GDT- Blue Jays @ Rays Game 3 of 4

[HERPDERP]

11 men LOB, that's surely why we didn't lose, right?

[KinofChaos]

11 men LOB, that's surely why we didn't lose, right?

 

The slide has over shadowed the real reason they lost.

[Orgfiller]

On MLB Gameday it says Slide Interference is what was reviewed...

 

It was slide interference...Bautista made contact with Forsythe during his slide.

[Stangstag]

I wonder how long it will be before we see 2nd basemen deliberately getting too close to the runner and then diving...

 

Oh god.

[JaysAllMighty]

I can see them recalling the player who scored back to 3rd. base but certainly not an auto-double play. That's total ********. Should have been only one out.

[Rafters]

So the slide did not meet the Criteria to be overturned on the Utley rule ...and interference is not a reviewable play...but the call on the field was overturned in 20 secs giving the Rays the win.....hmmm interesting

[gruber92]

If Jose had just slid into the base it would have been fine. it's the stupid grab that got us screwed.

 

Yup.. As far as i can remember, you can only use your legs and hips to break up a potential DP, while staying down(no hip checks). If your arms are tucked and that part of you hits the infielder, it's also ok, as long as you are within reach of the bag.

 

You can't reach out with your arm.

[TheHurl]

So if the play is not reviewable the call in the field should stand

 

Looks like 7.14 is not reviewable traditionally but 6.01 is reviewable. So I'm guessing that is what this falls under. 6.01 (j) I believe just repeats 7.14 wording. so looks like it is legal.

 

In the end replay is meant to get calls correct. And by the rules they did, which should end all protests.

[Krylian]

Baseball did this to themselves.

 

I get needing to protect your players, and I completely agree. But the way the rule was implemented tonight was not in the spirit of what the rule was to prevent. I think that's everyone's concern.

[gruber92]

It was slide interference...Bautista made contact with Forsythe during his slide.

 

It was the type of contact that got us screwed. You're still allowed to make contact with the infielder.

[TheHurl]

(j) (7.14) Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts

If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or

attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking

up a double play, he should be called for interference under this

Rule 6.01. A “bona fide slide” for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs

when the runner:

(1) begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before

reaching the base;

(2) is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot;

2016 Official Baseball Rules (PDF)_2016 Official Baseball Rules 3/15/16 2:38 PM Page 70

Rule 6.01(j) to 6.02(a)

71

(3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home

plate) after completion of the slide; and

(4) slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway

for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.

A runner who engages in a “bona fide slide” shall not be called for

interference under this Rule 6.01, even in cases where the runner

makes contact with the fielder as a consequence of a permissible

slide. In addition, interference shall not be called where a runner’s

contact with the fielder was caused by the fielder being positioned

in (or moving into) the runner’s legal pathway to the base.

Notwithstanding the above, a slide shall not be a “bona fide slide”

if a runner engages in a “roll block,” or intentionally initiates (or

attempts to initiate) contact with the fielder by elevating and kicking

his leg above the fielder’s knee or throwing his arm or his upper

body.

If the umpire determines that the runner violated this Rule 6.01(j),

the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter-runner out.

Note, however, that if the runner has already been put out then the

runner on whom the defense was attempting to make a play shall be

declared out.

[KingKat]

You can't overturn interference called by the ump but the ump didn't call it. What was overturned was a non-call of interference which perhaps is just fine?

[closetjaysfan]

What we really needed was another inning so that someone could hit a homerun in protest then bat-flip their way onto the cover of sports illustrated.

[fatcowxlive]

It was slide interference...Bautista made contact with Forsythe during his slide.

 

No I know that but Hurl pulled up a document that said that interference is non-reviewable

[CJ-Freeway]

I looked at the replay, Joey def. reached for his foot loll... but still, to give them 2 outs AUTOMATICALLY? f*** man.

[intentional wok]

I looked at the replay, Joey def. reached for his foot loll... but still, to give them 2 outs AUTOMATICALLY? f*** man.

 

What other penalty could you use except for the only thing at stake? Fielder is trying to get the batter-runner, baserunner is trying to protect the batter-runner. Only one punishment, really.

[HERPDERP]

I looked at the replay, Joey def. reached for his foot loll... but still, to give them 2 outs AUTOMATICALLY? f*** man.

 

thats the punishment and risk you take for intentionally trying to interfere.

 

Jose f***ed up, but he's not why we lost this gamet tho

[closetjaysfan]

Looks like 7.14 is not reviewable traditionally but 6.01 is reviewable. So I'm guessing that is what this falls under. 6.01 (j) I believe just repeats 7.14 wording. so looks like it is legal.

 

In the end replay is meant to get calls correct. And by the rules they did, which should end all protests.

 

weird, in the yanks game 6.01 was deemed not to be reviewable. Not sure if it is the same subsection though.

[bronson44]

I looked at the replay, Joey def. reached for his foot loll... but still, to give them 2 outs AUTOMATICALLY? f*** man.

 

He himself was already out. He was interfering with an attempt to make the second out. They have to assume that out or they would reward the interference.

[intentional wok]

thats the punishment and risk you take for intentionally trying to interfere.

 

Jose f***ed up, but he's not why we lost this gamet tho

 

Game's nine innings long and after 8.2 the Blue Jays were up 4-3, except Bautista's slide f***ed it all up on replay.

 

He kinda is directly the reason for the loss. He literally cheated, voluntarily or not.

[closetjaysfan]

weird, in the yanks game 6.01 was deemed not to be reviewable. Not sure if it is the same subsection though.

 

Yeah im not sure it is reviewable:

 

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(

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.

 

Judgement calls are not reviewable

[bronson44]

After all this I want to see a replay of that pitch that almost hit Edwin that he wouldn't let Gibby look at. I thought I heard a sound. It was weird Eddie didn't want him to look.

[closetjaysfan]

After all this I want to see a replay of that pitch that almost hit Edwin that he wouldn't let Gibby look at. I thought I heard a sound. It was weird Eddie didn't want him to look.

 

Burns a review does it not? but I agree that in the very least, it is going to cause a delay for the pitcher if there is a replay.

[CJ-Freeway]

What other penalty could you use except for the only thing at stake? Fielder is trying to get the batter-runner, baserunner is trying to protect the batter-runner. Only one punishment, really.

 

thats the punishment and risk you take for intentionally trying to interfere.

 

Jose f***ed up, but he's not why we lost this gamet tho

 

He himself was already out. He was interfering with an attempt to make the second out. They have to assume that out or they would reward the interference.

 

Good points... Jose clearly f***ed up and it looked SO intentional lol. Still pissed but we'll get em tomorrow

[ProfessionalAtBat]

Ryan Freel says go f*** yourself. Seriously this ignorance by sports fans has to stop. Player safety has to be a higher priority

 

f*** off pussy

[Raysfan009]

That should be enough to protest game, no?

 

No, You can Challenge neighborhood plays and that's what Cash challenged.

[gruber92]

After all this I want to see a replay of that pitch that almost hit Edwin that he wouldn't let Gibby look at. I thought I heard a sound. It was weird Eddie didn't want him to look.

 

Contract year bro..

[HERPDERP]

so if Bautista was responsible for this loss, does that mean he is now worth 1 WAR less?

 

^______^

[KinofChaos]

Contract year bro..

 

Edwin was a bit embarassing that at bat. He clearly didn't want to get on base by being hit.

[Swervin81]

Nah. The slide was perfect. Where Bautista went wrong was making contact after the slide by reaching back and grabbing his leg.

 

The problem is, the grabbing of the leg, which I agree is interference, falls under rule 7.09d:

 

Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate

 

The problem is, that rule is not reviewable. 6.14j (aka the Chase Utley rule) is the reviewable play here.