Author Topic: Shouldn't someone on the Nats staff have known the interference rules?  (Read 1396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 1675
Seriously, anyone bemoaning Dusty being fired just needs read that.  Bill Belichick knows rules inside and out and makes sure everyone on his team knows them as well, it's helped the Patriots win more games than I can lost.  That really makes me angry we have that challenge away  >:(

Nothing in here says that Dusty didn't request a rules check.  Torre didn't say anything about umpires having to honor that request.  It seemed that Weiters and Dusty both were arguing with correct knowledge of the rule in question.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9022
Nothing in here says that Dusty didn't request a rules check. 
If Dusty had requested a rule check, I think we can be sure that he would have told someone by now.

Offline wj73

  • Posts: 427
It didn’t look like there was a rules check. Weiters argued, but Dusty didn’t appear to argue at all. He just listened to the ump’s explanation, nodded, then sat down. And the umps certainly didn’t put on any headsets to ask for a rules clarification.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 41591
The game should have been played under protest

Offline SkinsNatFan21RIP

  • Posts: 427
Even if Dusty argues, what are the odds the crew changes the call? 

Offline wj73

  • Posts: 427
Even if Dusty argues, what are the odds the crew changes the call?

If Dusty had requested a rules check and the umps checked with NY and were told that the initial interpretation of the rule was wrong, the umps would have had no choice but to change the call in accordance with the correct application of the rule.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 2812
The Umpire said he knew the rule and when asked about it, in his judgment, it didn’t apply. I think Wieters and Dusty knew the rule, asked the umpire and was denied. And it took MLB two weeks to confirm the right call. You’re sure that going to NYC would have gotten the result we were looking for?

I don’t agree with everyone that thinks Dusty makes poor pitching decisions, but at least I understand those. I don’t understand blaming him for this. MLB screwed up. The entire umpiring crew screwed up, I mean they ask do a crew chief review for anything that was close to questionable, but not this?

The mental gymnastics required to make Dusty the primary person at fault is actually pretty impressive.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9022
The primary person at fault is the umpire. Clearly.  Secondarily, Weiters, and next Dusty.

The umpire should know the rule. Period.

Weiters, being a catcher, should know the rule.  And apparently, he did, but he was bullied by the umpire into questioning his belief of the rule.  Wieters should have told Dusty that he thought the umpire might be mistaken.  We don't know whether he did.

Dusty, as manager, should have a command of the rules but it is understandable that he might be a bit fuzzy on some of the more obscure rules. It is also understandable that  he believed that the umpire knew the rule.  If Wieters had mentioned to Dusty that he thought the umpire was wrong, then Dusty for sure should have asked for a rule review. But we don't know if Wieters mentioned it.

If Wieters did mention it to Dusty, then Dusty becomes the primary.  But we don't know.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 9782
The primary person at fault is the umpire. Clearly.  Secondarily, Weiters, and next Dusty.

The umpire should know the rule. Period.

Weiters, being a catcher, should know the rule.  And apparently, he did, but he was bullied by the umpire into questioning his belief of the rule.  Wieters should have told Dusty that he thought the umpire might be mistaken.  We don't know whether he did.

Dusty, as manager, should have a command of the rules but it is understandable that he might be a bit fuzzy on some of the more obscure rules. It is also understandable that  he believed that the umpire knew the rule.  If Wieters had mentioned to Dusty that he thought the umpire was wrong, then Dusty for sure should have asked for a rule review. But we don't know if Wieters mentioned it.

If Wieters did mention it to Dusty, then Dusty becomes the primary.  But we don't know.
Bench coach Speier; he was a totally empty uniform as best I can tell.  Got the job due to being buddies with Dusty and apparently being able to say "right boss."  I mean if bench coaches are not meant for these types of situations then what are they for?

Offline sayhey

  • Posts: 39
And what was up with Weiters always being in the way this series.  Twice he was hit with backswings, and once he got in the way of a swing.  I haven't seen any of those things more than once or twice a year at best and 2 of them ended up being pretty critical.

I'd bet that Maddon or someone else on Cubs discovered that Weiters was cheating a few inches to either block bouncing pitches or to nudge closer to throw out baserunners, and ordered Cubs batters to stand back in the box. It worked, more than once in the series, with Weiters failing to adjust. I have no inside knowledge, but this is the kind of thing alert coaches/managers do to help a team, and of which we fans rarely know.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9022
I'd bet that Maddon or someone else on Cubs discovered that Weiters was cheating a few inches to either block bouncing pitches or to nudge closer to throw out baserunners, and ordered Cubs batters to stand back in the box. It worked, more than once in the series, with Weiters failing to adjust. I have no inside knowledge, but this is the kind of thing alert coaches/managers do to help a team, and of which we fans rarely know.
Could be a good strategy, to draw catcher's interference, but not the backswing.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 1675
Could be a good strategy, to draw catcher's interference, but not the backswing.
If you want to knock out the catcher, I guess it's a good strategy.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2017/10/25/did-scott-boras-factor-into-nationals-dusty-baker-decision/

This article speculates Scott Boras was involved in the decision.  It's all just speculation, but I can buy that the Lerners would have talked to Boras about this and it seems like it was their decision.  It also makes a good point about the handling of Strasburg's illness.   The way he handled that was pretty awful, and definitely did make Strasburg look bad.  It was such a messed up thing.   He's out because of the high mold counts.  Then the flu comes up.  Then he's magically better with iv antibiotics and anti=inflammatories, which don't really help with the flu or allergies.  Then there was the whole "he threw bullpen and then he didn't".   I don't know what the real story was, but it seem like they would have been better to say nothing at all publicly until game day and it really did make Strasburg look bad until he came in and showed how awesome he was.

His handling of that situation is one of the more legitimate reasons I've heard for firing him.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17616
Bench coach Speier; he was a totally empty uniform as best I can tell.  Got the job due to being buddies with Dusty and apparently being able to say "right boss."  I mean if bench coaches are not meant for these types of situations then what are they for?

So the person that is employed to tell managers when to challenge a play isn't at fault?

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 1540
If you want to knock out the catcher, I guess it's a good strategy.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2017/10/25/did-scott-boras-factor-into-nationals-dusty-baker-decision/

This article speculates Scott Boras was involved in the decision.  It's all just speculation, but I can buy that the Lerners would have talked to Boras about this and it seems like it was their decision.  It also makes a good point about the handling of Strasburg's illness.   The way he handled that was pretty awful, and definitely did make Strasburg look bad.  It was such a messed up thing.   He's out because of the high mold counts.  Then the flu comes up.  Then he's magically better with iv antibiotics and anti=inflammatories, which don't really help with the flu or allergies.  Then there was the whole "he threw bullpen and then he didn't".   I don't know what the real story was, but it seem like they would have been better to say nothing at all publicly until game day and it really did make Strasburg look bad until he came in and showed how awesome he was.

His handling of that situation is one of the more legitimate reasons I've heard for firing him.

Boras has stated that he was not involved in these discussions and had no input. He says that he is there to represent the players and that getting involved in the team's relationship with or choice of manager would be a huge conflict of interest.  I tend to take his word on this one, because he stands to lose a lot if his clients think he's getting involved in matters where he has no place.

The media relations for Stras-or-Tanner Game 4 was a crapshow but honestly I think fans and the media have some funny expectations when it comes to medical information and I wouldn't blame any team for just saying nothing at all about a player's health.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 1675
Boras has stated that he was not involved in these discussions and had no input. He says that he is there to represent the players and that getting involved in the team's relationship with or choice of manager would be a huge conflict of interest.  I tend to take his word on this one, because he stands to lose a lot if his clients think he's getting involved in matters where he has no place.

The media relations for Stras-or-Tanner Game 4 was a crapshow but honestly I think fans and the media have some funny expectations when it comes to medical information and I wouldn't blame any team for just saying nothing at all about a player's health.
Saying nothing at all would have been so much better.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 9782
So the person that is employed to tell managers when to challenge a play isn't at fault?
Wasn't that Speier's job as bench coach?

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 23943
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Wasn't that Speier's job as bench coach?
no.  Speier might pick up the phone, but there's a guy who watches the videos and says "go for it" to the bench.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 1675
WAtching that whole 5th inning from the outfield, I sure had no idea what was going on.  On the controversial play I thought they were looking at some kind of base runner interference.  Then there was the intentional walk after 2 pitches.  Then a guy gets on base on a foul ball (catchers interference).  And a HBP.   I think that whole inning was spent saying what just happened???

4 straight guys getting on base without getting a hit, error or a walk has got to be the craziest crap I'll ever see in a baseball game.   

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9022
no.  Speier might pick up the phone, but there's a guy who watches the videos and says "go for it" to the bench.
That's different; I think the question was isn't it his job to know the rules.  I don't think it is. That is, I don't think that's in the general job description of bench coach, although a bench coach could be assigned that task.  I doubt it was, in this case.  I don't think anyone in the dugout had that responsibility.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 9782
no.  Speier might pick up the phone, but there's a guy who watches the videos and says "go for it" to the bench.
Rules question. Not a replay question in this case.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 23943
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Bench coach Speier; he was a totally empty uniform as best I can tell.  Got the job due to being buddies with Dusty and apparently being able to say "right boss."  I mean if bench coaches are not meant for these types of situations then what are they for?

So the person that is employed to tell managers when to challenge a play isn't at fault?
Wasn't that Speier's job as bench coach?
no.  Speier might pick up the phone, but there's a guy who watches the videos and says "go for it" to the bench.
Rules question. Not a replay question in this case.
Blue911's point is that is the job of off-field staff who can have rulebooks and the like, like the video assistant. Those are the guys who call down to say challenge or not, so that is who Blue911 was referring to in his post.  Speier does not make that call.  He simply relays it.   

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 9782
Blue911's point is that is the job of off-field staff who can have rulebooks and the like, like the video assistant. Those are the guys who call down to say challenge or not, so that is who Blue911 was referring to in his post.  Speier does not make that call.  He simply relays it.
They could just have a trained chimp then to relay the calls by those smart off the field staff then. Could save the Lerners money.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 41591
The primary person at fault is the umpire. Clearly.  Secondarily, Weiters, and next Dusty

Wieters?! :lmao:

Its the manager's responsibility to request a rule review and then formally protest right then and there.

And people can't figure out why Dusty got fired :shake:

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 9782
Wieters?! :lmao:

Its the manager's responsibility to request a rule review and then formally protest right then and there.

And people can't figure out why Dusty got fired :shake:
Yea. I find it interesting people will fault Wieters but not the bench coach. And why did the coaches allow Wieters to sit close enough to keep getting hit.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18696
Because Dusty filled out lineup cards, made calls to the bullpen and napped. Do you really see him coachingbop weiters on the fundamentals of catching?