Erstad - Estrada Collision at the plate

[VaUmp]

To GarthB: I don't know much about the Major League Rules but if the following quote from your missive is correct, "
a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act-such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.-to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.", then I can't see why you wouldn't classify dropping a shoulder as "obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike". Now, if the MLB interpretation is that anything goes, it was a legal maneuver.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Illini_Ref

Pete, why would an out not be called in LL? I am not questioning you, just wondering the rule citation.

Here is the rule:

7.08(a) - Any runner is out when -

(3) the runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag;

I guess we saw the play differently. Remember we had the privelage of watching the play over and over again in slo mo.

IMO, it was a bang bang play meaning that as soon as F2 had possession of the ball the runner collided with him.

IMO, the aforementioned does not meet the second part of the rule (Fielder Waiting to make a tag)

The ball F2 and runner arrived at approx same time.

Pete Booth

[TBBlue]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by Illini_Ref

Pete, why would an out not be called in LL? I am not questioning you, just wondering the rule citation.

Here is the rule:

7.08(a) - Any runner is out when -

(3) the runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag;

I guess we saw the play differently. Remember we had the privelage of watching the play over and over again in slo mo.

IMO, it was a bang bang play meaning that as soon as F2 had possession of the ball the runner collided with him.

IMO, the aforementioned does not meet the second part of the rule (Fielder Waiting to make a tag)

The ball F2 and runner arrived at approx same time.

Pete Booth

Technically, I believe Pete is correct, if you judge catcher did not have ball, and not waiting to make play. LL Malicious Contact rule is eject only. However, in this case I would be inclined to judge that the catcher had the ball for .0000000001 seconds (if pressed), therefore technically waiting for same amount of time to make play. Out on the slide or attempt to avoid, EJ on the malicious contact. Gotta look at the spirit of the rule in this case, as opposed to the black and white wording.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by LMan

well, FED takes this in account and penalizes it. But then, FED aint real baseball, right?

The NCAA also has the rule so I guess NCAA isn't real baseball either.

Playing for pay is one thing amateur athletics is another.

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

Originally posted by VaUmp
To GarthB: I don't know much about the Major League Rules but if the following quote from your missive is correct, "
a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act-such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.-to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.", then I can't see why you wouldn't classify dropping a shoulder as "obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike".

I guess it's all in reading the rule.

[Kaliix]

I would think that it would be like a banger at first, I got to see the runner beat the throw or the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense.

Originally posted by TBBlue

Technically, I believe Pete is correct, if you judge catcher did not have ball, and not waiting to make play. LL Malicious Contact rule is eject only. However, in this case I would be inclined to judge that the catcher had the ball for .0000000001 seconds (if pressed), therefore technically waiting for same amount of time to make play. Out on the slide or attempt to avoid, EJ on the malicious contact. Gotta look at the spirit of the rule in this case, as opposed to the black and white wording.

[chuckfan1]

Tim C: Easy huh? Just cant resist to take a shot at someone huh?
Anyways, heres all Im trying to say. Yes, everyone knew Erstad was going to get thrown at. My problem was WHEN the warning was issued. Managers and players have the same concern.
Of course give the Braves their shot at him, which they did. But no warning should be issued at that point. Why issue a warning to the Angels? They havnt even thrown a pitch yet. Why should Byrd have that burden on his mind the whole game? Byrd now has to alter his game, not being a power pitcher, he relies on control, and being able to pitch inside. If he does that, and doinks someone, he gets ejected? Thats not right. The warning should have been issued only after, or IF an Angel pitcher konked someone. Because THEN its turned into retaliating for the Erstad brushback.
Said Byrd.."Immediately at first, you want to go out there and stand somebody up, but lets say I do go out and hit somebody with a fastball, now who do we have to come in? (assuming he gets ejected).."Its a fine line. Its tough decesion to make. I have to stand up for my teammates, but they need me to pitch the game."
Byrd said he was affected by the umpires warning....."When I dont even take the mound and Ive already got a warning, yeah, it makes it tough."
I just think that baseball, in giving the authority to the umpires to issue warnings, its usually unfair to one of the teams. And this has been an issue for a long time, not just last nights game. In essence, one team, gets a free shot, which is fine (usually in taking up for a teammate). And the other team gets warned, and like in last nights game Byrd gets dinged.
Also, back to whether Erstad was trying to hurt Estrada, heres what Erstad said in todays paper....."I didnt sleep much last night. When somebodys injured, thats the last thing you want, I thought about it from every angle, every possible thing I could have done differently. I play the way I play."

[Edited by chuckfan1 on Jun 8th, 2005 at 07:25 PM]

[Tim C]

chuckfan1 . . . I'll type Reeeealll slow.

Because that is the way the rule is written.

The warning is ALWAYS argued that it isn't fair to the team that hasn't thrown yet.

It is not an overreaction . . . the fukking pitch went BEHIND the hitter.

Yep, I couldn't help taking a shot . . . and I will continue to do it to people who REFUSE to understand the way things work when done correctly.

Shoot, you probably agree with McClellen last year when he screwed the pooch.

EDIT:

Jeff:

Do you really think that the crew (and maybe even the Commishes Office) didn't discuss this issue before the game? Do you really think that the PU decision was made without ANY OTHER input?

I am not sure that your post is not the one that is "taking a shot".

Edited to correct to whom it was directed.

[Edited by Tim C on Jun 9th, 2005 at 09:01 AM]

[Kaliix]

Tim, I agree with you about the ruling in the game. It was done just the way it should have been.

Do you think, Tim, that maybe they should consider changing the rule so that only one team is warned, the team that actually threw at someone?

Do you have any opinion on that?

Originally posted by Tim C
cowboyfan . . . I'll type Reeeealll slow.

Because that is the way the rule is written.

The warning is ALWAYS argued that it isn't fair to the team that hasn't thrown yet.

It is not an overreaction . . . the fukking pitch went BEHIND the hitter.

Yep, I couldn't help taking a shot . . . and I will continue to do it to people who REFUSE to understand the way things work when done correctly.

Shoot, you probably agree with McClellen last year when he screwed the pooch.

EDIT:

Jim:

Do you really think that the crew (and maybe even the Commishes Office) didn't discuss this issue before the game? Do you really think that the PU decision was made without ANY OTHER input?

I am not sure that your post is not the one that is "taking a shot".

[Edited by Tim C on Jun 8th, 2005 at 08:37 PM]

[RefWEB]

Originally posted by Kaliix
[B]Tim, I agree with you about the ruling in the game. It was done just the way it should have been.

Do you think, Tim, that maybe they should consider changing the rule so that only one team is warned, the team that actually threw at someone?

Do you have any opinion on that?

Why give the other team a chance to dot someone?

If they get warned at the time of the first dot, the ump it theoretically stopping the retaliation.

[DG]

It is amazing to me that the pitcher missed Erstad on his first pitch to him.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by Tim C
cowboyfan . . . I'll type Reeeealll slow.

Because that is the way the rule is written.

The warning is ALWAYS argued that it isn't fair to the team that hasn't thrown yet.

It is not an overreaction . . . the fukking pitch went BEHIND the hitter.

Yep, I couldn't help taking a shot . . . and I will continue to do it to people who REFUSE to understand the way things work when done correctly.

Shoot, you probably agree with McClellen last year when he screwed the pooch.

EDIT:

Jim:

Do you really think that the crew (and maybe even the Commishes Office) didn't discuss this issue before the game? Do you really think that the PU decision was made without ANY OTHER input?

I am not sure that your post is not the one that is "taking a shot".

[Edited by Tim C on Jun 8th, 2005 at 08:37 PM]

How did I get pulled into this?? I have no problem with the play or the resulting warning to both teams after the pitch. That is the way it is done. Advantage LAA on the take out. Braves got their "shot" Ump issues warning and "ends it". If he waits till Byrd comes out and chunks one at a batters head then it is advantage Angels again. Warning too late at that point as there will be another "message" sent, benches clearing ejections, fines, suspensions because then Braves will feel they still need to get their shot back since the "score" is 2-1 Angels in this mess.

Watson will not say anything as he knows the deal and knows it is baseball the way it is played from about AA full season on up. And as far as it being a "cheap shot" to the jaw, Erdstat was at the disadvantage there as Estrada had his helmet on. Estrada got his bell rung a bit and that is all. I bet you Estrada will not think it was a dirty play. And the intent was not to hurt as they only MLB players who think that is American League pitchers. Case in point, how many heads has Pedro thrown at this year?? None, as he knows HE will get drilled if he tries. If he is in the AL still, he'd have a few of those pitches thrown already.

[Illini_Ref]

Thanks Pete, I figured that was your reasoning. You may bery well be right, but if I'm calling that play in a LL game, the benefit goes to the catcher for safety reasons. I don't think anyone would argue if you called interference, and malicious contact in a LL game for that same play. If you didn't you might get crucified though!

[TBBlue]

[i]

How did I get pulled into this?? I have no problem with the play or the resulting warning to both teams after the pitch. That is the way it is done. Advantage LAA on the take out. Braves got their "shot" Ump issues warning and "ends it". If he waits till Byrd comes out and chunks one at a batters head then it is advantage Angels again. Warning too late at that point as there will be another "message" sent, benches clearing ejections, fines, suspensions because then Braves will feel they still need to get their shot back since the "score" is 2-1 Angels in this mess....

....Case in point, how many heads has Pedro thrown at this year?? None, as he knows HE will get drilled if he tries. If he is in the AL still, he'd have a few of those pitches thrown already. [/B]

Confused by your 100% turnaround, but ok. Glad you actually see the point of the rule.

Pedro always has been and always will be a headhunter. When he came up with the Expos, he hunted heads. Granted he did it a lot more with the crappy AL DH rule, because he knew his teammates would take the heat. But just wait. When he feels he needs it to get the edge this season, he WILL throw at someone. He is a great pitcher, and doesn't really need to throw at people, but that's Pedro. He may care more, now that he is more mature, but when he was with Montreal, the fact that he had to bat did not stop him from letting one go every once in a while.

[dvellison]

What everyone has failed to point out is this:

1) The purpose of a base runner is to reach home plate
2) The catcher was in the legal base path area
3) It is perfectly legal for a base runner to make contact
with a catcher to attempt to dislodge the ball.
4) This is not malicious. He didn't use contact to be
malicious, he used contact to dislodge the ball
resulting in scoring a run.

Why is everyone having so much difficulty with this. If the catcher doesn't want to risk getting injured, MOVE!