Can someone explain that call?

[Governator]

I will say, I was slightly surprised Bautista handled this with class. A borderline strike is the are you kidding me look with words to the ump, this is just okay I'll accept it and move on.

[baloojayz]

Clearly what A-rod did is "more" interference than what Jose did, but I'm not interesting in categorizing the amount of interference that's run. If you intentionally interfere, which both A-rod and Jose did - you're out.

 

I actually don't mind what Arod did. When Edwin "slid into second" last year and was borderline out of the base path to break up the throw, I had no problem with it whatsoever. The second I saw the replay on the Bautista play I said to myself: Why the F*** did he do that, without any knowledge of the new rules. It looked like a BS move and imo sets bad precedence if s*** like that is allowed to pass.

[polar bear]

Brutal call. I want to know who made it.

 

Correct call,even with the old rule,Bautista cost us the game,idiot.

[Rusty_Savage]

im pretty much over this.

 

Can anyone tell me how to embed videos?

[baloojayz]

Correct call,even with the old rule,Bautista cost us the game,idiot.

 

It was Edwin running, that was probably a DP

[G-Snarls]

im pretty much over this.

 

Can anyone tell me how to embed videos?

 

You can't in the main forum threads

 

Only in the off topic forum threads

 

Deliberate choice by admin when the board was created

[fatcowxlive]

It's not as flagrant but what Bautista did isn't dissimilar to A-Rod's infamous play in the playoffs.

 

 

Not one ever claimed A-Rod was endangering the other player, just messing with his ability to make the play. What Bautista did was was similar except that I don't think it was pre-meditated. Just a regrettable split second reaction thing. There's really no doubt he interfered.

 

I'd say this call is more like the Bautista one than the one you posted http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v7757119/bosbal-orioles-turn-two-when-beltre-interferes

[Governator]

The rule should be common sense to safety and to not take away from the game. If there is obvious intent to injure a player the play should be dead and this rule should be in effect, case in point the Utley incident. It's like hitting in hockey vs a hit from behind. I understand the rule that is in place and the fact that Bautista did violate the interference rule how it's written but I think it needs modifying, I hate that it's not part of the game.

 

While I never moved on to a competitive career, I played ball from age 5-23 (hard ball from mosquito through men's league) and was the shortstop for the last 8 years or so until I broke my arm sliding in to home. I never complained from the cut on my ankle in a tournament, or the bruise shins that happened though it'd be nice if it was taken out. All I cared about was the runner got the f*** down so I didn't take your head off because I was taught to aim at your head. Sure don't cut me up, that'd be great but I can respect your attempt at saving a runner, that's part of the spirit of the game and something that makes the game all the more interesting.

 

If you think what Bautista did was 100% wrong, not in respect to the rules but that type of play has no place in this game then you likely never played ball above 3-pitch or was the RF late inning sub, no disrespect.

[Sorrow]

Guys on mlbradio thought it was a s*** call because if Bautista slid with his feet where his hands were it's still a legal slide. This was safer for all parties involved.

[baseballsss]

The rule should be common sense to safety and to not take away from the game. If there is obvious intent to injure a player the play should be dead and this rule should be in effect, case in point the Utley incident. It's like hitting in hockey vs a hit from behind. I understand the rule that is in place and the fact that Bautista did violate the interference rule how it's written but I think it needs modifying, I hate that it's not part of the game.

 

While I never moved on to a competitive career, I played ball from age 5-23 (hard ball from mosquito through men's league) and was the shortstop for the last 8 years or so until I broke my arm sliding in to home. I never complained from the cut on my ankle in a tournament, or the bruise shins that happened though it'd be nice if it was taken out. All I cared about was the runner got the f*** down so I didn't take your head off because I was taught to aim at your head. Sure don't cut me up, that'd be great but I can respect your attempt at saving a runner, that's part of the spirit of the game and something that makes the game all the more interesting.

 

If you think what Bautista did was 100% wrong, not in respect to the rules but that type of play has no place in this game then you likely never played ball above 3-pitch or was the RF late inning sub, no disrespect.

 

Give it a rest already.

[Governator]

Give it a rest already.

 

Don't enter the explain the call thread.

[RealAccountant]

40 outing without allow runs. Cecil is or best arm in the bullpen

 

No one is disputing that and I am not laying blame. However he did give up the homerun and this is a blown save on him

[baseballsss]

Don't enter the explain the call thread.

 

Dude the play was interference. Whether it gets called all the time yah that's defiantly questionable and maybe they shouldn't of went to review the play but the fact of the matter is that Bautista screwed up.

 

He would of been the first player on the field if he didn't think he did. It wasn't that he handled it in a calm matter he new he screwed up.

 

We the lost the game. 159 more to go.

[Governator]

Dude the play was interference. Whether it gets called all the time yah that's defiantly questionable and maybe they shouldn't of went to review the play but the fact of the matter is that Bautista screwed up.

 

He would of been the first player on the field if he didn't think he did. It wasn't that he handled it in a calm matter he new he screwed up.

 

We the lost the game. 159 more to go.

 

 

Fair, I'm probably overreacting though I'm skeptical how this rule is going to affect plays all year for all teams (it's certainly not about 1 loss for the Jays).

[SAAviour]

I agree Jose screwed up. We lost, next. Feel bad for Moore today! Feel he's going to get s*** canned.

Ken Rosenthal explained it well if anyone wants to go read his article.

 

Anyway, I feel this new rule overall is bad for baseball and needs tweaking. Also don't think guys should get their legs broken so there has to be a better solution.

[baseballsss]

Fair, I'm probably overreacting though I'm skeptical how this rule is going to affect plays all year for all teams (it's certainly not about 1 loss for the Jays).

 

Brush it off and hope for a huge day today!

[Brownie19]

The rule should be common sense to safety and to not take away from the game. If there is obvious intent to injure a player the play should be dead and this rule should be in effect, case in point the Utley incident. It's like hitting in hockey vs a hit from behind. I understand the rule that is in place and the fact that Bautista did violate the interference rule how it's written but I think it needs modifying, I hate that it's not part of the game.

 

While I never moved on to a competitive career, I played ball from age 5-23 (hard ball from mosquito through men's league) and was the shortstop for the last 8 years or so until I broke my arm sliding in to home. I never complained from the cut on my ankle in a tournament, or the bruise shins that happened though it'd be nice if it was taken out. All I cared about was the runner got the f*** down so I didn't take your head off because I was taught to aim at your head. Sure don't cut me up, that'd be great but I can respect your attempt at saving a runner, that's part of the spirit of the game and something that makes the game all the more interesting.

 

If you think what Bautista did was 100% wrong, not in respect to the rules but that type of play has no place in this game then you likely never played ball above 3-pitch or was the RF late inning sub, no disrespect.

 

Actually I still play competitive men's hardball FWIW. I simply disagree with the notion that it should be part of the game, simply because "it's always been" part of the game. Just because it's been allowed for a long time doesn't make it right. I disagree with notion that a runner should be allowed to attempt to interfere with a fielder in any situation - and it's especially frustrating when it's allowed in one situation, but not another. I think sports should evolve - just like the human race does.

[Sammy225]

Actually I still play competitive men's hardball FWIW. I simply disagree with the notion that it should be part of the game, simply because "it's always been" part of the game. Just because it's been allowed for a long time doesn't make it right. I disagree with notion that a runner should be allowed to attempt to interfere with a fielder in any situation - and it's especially frustrating when it's allowed in one situation, but not another. I think sports should evolve - just like the human race does.

 

I agree with this. It has got to be black and white..... Did he try to interfere with the fielder trying to make the play? If yes then automatic out no matter what the degree of interference. If you start picking you choosing then your going to make things a lot more complicated. The rule is pretty cut and dry so live with it.

[Brownie19]

Guys on mlbradio thought it was a s*** call because if Bautista slid with his feet where his hands were it's still a legal slide. This was safer for all parties involved.

 

Interesting take - but the rule says if the runner initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play.

 

If Jose slide next to the bag - towards Forsythe's feet...isn't that a blatant attempt to initiate contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play?

 

The other thing nobody has mentioned is that Jose overslide the bag - making no attempt to maintain contact with the bag.

[KingKat]

I'd say this call is more like the Bautista one than the one you posted http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v7757119/bosbal-orioles-turn-two-when-beltre-interferes

 

Someone posted that last night and yeah it definitely is more similar in terms of what happened on the field. The biggest difference between that and the Bautista play (and it's not a small difference) is that Wigginton did a much better job selling the interference (not necessarily on purpose mind you) and got the call from the ump directly.

[KingKat]

The rule should be common sense to safety and to not take away from the game. If there is obvious intent to injure a player the play should be dead and this rule should be in effect, case in point the Utley incident. It's like hitting in hockey vs a hit from behind. I understand the rule that is in place and the fact that Bautista did violate the interference rule how it's written but I think it needs modifying, I hate that it's not part of the game.

 

While I never moved on to a competitive career, I played ball from age 5-23 (hard ball from mosquito through men's league) and was the shortstop for the last 8 years or so until I broke my arm sliding in to home. I never complained from the cut on my ankle in a tournament, or the bruise shins that happened though it'd be nice if it was taken out. All I cared about was the runner got the f*** down so I didn't take your head off because I was taught to aim at your head. Sure don't cut me up, that'd be great but I can respect your attempt at saving a runner, that's part of the spirit of the game and something that makes the game all the more interesting.

 

If you think what Bautista did was 100% wrong, not in respect to the rules but that type of play has no place in this game then you likely never played ball above 3-pitch or was the RF late inning sub, no disrespect.

 

ARod didn't intend to injure the player. Does that make his play acceptable? I don't think anyone would argue that. And no I'm not saying the plays were identical but I am saying is that the argument only dangerous plays should be considered interference is bogus. Interference is interference.

[BigCecil]

Fair, I'm probably overreacting though I'm skeptical how this rule is going to affect plays all year for all teams (it's certainly not about 1 loss for the Jays).

 

I can appreciate the feelings for sure. I don't think they will be consistent this year on this and later in the season I'm sure we will see a similar play to Jose's stand whether it's the new rule or just interference. (Martin said same and I think he is right) This issue reminds me of the year the NHL made "foot in crease" rule to protect goalies more. It became a clusterf*** and it all ended with Hull's goal to win the Cup with his foot clearly in the crease. The pressure was too much to call it off.

Edited April 6, 2016 by BigCecil

[onwego]

Have they allowed extra arm contact all along? Sice it only matters if it messed up the play, the pool of review is limited.

[puphood]

Can someone explain what is and is not reviewable?.....

[intrigid]

Judgment plays like these shouldn't be reviewable. If the umpires saw something and they confer (ala 2004 alcs) that's another thing. But using video review for subjective (did the player intend to do this, would he have been able to do that) calls is not right. The whole point of video replay is to get safe/out, fair/foul, double/HR calls right, the things that are objectively measurable. Judgment calls should be made by on-field umpires so there's at least some accountability. And to cap it off it makes absolutely no sense that infield fair/foul is not reviewable.

[KingKat]

Judgment plays like these shouldn't be reviewable. If the umpires saw something and they confer (ala 2004 alcs) that's another thing. But using video review for subjective (did the player intend to do this, would he have been able to do that) calls is not right. The whole point of video replay is to get safe/out, fair/foul, double/HR calls right, the things that are objectively measurable. Judgment calls should be made by on-field umpires so there's at least some accountability. And to cap it off it makes absolutely no sense that infield fair/foul is not reviewable.

 

I would expect MLB to tidy this up in short order. Though I don't disagree with the ultimate decision, I do agree that it's kind of a dubious thing to determine through review.

[intrigid]

I mean how would people feel if you could review HBP to determine whether it's intentional? Imagine if some umpire in new york ruled that a pitcher is ejected from the game. Exact same idea as the bautista slide, as the purpose of both reviews would be to impose a penalty. Anyone would agree that would be horseshit. That should help anyone understand why subjective calls should not be reviewable.

[admin]

My opinion is it's a tough call. If he slid directly into him, it is also intentional, but it would be okay. Technically he's doing the same thing. It just looks bad because he's grabbing with his arm.

[baseballsss]

My opinion is it's a tough call. If he slid directly into him, it is also intentional, but it would be okay. Technically he's doing the same thing. It just looks bad because he's grabbing with his arm.

 

If he slid directly into him he would of been on the other side of the bag making it intentional and breaking the Utley rule.

[admin]

If he slid directly into him he would of been on the other side of the bag making it intentional and breaking the Utley rule.

 

I thought he was closer to the bag then he actually was. Looking again he did step out of the way, and you're right it would have been intentional.