11/21/24
August 10, 2015
SportsFilter: The Monday Huddle:
A place to discuss the sports stories that aren't making news, share links that aren't quite front-page material, and diagram plays on your hand. Remember to count to five Mississippi before commenting in anger.
So let's walk this through the events in order.
1) Ball in play.
2a) Runner touches home.
2b) Batter reaches 1B.
2c) Runner going to 3B abandons the base path to join the celebration.
3) Runner going to 2B turns around and hugs batter, and eventually switches places (putting batter in front of him).
4) Arizona players mob the batter.
5) At least one Reds player (Phillips) does not leave the infield.
6) Security guard throw the ball back to Phillips.
7) Phillips touches 2B.
8) Phillips throws the ball to 1B, where they touch the bag.
9) 1Bman throws the ball to 3B, where they touch the bag.
The best I can see is that step 3, the batter is now out. (Out #2 in the inning)
Therefore, there is no force play at 2B, meaning the act in step 7 is wasted.
Therefore, there is no force play at 3B, meaning the act in step 9 is wasted.
I don't see a third out anywhere, UNLESS they decided step 2c is an automatic out (abandoning the basepaths).
Based on what I typed above, the batter passing the runner would be the third out of the inning (if 2c is an out), but it wouldn't be a force out, so the run should still count.
So, I reverse my decision. The RESULT is correct (run scores, Diamonbacks win), but the explanation seems to be incorrect.
posted by grum@work at 11:04 AM on August 10, 2015
Adding injury to insult...
Brett Gardner gets beaned by a fan throwing back a Bautista home run.
posted by grum@work at 12:19 PM on August 10, 2015
You have it exactly correct, grum. Once the batter-runner reaches first, and the runner from third base has touched home plate, the game is over. Any subsequent action is meaningless. If indeed the batter-runner is out because he passes a preceding runner, his being out negates any force play, and the "time play" situation (run scoring before the third out is recorded) comes into effect. The other possibility, that of force plays at 3rd and 2nd, if they are the final 2 outs of the inning, could negate the run, but having a security guard touch the ball causes a dead ball. Thus, the runners and the batter-runner are placed at the last base earned, unless forced to advance, in which case the batter-runner is awarded first, and the others are awarded 2nd and 3rd, as appropriate. To be really specific, the security guard touching the ball should be considered spectator interference, and the umpires will award bases as their judgement determines where everyone should end up. It is situations such as this that make umpires at every level stay up late at night studying the rule book and the case book.
posted by Howard_T at 02:36 PM on August 10, 2015
Marshawn Lynch revisits the play call that determined the outcome of the Super Bowl.
posted by Howard_T at 02:40 PM on August 10, 2015
To be really specific, the security guard touching the ball should be considered spectator interference, and the umpires will award bases as their judgement determines where everyone should end up.
The only issue I have with that is then you allow the home team employees to interfere with the play in a way that helps their team.
posted by grum@work at 08:54 PM on August 10, 2015
in a way that helps their team
It might also hurt their team. Spectator interference is a judgement call on the part of the umpires. They judge what bases would have been gained had the interference not occurred, and since it is a judgement call, it cannot be appealed nor is there replay involved. The umpires will usually get together and work out the call, but it is not without possibility that they might go a little heavy on the home team if they suspect some deliberate act. The best example I can think of is spectator interference vs the ground rule double, or to put it into rule book language, a 2-base award for a batted ball that bounds over a fence into dead ball territory. In this case, a runner at first is also awarded 2 bases and is stopped at third. In the case of spectator interference, the 2-base award is not automatic. The umpires could award 3 bases to the runner and 2, or even 3 or 4, to the batter-runner.
posted by Howard_T at 09:22 PM on August 10, 2015
This reminds me of the Robin Ventura grand slam single in the NLCS a few years' back, which ended up similarly being a historical score keeping anomaly.
However thank god for the runners passing, the security guard dead ball, and the poor force play, else I'm still not sure how it should have been ruled.
The runners not having touched the bags at 2nd and 3rd is irrelevant once the runners cross home and first. However... just how long is that? Let's imagine earnest but painfully, comically slow runners on 1st and 2nd. They haven't made it to their next base even as the batter and man on third have rung up the winning run. Meanwhile, with no staff intererence, the ball makes it back to the infield, both runners get caught off base, double play on the force outs at 3rd and 2nd.
We'd all agree that a DP not only doesn't earn an RBI, but in this instance would it still matter? Runners can get in an intentional rundown just to buy more time for a lead runner to score, but if it's a force play and the runners are slow... just how much time is allowed to complete the inning end out after the run scores? And do the runners in a force situation ever have to touch the bag once the run has scored? Contrasted, if I have an Ichiro ground to SS in this situation, and both he and the runner on third reach their bases before the routine DP is completed... did Ichiro's team win, or are we going to extra innings?
posted by hincandenza at 05:01 PM on August 11, 2015
but in this instance would it still matter?
No run may score if the third out of an inning is the result of the batter-runner being put out prior to reaching first base or if the third out is a force play on a preceding runner. I have never heard of any call being made after a fielder abandons an attempt to make a play on a ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently touched by a non-player.
Here is the excerpt from the rule book of the exceptions to a run scoring:
EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made
(1) by the batter runner before he touches first base;
(2) by any runner being forced out; or
(3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.
(b) When the winning run is scored in the last half inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter runner has touched first base. An exception will be if fans rush onto the field and physically prevent the runner from touching home plate or the batter from touching first base. In such cases, the umpires shall award the runner the base because of the obstruction by the fans.
What saves the umpires from having egg all over their faces is the fact that the batter-runner passed one of the preceding runners. He is out, but since he has already touched first base, exception 1, above, is not satisfied, and additionally, since the batter-runner is out, all forces are removed. Runners failing to advance to a base may be called out by the umpire, but since it becomes a time play, the run would score anyway. The rule of equity (what umpires use when the situation is FUBAR -- a great acronym used often in the US Armed Forces) would say in this case that had all things gone according to the normal course of play, the run would have scored and the game would be over. As I said before, along about January the rule books and case books come off the shelf, and the study begins.
posted by Howard_T at 11:11 PM on August 11, 2015
You explanations did help clarify it, thanks; the reason for the rules is to cover the weird case closer to what I described, when you have fast runner make it to first while a DP is being completed. It answers the question of whether the run scores or not, and whether it's timing based- which happens first- or event based- once these boxes are ticked off without any of these. There's one other thing that would have come into play: being outside the base paths, those runners would have been out for that reason, I believe.
Then again, the runners were celebrating because the CF just ran in, there was zero chance of a play at the plate. Had he instead made a fierce effort to get the ball in (for god knows what reason) the runners would have just advanced normally, stepped on their bases, and stayed there with a safe lead until the winning run crossed the plate and play was basically stopped, like with a playable medium/shallow pop fly.
Interestingly, a nefarious coach could exploit this exactly once in a season: in the same bases-loaded one or two out in the bottom of the 9th situation like this, if a clear untouchable hit goes over an outfielder's head, they always play act as if they give up almost immediately... and if they're lucky enough to entice this kind of premature celebration even one time, the next OF over quietly scurries for the ball, whips it in to the first OF who has suddenly darted over to be the relay man, and boom- instant one or two outs. You'd have to be the baseball equivalent of Belichick to even plan and train for something like that, though. :)
I like the idea that there's a rule of equity, a sort of "Well, this is why they pay you: when it all falls apart, just think it over and try to be fair to the spirit of the game at play". Hopefully, in this case they'd make the spirit-of-the-game decision if things were actually questionable, under that basis, or if a team did the intentional "hidden fielder" trick or whatever we'd call it.
posted by hincandenza at 04:17 AM on August 12, 2015
being outside the base paths, those runners would have been out for that reason, I believe.
The base paths aren't exactly what most people think they are. The base path is not defined as the nice straight line between those canvas sacks. The base path is established once the play on a runner begins. Now usually the runner is trying to take the shortest route, and this is on that nice straight line. Now picture this. With one out the batter-runner hits a base hit to the outfield. On the play a runner, let's say from first, is thrown out attempting to get to third base. The batter-runner, thinking that this is the third out of the inning turns to run directly across the infield toward the third base dugout. About the time he gets halfway to the mound (closer to second than first), the fielders and the batter-runner wake up to what's going on. The ball is thrown to the second baseman at the bag, and the batter-runner heads directly to the bag. Instead of setting up a rundown or otherwise attempting to make a tag, the second baseman looks at the umpire and asks him to declare the batter-runner out for being out of the baseline. While this is going on, the batter-runner makes it to the bag and the umpire says "safe". Why? The play on the runner was started when the runner was on the grass of the infield between the mound and second. Thus his baseline is the line directly between where he is and the bag, and he is given a 3-foot margin on either side to evade a tag. As long as he does not go outside this line, the runner is not out. When the second baseman chose to ignore him, and the runner sneaked in, the umpire correctly ruled "safe". Nobody ever believes me when I tell them this, but it was in the case book, and was on the exam one year.
posted by Howard_T at 01:27 PM on August 12, 2015
What a weird... and wonderful... game is baseball. :)
posted by hincandenza at 10:02 PM on August 14, 2015
In case anyone missed it, there was an absolute clusterfuck ending for the Reds/Diamondbacks game.
MLB Tonight analyzes it (incorrectly).
How many things could go wrong?
1) The Arizona base runners at 1st and 2nd abandon the base paths to join the celebration, without actually touching the next base. They both committed "Merkle's Boner".
2) The Reds outfielder is too lazy to go retrieve the ball, so he asks a security guard to throw it to him from the outfield wall. By doing so, it immediately becomes a dead ball, so anything that happens afterwards is negated.
3) Even if the umpires don't recognize that fact, the Reds screw up the order for the force plays, by touching 2nd base first. This means that the "force" at 3rd base is no longer there, so the second out wouldn't be recorded at that point. Of course because of the events in 2), these aren't force plays anymore, but appeal plays, so it shouldn't matter about the order.
4) Except, the umpires incorrectly invoke a rule to declare the game over. They say that 5.08(b) indicates the game is over:
When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.
The umpires misinterpret the minimum requirements for ending the game (safe at first, safe at home) with ONLY requirements. Obviously, a double-play at 3B and 2B should be enough to negate the winning run (or appeals on touching 3B/2B).
In the end, Diamondbacks win, Reds lose, and someone needs to clean up those rules.