Poll

Sal from Leesburg is, you know?

Phil Wood's brother-in-law, brother, or cousin
1 (2.9%)
Phil Wood's bookie
7 (20.6%)
Phil Wood's college roommate or college friend
0 (0%)
Phil Wood's former co-worker
0 (0%)
A stranger who has called into any show Phil Wood hosts, for decades
17 (50%)
Other: (list below)
3 (8.8%)
Someone who likes to hear the sound of his own voice, on the air
6 (17.6%)

Total Members Voted: 34

Author Topic: Nats Talk Live Saturday 10 AM-NOON on MASN  (Read 105065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25014
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Nats Talk Live Saturday 10 AM-NOON on MASN
« Reply #1350: October 14, 2017, 11:53:22 AM »
there are actually 2 potentially applicable rules, the one we've talked about and another that the ump relied on that might be more specific.  the latter has a lot of judgment in it.  IT is discussed here:
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-nationals-protest-case/
Quote
There’s another rule that would permit a judgment call, however, and it appears to be the more relevant one in this case. (H/T Better Rule Book.)

This is 6.01(a)(1):


6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions

(a) (7.09) Batter or Runner Interference

It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(1) After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner 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;

This particular rule actually uses language that specifically addresses the situation we had last night (after a called third strike), identifies the relevant parties (batter-runner and catcher), and directs umpires to utilize their judgment (clearly hinders) to determine if the play was affected. Jerry Layne and the umpires used the appropriate rule, and they were correct to use their judgment.

As for whether that judgment was correct, that’s a separate matter
...
There’s nothing replay or a protest could have or should have done to change the result of the play. As to whether Layne correctly interpreted the rule, concluding that Wieters wasn’t clearly hindered by the shot to the head, that’s up for debate. It was an important play in an important game, and Layne and the rest of the crew might have missed one here. Unless replay is fundamentally changed to allow review of judgment calls, however — and even then, the play probably doesn’t get overturned — there is nothing egregious about the call last nigh