Jump to content

Phillies/Padres July 4: Infield pop falls to the ground


buckyswider

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I may be overthinking this, but I can't figure out what the umpires decided to call on this play.  It's at about 2:20 of the highlight video down below.

Situation is runner on 1st, one out.  Infield pop up by the batter (Bohm) between the mound and first.  The runner on first (Hoskins) stays parked on the bag.  1bman lets the ball fall to the ground untouched.  Bohm, who had not been running hard, sprints to first as the 1Bman picks up the ball and throws to first to the 2bman who  was covering.  It's a bang bang play and the 1B ump calls the batter/runner out.  Replay shows that B/R actually beats the throw.  The batting team had already wasted their challenge, so no replay review is possible (probably wouldn't have been fruitful anyway, with the possible advantage of replacing the piano-carrying Hoskins with the fleeter Bohm on 1B).

So I'm wondering:  was the B/R called out simply as a result of a kicked call?  (Not throwing shade here, it was bang-bang, with a lot of moving parts and extraneous players :) ).  Or was there something else going on?  Had the "proper" safe call happened on the B/R, the covering defender (2bman) did then tag R1 still standing on first, so an out would have happened either way.  (Interestingly, as a result of a slight collision with the covering defender, B1 ended up about 5 feet on the infield side of the line, so if a safe call had been made, I can forsee a situation where R1 is called out on the tag, and then B1 is tagged out before returning to first.  But I digress)   By the way, if any of you heard the Phillies telecast, it was infuriating, as the PBP guy kept saying that "the lead runner has the right to the bag, which is why the batter was called out".  Which of course is not the case here, and R1 is forced to advance.

 

So am I overthinking this and B/R was just called out by what replay showed to be an incorrect (albeit very very close) call?  Thanks!   

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

At first, I thought they called "passing" on Bohm, the BR.  But it turned out they called the out at first on the batter runner because they stepped on the bag, retiring the BR, prior to tagging R1.  The mechanics were hard to read because of the point on the putout of the BR.  The timing of the point is what led me to believe he called "passing" while R1 remained on first.  Great case play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, thanks!  That's something I hadn't even considered.  So if the play hadn't been close, and B/R called safe, his movement towards second would've/should've immediately resulted in a "passing" violation, and again given R1 "protection" from being tagged while in contact with first.  Yes, it is very interesting!

What would the situation be if B/R, (after having hypothetically being ruled safe), instead of going toward second, had rebounded into foul ground or straight down the line?  Would that still be considered passing??  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) I find it hard to believe that a MLB umpire would consider bouncing off the infielder towards second an attempt to advance--or passing--especially in the circumstances. (2) If the BR was called out, he cannot be considered to have passed R1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LRZ said:

(1) I find it hard to believe that a MLB umpire would consider bouncing off the infielder towards second an attempt to advance--or passing--especially in the circumstances. (2) If the BR was called out, he cannot be considered to have passed R1.

 

I didn't think intent was in play here...just the case that he's now 6 feet closer to his next destination was all that matters.  Obviously I don't *know*, and would appreciate opinions from all!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, buckyswider said:

I didn't think intent was in play here...just the case that he's now 6 feet closer to his next destination was all that matters.  Obviously I don't *know*, and would appreciate opinions from all!  

"Intent" is not the language in the rule, which reads "attempts to run to second," OBR 5.09(b)(11). As for the six feet closer to second, it's pretty clear he wound up there because of the impact with the fielder, a second reason why the BR did not demonstrate "an attempt" to advance.

There was a recent thread about this, discussing whether simply turning to the left is sufficient evidence of an attempt to advance, and when the current rule came into being: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/75975-turn-left-after-running-to-1st/?tab=comments#comment-395527

Where in SE PA are you? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, LRZ said:

"Intent" is not the language in the rule, which reads "attempts to run to second," OBR 5.09(b)(11). As for the six feet closer to second, it's pretty clear he wound up there because of the impact with the fielder, a second reason why the BR did not demonstrate "an attempt" to advance.

There was a recent thread about this, discussing whether simply turning to the left is sufficient evidence of an attempt to advance, and when the current rule came into being: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/75975-turn-left-after-running-to-1st/?tab=comments#comment-395527

Where in SE PA are you? 

Thanks, I'll check out that thread.   I'm in the Lafayette Hill area, just off the border of NW Philly.  I have 20-some years under my belt, but have been "retired" since about 2003 right after my kid was born.  Now that he's heading for college in the fall, I'm "unretiring" because tuition!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I read that thread and did a little more surfing.  I think I see where I screwed up.  Shaking the cobwebs off, I recall I would always lean towards an "attempt" when a batter/runner made a turn of more than a foot or two to the left on a play where there's a potential advance- like an overthrown ball.  The reasoning behind that is that I always thought that in this scenario, the b/r would in fact gain an unfair advantage should in fact they decide to try for second.  Judgement call for sure, but I always leaned that way.  Fast forward, I forgot my thought process vis-a-vis the rule in that situation, and only remembered the "advantage" part.  

I'm not excusing myself or trying to justify myself- I just value learning why  I made a mistake or had a misconception so I don't repeat it in the future.

 

But thanks for setting me straight here.  I'm sure I'll be around these parts a lot as my return to the diamond continues! 

Link to comment
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...