413 replies to this topic

[RShack]

Aim your body for the base, not the fielder.

 

I didn't mean to "like" this, I just hit the wrong button  

 

Do you think this one is OK?

 

http://m.mlb.com/vid...the-double-play

[RShack]

Aim your body for the base, not the fielder.

 

So, you think breaking up DP's should be illegal unless the MI is standing directly on the bag... is this correct or am I not understanding?  

 

Keep in mind that a rule has to be actually enforceable... which means it has to be based on concrete physical behavior, it can't be based on an ump surmising mental state or motivation...

[RShack]

That was similarly bad. If you want to say it's worse, I'm not going to argue about it.

But congrats, you came up with one example from 3 years ago for this common occurrence.

 

Hello?   You asked for a video and I found it for you... and I did the homework about your Mystery Rule that evidently you couldn't be bothered to do... and now you're giving me a hard time because I didn't peruse all of MLB's archives to prove something to you?  Really?

[mweb08]

Hello?   You asked for a video and I found it for you... and I did the homework about your Mystery Rule that evidently you couldn't be bothered to do... and now you're giving me a hard time because I didn't peruse all of MLB's archives to prove something to you?  Really?

 

Simmer down and stop being an ass for absolutely no good reason. The "mystery rule" had already been linked to on this board, and I mentioned that. I'm so sorry I didn't go look it up for you while I was doing something else. And for someone who is as snarky as you are, you sure don't respond well to a little snark coming at you. 

 

Thanks for the video (honest, no kidding). But you get my point right? You and Nickle are talking about this play being at least somewhat common. Then you mention a play from 3 years ago. Again, thanks for the video, but bringing up that play does exactly what for your argument? You don't have to search the archives, but if the play is common, you should be able to think of more recent examples, heck, there should be multiple examples from O's games this year.

[DJ MC]

So, you think breaking up DP's should be illegal unless the MI is standing directly on the bag... is this correct or am I not understanding?  

 

Keep in mind that a rule has to be actually enforceable... which means it has to be based on concrete physical behavior, it can't be based on an ump surmising mental state or motivation...

 

"Breaking up a double play" in the terms being discussed is the same as a runner running over the catcher. And they stopped that but saying that the runner must go at the base and the catcher must give them a lane. The rule at the other bases already says that they can't be blocked, so you're just making the "go at the base" part the same and adding a bit about sliding so that you either run upright (and risk taking one in the teeth) or actually slide into the base.

[RShack]

"Breaking up a double play" in the terms being discussed is the same as a runner running over the catcher. And they stopped that but saying that the runner must go at the base and the catcher must give them a lane. The rule at the other bases already says that they can't be blocked, so you're just making the "go at the base" part the same and adding a bit about sliding so that you either run upright (and risk taking one in the teeth) or actually slide into the base.

 

I'm not trying to pick nits here, I'm just trying to understand what the criteria would be for whether trying to break up a DP would be legal or not... it's not the same as a play at the plate because the runner's only goal there is to score... what is at issue here is how is your idea gonna work with a runner whose goal is not to be safe at 2nd but to legally interfere with the MI completing an accurate throw to 1B...  

 

I'm just trying to find out what you think the criteria would be, that's all.   If you stop and think about it, I think you'll agree that it's not nearly as neat as the issue of scoring vs. the C... because the issue here is not whether the runner can get to the base OK, the issue is what comprises legal vs illegal interference with the MI completing the 2nd part of the DP...

[RShack]

 The "mystery rule" had already been linked to on this board, and I mentioned that.

 

2 rules have been mentioned.  Neither of them has anything to do with a runner breaking up a DP.

 

7.09(d) refers to a runner who is already out... it's about a guy who has been called out, and thus is no longer a runner, but who nonetheless continues to play an active role on the field despite that fact.  That has nothing to do with a legal runner trying to break up a DP.

 

7.09(e) refers to a runner interfering with a fielder who's trying to field a batted ball.  That has nothing to do with a runner breaking up a DP either.

 

Which means we're still in the dark about your Mystery Rule... because no such rule has been linked to, named, or mentioned.   All we have is your vague claim that it exists somewhere.  

 

So, what rule are you talking about?   You don't have to type the whole thing... just tell us the rule's number and letter.  How hard can that be?

[mweb08]

http://www.sportsone...uld-be-outlawed

[Markus]

How's this for personality (after helping the tying run score)?

 

[RShack]

http://www.sportsone...uld-be-outlawed

 

Thanks for that... glad to see that Torre & Co at least *tried* to tie the suspension to a rule... 

 

I didn't find that rule when I was looking because, silly me, expected rules about the runner to be in the section of rules about the runner...

 

Sadly, they've used that rule for something it never had anything to do with... that rule isn't just about guys sliding into 2B to break up a DP... that rule is about not letting runners double-dip on getting called out...  here's what that rule is for... a runner knows he's gonna be forced out for the 1st out on a DP... so, having nothing to lose, he goes out of the baseline to try to break it up.. because, why not?  He's gonna be out anyway, so who cares if he goes out of the baseline, they can't call him out twice... what this rule does is let the umps call the hitter out too, thus removing the incentive for the doomed runner to leave the baseline in the hope of breaking up the DP...

 

But that has zip to do with sliding into a base unless the runner goes way out of the baseline... because when sliding into a base you're not limited to the narrow baseline... just so you're within reach of the base, you're OK... so, what they've done here has nothing to do with enforcing an ignored rule... what they've done is twist an existing rule into something it's never been for, just so they could say Utley broke a rule when he didn't... plus, this rule isn't about suspending anybody, all it does is allow the umps to call the batter out for the sins of a runner... which is clearly specified to be a judgment call on the part of the umps, and thus is not reviewable....

 

So, they (1) suspended a player based on a rule that has nothing to do with suspending anybody... by (2) using a rule that is for something other than what Utley did... and they did this by (3) invoking that rule after review despite the fact that the that rule *explicitly says* it's a non-reviewable judgment call on the part of the umps...... so, that's at least 3 thing wrong with what they did here...

 

This is just Torre & Co hunting for a CYA excuse for the drama-caused suspension for which there is no legit basis in the rules... they misappropriated a rule, and then misapplied it by reviewing a call that is not reviewable, all in an effort to make that suspension look legit when it's not...  I can't wait to hear what the outcome of the appeal is... if we assume that the appeals process is fact-based, not emotion-based, and is based on the actual rules, then Utley should be able to win this one... 

[bnickle]

http://www.sportsone...uld-be-outlawed

Brian Kenny wrong again. Shocking.

[bnickle]

Thanks for that... glad to see that Torre & Co at least *tried* to tie the suspension to a rule...

I didn't find that rule when I was looking because, silly me, expected rules about the runner to be in the section of rules about the runner...

Sadly, they've used that rule for something it never had anything to do with... that rule isn't just about guys sliding into 2B to break up a DP... that rule is about not letting runners double-dip on getting called out... here's what that rule is for... a runner knows he's gonna be forced out for the 1st out on a DP... so, having nothing to lose, he goes out of the baseline to try to break it up.. because, why not? He's gonna be out anyway, so who cares if he goes out of the baseline, they can't call him out twice... what this rule does is let the umps call the hitter out too, thus removing the incentive for the doomed runner to leave the baseline in the hope of breaking up the DP...

But that has zip to do with sliding into a base unless the runner goes way out of the baseline... because when sliding into a base you're not limited to the narrow baseline... just so you're within reach of the base, you're OK... so, what they've done here has nothing to do with enforcing an ignored rule... what they've done is twist an existing rule into something it's never been for, just so they could say Utley broke a rule when he didn't... plus, this rule isn't about suspending anybody, all it does is allow the umps to call the batter out for the sins of a runner... which is clearly specified to be a judgment call on the part of the umps, and thus is not reviewable....

So, they (1) suspended a player based on a rule that has nothing to do with suspending anybody... by (2) using a rule that is for something other than what Utley did... and they did this by (3) invoking that rule after review despite the fact that the that rule *explicitly says* it's a non-reviewable judgment call on the part of the umps...... so, that's at least 3 thing wrong with what they did here...

This is just Torre & Co hunting for a CYA excuse for the drama-caused suspension for which there is no legit basis in the rules... they misappropriated a rule, and then misapplied it by reviewing a call that is not reviewable, all in an effort to make that suspension look legit when it's not... I can't wait to hear what the outcome of the appeal is... if we assume that the appeals process is fact-based, not emotion-based, and is based on the actual rules, then Utley should be able to win this one...

Exactly, and this was pointed out when Torre made his ruling. Even by people who thought the play was dirty.

[DJ MC]

Thanks for that... glad to see that Torre & Co at least *tried* to tie the suspension to a rule... 

 

I didn't find that rule when I was looking because, silly me, expected rules about the runner to be in the section of rules about the runner...

 

Sadly, they've used that rule for something it never had anything to do with... that rule isn't just about guys sliding into 2B to break up a DP... that rule is about not letting runners double-dip on getting called out...  here's what that rule is for... a runner knows he's gonna be forced out for the 1st out on a DP... so, having nothing to lose, he goes out of the baseline to try to break it up.. because, why not?  He's gonna be out anyway, so who cares if he goes out of the baseline, they can't call him out twice... what this rule does is let the umps call the hitter out too, thus removing the incentive for the doomed runner to leave the baseline in the hope of breaking up the DP...

 

But that has zip to do with sliding into a base unless the runner goes way out of the baseline... because when sliding into a base you're not limited to the narrow baseline... just so you're within reach of the base, you're OK... so, what they've done here has nothing to do with enforcing an ignored rule... what they've done is twist an existing rule into something it's never been for, just so they could say Utley broke a rule when he didn't... plus, this rule isn't about suspending anybody, all it does is allow the umps to call the batter out for the sins of a runner... which is clearly specified to be a judgment call on the part of the umps, and thus is not reviewable....

 

So, they (1) suspended a player based on a rule that has nothing to do with suspending anybody... by (2) using a rule that is for something other than what Utley did... and they did this by (3) invoking that rule after review despite the fact that the that rule *explicitly says* it's a non-reviewable judgment call on the part of the umps...... so, that's at least 3 thing wrong with what they did here...

 

This is just Torre & Co hunting for a CYA excuse for the drama-caused suspension for which there is no legit basis in the rules... they misappropriated a rule, and then misapplied it by reviewing a call that is not reviewable, all in an effort to make that suspension look legit when it's not...  I can't wait to hear what the outcome of the appeal is... if we assume that the appeals process is fact-based, not emotion-based, and is based on the actual rules, then Utley should be able to win this one... 

 

It might be a CYA ruling, but that doesn't mean that they misapplied the rule.

 

Utley wasn't going for the base. I don't care how many knuckles of his outstretched index finger broke the infinite plane above the edge of the base, he was no longer attempting to advance as a baserunner. He was going for the fielder and specifically attempting to break up the play. MLB isn't the Supreme Court; they might prefer to keep precedents in place, but there is nothing that says that they must do so if they feel something unacceptable happened, as in this case.

[RShack]

It might be a CYA ruling, but that doesn't mean that they misapplied the rule.\

 

What?  Just read the rule.   They misapplied it *according to the definition of the very rule they cited*...  first off, that rule has nothing to do with suspensions... that rule is about calling the batter out when the runner leaves the baseline... second, it is defined to be a judgment call by the umps that is not reviewable...