ALDS Best of 5 GDT: Game 1 Bosox @ Rays 8:07 EST

[BigCecil]

Even if it was the call in accordance with the rules it’s ********. Not the intent of ground rule double rule at all.

[BigCecil]

Exactly. Lots of time GRD’s prevent a run.

 

It went off their f***ing player and that why it went out lol.

[philly30]

It went off their f***ing player and that why it went out lol.

 

But not done intentionally

[GoJays1562]

Saw that one coming. Red Sox gonna sneak into the playoffs and go all the way.

[philly30]

Rays might have better luck in Montreal

[Omar]

:mad:******** victory.

[Stangstag]

Yup that’s what I expected

[connorp]

It went off their f***ing player and that why it went out lol.

 

Yeah. I guess the explanation is it’s a batted ball unless it’s clearly fielded. So if someone intentionally scooped it and tossed it over for instance, that wouldn’t be a GRD. It’s just a tough break, nothing more

[Spanky99]

That was ********. I am outraged.

 

How did they not plate Diaz... Rays got f***ed.

[philly30]

Tampa shouldn't even have a team, screw them and their 2 fans

[EdwinsParrot]

That’s a brutal one for the rays wow

[Spanky99]

This just feels like another ******** Redsox world series year again doesn’t it.

 

You just KNOW they’re gonna walkoff in the bottom of this inning now

 

Yup.

[Laika]

How the f*** is that the correct application of all of the rules? No sense

[connorp]

How the f*** is that the correct application of all of the rules? No sense

 

You’re a smart guy. Don’t play dumb. Rules are pretty clear. Change the rule if you don’t like it. How many times does a GRD cost a run? If he did it intentionally, umps could’ve made judgement call

[Stangstag]

How the f*** is that the correct application of all of the rules? No sense

 

I suppose a ground rule double has no room for umpire discretion. So once they determined it was a legit GRD, that was it.

 

Sucks that if KK had pulled that another couple feet to the right it would have been a homerun.

[Omar]

The little pick-pocket KK got screwed. Oh well....

[connorp]

Pivetta is a Canadian I guess. And it’s some kind of holiday there?? Thanksgiving! Just googled

You guys shouldn’t be hating

[glory]

One more Boston win and I can finally go back to rooting against them.

[Laika]

You’re a smart guy. Don’t play dumb. Rules are pretty clear. Change the rule if you don’t like it. How many times does a GRD cost a run? If he did it intentionally, umps could’ve made judgement call

 

I am saying the rules are wrong are could have been interpreted differently. Here are the operative rules:

 

(6) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the

stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or

through or under a scoreboard, or through or under

shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter

and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;

 

(8) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the

stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in

which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to

advance two bases;

 

(9) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands,

or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter

shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected

into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter

shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a

fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home

plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.

 

Arguably (9) could or should have been applied. By this I mean you could argue that the spirit/intent of all of these rules was and is that such balls should be homers.

 

Or there should be a new rule that makes it a rule book double but allows the umpire to place other baserunners with discretion.

 

I don't think the interpretation of the rules made any sense in light of what happened. Like, the rules are poorly written.

[connorp]

Bro.. #9 applies to balls that don’t touch the ground

[Laika]

You missed the point.

[connorp]

I.e. ball hits Canseco in the head and goes over- HR

[connorp]

You missed the point.

 

Ah, I see re-reading but don’t agree

[Laika]

Here is the point with examples:

 

Situation A - a flyball going 390 feet bounces off Jose Canseco's head and goes out. Rulebook says homer.

 

Situation B - a flyball going 390 feet hits the ground then goes off Hunter Renfroe's titties and goes out. Rulebook says GRD.

 

Why should they be treated differently? If the only answer is "because one hit the grass" that's just circular logic because you are defining the rule and then using it as your argument.

 

I think they should be treated the the same, because they are fundamentally the same thing: a deep flyball misplayed by a fielder who puts the ball over the fair outfield fence by accident.

 

And when I say "arguably the spirit and intent of all the rules" I mean when you read all of these relevant pages of the book and ask yourself "did the writer really intend examples A and B to be treated differently or did they just fail to think of all the possibilities? would they have wanted A and B to be treated the same?"

[connorp]

Yeah but in practice, Canseco is the outlier and the scenario is going to an OF going after a potential HR and it bounces off his glove and goes over. Give the dude a HR in that case IMO

[Stangstag]

Here is the point with examples:

 

Situation A - a flyball going 390 feet bounces off Jose Canseco's head and goes out. Rulebook says homer.

 

Situation B - a flyball going 390 feet hits the ground then goes off Hunter Renfroe's titties and goes out. Rulebook says GRD.

 

Why should they be treated differently? If the only answer is "because one hit the grass" that's just circular logic because you are defining the rule and then using it as your argument.

 

I think they should be treated the the same, because they are fundamentally the same thing: a deep flyball misplayed by a fielder who puts the ball over the fair outfield fence by accident.

 

And when I say "arguably the spirit and intent of all the rules" I mean when you read all of these relevant pages of the book and ask yourself "did the writer really intend examples A and B to be treated differently or did they just fail to think of all the possibilities? would they have wanted A and B to be treated the same?"

 

A ball is hit over the fence, it is a homerun.

 

A ball is hit and bounces on the ground and then goes over the fence, its a ground rule double.

 

They both go over the fence but are treated differently

[Omar]

The rule should be amended such that in the circumstance where there is a runner on first base the umpire should be allowed to grant him an extra base (over and above the two for a grd, ie. a run scored) if the player on the defense touched the ball prior to it leaving the field of play. Or better yet an automatic run scored which will eliminate the discretion of the umpire.

 

Note that if this happened with the bases loaded three runs would score, which would likely happen on a regular double in a game situation. This seems equitable to me.

[Stangstag]

The rule should be amended such that in the circumstance where there is a runner on first base the umpire should be allowed to grant him an extra base (over and above the two for a grd, ie. a run scored) if the player on the defense touched the ball prior to it leaving the field of play. Or better yet an automatic run scored which will eliminate the discretion of the umpire.

 

Note that if this happened with the bases loaded three runs would score, which would likely happen on a regular double in a game situation. This seems equitable to me.

 

Agreed, they need to look at this rule in the offseason and think about making some kind of change so we don’t see this happen again.

[Stangstag]

Relevant:

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/blue-jays-randal-grichuk-frustrated-impact-stupidest-rule-mlb/

[JFD]

karma for Keermyer