That doesn't make sense. "The game should not have been stopped, unless the umpires knew it would be restarted?" Seems to me, the head ump decided, "I should have stopped this two batters ago, but I'm giving you one more chance. Okay, there are standing puddles on the field and it's pouring. We're stopping."

Now did Morales have a good idea of that and un-intentionally walked the last guy? Pretty savvy if he did.

My sense is that they've gotten very lax in not starting. I've seen games played in steady rain. It just seems they used to stop play sooner, not start in rain, etc.

My sense is that they've gotten very lax in not starting. I've seen games played in steady rain. It just seems they used to stop play sooner, not start in rain, etc.

I blame interleague play.

This would never have happened if it weren't for the second wild card.

I blame the designated hitter.

Seriously though, they should start the next day and pick up exactly where they left off - 6th inning, bases loaded. A team isn't going to complain about a rain shortened loss if you're down 12-0. The may even welcome it, saving the bullpen. This game was not over by any stretch.

They have to live with the dumb rules as they are written and interpreted for this game, but in the future the rules should be changed so this appearance of favoratism never happens.

This sort of thing was inevitable when women's lib led to phonics and The New Math.

I was mostly serious. Teams have lost six series they would have played against competition in their own league, which means, in some cases, one visit per year instead of two. Fewer visits means the umpires may be more inclined to try to squeeze in a game than they would have when making it up later in the year would have been easier.

(Not saying last night's game specifically applies, just responding to bunyon's initial observation).

This game was not over by any stretch

Considering the Tigers haven't hit with runners on base all freakin' year, yeah, it was over. (Hell, it was over the minute the Red Sox scored their second run.)

The Sox and Tigers are playing again tonight and then both have off days on Thursday. Boston's next series is also at home and the Tigers just have to get back to Detroit. I don't know what the specific rules are, but if baseball hadn't grown so averse to doubleheaders and the union so insistent on preserving off days then it would have been easy to either reschedule or complete this game.

They have to live with the dumb rules as they are written and interpreted for this game, but in the future the rules should be changed so this appearance of favoratism never happens.

What favoritism? The umpires are the ones making the call once the game starts. Unless you think the umps are in the back pocket of the Red Sox that's a tough sell (particularly given that the Sox ##### and moan as much as any team in the league).

Seriously though, they should start the next day and pick up exactly where they left off - 6th inning, bases loaded. A team isn't going to complain about a rain shortened loss if you're down 12-0. The may even welcome it, saving the bullpen. This game was not over by any stretch.

I generally agree with this but I think it's a pretty big logistical problem. Last night's situation is an easy one, pick it up today, but what if it happens tonight during the last Tigers-Red Sox game of the season? It's a pain in the ass for the Tigers to have to travel to Boston to play 3 innings of baseball on a mutually agreed upon off day.

The situation last night absolutely sucks for the Tigers. I think they have every right to be pissed. I wasn't watching in the sixth but I'd be curious how much the rain picked up that it was OK to have Avila's at bat but then not let Peralta bat. When the game started it really wasn't coming down very hard and didn't start until the 3rd or 4th.

I agree that it's silly to not re-start a game in a situation such as this.

Perhaps at a minimum they should have a mercy rule type system, where if a team is down by (say) 7 runs or more after the 5 innings, go ahead and kill the game.

I thought a game could only be called and considered finished after the completion of an inning, unless the home team was ahead?

(expletive deleted)

I thought a game could only be called and considered finished after the completion of an inning, unless the home team was ahead?

If the Tigers had tied/taken the lead last night the game would have to be completed. That rule was changed about 4-5 years ago. Before that if the road team tied/took the lead in the top of the inning but the game was called before the home team batted those runs were wiped out and the score reverted to the end of the last completed inning.

So was the problem last night starting a game that shouldn't have ever begun (which, of course, could not be an act that looked like favoritism), stopping it too soon, ruling it over too soon or just bad luck for the Tigers?

Considering the Tigers haven't hit with runners on base all freakin' year, yeah, it was over. (Hell, it was over the minute the Red Sox scored their second run.)

Forgetten Avila's April homer off Aceves already? Thanks to Beckett's injury, Tigers were already well into the bullpen.

What favoritism? The umpires are the ones making the call once the game starts. Unless you think the umps are in the back pocket of the Red Sox that's a tough sell (particularly given that the Sox ##### and moan as much as any team in the league).

I don't think the umps were doing it out of favoritism. But the circumstances where they called it - right when Detroit loaded the bases - well, they couldn't have picked a worse time if they tried.

Perhaps at a minimum they should have a mercy rule type system, where if a team is down by (say) 7 runs or more after the 5 innings, go ahead and kill the game.

Sounds reasonable to me.

"Hello. I wish to register a complaint."

If the Tigers had tied/taken the lead last night the game would have to be completed. That rule was changed about 4-5 years ago. Before that if the road team tied/took the lead in the top of the inning but the game was called before the home team batted those runs were wiped out and the score reverted to the end of the last completed inning.

It was actually changed after 1978, because the Orioles intentionally dumped the water from the tarp into left field to wipe out a Yankees win in '78.

The umpires always try to give the losing team a chance to tie the game before they stop. This lead to the situation in the World Series in 2008 where they kept playing in a downpour until the Rays tied it, so the World Series wouldn't end with a rainout. They changed the rule so that all postseason games can only be suspended, not ended by rain. A fair rule.

IMO, they should change the regular season suspended game rule to be that if a team has the tying run on base or at the plate, the game is suspended, not over.

They should've pulled the tarps right after the 5th; the rain picked up visibly at that time, and in the 6th there were puddles forming on the infield. Middlebrooks makes his share of crummy throws, but I believe the wetness affected his unhurried but wild heave that Pedroia saved, but that killed the chances for a DP. The mound looked like it was getting slimy, and that may have spoiled both Morales' pickoff throw (looked to have the runner beat but was 3' toward the dugout) and his attempted low strikes to Peralta. We'll never know for sure, but the conditions might have already given the Tigers 4 outs that inning before the umpires stopped things.

And why not finish suspended games the next day if the same teams are playing, before the scheduled game? Since I've been interested in baseball, almost 60 yr, MLB has moved all over the place concerning completion/non-completion of games stopped by weather or curfew.

Perhaps at a minimum they should have a mercy rule type system, where if a team is down by (say) 7 runs or more after the 5 innings, go ahead and kill the game.

Because then it would be over?

The umpires always try to give the losing team a chance to tie the game before they stop. This lead to the situation in the World Series in 2008 where they kept playing in a downpour until the Rays tied it, so the World Series wouldn't end with a rainout. They changed the rule so that all postseason games can only be suspended, not ended by rain. A fair rule.

That game wasn't going to end with a rainout though because Selig had the authority to declare it suspended instead of completed (he even said so himself afterwards that he wouldn't have allowed the game to end with a rainout if the Rays didn't score). The problem is that he let the teams play on in appalling conditions so he didn't have to stick his neck out a bit and make a decision on that.

IMO, they should change the regular season suspended game rule to be that if a team has the tying run on base or at the plate, the game is suspended, not over

This sounds fair to me, although I'd probably change it to simply "on base". I don't see any particular need to resume a game if there's a one-run lead and no one on base, especially if it involves scheduling difficulty.

In reality, though, this kind of thing comes up so rarely that it's probably not worth doing much more than sympathizing with the Tigers and telling them to go get 'em next time.

That game wasn't going to end with a rainout though because Selig had the authority to declare it suspended instead of completed (he even said so himself afterwards that he wouldn't have allowed the game to end with a rainout if the Rays didn't score).

But did he tell the umpires?

This game convinced me that this is very unlikely to be the Tigers' year. Most of the players have been maddeningly inconsistent, which is bad enough; but luck is against them, to boot.

However, I think the umpires mismanaged the situation, although that is because of the factors described by SoSH U at Work in [7] and Fernigal McGunnigle in [9]. I did not see any of the game; I followed the radio broadcast of Dickerson and Price. It was clearly a risk to start it in the conditions, and perhaps the umpires should have halted play earlier. But it's not exactly their fault that they are pressured to avoid doubleheaders or make-up dates.

23, I believe as that game was ongoing and the rain increased they showed footage of Selig conversing with the umpires during breaks. I expect they were under orders to not stop the game without Selig's approval so Selig didn't have to actually be put on the spot to make a decision all by himself

The Tigers absolutely have a point. Not that that would change anything for this particular game. Maybe future games, sure, but a complaint and a protest are two different things, and only a protest would deal with this.

Should they have started the game? That's Bobby Valentine's call, per Rule 3.10. Who should have the say before the game? The home team knows best the field's ability to withstand what nature inflicts upon it, so I think it makes some sense to have them make the call. I'm OK with that.

Should they have stopped it at that point in the 6th inning? No, they should have stopped it sooner. Compounding the mistake of not stopping it earlier by continuing to play through worsening conditions is just fighting stupid with stupid.

Should the rules for cancel vs. suspend be changed? I'm fully in favor of this, but I don't see how workable it is. If MLBPA has say in suspension - which they do for rescheduling rainouts currently - then both sets of players will likely have right of refusal. There's no way in that situation the leading team's players will consent to resuming play another day. Thus for suspension to work you'd need the MLBPA to forfeit any say by the players, and that ain't happening.

Wouldn't it be pretty unprecedented to not start the game? I can only remember one time when the home team (the Yanks) didn't start a game because of expected rain, and that was a pretty big controversy.

I'm pretty unsympathetic to the Tigers' arguments here. The conditions were good enough to make it through an official game, so starting the game was defensible. And as for this:

But once the decision was made to play, the game should not have been halted at that juncture unless the umpires had a reasonable certainty the game would be resumed.

So, no matter how bad the conditions, you keep playing unless you're sure you can finish later? The safety of the players should be sacrificed to get that last at bat in?

And what made "that juncture" so special? The Red Sox had an 84% Win Expectancy when the inning started. Even after the bases were loaded it was 81%. The loaded bases made it seem more dramatic, but there was nothing wrong with ending the game there.*

*I thought they should have ended it at the beginning of the inning, but that was due to the weather conditions, not the score/etc.

Wouldn't it be pretty unprecedented to not start the game? I can only remember one time when the home team (the Yanks) didn't start a game because of expected rain, and that was a pretty big controversy.

The Red Sox did it this year in April after getting crushed by the Yankees for their 5th loss in a row. At the time it was acknowledged to be a rather generous interpretation of the home team decision I believe.

Wouldn't it be pretty unprecedented to not start the game? I can only remember one time when the home team (the Yanks) didn't start a game because of expected rain, and that was a pretty big controversy.

Teams often start games with a bit of a delay if there is a band coming through. The problem with Tuesday is that the only way to get the game in was going to be to start on time and hope the rain held off. The rain that happened was right in line with the forecast so if they hadn't started on time they wouldn't have gotten it in. You can argue that would have been a better alternative but with a dicey weather forecast for Wednesday also they would have been playing with fire.

Plus, the game ended at 9:30. It's not like they didn't have 2.5 hours to play baseball, which should be plenty of time for normal baseball teams to get in a lot of baseball. The fact that it was the Red Sox and Tigers, and took 2.5 hours to play 5 and a half innings is a problem, not the fact that they started without a possibility of finishing.

This game was not over by any stretch

Considering the Tigers haven't hit with runners on base all freakin' year, yeah, it was over. (He'll, it was over the minute the Red Sox scored their second run.)

This game was not over by any stretch

Considering the Tigers haven't hit with runners on base all freakin' year, yeah, it was over. (He'll, it was over the minute the Red Sox scored their second run.)

A double post with one full day of separation?

EDIT: Oh, I get it. NBC did a delayed feed on the second post.

Look at Post 8 vi. RMc has entered some kind of daily loop.

edit: beers to VI and Sosh U