Game #57 Yankees/Angels lineup/game thread

No need for me, at this point it's water under the bridge. Thanks

Too late, I was in the process of posting it while you posted this, so it's up there in the same reply. You don't have to bother reading it, if you don't want to. Others might, and that's their business.

(Bold mine)
They could do this but probably won't, not until there's a major collision and someone gets hurt. It's similar to icing in hockey. From Wikipedia:

"The National Hockey League (NHL) introduced the icing rule in September 1937 to eliminate a common delaying tactic used by teams to protect a winning margin. A November 18, 1931 game between the New York Americans and Boston Bruins is cited as one extreme example that led to the ban on the practice. The Americans, protecting a 3–2 lead over the Bruins at Boston Garden, iced the puck over 50 times. The crowd became incensed and threw debris onto the ice, causing a delay while the teams were sent to their dressing rooms. When the teams met again that December 3 in New York, the Bruins iced the puck 87 times in a scoreless draw."

The rule allowing teams to ice the puck when defending a power play against was added later on. Same thing for if the goalie plays the puck first, or if the defending player has the opportunity to play the puck before it crosses the goal line, or if its "on net", or if the icing happens directly off a faceoff draw (very very rare). The NHL didn't adopt the so-called "hybrid" rule for icing until a series of serious injuries to players after collisions between players trying to get/avoid an icing call convinced the league they should add the "hybrid" rule to prevent those collisions.

Same thing here, but this play is far too rare in baseball. I doubt I'll see the rule changed in my remaining lifetime. Which is a lot shorter than it used to be. 

I don't see any reason it can't easily be modified. It didn't take much to ban the shift, enlarge the bases, install a pitch clock, and limit the number of pickoff attempts...and those were pretty radical changes. I doubt anyone would even notice if the IF Fly rule was modified as has been suggested.

Not sure which emoji to use, but honestly, I had to read that scenario a few times. 

Bottom line...the rule has been and can be easily changed.

They could call it the common sense modification.  Seriously, what would Soto gain by interfering with the fielder on a play like this?  The batter was already out, the runners were already back or almost back on their base and the fielder catching the ball had a teammate standing right next him to back him up if he did indeed drop the ball.   The runner's weren't going to advance.   The whole play just reeked and no common sense was used at all when the umpire called it a double play.