his brilliance. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goody14 said:

Last play of the top of the 8th in the Cubs/Mariners game. It involved a back throw, bad baserunning, a time play, one upheld review and one review not allowed...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

RLI play as requested by @Richvee in the Balk thread.  I let it play so the idiot color commentator could illuminate us with his brilliance. 

 

I'll give the one announcer credit - he absolutely knows the rule and was arguing with "idiot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, yawetag said:

I'll give the one announcer credit - he absolutely knows the rule and was arguing with "idiot".

Pretty sure that was Dwayne Staats who knew what he was talking about. Not sure who the idiot with him is, but my money says he's an ex-player. 

About the call itself. I'm on the fence here if we have a catchable throw. Also very odd to see RLV called when the ball isn't coming from the "box" in front of home plate. This makes me wonder about a wide throw from, let's say the SS position, or behind 2B, that sails inside, F3 has to lunge towards it and BR is in the way in out of the running lane. IIRC, there's a manual or book that recommends never calling this if the ball isn't coming from the box in front of HP.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

RLI play as requested by @Richvee in the Balk thread.  I let it play so the idiot color commentator could illuminate us with his brilliance. 

 

To answer the OP, yes, this was a sufficiently quality throw.  The ball "ticked" F3's (or maybe it was F4's) mitt -- he could have caught the ball without the INT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting TIme play review.  I don't know enough about the replay rules, but I can see why they don't allow a second challenge if the OP is upheld.  They could, of course, also just agree to look at all aspects of the play once it's reviewed, although that can open other issues, too.

Share this post


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

Interesting TIme play review.  I don't know enough about the replay rules, but I can see why they don't allow a second challenge if the OP is upheld.  They could, of course, also just agree to look at all aspects of the play once it's reviewed, although that can open other issues, too.

Seems to me like Madden could have told the crew chief that if the out at second is upheld that he would then want to have the time play reviewed.

Share this post


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

To answer the OP, yes, this was a sufficiently quality throw.  The ball "ticked" F3's (or maybe it was F4's) mitt -- he could have caught the ball without the INT.

I think it's really close.  That throw was not good, and MAYBE the fielder could have caught it if not for BR out of the lane.  I suspect on a borderline play like that, PU gave the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I think it's really close.  That throw was not good, and MAYBE the fielder could have caught it if not for BR out of the lane.  I suspect on a borderline play like that, PU gave the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

My issue is when the ball is fielded and thrown from that far "out of the box", would the BR have hindered F4's ability to make a catch any less if he was in the lane? Should that make a difference in the call? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Richvee said:

My issue is when the ball is fielded and thrown from that far "out of the box", would the BR have hindered F4's ability to make a catch any less if he was in the lane? Should that make a difference in the call? 

In MLB, it doesn't make a difference.  RLI has been called when throws have originated from F5 playing in his normal position.  There is a statement in the BRD for FED that the throw must originate from an area behind the BR.  So for FED, it would matter.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, noumpere said:

To answer the OP, yes, this was a sufficiently quality throw.  The ball "ticked" F3's (or maybe it was F4's) mitt -- he could have caught the ball without the INT.

 

Not sure how you can call that a “quality throw” when F3 is already up in the air with the batter runner still three steps away.  F3 goes up and then realizes how far off line the throw is.  The BR is not what prevented him from getting there.  Umps bailed them out on two bad plays there.

As the wiser announcer stated though, running out of the lane opens you up to that kind of call.  Had he been in the lane, nothing would have been different except that he would have been protected.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same game. Pujols called for backswing interference.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the no-call -- it's close and a call probably could be supported.  But, the side view seems to show pretty clearly that F2 was not really hindered there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, noumpere said:

On the no-call -- it's close and a call probably could be supported.  But, the side view seems to show pretty clearly that F2 was not really hindered there.

I think it's close too.  Hard to say on the hinderance or lack thereof.  I know a lot of guys think this would be automatic, which it's not.  However, when a batter steps or leans over the plate, I think calling it keeps you out of trouble more than it gets you into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...