|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 30, 2024 17:11:43 GMT -5
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. Those were all put in to speed up the game and make it less boring to make it more marketable. Some of these changes involved things happening multiple times in the game. The interference call on an infield fly rule happens so rarely, I doubt the incentive is there to act with such speed. Can they do it fast and easy? Sure they can. But there's no compelling reason to, unless a player is seriously hurt on such a play. Then, they might change the rule quickly, as they did with the collisions at home plate, on the double play pivot, and on the 3-foot lane down the 1st base line. Especially since the umps got the 2nd one right, after getting the first one wrong.
|
|
|
Post by azbob643 on May 30, 2024 17:55:07 GMT -5
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. Those were all put in to speed up the game and make it less boring to make it more marketable. Some of these changes involved things happening multiple times in the game. The interference call on an infield fly rule happens so rarely, I doubt the incentive is there to act with such speed. Can they do it fast and easy? Sure they can. But there's no compelling reason to, unless a player is seriously hurt on such a play. Then, they might change the rule quickly, as they did with the collisions at home plate, on the double play pivot, and on the 3-foot lane down the 1st base line. Especially since the umps got the 2nd one right, after getting the first one wrong. Doesn’t really matter why the previously referenced changes were made, or the fact that the interference call happens rarely. In fact, the IF Fly rule itself is relatively rarely invoked. The fact the umps got the ruling right in last night’s game is irrelevant. As we’ve seen, the IF Fly rule was recently modified even though the umps got the ruling right in that game. Obviously, it was felt the rule needed clarification, and it was quickly, simply done. It could just as easily be modified/simplified again. As for injuries…MLB could be just as proactive in doing what it can in attempting to avoid injury to players as it was re the DP pivot and requiring catchers to provide a runner’s lane at home plate in order to avoid collisions. Either Neto, Soto or both could’ve easily been seriously injured in last night’s play. A simple rule change would eliminate that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by 1955nyyfan on May 30, 2024 18:16:16 GMT -5
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. Those were all put in to speed up the game and make it less boring to make it more marketable. Some of these changes involved things happening multiple times in the game. The interference call on an infield fly rule happens so rarely, I doubt the incentive is there to act with such speed. Can they do it fast and easy? Sure they can. But there's no compelling reason to, unless a player is seriously hurt on such a play. Then, they might change the rule quickly, as they did with the collisions at home plate, on the double play pivot, and on the 3-foot lane down the 1st base line. Especially since the umps got the 2nd one right, after getting the first one wrong. IMO, for what it's worth, the compelling reason should be the rule as written has a flaw. While I said earlier this is the first time I've seen it since I've been watching ball and as unlikely as it is, what if the next time it happens is in game 7 of the world series. The baserunner has to have the ability to get back to the bag in that situation. At a minimum, the Umpires should be allowed to use discretion based on intent. In this case they should have been able to rule the batter was out as a result of the IFR and declare a deadball after the unintentional collision.
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on May 30, 2024 18:31:43 GMT -5
Those were all put in to speed up the game and make it less boring to make it more marketable. Some of these changes involved things happening multiple times in the game. The interference call on an infield fly rule happens so rarely, I doubt the incentive is there to act with such speed. Can they do it fast and easy? Sure they can. But there's no compelling reason to, unless a player is seriously hurt on such a play. Then, they might change the rule quickly, as they did with the collisions at home plate, on the double play pivot, and on the 3-foot lane down the 1st base line. Especially since the umps got the 2nd one right, after getting the first one wrong. IMO, for what it's worth, the compelling reason should be the rule as written has a flaw. While I said earlier this is the first time I've seen it since I've been watching ball and as unlikely as it is, what if the next time it happens is in game 7 of the world series. The baserunner has to have the ability to get back to the bag in that situation. At a minimum, the Umpires should be allowed to use discretion based on intent. In this case they should have been able to rule the batter was out as a result of the IFR and declare a deadball after the unintentional collision. That would make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by inger on May 30, 2024 18:57:09 GMT -5
I'll read it since you went to the trouble. My reply wasn't mean't to be snarky, hope you didn't take it that way, was just trying to save you some work. Don't worry; I didn't read it that way. You know how thorough (annoying) I can be when I'm trying to make my points clear to other readers. I did. I was ready for a fight. 🍿 🍕 🍺🤓…
|
|
|
Post by inger on May 30, 2024 19:06:48 GMT -5
I don’t care for the automatic out portion of the rule. Never did. Drop the ball, get an error. Everyone advances one base on the drop which is now a dead ball. As for collisions, they WILL happen is the ball is hit right over a base. Collide with the fielder? He misses the ball the BATTER is out, just like if the ball was caught. It’s not a double play bonus ball for the defending team… but what if the fielder collided with the runner? (That’s actually what appeared to happen here)… Then the runner must be safe… on defensive interference…
Throw a yellow flag! …
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on May 30, 2024 19:08:30 GMT -5
Those were all put in to speed up the game and make it less boring to make it more marketable. Some of these changes involved things happening multiple times in the game. The interference call on an infield fly rule happens so rarely, I doubt the incentive is there to act with such speed. Can they do it fast and easy? Sure they can. But there's no compelling reason to, unless a player is seriously hurt on such a play. Then, they might change the rule quickly, as they did with the collisions at home plate, on the double play pivot, and on the 3-foot lane down the 1st base line. Especially since the umps got the 2nd one right, after getting the first one wrong. IMO, for what it's worth, the compelling reason should be the rule as written has a flaw. While I said earlier this is the first time I've seen it since I've been watching ball and as unlikely as it is, what if the next time it happens is in game 7 of the world series. The baserunner has to have the ability to get back to the bag in that situation. At a minimum, the Umpires should be allowed to use discretion based on intent. In this case they should have been able to rule the batter was out as a result of the IFR and declare a deadball after the unintentional collision. The umpire could have used his judgement and called the play that way last night, he just choose not to. Rules get ignored all the time in in sports. Until MLB changes this, we're going to see this again, I just hope it isn't during an important game.
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on May 30, 2024 19:11:13 GMT -5
I don’t care for the automatic out portion of the rule. Never did. Drop the ball, get an error. Everyone advances one base on the drop which is now a dead ball. As for collisions, they WILL happen is the ball is hit right over a base. Collide with the fielder? He misses the ball the BATTER is out, just like if the ball was caught. It’s not a double play bonus ball for the defending team… but what if the fielder collided with the runner? (That’s actually what appeared to happen here)… Then the runner must be safe… on defensive interference… Throw a yellow flag! … I like this even better. Why should a team get rewarded for messing up?
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on May 30, 2024 19:17:43 GMT -5
I don’t care for the automatic out portion of the rule. Never did. Drop the ball, get an error. Everyone advances one base on the drop which is now a dead ball. As for collisions, they WILL happen is the ball is hit right over a base. Collide with the fielder? He misses the ball the BATTER is out, just like if the ball was caught. It’s not a double play bonus ball for the defending team… but what if the fielder collided with the runner? (That’s actually what appeared to happen here)… Then the runner must be safe… on defensive interference… Throw a yellow flag! … Obstruction is on the defense; interference is on the offense.
|
|
|
Post by inger on May 30, 2024 19:18:20 GMT -5
I don’t care for the automatic out portion of the rule. Never did. Drop the ball, get an error. Everyone advances one base on the drop which is now a dead ball. As for collisions, they WILL happen is the ball is hit right over a base. Collide with the fielder? He misses the ball the BATTER is out, just like if the ball was caught. It’s not a double play bonus ball for the defending team… but what if the fielder collided with the runner? (That’s actually what appeared to happen here)… Then the runner must be safe… on defensive interference… Throw a yellow flag! … I like this even better. Why should a team get rewarded for messing up? That’s my thinking, along with the reality that a pop up is seldom a double play op (unless Posada was running, then you never knew)… The original rule was written because fielders were over-using the fake drop double play ball…
|
|
|
Post by inger on May 30, 2024 19:19:32 GMT -5
I don’t care for the automatic out portion of the rule. Never did. Drop the ball, get an error. Everyone advances one base on the drop which is now a dead ball. As for collisions, they WILL happen is the ball is hit right over a base. Collide with the fielder? He misses the ball the BATTER is out, just like if the ball was caught. It’s not a double play bonus ball for the defending team… but what if the fielder collided with the runner? (That’s actually what appeared to happen here)… Then the runner must be safe… on defensive interference… Throw a yellow flag! … Obstruction is on the defense; interference is on the offense. Cool, I approve the change of lexicon. That episode last night made me feel like I needed ablution…
|
|
|
Post by bumper on May 30, 2024 20:12:05 GMT -5
I went to David Chang's Momofuku Ko restaurant before it closed in NYC. One of the best meals I've ever eaten. I had 6 excellent Chinese restaurants that I used to eat at that are no longer in business.
I mentioned weeks ago Sun Luck (Elmhurst, Queens). There was also...
Lum's (Flushing, Queens).
Lucy's Chung's (Chinatown, Manhattan).
King Yum (Fresh Meadows, Queens).
Bill Hong's (East 56th st. Manhattan).
Dragon Seed (Jackson Heights, Queens).
max do you live in nyc?
|
|
|
Post by bumper on May 30, 2024 20:19:13 GMT -5
sounds yummy. pretty close to what i had last night sans the cilantro but adding asparagus from my garden over david chang momofuku noodles. sided it w bok choy in sesame oil and ginger.
as we speak, prepping asparagus (eat it almost every day at this time of the year with the garden producing a bunch daily) w cherry tomatoes and beyond steak sauteed w garlic and jalapeno over tricolor pasta topped w romano cheese (only locatelli of course). I love asparagus ...lightly sauteed with garlic or roast them. Have you had garlic scapes or ramps? They are delicious. Ramps are essentially wild leeks. They are in season right now. you can make compound butter with ramps. I dehydrate them for multiple usage, Sauteed ramps in olive oil added to pasta with grated cheese. asparagus are my fave. enjoy both scapes and ramps. i grow garlic so harvest the scapes when ready. just chop em and throw them in salad. also have ramps growing on the bank of the stream at the back of my property. luv 'em. add them to salad, put them on sandwiches and make pesto.
|
|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 30, 2024 20:25:06 GMT -5
Those were all put in to speed up the game and make it less boring to make it more marketable. Some of these changes involved things happening multiple times in the game. The interference call on an infield fly rule happens so rarely, I doubt the incentive is there to act with such speed. Can they do it fast and easy? Sure they can. But there's no compelling reason to, unless a player is seriously hurt on such a play. Then, they might change the rule quickly, as they did with the collisions at home plate, on the double play pivot, and on the 3-foot lane down the 1st base line. Especially since the umps got the 2nd one right, after getting the first one wrong. Doesn’t really matter why the previously referenced changes were made, or the fact that the interference call happens rarely. In fact, the IF Fly rule itself is relatively rarely invoked. The fact the umps got the ruling right in last night’s game is irrelevant. As we’ve seen, the IF Fly rule was recently modified even though the umps got the ruling right in that game. Obviously, it was felt the rule needed clarification, and it was quickly, simply done. It could just as easily be modified/simplified again. As for injuries…MLB could be just as proactive in doing what it can in attempting to avoid injury to players as it was re the DP pivot and requiring catchers to provide a runner’s lane at home plate in order to avoid collisions. Either Neto, Soto or both could’ve easily been seriously injured in last night’s play. A simple rule change would eliminate that possibility. Maybe, but this play wasn't a post-season game with a big audience, and you're asking them to fix something they probably don't think needs fixing, so they probably aren't changing it any time soon. Especially because the playoff call that got the rule changed seemed absurd because infield fly was called on a ball that was not in any real sense an infield fly. I'd be very surprised if anything happens to the infield fly rule because of this.
|
|
|
Post by 1955nyyfan on May 31, 2024 4:42:18 GMT -5
I had 6 excellent Chinese restaurants that I used to eat at that are no longer in business.
I mentioned weeks ago Sun Luck (Elmhurst, Queens). There was also...
Lum's (Flushing, Queens).
Lucy's Chung's (Chinatown, Manhattan).
King Yum (Fresh Meadows, Queens).
Bill Hong's (East 56th st. Manhattan).
Dragon Seed (Jackson Heights, Queens).
max do you live in nyc? I haven't been there but I've heard there is a good place in SOHO called Lee Ho Fooks. Understand that the beef chow mein is special.
|
|