|
|
Post by ypaterson on May 31, 2024 12:16:31 GMT -5
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. It is not that the rules are ignored. It is that they are applied within the context, or as the more literate might say, "the spirit" of the game. That lesson was drilled into aspiring umpires in my youth and is best remembered by Yankee fans in the decision by Lee MacPhail in the infamous "Pine Tar" game. |
|
|
|
Post by 1955nyyfan on May 31, 2024 13:36:39 GMT -5
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. It is not that the rules are ignored. It is that they are applied within the context, or as the more literate might say, "the spirit" of the game. That lesson was drilled into aspiring umpires in my youth and is best remembered by Yankee fans in the decision by Lee MacPhail in the infamous "Pine Tar" game. I've been wondering if Umpires are allowed discretion when calling the game. I guess and obvious example would be the strike zone but I guess it could be also argued thats more judgement. In this case the Ump knew the rule and seemed to imply he did not have the ability to call it any way other than how he did. What is interesting, and somthing I had not thought about is the Yankees didn't protest because I think they said the rule supported the call but in the pine tar case the rule also supported the call. I have not heard if the League office has commented on this in any way. Stating if the call was correct, if the UMP had discretion or if the rule indeed needs to be altered. |
|
|
|
Post by azbob643 on May 31, 2024 13:40:37 GMT -5
It is not that the rules are ignored. It is that they are applied within the context, or as the more literate might say, "the spirit" of the game. That lesson was drilled into aspiring umpires in my youth and is best remembered by Yankee fans in the decision by Lee MacPhail in the infamous "Pine Tar" game. I've been wondering if Umpires are allowed discretion when calling the game. I guess and obvious example would be the strike zone but I guess it could be also argued thats more judgement. In this case the Ump knew the rule and seemed to imply he did not have the ability to call it any way other than how he did. What is interesting, and somthing I had not thought about is the Yankees didn't protest because I think they said the rule supported the call but in the pine tar case the rule also supported the call. I have not heard if the League office has commented on this in any way. Stating if the call was correct, if the UMP had discretion or if the rule indeed needs to be altered. Apparently the call was correct if going by the letter of the law...which is what rules are. The rule, IMO, needs to be altered so that the play is dead once the IF Fly is called. |
|
|
|
Post by Max on May 31, 2024 13:50:10 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? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Max on May 31, 2024 13:53:30 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).
Bummer! But just reading those restaurants' names did it. I'm ordering Chinese on Uber Eats today! Enjoy.  As you can probably tell I'm a fan of Chinese food. |
|
|
|
Post by ypaterson on May 31, 2024 15:34:29 GMT -5
It is not that the rules are ignored. It is that they are applied within the context, or as the more literate might say, "the spirit" of the game. That lesson was drilled into aspiring umpires in my youth and is best remembered by Yankee fans in the decision by Lee MacPhail in the infamous "Pine Tar" game. I've been wondering if Umpires are allowed discretion when calling the game. I guess and obvious example would be the strike zone but I guess it could be also argued thats more judgement. In this case the Ump knew the rule and seemed to imply he did not have the ability to call it any way other than how he did. What is interesting, and somthing I had not thought about is the Yankees didn't protest because I think they said the rule supported the call but in the pine tar case the rule also supported the call. I have not heard if the League office has commented on this in any way. Stating if the call was correct, if the UMP had discretion or if the rule indeed needs to be altered. I believe interference is a judgement. Not all contact is interference and there can be interference without contact: Remember the "Ha" call from A Rod back in 2007 ? |
|
|
|
Post by azbob643 on May 31, 2024 15:41:58 GMT -5
I've been wondering if Umpires are allowed discretion when calling the game. I guess and obvious example would be the strike zone but I guess it could be also argued thats more judgement. In this case the Ump knew the rule and seemed to imply he did not have the ability to call it any way other than how he did. What is interesting, and somthing I had not thought about is the Yankees didn't protest because I think they said the rule supported the call but in the pine tar case the rule also supported the call. I have not heard if the League office has commented on this in any way. Stating if the call was correct, if the UMP had discretion or if the rule indeed needs to be altered. I believe interference is a judgement. Not all contact is interference and there can be interference without contact: Remember the "Ha" call from A Rod back in 2007 ? Reggie Jackson's "hip check" in the '78 WS. Kent Hrbek's "lift" in the '91 WS. |
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on May 31, 2024 15:44:30 GMT -5
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. It is not that the rules are ignored. It is that they are applied within the context, or as the more literate might say, "the spirit" of the game. That lesson was drilled into aspiring umpires in my youth and is best remembered by Yankee fans in the decision by Lee MacPhail in the infamous "Pine Tar" game. Yes, applied with context is a better way to put it. Maybe it’s the CPA, in me, but this call really bothered me, and it still does! It can’t fathom why a play that’s so illogical could be called this way, it makes no sense, especially when it would so easy for MLB to amend this rule. I just like things to make sense. In the end, the Yankees still found a way to win, so they’ll move on and MLB is just left with another embarrassing moment. The league just can’t get out of their own way. |
|
|
|
Post by ypaterson on May 31, 2024 16:26:23 GMT -5
I believe interference is a judgement. Not all contact is interference and there can be interference without contact: Remember the "Ha" call from A Rod back in 2007 ? Reggie Jackson's "hip check" in the '78 WS. Kent Hrbek's "lift" in the '91 WS. You got a great memory. |
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on May 31, 2024 16:34:59 GMT -5
I believe interference is a judgement. Not all contact is interference and there can be interference without contact: Remember the "Ha" call from A Rod back in 2007 ? Reggie Jackson's "hip check" in the '78 WS. Kent Hrbek's "lift" in the '91 WS. I can still see Tommy Lasorda blowing a stack and I don't blame, Reggie's base running diversion was so obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by azbob643 on May 31, 2024 16:46:08 GMT -5
Reggie Jackson's "hip check" in the '78 WS. Kent Hrbek's "lift" in the '91 WS. You got a great memory. Only for some things. I've already forgotten what I had for breakfast, and I have the same thing every morning. |
|
As you can probably tell I'm a fan of Chinese food.