TEX/TOR 7th inning play

[bwburke94]

Martin's stray throw scores Odor | MLB.com

Thoughts?

[bob jenkins]

The right ruling was made. The issue is whether it could be enforced given that time had been called.

[ozzy6900]

TIME should have never been called, that was a live ball. They proved that when they awarded home to the runner. This is something we see in youth ball several times a year.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The right ruling was made. The issue is whether it could be enforced given that time had been called.

The "fixit" rule says yes.

8.02 (c ) If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may
ask another umpire for information before making a final decision.
No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with
another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire
making it. If the umpires consult after a play and change a call
that had been made, then they have the authority to take all
steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretion, to eliminate
the results and consequences of the earlier call that they
are reversing, including placing runners where they think those
runners would have been after the play, had the ultimate call
been made as the initial call, disregarding interference or
obstruction that may have occurred on the play; failures of runners
to tag up based upon the initial call on the field; runners
passing other runners or missing bases; etc., all in the discretion
of the umpires. No player, manager or coach shall be permitted
to argue the exercise of the umpires’ discretion in
resolving the play and any person so arguing shall be subject to
ejection.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The 7th inning play that I am more concerned with occurred in the bottom of the inning.

With the bases loaded and no outs. Ground ball to a drawn in F3 who threw to F2 for the force out at HP. The runner from 3B was out by the proverbial "country mile" and slide so far inside fair territory that he took out F2 before he had a chance to make a play on another runner.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

I didn't see the play, so I can't comment directly, but the rule at home is the same as the rule at second -- must be able to reach the base with a foot or hand (so the "sliding lane" is about 6' on each side at the base)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The 7th inning play that I am more concerned with occurred in the bottom of the inning.

With the bases loaded and no outs. Ground ball to a drawn in F3 who threw to F2 for the force out at HP. The runner from 3B was out by the proverbial "country mile" and slide so far inside fair territory that he took out F2 before he had a chance to make a play on another runner.

MTD, Sr.

His butt slid over the plate. How is this anything illegal?

[BoomerSooner]

The question to me on the slide into home is whether this type of play will be included in the Chase Utley rule that we all know is coming in the near future. I'm a Rangers fan, and I don't have a problem with the play as the slide was legal by the letter of the rule and it is how players for decades have been trained to play.

That said, I don't think we should have variable rules regarding sliding and avoidable contact depending on where the play is or whether it is a force or tag play, nor can the penalty be dependent on whether or not someone involved is injured.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

That said, I don't think we should have variable rules regarding sliding and avoidable contact depending on where the play is or whether it is a force or tag play,

Ummm...force or tag play? The two are not mutually exclusive, and every other level has specific rules regarding contact on force plays.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Matt

Ummm...force or tag play? The two are not mutually exclusive, and every other level has specific rules regarding contact on force plays.

I was referencing the note to Rule 6.01(i) Collisions at Home Plate (previously 7.13) that says 6.01(i)(2) shall not apply to force plays at home plate. I realize this rule covers the prohibitions placed on the catcher related to blocking the plate, but my point is that if additional rules are put in place to protect fielders, the rules need to be simplified.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I was referencing the note to Rule 6.01(i) Collisions at Home Plate (previously 7.13) that says 6.01(i)(2) shall not apply to force plays at home plate. I realize this rule covers the prohibitions placed on the catcher related to blocking the plate, but my point is that if additional rules are put in place to protect fielders, the rules need to be simplified.

Why? So there's one exception to a rule. It's not complicated.

[BoomerSooner]

That's my point...it isn't that complicated right now. I would prefer it stay that way. We all know, however, that rule books are frequently flawed in any number of ways when written and/or amended. We deal with everything from poorly defined language, to bad formatting and illogical placement in the book. I'm not complaining or saying this issue prevents us from doing our jobs, but I hope they don't take this issue and make it more difficult to officiate.

I guess where I wasn't clear was that I'm looking at this proactively. I don't have any major issues with the existing rules. I just don't want people to overthink this and turn it into a mess.