GDT 8/28 1st Place @ Last Place

[Mays-Fan]

Too early......

Ha! I started at 163!

 

[msgkings322]

So last night, Yadier Molina blocks the plate, and the runner, Josh Harrison, blows him up trying to get home. Matheny/Cardinals retaliate by throwing at Harrison. Pirates weren't too happy with the plunking.

Of course, this reminds us of the Cousins/Posey incident. Harrison's play was clean, Cousins' was not, yet the Giants did not retaliate, but the Cardinals did. Who's playing the game right? The Giants or Cardinals?

Interestingly, both managers former catchers so you think they'd know the nuances pretty well. Maybe it's a macho thing with Noggin, real men ignore it?

 

[gp956]

Interestingly, both managers former catchers so you think they'd know the nuances pretty well. Maybe it's a macho thing with Noggin, real men ignore it?

Seems to me like Bochy is the anti-old-school manager. Doesn't like bunting players into scoring position, and never retaliates. Can't say that, at the end of the day, Bochy's approach isn't the best one. But I know if I was in the same situation, and someone took out one of my players with any extra gusto, they'd be hitting the dirt at some point in the game.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So last night, Yadier Molina blocks the plate, and the runner, Josh Harrison, blows him up trying to get home. Matheny/Cardinals retaliate by throwing at Harrison. Pirates weren't too happy with the plunking.

Of course, this reminds us of the Cousins/Posey incident. Harrison's play was clean, Cousins' was not, yet the Giants did not retaliate, but the Cardinals did. Who's playing the game right? The Giants or Cardinals?

MLB (the officers) needs to state that the existing rules will be enforced, and it is not legal to take out a defensive player at ANY base, including catcher.

 

[Heathbar012]

MLB (the officers) needs to state that the existing rules will be enforced, and it is not legal to take out a defensive player at ANY base, including catcher.

There it is. Emphasize the black and white that somehow has been grayed by time and "tradition."

 

[calsnowskier]

MLB (the officers) needs to state that the existing rules will be enforced, and it is not legal to take out a defensive player at ANY base, including catcher.

There it is. Emphasize the black and white that somehow has been grayed by time and "tradition."

Spoken like true tz alts.

Well done!!

 

[gp956]

MLB (the officers) needs to state that the existing rules will be enforced, and it is not legal to take out a defensive player at ANY base, including catcher.

Well, in the context of the existing status quo, "playing the game right," means playing it according to traditional mores.

Nevertheless, where is the specific rule that a runner can't "take out" a defensive player who has possession of the ball and is in the runners line to the next base? And, here, we should define "take out" as body to body contact without an attempt to swipe the ball out of the glove.

 

[msgkings322]

Well, in the context of the existing status quo, "playing the game right," means playing it according to traditional mores.

Nevertheless, where is the specific rule that a runner can't "take out" a defensive player who has possession of the ball and is in the runners line to the next base? And, here, we should define "take out" as body to body contact without an attempt to swipe the ball out of the glove.

Didn't tzill get pretty detailed on this wrt Posey? The rule is something like you can't block a player's path to a base (so catchers can't block home any more than second basemen can block 2nd), and the runner cannot make contact with the fielder if that fielder is allowing a path to the base. That's how I remember it anyway.

It's either going to be fielder's interference for blocking (he's safe) or runner's interference for contact (he's out).

 

[gp956]

Didn't tzill get pretty detailed on this wrt Posey? The rule is something like you can't block a player's path to a base (so catchers can't block home any more than second basemen can block 2nd), and the runner cannot make contact with the fielder if that fielder is allowing a path to the base. That's how I remember it anyway.

It's either going to be fielder's interference for blocking (he's safe) or runner's interference for contact (he's out).

I'm looking for the specific rule, without having to spend all day reading the rule-book. Marco is usually pretty good at providing that kind of detail. I know there is a rule that specifically disallows a catcher from blocking the plate if he doesn't have the ball, I assume this applies to all bases and all defenders. But I can't find anything that says a defender with the ball can't block the path of the runner while attempting a tag. Further, I don't see anything that says a runner can't run through the defender if they are attempting the tag while also being in the runner's line.

In my own experience playing, I've run through tags when advancing a base and had the ball dropped without an interference call being made by the ump either way. That's why I asked the question - maybe there is a rule, but as Marco states, it's not enforced.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I'm looking for the specific rule, without having to spend all day reading the rule-book. Marco is usually pretty good at providing that kind of detail. I know there is a rule that specifically disallows a catcher from blocking the plate if he doesn't have the ball, I assume this applies to all bases and all defenders. But I can't find anything that says a defender with the ball can't block the path of the runner while attempting a tag. Further, I don't see anything that says a runner can't run through the defender if they are attempting the tag while also being in the runner's line.

It's in the definitions :

Rule 2.00 : Definitions of terms

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules.


OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Arena baseball update:

LA 10
Rox 5

Rox have bases loaded one out

Bot 8

 

[Mays-Fan]

Arena baseball update:

LA 10
Rox 5

Rox have bases loaded one out

Bot 8

10-8 2 out bot 8

 

[Robotech]

Arena baseball update:

LA 10
Rox 5

Rox have bases loaded one out

Bot 8

Rocks showing a lot of heart. It will be incredible if they can pull this off. 10-8, 2 outs in the Top of the Ninth. Nobody on.

 

[SFAnthem]

Rocks showing a lot of heart. It will be incredible if they can pull this off. 10-8, 2 outs in the Top of the Ninth. Nobody on.

They owe us more.

'93 - we shall not forget

 

[Robotech]

Dodgers hang on. But hey, sweeps are hard.

 

[Robotech]

They owe us more.

'93 - we shall not forget

LOL. I was thinking about that yesterday. Their O-fer against the Braves that year still stings.

 

[gp956]

It's in the definitions :

Rule 2.00 : Definitions of terms

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules.


OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

I guess the rub here is what constitutes interference with a defenders ability to make a play. The usual application of this rule is in an instance of a runner interfering with a defenders path to a ground ball. It's never applied to receiving throws, for instance, and I can't remember it being applied to tag plays, home plate or otherwise. And by "never applied," I mean not in cases where a runner is in his established line to the bag, and makes no extra effort to interfere, e.g. throwing up a hand, hip checking, and such.


If this is all there is in the rule-book then I don't see anything that specifically outlaws running through a defender on a tag play. And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a rule about this, just to be clear.

 

[Robotech]

Remember too in '98 when they came back against us after being down big. We could have wrapped up the wildcard, IIRC. I think I remember Julian Tavarez being involved in that meltdown.

 

[gp956]

LOL. I was thinking about that yesterday. Their O-fer against the Braves that year still stings.

Funny, I was really pissed off for a long time at Don Baylor for playing a bunch of scrubs (minor league scrubs, as opposed to the veteran scrubs that had as everyday players back then) against the Braves down the stretch. But a few years ago I looked at the lineups they put up and concluded they were, in fact, playing their best guys. Kinda ruined a good grudge for me.

 

[Robotech]

Funny, I was really pissed off for a long time at Don Baylor for playing a bunch of scrubs (minor league scrubs, as opposed to the veteran scrubs that had as everyday players back then) against the Braves down the stretch. But a few years ago I looked at the lineups they put up and concluded they were, in fact, playing their best guys. Kinda ruined a good grudge for me.

The Rockies and Marlins of '93 were terrible. I guess we just have ourselves to blame for not running the table against those teams. I still love Dusty, but the Salomon Torres decision still bugs me. Pitch Swift (or was it Burkett?) on 3 days rest. C'mon.