Question for RickJay or whoever: What the heck are the batting helmets of the Diamondbacks and Pirates made of? They have new helmets that appear to me to be some carbon-fiber nanotube futuristic polymer stuff. The wife says they are made out of the same material as Crocs. Who is right, and what the hell is it?
I thought it was just a different finish, not an actual structural difference?
Nah, they look completely different. Different shape, different finish.
Ugh, Jose Fernandez on the dl with a biceps injury after tommy john surgery last year. I end up watching a lot of Marlins games with my MLB package , and he’s one of my favorite players in the game now
%#%@ing Cubs…
Really though, it should be %#%@ing Giants…at least the Dodgers are being kind enough to drop a few games as well.
Eamus, O Catuli!
Your team is the best in the game right now, this sore Reds fan suggests you enjoy it.
Arizona wins in controversial walkoff:
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/142241418/reds-lose-after-confusing-walk-off-ending
I still don’t understand the application of this rule. Suppose it was a ground ball to the third baseman who stepped on third and then threw to second for the third out? Does this rule hold that the winning run counts so long as the runner from third touched the plate and the batter-runner reached first before the third out at second?
I think it is a wrong call. Reds should have gotten a double play.
BUT, the security guard throws a wrinkle in this, as well as the fact that the Reds appealed at second base first (thereby removing the force on the runner going to third). But, of course, the runner going to third abandoned his efforts so…I dunno…
The written description in the linked article doesn’t match the video. The Reds tried to get outs at first base and third base. I didn’t see any attempt to get an out at second.
I think the umpires might have disallowed the run if the Reds had gotten the ball to third base, and then to second. This would have ended the inning with a force out, which would disallow the run under rule 5.08 (a) (a run can’t score on a play where the third out is a force out). That’s not what they did, though.
As for the member of the grounds crew retrieving the ball, that would probably constitute intentional interference under rule 6.01 (d). In that case the ball is dead, and “the umpire shall impose such penalty as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.”
I don’t think the runners from first and second abandoning their efforts to run the bases would have any effect on this play. This isn’t a force play, so timing matters - if they abandoned the base paths after the winning run scores, their outs don’t prevent the run from scoring.
BTW, I think it’s wrong to call these attempted outs “appeal plays.” There’s a fixed set of appeal plays recognized by the rules, for things like leaving a base early on a caught fly ball and failing to touch a base. There is no appeal play for a player who fails to advance to the next base when forced to.
I do think Chip Hale should talk to his players about the need to complete the play before celebrating. This could have been another Merkel’s Boner.
They threw to 2nd base, then 1st base, then 3rd base. The problem with that is, even if the force outs counted, after they forced the guy going to 2nd, there is no longer a force out at 3rd base. They’d have to tag the runner who was on 2nd. If they had gone to 3rd base first, then 2nd base, they’d have a stronger argument.
The rule is unclear at best. It says the game isn’t over until the runner on 3rd touches home and batter touches first. It does not say other runners have to advance to the next base, but I would assume that part to be implied as part of the game of baseball. I can’t believe the umpires apply that rule in such a way as explained, wherein the runners on 1st and 2nd base don’t have to advance.
If the runner from third is safe at home, and the batter-runner is safe at first, before three outs are made… why in the world would the run not count??
Why would they have to advance? So long as they avoid becoming the third out before the winning run scores, as above.
Because that’s how force outs work. If the 3rd out is a force out, no runs count, whether they reached before the force or not.
It looks to me like the fielder never touched second base. He caught the ball while standing a couple of feet from the bag, then turned and walked several feet towards first before throwing.
From the official rules:
I’m not following you here. It IS a force play. If a ground ball is hit to third, the third baseman steps on third and throws to second, the inning is over and no runs score. Agreed?
If so, why does it now change if the baserunners abandon their efforts and the force outs are done in another manner?
As far as the security guard throwing the ball, it should matter that it was the AZ security staff and the result of the interference was negligible. It simply saved the outfielder a bunch of steps to go retrieve the ball. It didn’t change the result of the play.
You actually see this exact situation from time to time, if you watch a lot of baseball, and no one disputes the accuracy of the call… Consider:
Fast runner on third–say, Billy Hamilton. Slow runner on first. (Okay, everyone is slow compared to Hamilton; let’s just say slower than the guy on first.) Two out. Batter hits a slow grounder between short and third. Both runners are obviously going on contact.
SS makes a fine play to corral the ball and get it to the second baseman. The runner from first is out by a couple of whiskers. Third out, end of inning.
I guarantee you Hamilton–any fast runner–will already have crossed the plate by the time the third out is actually recorded. So is it a run? No, it isn’t, and y’ll never see it called that way. Because it’s a force play, it doesn’t matter whether the runner from third got there before, during, or after–the run doesn’t count. Most of us don’t even notice whether the man from third touched home before the play is made, because it makes no difference.
Missed the editing window: that should read “slower than the guy on third.” Sorry.
I don’t see anything in the rules that defines this as a force play. Force outs are described under rule 5.09 (b) (6):
The bit about a runner being out for abandoning the base paths is covered under rule 5.09 (b) (2):
Maybe I need to watch the video. My understanding from your description and others is that there was no force available for the third out.
The bolded part above indicates why it is a force out. (Or would have been if they had done it right.)
That is, the runner on second was forced to run to third, because the batter was heading to first and the man on first was heading to second. Third base was tagged by the defensive team (again, or would have been) before he got there–kind of by definition, as he never got there at all.
To repeat: “The next base is tagged [by the defensive team, with the ball] before he [the runner] touches the next base.” That’s a force out. That’s what happened (or would have).
It’s hard to imagine that the penalty for abandoning the basepaths in a force situation would be any less harsh than the penalty for being forced out (that is, any runs scoring during the abandonment don’t count if the runner is forced out).