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

Thursday, August 28, 2014

OMNICHATTER 8-28-2014

In which a OMNICHATTER occurs…

Gamingboy Posted: August 28, 2014 at 12:38 AM | 123 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: omnichatter

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.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: August 29, 2014 at 02:01 AM (#4781422)
The call completely changed the complexion of the game. Otero has a chance to work the whole inning, and the RP matchups become different.
   102. DKDC Posted: August 29, 2014 at 02:05 AM (#4781424)
If they did call obstruction on the pitcher and not the first baseman, then it was clearly a misapplication of the rules. But I don't think that's enough for a protest to stick, especially since it didn't directly lead to any scoring.

The fact that obstruction can be called when the runner is a dead duck and makes no attempt to avoid contact (to put it mildly) is an odd quirk of the rules and it's not really in the spirit of the rules, but it's not wrong to call it that way.
   103. Danny Posted: August 29, 2014 at 02:13 AM (#4781425)
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.

As DKDC said, it's a blatant misapplication of the rule to call obstruction on Otero.

If they call it on Moss, however, it may simply be a horrible judgment call. Moss was in the act of fielding the ball when Aybar veered off toward Otero, and Moss was no longer impeding Aybar's progress by the time Moss "made an attempt to field a ball and missed." But since the rules explicitly state that it's "entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball," then I don't see how the A's can win a protest if the umpire simply says that Moss wasn't in the act of fielding the ball when Aybar veered off.
   104. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2014 at 02:15 AM (#4781426)
The call completely changed the complexion of the game. Otero has a chance to work the whole inning, and the RP matchups become different.
But the Angels didn't score that inning. Moreover, the A's didn't score in the next inning. I get the anger, but even if you grant everything about Otero and the umpire ruling, there's no chance this protest gets upheld.

Even forgetting the protest, it's certainly not the reason the A's lost.
   105. Danny Posted: August 29, 2014 at 02:26 AM (#4781427)
It doesn't have to be "the reason" a team lost, it just has to have "adversely affected the protesting team’s chances of winning the game." I doubt it'll be persuasive, but screwing up the A's bullpen and allowing the Angels to turn over their lineup more quickly adversely affected the A's chances of winning.
   106. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2014 at 02:34 AM (#4781429)
Any bad call can force a bullpen move or let the other team scroll its lineup over faster. Both in words and practice, "adversely affected the protesting team’s chances of winning the game" demands something that's really out of the ordinary that leads directly to a win or a loss. If the Angels had scored that inning, then I think there's a reasonable question as to the validity of the protest, but they didn't. Yeah, the Angels rolled their lineup over, that's gonna happen at some point regardless. That play, regardless of how you want to judge it, didn't lose the game.

And as none of us are unbiased in our view of the game, I'm just gonna back away now.
   107. Danny Posted: August 29, 2014 at 02:57 AM (#4781430)
demands something that's really out of the ordinary that leads directly to a win or a loss

That's not what the rule says, though I agree they're unlikely to win the protest.
   108. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 29, 2014 at 03:07 AM (#4781432)
That's not what the rule says, though I agree they're unlikely to win the protest.

Aybar veered left, out of the first baseline, and ran into Otero, who already had the ball... and Otero was ruled as somehow obstructing Aybar. Weird. Eerie.

I think putting the winning run on first base with no outs in the bottom of the 9th "adversely affected" the A's chances of winning the game, even though the Angels didn't score that inning. And it won't matter, because the traditional interpretation is more like "Welp, they didn't score that inning so it didn't have any effect."

I just hate that it comes down to this dumb rule thing. I understood it when it was the stupid HR rule in the Detroit playoff game (fan reached over and knocked the ball away but it wasn't "fan interference" because Josh Reddick might not have caught it after all), but this just.... ech. I wish Trout had hit a home run instead.

EDIT:
Rule 7.09(k): [interference by a batter or runner when]
In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs ... inside (to the left of) the foul line and, in the umpire's judgment, interferes with the fielder ... attempting to field a batted ball. [T]he interpretation to be made is that a runner is required to have both feet within the three foot "lane" or on the lines marking the "lane."

and 7.09(l):
He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball ... provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball. ... "Obstruction" by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such "right of way" is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. ...
   109. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2014 at 04:41 AM (#4781440)
I wish Trout had hit a home run instead.
Look at it this way: if Trout HAD hit a homer, A's Nation would have blown a gasket because Trout wouldn't have come up at all in that inning if the call had been reversed. The way things actually came to pass, Cook started an inning clean, and the Otero incident didn't directly affect the outcome of the game.
   110. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2014 at 08:27 AM (#4781470)
I assume something weird happened in a game on the west coast that no one was watching.
   111. Spahn Insane Posted: August 29, 2014 at 09:05 AM (#4781490)
Wasn't watching the game at the time, but I just watched the replay, and since there's no thread devoted to the topic (yet), here I go--man, the ump screwed up that call six ways from Sunday. Others have touched on them all, I think, but to encapsulate them in a single post:

1. Aybar was two feet out of the baseline, and should have been called out on that basis, because...
2. Aybar not only did not try to avoid contact, he took a sharp left turn out of the baseline to deliberately create contact, which is clear because...
3. Both Moss and Otero were standing on the grass, outside the marked baseline, so (even if we buy the notion that the runner establishes the path to the base [no matter how far outside the marked basepath he might be]) Aybar's left turn was not required (and was in fact contraindicated) to avoid contact with either player (see 2), even if we assume the obstruction call was made against Moss and not against Otero (hell, Aybar deliberately made contact with the defensive player [Otero] who was FURTHEST out of the baseline--and who, for good measure, was also the one holding the ball, which means that...)...),
4. As AuntBea said, the ball had already been "fielded" by Otero when the collision occurred, so the obstruction rule should not have applied anyway, even ignoring 1, 2 and 3, which means that...
5. even if Aybar wasn't called out for running out of the baseline as he should've been (see 1), he should've been called out for running into the fielder holding the ball (as a simple, boring, run-of-the-mill tag play).

Unbelievably bad call--probably as bad as any I've seen, simply because there are so many different WAYS it was the wrong call. I suppose the protest boils down to whether or not the league buys the "adversely affects" argument, but there should be no question that the protest is right on the merits of whether the rule was correctly applied. It was not, and the A's are deservedly pissed.
   112. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: August 29, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4781493)
I think FredLynn was speaking more in the abstract. I wish (insert random Angels player) had hit a home run instead, as if the play never happened
   113. AROM Posted: August 29, 2014 at 09:42 AM (#4781519)
Aybar should have been called out. But the protest idea is a joke. It's a judgment call where the rules do not allow use of replay. That may change.

And it won't matter, because the traditional interpretation is more like "Welp, they didn't score that inning so it didn't have any effect."


Protests are almost never upheld because the situation where a team can play out a 50/50 chance (which the game was after the 9th inning ended), and either take the win or get a do-over can never be allowed. Imagine this: Angels fail to score in the 9th after protest. Donaldson hits a homer in the top of the 10th, Angels fail to score in bottom of the 10th.

If the A's have the right to request a do-over, then the Angels should have the same right to force the A's protest forward with no consideration of the final outcome. If it's upheld on its own merits, they go back to the bottom of the 9th, 1 out, nobody on for David Freese.
   114. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: August 29, 2014 at 09:43 AM (#4781521)
The way things actually came to pass, Cook started an inning clean, and the Otero incident didn't directly affect the outcome of the game.


Yeah, but I'm not sure Cook is even in the game if that play doesn't happen. Sure, the A's got out of it, but after then botching the bunt play to the next batter (which never would have happened if the Aybar hadn't been on first) the A's ended up using three pitchers in the inning, including their LH situational guy. That has adverse affects on A's pitcher usage later in the game. If it had been a 3 up 3 down inning, It would have been Beckham, Calhoun, Trout up next inning. Guessing Cook or Jesse Chavez starts starts that inning clean since Otero had pitched a lot the night before and whoever goes straight through to Pujols, with Abad available to face Hamilton later if needed. But he wasn't available because of what happened the inning before...
   115. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: August 29, 2014 at 09:44 AM (#4781526)
And I totally agree the protest won't be upheld. But it was a major screw up.
   116. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 29, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4781560)
I think FredLynn was speaking more in the abstract. I wish (insert random Angels player) had hit a home run instead, as if the play never happened

Yes.
   117. Danny Posted: August 29, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4781569)
Protests are almost never upheld because the situation where a team can play out a 50/50 chance (which the game was after the 9th inning ended), and either take the win or get a do-over can never be allowed. Imagine this: Angels fail to score in the 9th after protest. Donaldson hits a homer in the top of the 10th, Angels fail to score in bottom of the 10th.

What if the A's scored a run on a botched call in the top of the 9th to take a 1-run lead, and the Angels protest. The Angels tie it up in the bottom of the 9th. The tenth inning starts back at "50-50," so is the Angels' protest now moot? Or did the bad call still adversely affect their chances because their run in the bottom of the 9th would have been a walkoff?
If the A's have the right to request a do-over, then the Angels should have the same right to force the A's protest forward with no consideration of the final outcome.

This makes sense, but that's not how the rule has ever worked.
   118. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 29, 2014 at 10:22 AM (#4781573)
What happened with the Rays' protest on that Mark Buehrle pickoff play a week ago? How quickly does MLB respond to these?
   119. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: August 29, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4781594)
When teams win games that they have protested, they withdraw the protest after the game, so before a ruling happens. And unless it is a game ending play, the manager of the team protesting the play must notify the umpires before the next pitch occurs. So there really is no opportunity for for the non-protesting team to insist the protest move forward since a) they are not the protesting team and b) if the protesting team wins, it's withdrawn.
   120. AROM Posted: August 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4781629)
What happened with the Rays' protest on that Mark Buehrle pickoff play a week ago? How quickly does MLB respond to these?


Denied. Two days later.

What if the A's scored a run on a botched call in the top of the 9th to take a 1-run lead, and the Angels protest. The Angels tie it up in the bottom of the 9th. The tenth inning starts back at "50-50," so is the Angels' protest now moot? Or did the bad call still adversely affect their chances because their run in the bottom of the 9th would have been a walkoff?


Protest is still valid. But to be fair, in this situation if it went extra innings and the Angels won, A's should have the opportunity to force the protest (ask MLB to disallow their 9th inning run) and resume with a tie game in the 9th.

This makes sense, but that's not how the rule has ever worked.


The way it has worked is that MLB denies the protest. Because everyone realized that granting one conditionally is inherently unfair. If they ever were to give a do-over to a losing team, it would be much worse than any blown call by an umpire.

The recent Cubs-Giants upheld protest is different, as it did not involve overturning a call, or granting anyone a do-over, just required the teams to play to completion.
   121. AROM Posted: August 29, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4781630)
I would be OK with MLB upholding protests if they set up a system to resolve them timely. And by timely, I mean immediately and before another pitch has been thrown. Just make it part of the replay process and have some official in the commissioner's office empowered to make a quick decision.
   122. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: August 29, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4781659)
I wish Beane would have picked up someone to play 2nd base as Callaspo has the range of a 100 year old
   123. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4781704)
Yeah, but I'm not sure Cook is even in the game if that play doesn't happen. Sure, the A's got out of it, but after then botching the bunt play to the next batter (which never would have happened if the Aybar hadn't been on first) the A's ended up using three pitchers in the inning, including their LH situational guy. That has adverse affects on A's pitcher usage later in the game.
... So? Stuff happens all the time, sometimes you get breaks and sometimes the other guy gets breaks. The Aybar play was a break for the Angels, but you can't blame everything after that on THAT PLAY alone. Sure, there wouldn't have been a bunt if Aybar wasn't there, but the Angels were giving up an out and the the defense dropped it — that's on the defense, not Aybar. Cook came in and gave up hits to a couple of guys — blame Cook (or Callaspo), not the obstruction call.

Whatever happened with that call, you still have to play ball.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(171 - 9:54pm, Nov 24)
Last: tfbg9

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8665 - 9:53pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(162 - 9:50pm, Nov 24)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogMeet the teenagers who landed a shocking MLB scoop
(10 - 9:45pm, Nov 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1062 - 9:42pm, Nov 24)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(59 - 9:38pm, Nov 24)
Last: Darren

NewsblogBig Unit, Pedro, Smoltz headline Hall of Fame ballot
(37 - 9:19pm, Nov 24)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogSources: Kyle Seager nearing $100 million extension with Mariners - Yahoo Sports
(34 - 9:12pm, Nov 24)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4401 - 9:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(569 - 8:48pm, Nov 24)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogSandoval agrees to Red Sox deal, as Boston looks for free agent sweep - CBSSports.com
(34 - 8:26pm, Nov 24)
Last: Roger McDowell spit on me!

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(78 - 7:36pm, Nov 24)
Last: steagles

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(157 - 6:25pm, Nov 24)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(15 - 6:13pm, Nov 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogJosh Willingham to retire
(1 - 6:01pm, Nov 24)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

Page rendered in 0.4349 seconds
53 querie(s) executed