Jump to content

Awful non-call in the 11th inning.


Buehrle>Wood

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (harkness @ May 17, 2016 -> 11:12 PM)
bad call... but runner wouldnt have been out so inning would have continued.

Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any

runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any fol-

lowing play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be

declared out for the interference of his teammate

 

From MLB rulebook. I don't see why that doesn't apply. A strikeout is a putout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (harkness @ May 17, 2016 -> 11:12 PM)
bad call... but runner wouldnt have been out so inning would have continued.

 

Batter would have called out for the third out.

 

 

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 17, 2016 -> 11:19 PM)
How come other teams replay every f***ing thing imaginable and get every review they ask for and we can't do s***?

 

Interference is not reviewable.

 

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ May 17, 2016 -> 11:24 PM)
So Springer goes back to first and Gattis still hits the bomb out of here. Sox lose still, right?

 

See above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (fathom @ May 17, 2016 -> 09:35 PM)
I was less mad when I didn't think he was out. Another disgraceful umpiring effort

 

Balls and strikes are calls you have to make right away and are made by millimeters. I get pissed at bad calls but can forgive.

 

This interference was so blatant that I can't let it go easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (harkness @ May 17, 2016 -> 10:12 PM)
bad call... but runner wouldnt have been out so inning would have continued.

 

7.09 (a) - It is interference by a batter or runner when:

After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch;

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ May 17, 2016 -> 11:58 PM)
Literally every Chicago writer/beat reporter is saying that the base runner would have just went back to first. Reading the rule seems to indicate to me he would have been out, what am I missing here?

 

The media is clueless in just about everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ May 17, 2016 -> 11:11 PM)
Did Ventura even come out and argue and ask the ump to get help?

 

Also bullpen and clutch hitting are gone.

 

Resting the pen in Texas seems to have ended their mojo.

 

I'm not so sure. It's nice to see the lineup still have some fight in them when the pen goes into mental midget mode.

 

Last year in a game like this, down 2 the guys just wanted to leave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (reiks12 @ May 18, 2016 -> 12:04 AM)
7.09 (a) - It is interference by a batter or runner when:

After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch;

 

And just to clarify. In the case of Correa, since he was already out, he can't be called out again. So because he interfered with the throw, the base runner would be called out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...