Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Deadspin: Game Ends As Raul Mondesi Jr. Forgets To Touch Home Plate After Game-Tying Home Run

With video!

Yes, that Raul Mondesi, Jr. He’s in the Brewers organization, at Rookie League Helena. Mondesi came to the plate in the bottom of the 10th with the Brewers down 2-0 to the Missoula Osprey, the Diamondbacks’ affiliate. With one on and two out, he cranked the pitch over the left field wall for what should have been the game-tying home run.

But Osprey catcher Michael Perez noticed Mondesi clearly miss home plate, and more importantly, umpire noticed it too, setting the stage for the rare walk-off appeal. Helena’s manager sounded nonplussed, but accepting. This is a teaching moment!

“Don’t bother, Case. He didn’t touch second either.”

JE (Jason) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM | 96 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: brewers, minor leagues, minors, replay

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. smileyy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4166851)
"Nonplussed" really, really, really ought to mean "not impressed".
   2. Guapo Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4166862)
The pitcher and catcher's reaction afterward is entertaining, like they planned the whole thing.
   3. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4166872)
The best part is how the crowd clearly has no idea why the other team is celebrating until the very end of the clip.
   4. salajander Posted: June 26, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4166883)
So I have a question: I see the pitcher (after much confusion and dancing around) gets to the mound on the rubber, comes set, then steps off and throws home for the appeal.

What would have happened if he would have made a "pitch" from the rubber? I expect that would have counted as a play (dead ball? ball for the next batter?) and rendered the touch of home unappealable.
   5. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4166899)
What would have happened if he would have made a "pitch" from the rubber? I expect that would have counted as a play (dead ball? ball for the next batter?) and rendered the touch of home unappealable.


You are correct. No game action can happen between the play and the appeal.

If Mondesi had seen them getting ready for the appeal could he have just sprinted out of the dugout and touched the plate? I don't think so but that brings up a second question. After the Pierzynski play in the 2005 ALCS I think the rule was changed that if a base runner abandoned the base path he was ruled out. Does Mondesi not touching the plate meet that criteria making the appeal unnecessary?
   6. zonk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4166900)
In my less than stellar HS career, on my first HR - I missed 3B in my "trot". I took about 5-6-7 steps, trying to decide whether to look silly or not before the 3B coach decided to make the decision for me and screamed at me to go back and step on 3B. Not quite as embarrassing as when I set what must still be a school record by committing 3 individual errors on a single play, but still a pretty good undercutting of what started out as a proud moment.... so I can feel Mondesi's pain.
   7. salajander Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4166925)
You are correct. No game action can happen between the play and the appeal.


Ok, I presumed so. Do you (or anyone) know what the relevant rule is for a pitcher pitching to an empty batter's box (outside of the no-more-than-eight warmup pitches)?
   8. ColonelTom Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4166928)
I believe once Mondesi enters the dugout, he can't come back onto the field to touch home. (My son's team had this come up in a Little League game - that was the umpire's take on it, though I'm not sure he was right.)
   9. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4166934)
What's more, it would've been his first HR of the year, too. Instead, it's, what, 3Bx(1-2)'?
   10. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4166951)
Why DID the pitcher have to "come set" and all that stuff? Couldn't he have just rolled the ball to the catcher, or walked it in & touched home plate himself?
   11. AJMcCringleberry Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4166963)
Raul Mondesi Jr? I'm getting old.
   12. jacjacatk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4166977)
See rule 5, the ump has to put the ball back in play, which requires the pitcher to be on the rubber, after a HR. The interesting case would be if this was a walkoff, since there wouldn't be a reason for the ump to put a ball back in play.

7.08(k) covers making no attempt to return to the plate by the runner, but doesn't make note of at what point he's no longer able to try to return to the plate. I thought the "Pierzynski" rule was in the rules comments somewhere, but not finding it right now. Pretty sure the LL rule is you're done once you hit the dugout, though, as another poster mentioned.
   13. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: June 26, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4166993)
Ok, I presumed so. Do you (or anyone) know what the relevant rule is for a pitcher pitching to an empty batter's box (outside of the no-more-than-eight warmup pitches)?


If the umpire calls "play" and the hitter isn't in the box, the hitter is ###### is the rule there I think. In this case he is not throwing a pitch because he disengaged the rubber first so the pitcher became an infielder at that point. If the pitcher had thrown a pitch to get the ball to the catcher then the appeal would have been rejected.
   14. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4167012)
One of Mondesi's teammates is or was Lance Roenicke, son of Ron. Roenicke is 7 for 13 for Helena and 2 for 4 for Single A Wisconsin.
   15. esseff Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4167028)
Pretty sure the LL rule is you're done once you hit the dugout, though, as another poster mentioned.


Little League* uses the same "makes no attempt to return" language. Doesn't mention a Rubicon that he must cross. An explanation follows to clarify that the rule is intended to prevent a situation where the catcher is trying to chase down the runner headed away from the play, and that it does not apply to a runner trying to get to the plate, who has to be tagged to be out.

* - Assuming you mean THE Little League organization and not a generic youth league.
   16. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4167034)
I believe once Mondesi enters the dugout, he can't come back onto the field to touch home. (My son's team had this come up in a Little League game - that was the umpire's take on it, though I'm not sure he was right.)


That is correct. Once in the dugout, the runner cannot return to touch the plate.

What would have happened if he would have made a "pitch" from the rubber? I expect that would have counted as a play (dead ball? ball for the next batter?) and rendered the touch of home unappealable.



Suppose it wasn't a HR, but say a runner scoring from third on a single. How does the pitcher appeal then? Presumably, a throw home while off the rubber and runners on is a balk, no?
   17. PepTech Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4167042)
Video removed, and my primitive Google skills can't find an alternate. Anyone?
   18. jacjacatk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4167047)
Suppose it wasn't a HR, but say a runner scoring from third on a single. How does the pitcher appeal then? Presumably, a throw home while off the rubber and runners on is a balk, no?


In that case, the ball would be live without the ump having to put it back in play (assuming time was never called), and they can just appeal directly without having to engage the rubber.

And a throw home (or to another base) after disengaging the rubber is legal. Ball should be live, so the runners can do as they please at their own risk.

   19. SoSH U at work Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4167054)
Suppose it wasn't a HR, but say a runner scoring from third on a single. How does the pitcher appeal then? Presumably, a throw home while off the rubber and runners on is a balk, no?


You deliberately step off the rubber. You fire to the base being appealed. The fielder catches the ball and steps on the bag where the appeal is being made. No balk. It's the same process if you believe the runner left the base early.



   20. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4167082)
You deliberately step off the rubber. You fire to the base being appealed. The fielder catches the ball and steps on the bag where the appeal is being made. No balk. It's the same process if you believe the runner left the base early.


So, if the pitcher is off the rubber and throws home, it is not a pitch. Can the batter swing at it?
   21. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4167089)
So, if the pitcher is off the rubber and throws home, it is not a pitch. Can the batter swing at it?

only if he's Vlad Guerrero (he was grandfathered in)
   22. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4167099)
So, if the pitcher is off the rubber and throws home, it is not a pitch. Can the batter swing at it?


If the pitcher steps off the rubber he is an infielder. Any throw he makes at that point is a "throw" and not a "pitch". In your example the batter swinging would be the equivalent of sticking his bat out to block a throw by the catcher to second base.
   23. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4167125)
Perhaps the most idiotic rule in baseball is the rule that a batter, having hit the ball over the fence for a home run so automatic that there isn't a single thing the defense can do to change it -- yet he still is required to touch every base. WTF for?
   24. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4167126)
If the pitcher steps off the rubber he is an infielder. Any throw he makes at that point is a "throw" and not a "pitch". In your example the batter swinging would be the equivalent of sticking his bat out to block a throw by the catcher to second base.


Got it.
   25. salajander Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4167137)
yet he still is required to touch every base.


You can only score a run by safely touching home, and you can only safely touch home after safely touching third, and you can only safely touch third after safely touching first.

Are you suggesting rules should be changed so that when a home run is hit, the batter and any base runners should just walk directly off the field to the dugout?
   26. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4167141)
When a batsman hits a six (or a four) in cricket, he doesn't actually run, does he?
   27. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4167143)
Are you suggesting rules should be changed so that when a home run is hit, the batter and any base runners should just walk directly off the field to the dugout?

Precisely. Or he can jog around and touch all the bases if he wants, or he can do the macarena. But to require him to touch every base is entirely silly.
   28. salajander Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4167146)
How do you feel about requiring all four intentional balls to actually be pitched?
   29. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4167151)
How do you feel about requiring all four intentional balls to actually be pitched?

That's entirely different, given that there is a non-trivial possibility of either a wild pitch, or a pitch so close to the strike zone that the batter might take a whack at it. The game is actually being played.

Once the ball clears the fence, the game is not actually being played in any meaningful way until the next pitch. The defense is powerless to do anything, except hope one of the runners misses a base, or collapses from a heart attack or something. It's very silly.
   30. phredbird Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4167156)
Perhaps the most idiotic rule in baseball is the rule that a batter, having hit the ball over the fence for a home run so automatic that there isn't a single thing the defense can do to change it -- yet he still is required to touch every base. WTF for?


because its BASEball!!1!11!!!

besides, i don't think there is a batter in the world who wouldn't want to jog the bases after hitting a homer.
   31. vortex of dissipation Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4167157)
When a batsman hits a six (or a four) in cricket, he doesn't actually run, does he?


No. If a batsman hits a boundary, the runs are automatically added to the total, but he doesn't have to actually run.
   32. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4167164)
i don't think there is a batter in the world who wouldn't want to jog the bases after hitting a homer.

Likely true, but wanting to do something because it's joyful and being required to do something because of a rule-for-a-rule's-sake rule are quite different things.
   33. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4167165)
I agree with Steve. I like having the guys actually jog around the bases, just for appearances' sake (and as #30 says, all players WANT to do that), but the idea of, having hit a home run, you can nevertheless be called out because you ran the bases wrong seems silly to me - not enough for me to rant or rave, but more of a quaint "how silly".
   34. esseff Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4167168)
Taggart Bozied and Kendrys Morales agree that home run hitters should not have to venture around the bases.
   35. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4167169)
or collapses from a heart attack or something.


I don't think that would matter.

It's very silly.


I think rewriting (or hell, initially writing) the rules of what is required for a run to be plated in this one specific instance would be sillier.
   36. cardsfanboy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4167171)
That's entirely different, given that there is a non-trivial possibility of either a wild pitch, or a pitch so close to the strike zone that the batter might take a whack at it. The game is actually being played.


Heck, it's an endurance game anyway, so you should have to throw every pitch. I always find people touting the just give them the base argument to be missing some of the point of the game. I don't agree with you on the not touching the base thing...well not exactly. I don't really care if they touch the base, but they should be required to run the bases. If making them touch the base is the only way to enforce that, then stick with the rule, if you just say that they have to run in the base lines for a homerun, then that is fine also, but there should be no "swing, go to the dugout" type of thing going on.
   37. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4167176)
"I think rewriting (or hell, initially writing) the rules of what is required for a run to be plated in this one specific instance would be sillier."

What would be so silly about a rule that says: once a batted ball is ruled by the umpire to have cleared the outfield fence in fair territory or is otherwise meeting the ground rule qualifications for a home run, it is a home run, and the batter and any baserunners are counted as scoring a run.

That's all it has to say. It doesn't have to require the batter/runners to do anything.
   38. Dave Spiwak Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4167179)
the idea of, having hit a home run, you can nevertheless be called out because you ran the bases wrong seems silly to me - not enough for me to rant or rave, but more of a quaint "how silly".

You've got to think of it like this: a homerun is 99.9% hitting the ball over the fence, and 0.1% touching all 4 bases. You've got to touch home to score, and you have to touch the first three bases before you can touch home. Physically touching the bases is a small but significant part of the scoring process.
   39. vortex of dissipation Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4167180)
But then you'd lose moments such as this one...
   40. phredbird Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4167181)
to be serious, i have to reiterate: the game is base-ball. making a runner touch all the bases on a home run is completely consistent with the basic rule of the game, which is about hitting a pitched ball, running the bases and scoring runs. a home run that goes over an arbitrary boundary is a newer phenomenon within the game than a home run wherein a runner is able to run the bases before a fair ball is fielded and thrown back in time to tag that runner. i don't think there is anything silly at all in requiring a runner to earn his run after hitting a ball, even if it is out of the reach of the fielders because it went into the stands.

to me, suggesting otherwise is missing some point of the game. ymmv.
   41. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4167183)
99.9% hitting the ball over the fence, and 0.1% touching all 4 bases

or occasionally, 99.9% over the wall 0.1% touching 3rd and .0001% breaking your ankle
   42. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4167189)
"You've got to think of it like this: a homerun is 99.9% hitting the ball over the fence, and 0.1% touching all 4 bases."

No, you don't have to think of it like that. That's the way the rules are, I understand that. It doesn't make the rules optimal. It doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.
   43. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4167191)
This proposed rule change would be terrible for entertainment purposes.
   44. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4167198)
This proposed rule change would be terrible for entertainment purposes.


Right. In addition to this, we wouldn't have:

Kendrys braking his leg

Robin Ventura grand slam single

The weird ending to the Haddix game

One flap down

And so on. Once or twice in a generation something interesting would be lost.
   45. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4167202)
Although if you didn't have to round the bases, you might see something like this in baseball, which would be kinda hilarious.
   46. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4167204)
You wouldn't have the Ventura grand slam single, or the weird ending to the Haddix game. That would be a net good.

There's no reason whatsoever to think that you wouldn't have Kendrys breaking his leg, or one flap down. The notion that batters wouldn't do home run trots, or that teams wouldn't engage in raucous celebrations following walk-off HRs, is, well, silly.
   47. Tom Nawrocki Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:27 PM (#4167209)
If a runner on third fails to touch home plate after a bases-loaded walk, can the defense appeal and put him out?
   48. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4167211)
a home run that goes over an arbitrary boundary is a newer phenomenon within the game than a home run wherein a runner is able to run the bases before a fair ball is fielded and thrown back in time to tag that runner.


Seconded. A favorite hobby horse (that I am alone in riding, as far as i know) is to see an MLB-level game played without fences. I'd love to see how many homers hit by slow sluggers would turn into triples or outs.
   49. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4167216)
Perhaps the most idiotic rule in baseball is the rule that a batter, having hit the ball over the fence for a home run so automatic that there isn't a single thing the defense can do to change it -- yet he still is required to touch every base. WTF for?

This was exactly the question my soccer-fan coworker asked when I tried to explain the video originally shown in TFA. I settled for the old "that's just how it is" response.

Re the IBB - my dad long ago told me there's a rule that if the pitcher "goes to his mouth" the HPU can call a ball, and wondered why some genius somewhere didn't start licking his palm 4 times to issue an IBB.
   50. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4167218)
Re the IBB - my dad long ago told me there's a rule that if the pitcher "goes to his mouth" the HPU can call a ball, and wondered why some genius somewhere didn't start licking his palm 4 times to issue an IBB.

Don Drysdale liked to say, "Why waste three extra pitches? I'll just hit him in the a$$ on the first pitch."
   51. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4167222)
A noted umpire (I forget the name) once said that as far as he was concerned a batter who hit a home run was deemed to have touched all the bases whether he did or not. He was not going to call any player out for missing a base. Of course, this was before TV and replay. It was also before fans mobbed the field in huge numbers and celebrities were targets of assassins.
   52. cardsfanboy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4167226)
A noted umpire (I forget the name) once said that as far as he was concerned a batter who hit a home run was deemed to have touched all the bases whether he did or not. He was not going to call any player out for missing a base. Of course, this was before TV and replay. It was also before fans mobbed the field in huge numbers and celebrities were targets of assassins.


And I think that umpire was right. That is the way I think it should be. I do think they have to do the trot of course(as I mentioned earlier) but outside of rule lawyers,(and the other team) who really cares if they actually touch all the bases?
   53. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4167231)
It was also before fans mobbed the field in huge numbers

Um, fans have mobbed the field in huge numbers like, forever. Look at photos of big games in the 19th century.
   54. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4167232)
outside of rule lawyers,(and the other team) who really cares if they actually touch all the bases?

My point exactly.
   55. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4167236)
No, you don't have to think of it like that. That's the way the rules are, I understand that. It doesn't make the rules optimal. It doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.


I take it if there's a runner on second and a batter hits an automatic double, that runner would also be free to simply walk to the dugout under your preference.

What is suboptimal about the existing rule? How on earth has it detracted from the game in any way?

Honestly, I can't think of a single reason why baseball would redefine what constitutes a run scored simply because the batter happened to hit one over the wall.
   56. smileyy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4167255)

Re the IBB - my dad long ago told me there's a rule that if the pitcher "goes to his mouth" the HPU can call a ball, and wondered why some genius somewhere didn't start licking his palm 4 times to issue an IBB.


Because "accidental" breaking of the rules incurs a small penalty (the ball), but deliberate repeated breaking of the rules tends to impose more severe penalties (I'd guess a warning followed by ejection)
   57. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4167262)
"I take it if there's a runner on second and a batter hits an automatic double, that runner would also be free to simply walk to the dugout under your preference."

WTF not? Who cares? What is it with this obsession over what meaningless runners might do?

"What is suboptimal about the existing rule?"

Its stupidity. Other than that, nothing.

"How on earth has it detracted from the game in any way?"

By being stupid. And creating statistical black holes like the Ventura grand slam single and the weird ending to the Haddix game.
   58. Lassus Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:45 PM (#4167276)
By being stupid. And creating statistical black holes like the Ventura grand slam single and the weird ending to the Haddix game.

Baseball, like life, can sometimes shock you in its unexpected weirdness. Like you being this annoyed by this rule, which I also did not expect. ;-)
   59. smileyy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4167278)
Baseball, like life, can sometimes shock you in its unexpected weirdness.


Life, as well, is filled with obnoxious things, the alternatives to which are all worse.
   60. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4167280)
You wouldn't have the Ventura grand slam single, or the weird ending to the Haddix game. That would be a net good.

But without the Ventura grand slam single, all of BTF couldn't have yelled at its collective TV in unison after Nelson Cruz hit the "first walkoff grand slam in playoff history" last year! Where would be the fun in that?
   61. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:10 PM (#4167309)
Um, fans have mobbed the field in huge numbers like, forever. Look at photos of big games in the 19th century.

Also, are celebrities really targets of assassins nowadays?
   62. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4167315)
Monica Seles would say so.
   63.     Hey Gurl Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4167323)
The stupid thing is, I assume the ball they used for the appeal was not the ball that Mondesi hit? If he's going to be forced to touch the base, the fielders should be forced to retrieve the actual ball that's live and use it to complete the play.

Otherwise, what is legal about getting an out from a baseball that wasn't in play?
   64. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4167324)
Monica Seles would say so.


Wikipedia says Monica Seles was stabbed 19 years ago: (a) is 19 years ago really "nowadays", and (b) given that you had to go back 19 years to find an example, doesn't that suggest that celebrities aren't notable "targets of assassins nowadays"?
   65. Jay Z Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4167328)
Monica Seles would say so.


19 years ago is nowadays?
   66. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4167331)
But then you'd lose moments such as this one...

Gabe Kapler feels her pain. Of course, no one was going to carry his creepily toned ass around the bases, so he didn't get credit for the homer.
   67. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:37 PM (#4167334)
WTF not? Who cares? What is it with this obsession over what meaningless runners might do?

By being stupid. And creating statistical black holes like the Ventura grand slam single and the weird ending to the Haddix game.


You seem to be arguing from the position of why should a player be forced to touch all the bases if he's hit a home run. I don't think that's the proper way to look at it.

The way I see it, if you're going to exempt a player from one of the fundamental rules governing play (that a runner must touch all four bases, in order, to score a run), it's up to you to provide a pretty compelling reason why. Not only have you failed to provide a compelling reason, you've failed to provide much of a reason at all.

Requiring baserunners to touch every base does not drag out the game. It doesn't unnecessarily tax anyone on the field of play. It can provide entertainment or controversy or, yes, the occasional statistical quirk (the kind of thing I thought a guy liked you treasured, not railed against). And very, very rarely, Raul Mondesi's dumbass son can still be put out for failing at one of baseball's basic tasks.

But sure, I suppose all of that doesn't stack up against, "but it's stoopid."



   68. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4167335)
I knew you guys would say that. It was just the first thing that jumped to mind. 30 seconds of googling didn't help, either, so I give up. Celebrities are evidently not targets of assassins nowadays, unless Morty has something I didn't think of.
   69. cardsfanboy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4167336)
Gabe Kapler feels her pain. Of course, no one was going to carry his creepily toned ass around the bases, so he didn't get credit for the homer.


Gives you an idea how quickly he faded from my memory, I was expecting to see a link to Welcome Back Kotter injuring himself during a celebrity softball game.
   70. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4167338)
I guarantee you that celebrities do not go about their day with the same carefree abandon they did before John Lennon's murder. There are bodyguards all over. Even before that--remember the film of Hank Aaron's breaking Ruth's record and the those guys running out to meet him. There's fear and anxiety in his mien--and he has cause to fear and be anxious. Boundaries are being broken.

People confuse something working with whether it's necessary. People do that a lot--like with the exclusionary rule. It's effectiveness in stopping something doesn't make it unnecessary. It seems pointless only because it works. You can't use that against it.
   71. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4167340)
It seems pointless only because it works. You can't use that against it.

Like touching 4 bases on a four-bagger! Boom, argument over.
   72. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4167345)
Many important events in life come wrapped in ceremony--some of the ceremony is vital, some trivial. A wedding is an example. There has to be a ceremony before witnesses, but just because you kiss the bride before you put on the ring instead of afterwards doesn't render the deal null and void. The question is what is essential and what can be dismissed as insignificant.
   73. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4167347)
Gabe Kapler feels her pain. Of course, no one was going to carry his creepily toned ass around the bases, so he didn't get credit for the homer.


He didn't get credit for the homer because he didn't hit it. He was on first at the time.

   74.     Hey Gurl Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4167352)
The way I see it, if you're going to exempt a player from one of the fundamental rules governing play (that a runner must touch all four bases, in order, to score a run), it's up to you to provide a pretty compelling reason why.


Because the play is over; the ball is long gone and irretrievable. It is literally impossible to get the player out since the ball is out of play, so the player is awarded home plate. If he doesn't touch it, well whatever you can go get him and force him to touch it if it makes you feel better, but by allowing the team to use a new baseball to then throw him out with (and force him out which what should be a tag play,) you are already altering the rules in silly ways.
   75. catomi01 Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4167355)
in slowpitch softball (At least the leagues I play in) the standard a few years ago was that the batter had to touch at least first...we've gotten lazier since then, and now you can go straight to the dugout...doesn't seem quite the same - if I ever hit one (I am a pure singles hitter who can luck into a double now and again) I'll be touch all the bases just for the sake of having done so.
   76. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4167361)
He didn't get credit for the homer because he didn't hit it. He was on first at the time.

Ha! That's right--it was Tony Graffanino, wasn't it? Oh well. That'll teach me to remember things.
   77. Sunday silence Posted: June 26, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4167363)
A noted umpire (I forget the name) once said that as far as he was concerned a batter who hit a home run was deemed to have touched all the bases whether he did or not. He was not going to call any player out for missing a base. Of course, this was before TV and replay. It was also before fans mobbed the field in huge numbers and celebrities were targets of assassins.


Appreciate the sentiment, but that was quite obviously not from a major league umpire .An MLB umpire would have said:


"It's not a HR till I Fu$%ckin say it is. I don't care where that Fu*&%in ball landed it aint a HR till I say it is."
   78. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4167366)
Klem is famous today for getting across his umpiring role as the supreme authority in games with this simple answer to a real game-in-progress question, “Is that ball fair or foul?”

“It ain’t nothing until I call it,” Bill Klem snapped.


Bill KLem
   79. Sunday silence Posted: June 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4167369)
the standard a few years ago was that the batter had to touch at least first...we've gotten lazier since then..


NOwadays they simply have to make it out of the batter's box without puking on themselves.
   80. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: June 26, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4167388)
If he doesn't touch it, well whatever you can go get him and force him to touch it if it makes you feel better, but by allowing the team to use a new baseball to then throw him out with (and force him out which what should be a tag play,) you are already altering the rules in silly ways.


Batter hits a grounder to SS. SS airmails the ball into the stands. Batter misses first base on his way to second. Ump puts a new ball in play and the defense appeals the play at first, which is upheld.

Runner on first, batter hits a grounder to right. Runner tries for third, and the RF airmails it into the 3B stands. Runner gets home, batter goes to third. Ump puts a new ball in play, and the pitcher appeals to 2nd that the runner from first missed the base, which he did and is called out.

Do those offend your sensibilities as well?
   81. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4167392)
The way I see it, if you're going to exempt a player from one of the fundamental rules governing play (that a runner must touch all four bases, in order, to score a run), it's up to you to provide a pretty compelling reason why. Not only have you failed to provide a compelling reason, you've failed to provide much of a reason at all.

Your failure to comprehend that abject stupidity is a compelling reason does, I would suggest, settle it.
   82.     Hey Gurl Posted: June 26, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4167394)
Batter hits a grounder to SS. SS airmails the ball into the stands. Batter misses first base on his way to second. Ump puts a new ball in play and the defense appeals the play at first, which is upheld.

Runner on first, batter hits a grounder to right. Runner tries for third, and the RF airmails it into the 3B stands. Runner gets home, batter goes to third. Ump puts a new ball in play, and the pitcher appeals to 2nd that the runner from first missed the base, which he did and is called out.

Do those offend your sensibilities as well?


Yes.

Again, why does the trailing batter have to stop at 3rd, why can't all the runners just go home? Right, because the play is dead, and the umpire awards them whatever base they deserve.
   83. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4167410)
Again, why does the trailing batter have to stop at 3rd, why can't all the runners just go home? Right, because the play is dead, and the umpire awards them whatever base they deserve.


But the ball was alive when the runner missed second base.

Your failure to comprehend that abject stupidity is a compelling reason does, I would suggest, settle it.


Suggest away. That you are the first person I've ever heard suggest that requiring a home run hitter fulfill the basic requirements for run scoring is stupidity makes me question the abjectness of it.

   84.     Hey Gurl Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4167411)
But the ball was alive when the runner missed second base.


Oh well.

In this example, it is actually beneficial for the fielder to throw the ball into the stands rather than throwing to third, which is ridiculous. If he saw that the runner missed second he should have thrown to second directly instead of throwing to third.
   85. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4167417)
That you are the first person I've ever heard suggest that requiring a home run hitter fulfill the basic requirements for run scoring is stupidity makes me question the abjectness of it.

Oh, please. Your lack of familiarity with the notion (which has been alive in the game for, oh, I don't know, about a hundred years) doesn't address its basis.
   86. Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4167419)
Because "accidental" breaking of the rules incurs a small penalty (the ball), but deliberate repeated breaking of the rules tends to impose more severe penalties (I'd guess a warning followed by ejection)


That's how it was until 2007, IIRC. The rule was changed from "disqualified from the game" to "subject to fine by the league president" (for some reason I think it is 10K, but I can't find a source for that).

Are you suggesting rules should be changed so that when a home run is hit, the batter and any base runners should just walk directly off the field to the dugout?

Precisely. Or he can jog around and touch all the bases if he wants, or he can do the macarena. But to require him to touch every base is entirely silly.


I once played in a fairly competitive softball league where the rule was that you only had to run to first on a HR (now THAT was silly- why make you run at all?) Anyway, after my first league HR, not knowing the rules, I ran all the way around the bases, and got thoroughly chewed out for showing the other team up.
   87.     Hey Gurl Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4167423)
How many players would actually stop circling the bases if you made it non-mandatory? I'm guessing somewhere between 1 and 2 % of homeruns if that. Doing that team huddle at home plate after a walk-off shot isn't mandatory either, but it still happens every time.
   88. Steve Treder Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4167426)
How many players would actually stop circling the bases if you made it non-mandatory? I'm guessing somewhere between 1 and 2 % of homeruns if that. Doing that team huddle at home plate after a walk-off shot isn't mandatory either, but it still happens every time.

Yep.
   89. zack Posted: June 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4167577)
How many players would actually stop circling the bases if you made it non-mandatory? I'm guessing somewhere between 1 and 2 % of homeruns if that. Doing that team huddle at home plate after a walk-off shot isn't mandatory either, but it still happens every time.


I didn't care either way until this, but now I disagree with you strongly. Immediately, all the Molinas and Manny would stop running the bases. Anyone with an ego would stop too, just because they could. As soon as a guy comes back from a nasty leg injury there will be talk about how he shouldn't bother. In a generation it would be showing the other team up, and the exception not the norm.
   90. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: June 27, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4167625)
Immediately, all the Molinas and Manny would stop running the bases. Anyone with an ego would stop too, just because they could. As soon as a guy comes back from a nasty leg injury there will be talk about how he shouldn't bother. In a generation it would be showing the other team up, and the exception not the norm.

Absolutely. Immediately you'll be having people saying Manager X is the biggest idiot ever for letting Carlos Lee or Ryan Howard or whoever aggravate his hip flexor or whatever by rounding the bases in this hot weather or cold weather or rainy weather or whatever.

This is not a situation where we want players to be making a decision about what to do.

Even so, having to actually touch the bases is stupid in a world where the phantom double-play tag exists.
   91. zack Posted: June 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4167672)
Even so, having to actually touch the bases is stupid in a world where the phantom double-play tag exists.


Agreed. If only sportsmanship was a thing that existed, we wouldn't have to care about this nonsense.
   92. phredbird Posted: June 27, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4167755)
i'm under the impression that the phantom double play thing is not something players get away with much anymore, if at all. at least not in games i've been watching in recent years.

as for the idea that 'it's stupid' is a compelling reason to allow circling the bases to be optional, well ... i've offered much more compelling reasons for making it mandatory that are consistent with the bedrock rules of the game that aren't stupid. saying 'its stupid' is, well ... you know.
   93.     Hey Gurl Posted: June 27, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4167808)
I didn't care either way until this, but now I disagree with you strongly. Immediately, all the Molinas and Manny would stop running the bases


Well, Manny isn't playing and the Molina brothers combine for about 20 homers, so that's still under the 1-2% figure I cited.

I just don't really agree...players like to celebrate and this is an accepted celebration. But, this debate can only be settled one way...
   94. SoSH U at work Posted: June 27, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4167818)
i'm under the impression that the phantom double play thing is not something players get away with much anymore, if at all. at least not in games i've been watching in recent years.


They don't. It was far more prevalent in the 70s and 80s, not coincidentally when the rules governing take-out slides were far more liberal. When MLB began to crack down on Hal McRae-style rolling blocks and other middle infielder mangling plays, MLB umpires also began redefining the "neighborhood."
   95. Stevis Posted: June 27, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4167836)

Because the play is over; the ball is long gone and irretrievable. It is literally impossible to get the player out since the ball is out of play, so the player is awarded home plate. If he doesn't touch it, well whatever you can go get him and force him to touch it if it makes you feel better, but by allowing the team to use a new baseball to then throw him out with (and force him out which what should be a tag play,) you are already altering the rules in silly ways.


Appeal plays are NOT FORCE PLAYS. A force play is when the batter's attempt to reach first forces other runners to attempt to move up a base.

Both a force out and out by appeal may be recorded by touching the base with the ball in possession, in addition to touching the runner in question with the ball in possession, but that is coincidental.
   96. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4167881)
Well, that's stupid. So that's out.

In fact the distinction between "force" and "tag" plays is in itself stupid. What's the point of that?

Steve - baseball is stupid. It's grown men playing with sticks and balls. Enjoying baseball for any reason other than the inherent beauty of the game is also stupid. In order to score a run, the batter-runner must touch all 4 bases, otherwise, by definition, they have not scored. That's the nature of the game, and while it may be stupid, it's baseball. That's why we're here.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(942 - 4:56am, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(46 - 3:53am, Nov 22)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(9 - 3:35am, Nov 22)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4113 - 3:31am, Nov 22)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogPablo Sandoval’s Brother: Red Sox Showed ‘First Class’ Attentiveness | Boston Red Sox | NESN.com
(16 - 3:10am, Nov 22)
Last: Chip

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(38 - 3:08am, Nov 22)
Last: Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(129 - 2:55am, Nov 22)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(13 - 2:39am, Nov 22)
Last: Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(33 - 1:56am, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogMLB Transaction Trees «
(24 - 12:40am, Nov 22)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogJosh Lueke and the Ways of Anger
(6 - 10:20pm, Nov 21)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(55 - 10:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

NewsblogRunning list of 2014 40-man roster additions | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(37 - 9:29pm, Nov 21)
Last: The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(367 - 8:17pm, Nov 21)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogReds at least considering trading big names, reducing payroll | FOX Sports
(8 - 6:41pm, Nov 21)
Last: smileyy

Page rendered in 0.9731 seconds
53 querie(s) executed