re: The "call" explained

[quote]Long story short that call comes down to what kind of baseball guy you are, either a purist or a technical guy. Baseball is a game of interpretive rules and human judgement. Example, when the ump is giving an inch off the plate to a pitcher hitting his spots is that technically a strike? No..so the technical guys jump up and down and screams foul, while the purist understands that this is simply the particular umps "zone" and the pitcher is being rewarded for hitting his spots. Furthermore when pitchers consistently violate the 45 degree angle interpretation rule is that "technically" a balk? Yes...But how many times do you actually see it called and a runner allowed to score from 3rd. The play at 2nd was a simply a technical call. The purist understands the situation and makes no call there b/c (and only b/c) the integrity of the DP was not affected. However I think it was obvious as to what kind of baseball guy we had umping 2nd tonight. FWIW.... it did not ultimately affect the outcome...the baseball Gods tend to be funny like that. [/quote]

Oh, it affected the potential outcome; momentum plays a big role in combat . Maybe the 'suicide slide' was karma for the 'fair foul'. Life!

Congrats to the Team for a good season.

I get all this "it was the correct call" however, this was like calling (in the national championship) "a lined up offsides" where a team scored in the the fourth quarter to tie the game. Referee influences the scoring, when the actual infraction had no effect.

The purist and the technical guy each should understand the concept of MOMENTUM

quote:

---

Long story short

---

proceeds to write a paragraph.


look guy, I'm neither. Dont categorize what type of "Baseball guy" someone is. you sound dumb

quote:

---

If the call didn't have an effect then why give it so much attention?

---

Throwing a tantrum over something like this is human nature. See liberals and the Russian collusion.

quote:

---

Wrong. One leg went over the bag

---

Take the purple and gold shades off dude. He never came close and never attempted to even touch the bag.

The rule states that no runners can advance when interference is called. There are other rules that don't allow advancement of runners, like a replay of catch/no catch in the outfield.

quote:

---

why in the world does the rule put the runner who would have scored back on 3rd? I can only remember the batter being automatically out at 1st if the slide affected the throw to allow him to beat it. Wtf does the runner at 3rd have to do with anything?

---

It's offensive interference which means everyone not out on the play has to return to the base they occupied when the play began. Essentially, the ball becomes dead on the play and no one can advance. It was a bad play by Slaughter, IMO.

FWIW, in the good 'ol days, if you could touch a bag with any part of your body (i.e. your arm) the slide was legal. Needless to say, careers of middle-infielders were put in jeopardy every time they picked up a double play ball. So I'm not crazy about something like that costing a team a run but I get why the changes were made.

quote:

---

My question is how does the rule pertain to a runner who was on 3rd and likely a few feet from home at the time of interference and not affected by any part of the actual interference play since there was no attempt to throw home?

---

If there were no additional penalty, offensive teams could consistently slide illegally as a strategy. The worse outcome for them would be a double play.

quote:

---

The purist understands the situation and makes no call there b/c (and only b/c) the integrity of the DP was not affected

---

In reality, it did make a difference. The ump is making that call before he sees whether or not the double play is turned. In this case, the SS was affected, and the throw ultimately went into the dirt as a result. The ump (having to make the call without knowledge that the 1st baseman would scoop the ball) either allows it to go on in which case LSU would have gained a clear advanage OR call him out the way he did.

The situation is LSU's responsibility to manage. Does it make sense to go into the bag the way that Slaughter did in a 1 run game with 1 out? Sure. In that case, maybe the ump doesn't make the call...he breaks up the double play...and the game is tied.

Does it make sense with zero outs and the tying run at 3rd? Obviously not. Honestly, I don't think that he's taking enough heat for how HUGE of a mistake that was. This was worse than Chris Webber calling timeout with none remaining. This was historically bad.

If this was a "letter of the law" call I'd be agreeing with you. It would be chicken shite and certainly shouldn't be called in a decisive moment of the championship series. However, there was a material impact on the double play. Not making that call would have been equally as bad as making it IMO. It easily could have changed the outcome of the game.