- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Ending of White Sox - Orioles game
Posted on 5/24/24 at 6:33 am
Posted on 5/24/24 at 6:33 am
LINK
Yes, the White Sox suck...but this is ridiculous.
Does anyone else remember anything like this? Interference on an infield fly rule?
Yes, the White Sox suck...but this is ridiculous.
Does anyone else remember anything like this? Interference on an infield fly rule?
7
Posted on 5/24/24 at 7:01 am to tccdc
Just absurd. How umpires can sometimes be so incompetent never ceases to amaze me
Posted on 5/24/24 at 7:02 am to tccdc
Terrible officiating. Yeah, it’s the White Sox, but it’s also the Orioles and they’re getting a free win here
Baseball is the sport with its officials most closely integrated into the culture of the game.
It’s also the sport in which the officials can most easily be replaced by technology.
Baseball is the sport with its officials most closely integrated into the culture of the game.
It’s also the sport in which the officials can most easily be replaced by technology.
This post was edited on 5/24/24 at 7:05 am
Posted on 5/24/24 at 7:34 am to Overbrook
Sports officials are stupid.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 7:42 am to tccdc
The context of what happened beforehand is important and should infuriate White Sox fan.
Os we’re up 8-2 going into the 9th. White Sox scored 4 on Heasly and Cano/Kimbrell finally got some outs. Benintendi was the game winning run at the plate.
I’m an Os season ticket holder and even I know that call was bullshite.
Os we’re up 8-2 going into the 9th. White Sox scored 4 on Heasly and Cano/Kimbrell finally got some outs. Benintendi was the game winning run at the plate.
I’m an Os season ticket holder and even I know that call was bullshite.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 7:43 am to BennyAndTheInkJets
Context doesn’t matter. That was an awful call regardless.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 9:45 am to tccdc
Mlb need to tell the umpires union to kick rocks. How the owners allow shite umps to keep their jobs is ridiculous.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 10:04 am to Tomherman
I saw it on Twitter and just was confused all the way through. How can there be interference on an infield fly rule? The batter it out either way. What is there to interfere with?
The CWS manager - not sure his name offhand - was way too lax after that ending. I would have absolutely lost my mind.
The CWS manager - not sure his name offhand - was way too lax after that ending. I would have absolutely lost my mind.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 10:17 am to tccdc
I find it amazing that refs don't actually get punched in the face for shite like this. MLB, the NBA, and the NFL have a bunch of prime candidates for it.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 10:42 am to tccdc
The ruling is explicitly spelled out in the MLB rule book. Yes, it sucks, but it is the rule.
If you don't think it should be enforced, please provide a list of other rules that you don't think should be enforced. I can supply my list after and see where this goes.
If you don't think it should be enforced, please provide a list of other rules that you don't think should be enforced. I can supply my list after and see where this goes.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:02 am to Boudreaux35
The White Sox manager even said it was the correct call, just a dumb rule.
There’s a dedicated umpires forum (college officials down to T-ball) that I always go to to get input when stuff like this happens, and universally they are saying they would not have made the call because they couldn’t see the HINDRANCE portion of the rule on this play, that it’s a judgment call there and this ump’s judgement sucked.
One of the umps posting there really nailed it: “You want to see a rule changed? Call it as written.”
There’s a dedicated umpires forum (college officials down to T-ball) that I always go to to get input when stuff like this happens, and universally they are saying they would not have made the call because they couldn’t see the HINDRANCE portion of the rule on this play, that it’s a judgment call there and this ump’s judgement sucked.
One of the umps posting there really nailed it: “You want to see a rule changed? Call it as written.”
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:14 am to InkStainedWretch
I will agree that there are several "dumb rules" in the rule book. The problem is that as long as they are there, they should be enforced. If we decide that rules can be ignored just because someone thinks they are "dumb" we will have a huge mess.
I understand that some people disagree with the call made. Let's say that the call was NOT made and CHI ends up winning the game later. Now you have a game where a written RULE was ignored and the benefitting team wins. How much crap do you see happening then?
Carry it a little further. When Vegas figures it it, how much crap will there be?
I agree with the umpire you quoted. It can be related back to the OT rule in football that was changed after the Saints benefitted, right?
I understand that some people disagree with the call made. Let's say that the call was NOT made and CHI ends up winning the game later. Now you have a game where a written RULE was ignored and the benefitting team wins. How much crap do you see happening then?
Carry it a little further. When Vegas figures it it, how much crap will there be?
I agree with the umpire you quoted. It can be related back to the OT rule in football that was changed after the Saints benefitted, right?
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:15 am to Tomherman
It's all part of the show. How does Angel Hernandez still have a job?
Umpires' Union
His intentional incompetence generates clicks and views all over the internet.
Umpires doing stupid things create videos and gain clicks and views. We don't have to like it, and most of us don't. But that's where major sports are in our day and time. All of the big leagues in the United States and elsewhere are pretty much the same, the NHL is the only one that still seems to have a shred of officiating integrity.
Umpires' Union
His intentional incompetence generates clicks and views all over the internet.
Umpires doing stupid things create videos and gain clicks and views. We don't have to like it, and most of us don't. But that's where major sports are in our day and time. All of the big leagues in the United States and elsewhere are pretty much the same, the NHL is the only one that still seems to have a shred of officiating integrity.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:19 am to tccdc
This has future Jomboy video written all over it.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:37 am to Boudreaux35
quote:
The ruling is explicitly spelled out in the MLB rule book. Yes, it sucks, but it is the rule.
quote:- The ball is popped up
"Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not."
- Vaughn casually walks back to 2nd (which he’d barely left)
- Henderson was right behind 2nd at the pop, comfortably moves around him, travels another 15 feet, and makes an easy catch
Where is the argument for hindered? All Vaughn did was walk back to the base, which Henderson was directly behind. Henderson had no issues getting around him to make the catch. With Henderson’s position and ump’s definition of “hinder” you could argue there was nothing he possibly could have done to avoid it
Disagree on it being a bad rule. If the ball isn’t caught it’s live and runners can advance until time is called. The rule’s there in the event of a guy on 3rd (or fast guy on 2nd) - a collision is high probability of a run. And you have to put in the “intentional or not” in there to protect the defense getting screwed
The rule is fine. This application was complete nonsense and totally against the spirit of why it’s there
This post was edited on 5/24/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:41 am to RemouladeSawce
I agree with you about it not necessarily being a BAD rule, rules have to account for things that might happen every century or so. The application was absolutely the issue.
I was sort of quoting the Chisox manager who again said it was the right call and questioned the rule itself. Which is probably why he didn’t come unglued.
Billy Martin would have killed somebody.
I was sort of quoting the Chisox manager who again said it was the right call and questioned the rule itself. Which is probably why he didn’t come unglued.
Billy Martin would have killed somebody.
This post was edited on 5/24/24 at 11:46 am
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:53 am to RemouladeSawce
The applicable rule is 6.01(a)(10):
“It is interference by a batter or runner when…
“He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball…”
The term “hinder” applies to other sub parts of 6.01(a), but not (10).
This was an NFL type call where common sense is completely abandoned.
“It is interference by a batter or runner when…
“He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball…”
The term “hinder” applies to other sub parts of 6.01(a), but not (10).
This was an NFL type call where common sense is completely abandoned.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 11:57 am to Speedy G
I would argue that the runner could not have avoided the fielder in this situation, b/c of where the both were (primarily SS being behind the runner and not visible) and the flight of the batter ball, thus the runner did not fail to avoid him.
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:01 pm to Boudreaux35
There is a rule that the runner must know/see the fielder is behind him before casually going back to base?
Posted on 5/24/24 at 12:10 pm to tke_swamprat
quote:
There is a rule that the runner must know/see the fielder is behind him before casually going back to base?
I get that, but again I do not see how he hindered the player. If the player wanted to take a straight line and then 90 degree angle to catch, sure but Vaughn in my interpretation was not in his way.
Anyways, rules
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News