Mlb fpsr?!?!

[SanDiegoSteve]

It was interference. Vittorino had no intention of gaining second base, only in contacting the fielder.

It was called immediately, not later.

The umpires convened to make sure that they were ruling properly in returning both runners.

They got the call right.

The End.

[umpjim]

What about the guys throughout the season that had no intention of gaining 2B (knowing that they were out already) but while sliding within or sometimes not within a reach of second base tried to take out F4 or F6. I've seen no calls on those during the season. Has something changed or is the lack of a slide make it different?

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It was interference. Vittorino had no intention of gaining second base, only in contacting the fielder.

It was called immediately, not later.

The umpires convened to make sure that they were ruling properly in returning both runners.

They got the call right.

The End.

Under pure OBR, i'm confused as to why this is interference. I thought a slide was not required...


Devil's advocate:

Why is a similar (more malicious) play at home plate with collisions with the catcher not called interference? They obviously are not trying to reach the base in that instance.

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Under pure OBR, i'm confused as to why this is interference. I thought a slide was not required...


Devil's advocate:

Why is a similar (more malicious) play at home plate with collisions with the catcher not called interference? They obviously are not trying to reach the base in that instance.

It wasn't the lack of a slide, it was the deliberate contact he made with intent to prevent the double play. I missed it initially during live play, on the link you can see it clearly.

As for part 2, when the catcher is trying to block the plate as in MLB, do you really think he is trying for a DP??

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Under pure OBR, i'm confused as to why this is interference. I thought a slide was not required...


Devil's advocate:

Why is a similar (more malicious) play at home plate with collisions with the catcher not called interference? They obviously are not trying to reach the base in that instance.

It's like pornography. I'll know it when I see it (Which on this site is about once a week! ).

As for plays at the plate, the runner is still trying to touch the plate and score the run when he is trying to knock the catcher on his butt and dislodge the ball. The difference is that he doesn't need to gain home plate and stay there like he does at second base. If Vittorino would have came in standing up on the bag and stayed there, I don't think Joyce would have banged him for INT. But he totally kept going past the base (without ever touching it, no less) with no intention of trying to acquire a base that requires acquisition. Home plate only needs to be touched.

[johnnyg08]

Joyce called INT...in the replay you can see him pointing...they turned the double play anyway so in his mind the play was over...I too, was surprised to have to have the mgr come out to have them pull the run off the board...and once again, the announcers make it difficult for the rest of us by telling the viewing audience that "the runner has to slide" I can't wait until I have to deal with that one again this coming spring.