OT: MLB one game Wildcard times 2 Open Thread

Submitted by Blue boy johnson on October 5th, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Interested to see how this inaugral one game Wildcard matchups unfolds. I don't like the idea of a one and done in baseball, but I'm listening.

Cards v Braves in first game: This is a wild one so far with the Cards up 3-2 in the 5th. Looked as though the Braves had tied game in bottom 4 but runner was (rightfully) called out for interference while trying to beat out a bunt, and the tying run came off the board

 

Orioles v Rangers in second game: Go Orioles. Based on last season no team scares me more than the Rangers, so I would like to see the O's advance. It wil be Yu Darvish for the Rangers matching up against Joe Saunders for the O's.

Comments

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 8:15 PM ^

It's a routine call. They don't let you become an umpire if you wouldn't make that call.

Honest to god, hasn't anyone here been to umpire school?

Again, it's completely true that the call should have been made earlier and there would have been a lot less confusion and controversy if they'd done it correctly. I'm not defending that.

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 8:42 PM ^

It is called all the time on popups to the shallow outfield. Nobody pays any attention most of the time because the infielder catches the ball.

I should know better than to argue about baseball rules on a football blog.

 

Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder—, not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder.

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 9:35 PM ^

I saw it happen several times this year, and on balls the infielder was less clearly underneath than this one. You don't usually see it on television because the umpires aren't on screen, but if you're at the park when an infielder gets called off a high shallow pop in an infield fly situation you'll see one of the base umpires with his hand in the air making the out call.

Nobody comments and hardly anyone notices because it very rarely affects the play.

------

The funny thing about all this is that if I'm right and it was the umpire's late call that the shortstop thought had called him off, the Braves actually wound up benefiting from it by having both baserunners move up.

TheLastHarbaugh

October 5th, 2012 at 8:15 PM ^

That call completley violates the manner in which the rule is supposed to be called.

Hypothetically, if a hitter skies a ball 1000ft into the air and the short stop runs all the way to the wall, and stands under it for a good few seconds before the ball falls, you could technically call infield fly, but it would be wrong.

sec20

October 5th, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^

the rule is in place so that a double play can not be turned by dropping a fly ball.  it is suppose to protect the team batting. 

 

No way in hell they would have turned a double play by dropping the fly ball

Vivz

October 5th, 2012 at 8:02 PM ^

 Wow just wow. Selig must have felt he was losing the least liked commisioner race wtih Bettman, Goodell and Stern. 

(yes replay would never have overturned a call like that but whatever BLAME SELIG!)

rabble

State Street

October 5th, 2012 at 8:10 PM ^

In all my years of watching baseball, I have never seen anything remotely like this.  This is batshit crazy.

The infield fly rule has gotta be the worst rule in sports.

Blue boy johnson

October 5th, 2012 at 8:18 PM ^

Shades of the 1934 World Series when Tiger fans became incensed by Cardinal Joe "ducky" Medwick and pelted the field with all sorts of things on the field, including fruits and vegetables. I guess it was a much healthier group attending games back in '34.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_World_Series

 

In the sixth inning of Game 7, Joe Medwick slid hard into Marv Owen, the Tigers' third baseman, after hitting a triple. They tangled briefly, and when Medwick went to his position in left field, the Detroit fans, knowing the game was lost (the score was 9–0 by then), vented their frustrations on Medwick, throwing fruit, vegetables, bottles, cushions, etc., at him. Commissioner Landis ordered Medwick (and Owen) benched to end the ruckus. Newsreel footage shows Medwick slamming his glove onto the dugout bench in disgust.

Vivz

October 5th, 2012 at 8:41 PM ^

Any chance anything actually comes of it?

Not a rule i actually understand, if its protested why do they keep playing? In this game why not get an immediate ruling from Selig?

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 8:45 PM ^

A protested game is played to completion and then the protest is considered. They'd usually have 24 hours to consider it but in an elimination playoff game I'm guessing we'll have a response tonight.

If it's upheld, they could require the game to be picked up at the point of the protest.

It won't be.

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 8:56 PM ^

There isn't even any grounds for a protest; though it isn't the umpires' call to determine that and they have to accept the protest and pass it through to the league.

The dispute here is over whether or not the shortstop could have made the play with ordinary effort. The umpire's judgment on that point is final and can't be overturned.

A misapplication of the rule, like sending the runners back to their original bases or calling an infield fly when there were two out or there weren't runners on first and second, could be protested. The umpires judgment can't be.

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 9:00 PM ^

(1) the pine tar game. Brett was awarded the homer and the game was picked up from that point.

(2) Pittsburgh protested a game in the 80s because the umpires called the game for rain too quickly (with the Pirates behind)--apparently there are rules in place mandating a minimum length of rain delay before a game can be declared final.

 

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 9:05 PM ^

Apparently this is a complete list.

http://www.retrosheet.org/protests.htm

Good stuff, and a good reminder of how loose things were in the old days. I especially liked this one from 1921:

 

On May 28, CIN at PIT in the bottom of the 8th Ron notes: "On the play at the plate, Luque made the tag, but got so mad at the safe call he threw the ball into the Reds dugout! Someone threw it out to Wingo and the rundown on Barnhart started! The Pirates complained, but the umps ruled in favor of the Reds!" The game was replayed from this point after the league President ruled that the assistance from the dugout was a little too much. The New York Times story on the game played the next day by the same two teams notes another interesting fate of a ball: "The ninth inning was featured by a freak home run when Barnhart's hit into right field went under a roll of canvass. The ball was recovered by a small boy, who fled with it, and the hit went for a homer". Apparently there was no protest about this!

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 10:48 PM ^

The Reds might have protested Barnhart's homer when it happened, but since they eventually won the game in the 13th there would have been no reason to pursue it.

That's one of the odd things about baseball's protest system--if the protest has merit, by first finishing the game and then replaying it they basically give the protesting team two chances to win.

B-Nut-GoBlue

October 5th, 2012 at 9:29 PM ^

Obviously not going to change one another's minds, but I'm a Braves fan who is saddened.  That call sucked and was wrong no matter who was playing.  It's all over the social media's and what not and Card's fans and others will feel the right call was made; again, no changing of minds will be had.  Howevaaaa, the Braves, true to form, pissed away their chances when they had them (on defense as well).  Adios Larry Jr..  I grew up with the guy, so it'll be weird next year without No. 10 in the lineup.

Camped under the ball seems to be what's under interpretation.  Running 25 yards to the ball and being there for a second, before ducking out & thinking he was called off, is not camped.  As others have noted, especially when the LF could have caught the ball routinely (though, yes, that has nothing to do with the rule).  I feel it was poorly interpreted by the umpire - who usually isn't even positioned there in normal games.

Also: Atlanta fans were bad boys and girls, yes, but think if this would have taken place in Philly (or maybe even Boston)!! Wowzer

Michael

October 5th, 2012 at 10:26 PM ^

I'm also a Braves fan and I think the fans were also upset about the interference call from earlier. While that was probably the correct call, I think the larger takeaway from this whole thing is that the new playoff format is horrible for the game. Baseball is not supposed to be played one game at a time, and this latest debacle is one of many reasons why that is the case.

Yeoman

October 5th, 2012 at 10:33 PM ^

This I completely agree with. One-game baseball playoffs are an abomination. It's bad enough when they're used to settle a season-long tie (the NL used to play best-of-three) but at least then there's the plausible explanation that they're just extending the season an extra day.

Building it into the ordinary playoff routine is absurd. But I suppose they've got us where they want us, in front of a television....

mackbru

October 5th, 2012 at 9:59 PM ^

The Braves lost the high ground when their fans acted like a pack of drunken rednecks. And the call, though iffy at best, did not determine the game.

Michael

October 5th, 2012 at 10:19 PM ^

I couldn't find a place to put this in the whole Yeoman debate, but here it is:

 

This was an historically bad call for at least two reasons:

1) the rule calls that an infielder must be able to make the play in routine fashion (I believe the rule uses "ordinary" but it basically the same thing). When an infielder is that deep in the outfielder and there is a communication error, there is NOTHING routine about that play.

2) The infield fly should be called IMMEDIATELY. This is to allow the defense to play the ball appropriately and also to limit the bounds of the play; if it is unclear whether or not the infield fly rule is applicapble immediately after the ball is batted, then it is not supposed to be ruled as such. The fact that it is required to be declared immediately is designed as a check against such egregiously bad calls as this one. 

And to add, I have been trained as an umpire and I played 2B and SS for a total of 14 years. That is not a routine play. The ball was batted into what is essentially no man's land. These are major league baseball players having trouble judging the location of the ball and trouble communicating who should field it.