SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 7, 2009 17:36:19 GMT -5
I don't think anyone can honestly say he "turned a little bit" and an ump certainly isn't going to say he didn't try to move out of the way. Why wouldn't an ump say he didn't attempt to move out of the way? He really didn't on a pitch that was nowhere near inside. Depends on the balk.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Oct 7, 2009 18:27:40 GMT -5
I don't think anyone can honestly say he "turned a little bit" and an ump certainly isn't going to say he didn't try to move out of the way. A rule is a rule. If the pitcher had balked, would you say the ump shouldn't have called it in that situation? Umps have denied HBP on these grounds before. He turns a little bit away but his jersey is essentially in the same spot where his body was. To the second point, if we're talking about the "step toward the base" balk, then no. If we're talking about breaking hands or not disengaging properly, then yes. The closest penalty I can think of to these latter two is a false start, where any neutral observer hates to see it called but knows it has to be.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 7, 2009 18:38:08 GMT -5
I don't think anyone can honestly say he "turned a little bit" and an ump certainly isn't going to say he didn't try to move out of the way. A rule is a rule. If the pitcher had balked, would you say the ump shouldn't have called it in that situation? Umps have denied HBP on these grounds before. He turns a little bit away but his jersey is essentially in the same spot where his body was. To the second point, if we're talking about the "step toward the base" balk, then no. If we're talking about breaking hands or not disengaging properly, then yes. The closest penalty I can think of to these latter two is a false start, where any neutral observer hates to see it called but knows it has to be. I understand umps can. and have, denied the free base under the rules for not attempting to move out of the way. My argument is that based on what Inge did to move out of the way, his actions were more than sufficient to prevent an ump from denying him first. As to the balk, I think a balk is a balk and you have to call it. If you're going to follow that logic, then the foul on Wallace on the sideline with 0.2 shouldn't have been called.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 7, 2009 20:09:53 GMT -5
Umps have denied HBP on these grounds before. He turns a little bit away but his jersey is essentially in the same spot where his body was. To the second point, if we're talking about the "step toward the base" balk, then no. If we're talking about breaking hands or not disengaging properly, then yes. The closest penalty I can think of to these latter two is a false start, where any neutral observer hates to see it called but knows it has to be. I understand umps can. and have, denied the free base under the rules for not attempting to move out of the way. My argument is that based on what Inge did to move out of the way, his actions were more than sufficient to prevent an ump from denying him first. As to the balk, I think a balk is a balk and you have to call it. If you're going to follow that logic, then the foul on Wallace on the sideline with 0.2 shouldn't have been called. Dick Dietz lives. And somewhere, Don Drysdale is smiling.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 7, 2009 20:38:33 GMT -5
This is sort of a weird retread of the Villanova game a few years back when an on-ball foul call was whistled sending Wallace to the line with very little time on the clock and with a chance to win IIRC. Wallace was jostled out of bounds, which essentially forced the ref's hand - different than this situation. (A foul call is also arguably more subjective than an HBP call.) Still, the ref could have called the ball out of bounds or a travel if only to let the flow of the game dictate the winner in overtime. I can't say I disagree with that, although I liked the outcome all the same. Maybe the better analogy is the unclear goaltend situation in the WVU game in Morgantown. Look at that video 100 times on replay, and a neutral observer probably ends up 50-50. Forget about the refs in the flow of the game trying to make an assessment one way or the other.
I come down on the side of a non-call here with the potential HBP that is essentially minimal from what I am reading. If anyone has a video link, please post it. If you had a clear hit batsman - ball in the back or something to kill the ball in its tracks - there would be no argument. These grazing calls/non-calls seem to always be controversial no matter the outcome - winners argues one way and would argue the other way if they were the losers.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 8, 2009 10:35:01 GMT -5
This is sort of a weird retread of the Villanova game a few years back when an on-ball foul call was whistled sending Wallace to the line with very little time on the clock and with a chance to win IIRC. Wallace was jostled out of bounds, which essentially forced the ref's hand - different than this situation. (A foul call is also arguably more subjective than an HBP call.) Still, the ref could have called the ball out of bounds or a travel if only to let the flow of the game dictate the winner in overtime. I can't say I disagree with that, although I liked the outcome all the same. Maybe the better analogy is the unclear goaltend situation in the WVU game in Morgantown. Look at that video 100 times on replay, and a neutral observer probably ends up 50-50. Forget about the refs in the flow of the game trying to make an assessment one way or the other. I come down on the side of a non-call here with the potential HBP that is essentially minimal from what I am reading. If anyone has a video link, please post it. If you had a clear hit batsman - ball in the back or something to kill the ball in its tracks - there would be no argument. These grazing calls/non-calls seem to always be controversial no matter the outcome - winners argues one way and would argue the other way if they were the losers. I agree in general with your sentiment. Several more things made it even more questionable in this case: 1. The ball definitely didn't hit the batter. 2. The ball probably did graze the jersey, but even that isn't 100% certain. 3. The Ump didn't hear or see the ball graze the jersey. 4. Even if the ball did graze the jersey, it would be easy to argue that Inge didn't do enough to attempt to avoid the pitch. Note that all of those arguments ignore the logic of whether or not such a ticky-tack "foul" should be called in such a crucial situation. In that regard, I am with kc, in that if you have a rule, enforce it all the time, not just when it's convenient and doesn't directly impact the final outcome.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 8, 2009 15:19:36 GMT -5
I understand umps can. and have, denied the free base under the rules for not attempting to move out of the way. My argument is that based on what Inge did to move out of the way, his actions were more than sufficient to prevent an ump from denying him first. As to the balk, I think a balk is a balk and you have to call it. If you're going to follow that logic, then the foul on Wallace on the sideline with 0.2 shouldn't have been called. Dick Dietz lives. And somewhere, Don Drysdale is smiling. hoyarooter dials up the wayback machine Good ole Harry Wendelstedt. I think his son is also a MLB ump.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 8, 2009 20:23:07 GMT -5
I was at that game.
Also, not only is Hunter W. a major league ump, but I happened to hear on a Dodger game recently that's he's been at it for like 15 years - so he's a veteran.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,063
|
Post by DanMcQ on Oct 8, 2009 20:36:21 GMT -5
Roy Matt Holliday.
Wow.
That's a Little League catch. Seriously.
Dennis Eckersley (who should know) said that one really hurts.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Oct 8, 2009 22:20:32 GMT -5
Roy Holliday. Wow. That's a Little League catch. Seriously. Dennis Eckersley (who should know) said that one really hurts. I think you mean Matt. Great to be a dodger fan right now!!!!
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,063
|
Post by DanMcQ on Oct 8, 2009 22:59:22 GMT -5
Typo corrected. Christmas in October for Dodger fans.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 9, 2009 11:02:50 GMT -5
I, for one, was very excited to see that ninth inning. I'm not much of a Cardinals fan, and I don't like LaRussa at all. I can appreciate the excellence that is Pujols however. Maybe the Braves will trade for him? Nah, never happen.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 9, 2009 11:21:14 GMT -5
I'm sure everybody knows now that he lost it in the lights. These things happen, just bad timing. Props to the Dodgers for being able to take advantage of it.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 9, 2009 12:05:33 GMT -5
rooter, when I saw the play live, I thought he lost it in the lights too. But in an interview after the game, someone -- thought it was Holliday -- was actually blaming the white towels that almost everyone had. It might have happened, but that still sounded like an excuse of some sort.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 9, 2009 13:33:51 GMT -5
Guy is a big leaguer---if you get your hands on the ball--catch it. What a butcher!!!
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 9, 2009 20:08:31 GMT -5
I don't think he ever actually had his hands on the ball. It hit him in the gut. This certainly wasn't an A-1 play, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the next four batters went walk (on a 9 pitch at bat after being down 1-2 in the count), single, walk, single. Franklin couldn't retire another hitter, and he had plenty of chances to either end the game, or at least extend it.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 9, 2009 20:23:37 GMT -5
Guy is a big leaguer---if you get your hands on the ball--catch it. What a butcher!!! Holliday and Jorge Posada should form a support group.
|
|
njhoya06
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 228
|
Post by njhoya06 on Oct 9, 2009 22:42:45 GMT -5
Who could have foreseen the visiting team getting screwed at Yankee Stadium by the umps?!
|
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by CO_Hoya on Oct 10, 2009 9:39:06 GMT -5
Should be a beautiful night for baseball here in Colorado ( link). It's 17° and snowing at my house right now (about 20 miles from the ballpark). Edited to add:Never mind. Cowards.
|
|
Hank Scorpio
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
You're gonna die now!
Posts: 573
|
Post by Hank Scorpio on Oct 10, 2009 11:47:21 GMT -5
You're right, that ground rule double call was the game, not the Twins loading the bases with nobody out and failing to push a single run across the plate. Who could have foreseen the visiting team getting screwed at Yankee Stadium by the umps?!
|
|