...sounds more like Game 7 of the Stanley Cup tournament...
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
MLB 2019
- Thread starter Gaolee
- Start date
...sounds more like Game 7 of the Stanley Cup tournament...
An S.C. game 7. Heaven on ice!
Wonder which Verlander will show up tonight. And will we see any of Mrs. Verlander in the crowd.
️
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Guaranteed - if Washington wins tonight, all the talk will be about how they saved Scherzer for game 7. If they lose, all the talk will be about how they should have pushed to have him pitch whatever he could give in game 5.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Umpire made the correct call at first base. Every step Turner took was in fair territory. The league has been talking about extending the base into foul territory, like some softball leagues have. But Turner never ran in the lane in foul territory. That is interference.
I'm not sure about that. The throw wasn't from home, it was from near the mound - and the point where the ball hit the glove was in line with the chalk stripe. Any runner who struck the base with his right foot would have had his body positioned to intersect that throw...it would have happened even if the runner had been to the right of the base up to that step.
Edit: I resume that rule exists primarily because of throws from home to first, and that wasn't the case here.
IMO it wasn't interference, it was a poorly placed throw from the pitcher. I also agreed with the comment that in the last step, the runner is entitled to the base path.
Edit: I resume that rule exists primarily because of throws from home to first, and that wasn't the case here.
IMO it wasn't interference, it was a poorly placed throw from the pitcher. I also agreed with the comment that in the last step, the runner is entitled to the base path.
I love y’all, but it’s always been my Mayor Of Simpleton understanding that the runner needs to be Outside the line until the last step.
I was calling Interference before Joe Buck started yakkin’.
B) Who in gawd’s name Wouldn’t want Anthony Rendon on their team?!
Day Um!!
I was calling Interference before Joe Buck started yakkin’.
B) Who in gawd’s name Wouldn’t want Anthony Rendon on their team?!
Day Um!!
Way cool to see Hakeem and Clyde throw out the first pitches.
That interference call, so the runner is supposed to run on the right side of the white line (foul territory) toward first base?
-Mike
That interference call, so the runner is supposed to run on the right side of the white line (foul territory) toward first base?
-Mike
Woot! Bummed for Verlander, but he’s got Kate Upton to comfort him.
Glad to see the Nats win after getting jacked on two bad calls the other night.
Should be a fun Game 7. It would be cool to see Scherzer win it.
Glad to see the Nats win after getting jacked on two bad calls the other night.Should be a fun Game 7. It would be cool to see Scherzer win it.
That is the letter of the rule. It makes sense in the context of balls hit near the 1b line, but I'm 100% with Pilgrim on this, the runner didn't affect the throw, it was a bad throw FROM THE 3B SIDE of the infield that the first baseman had to reach down the line to catch. Astros were rewarded for their poor defense, fortunately, karma and Rendon intervened and took the umps off the hook.
MLB should change rule and give the runner a lane the width of the bag.
"In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball; Rule 6.05(k) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter- runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base."
Baseball Rules - Running Lane to First Base
Baseball Rules - Running Lane to First Base
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2016/official_baseball_rules.pdf page 42
the rule is clear. runner is out for interfering with the fielder.
i've seen that call made against the astros more than once. the ump was clearly positioned to see the entire play unfold. i don't understand the uproar about the situation. maybe casual fans unfamiliar with the rules, or who wish for the umpires not to enforce the rules (remember the george brett/pine tar incident?) can someone give mr. turner and mr. martinez a copy of the rulebook, please?
the rule is clear. runner is out for interfering with the fielder.
i've seen that call made against the astros more than once. the ump was clearly positioned to see the entire play unfold. i don't understand the uproar about the situation. maybe casual fans unfamiliar with the rules, or who wish for the umpires not to enforce the rules (remember the george brett/pine tar incident?) can someone give mr. turner and mr. martinez a copy of the rulebook, please?
the rule states that the runner may exit the running lane to touch first base. one cannot exit a running lane that one has never entered.
The call may be correct by the letter of the rule, but not the spirit. The whole idea behind interference rules is to give each side a fair chance to make a play. The play last night shows why it is a bad rule. Astros were rewarded for a bad throw that forced the 1B to catch it in the base path.
Pilgrim and I are in good company on this. Watch Cal Ripkin and Harold Reynolds explain.
Pilgrim and I are in good company on this. Watch Cal Ripkin and Harold Reynolds explain.
i disagree. first, the video...he says 'i propose...' he (cal) understands what the rule states. he wants the rule changed. that is fine, and i agree. it may be called a bad rule. i would agree with that as well.
but that is not what the rule states. and i don't understand how you ask an umpire not to enforce a rule. the reason they are on the field is to enforce the rules. they don't enforce the "spirit of the rule". that argument is immaterial to the question at hand.
edit: to argue otherwise is to ask the umpires to change enforcement of the rulebook at their whim during a game. i find that argument ludicrous.
wasn't yuli in fair territory when turner struck his glove, ripping it from his hand? doesn't seem like he had a fair chance to make the play, methinks.
edit: mr. bulldog had it right from the get-go. post # 2487
but that is not what the rule states. and i don't understand how you ask an umpire not to enforce a rule. the reason they are on the field is to enforce the rules. they don't enforce the "spirit of the rule". that argument is immaterial to the question at hand.
edit: to argue otherwise is to ask the umpires to change enforcement of the rulebook at their whim during a game. i find that argument ludicrous.
wasn't yuli in fair territory when turner struck his glove, ripping it from his hand? doesn't seem like he had a fair chance to make the play, methinks.
edit: mr. bulldog had it right from the get-go. post # 2487
