Interesting Baseball Plays

[Erial_Lion]

I've seen a few of them the last two days, so figured I'd start up a thread for them.

First one was in the Oregon NCAA tournament game last night...



Initial call was nothing, and runner safe. After review (and a really long one at that), they went with no Obstruction on the catcher, and malicious contact on the runner (which makes it an out, an immediate dead ball so the other runner was returned to first, an ejection on the runner, and he's suspended for the next game).

This was a tough one, but I think you have to call obstruction on this one. Catcher is clearly blocking the base path and doesn't have the ball. Yes, he's trying to make a play on the ball so you give him some leeway, but he's giving the runner no path. The malicious contact is a 50/50 call for me...runner looked like he started to slide, catcher was in the way, and it was an attempt where he had momentum and went through the catcher. I don't think I call that, but I have no issue with them calling it. However, if they go with the obstruction call, then the run counts and there is no out (and the other runner can be placed on 2nd).

 

[Erial_Lion]

Other one was from a high school game in Illinois. Also a malicious contact call. I've watched this one 20 times, and I still have no idea what should have been called. It was a late slide, the slide was a little higher than you'd like to see, but is it enough to call malicious contact? I really don't know. 50/50 call for me, but the ump seems to be catching a lot of heat for it (granted he was late arriving to the play, but that's a tough one even with a perfect angle)...in real time watching it once, I thought it was an obvious malicious contact. But the benefit of replay told me that it might have looked a little worse than it was (especially with the 2nd baseman out in front of the bag a bit and very low).

 

[Bison13]

I would agree with both calls just due to the fact that they were both higher than needed. I think in the college game the runner would have gotten the obstruction call if he did not go with the forearms up towards the head approach. Slide feet first or dive around and you get the call.

Similar with the HS kid, way late slide and really not a feet first or head flirst slide, so I would definitely say it was a slide (more of a roll with no intent to slide) with intent to at least displace the fielder. Game was on turf, kid should be sliding earlier than he would on a dirt field too. Maybe from a different angle it wouldn't be as bad but if the runner was my player, I wouldnt object to that call at all.

 

[Erial_Lion]

I would agree with both calls just due to the fact that they were both higher than needed. I think in the college game the runner would have gotten the obstruction call if he did not go with the forearms up towards the head approach. Slide feet first or dive around and you get the call.

Similar with the HS kid, way late slide and really not a feet first or head flirst slide, so I would definitely say it was a slide (more of a roll with no intent to slide) with intent to at least displace the fielder. Game was on turf, kid should be sliding earlier than he would on a dirt field too. Maybe from a different angle it wouldn't be as bad but if the runner was my player, I wouldnt object to that call at all.

Theoretically, in the first one, the obstruction call is independent from the malicious contact call. I don't have a huge issue with the malicious contact call, but that part of the play shouldn't influence whether or not to call the obstruction. I really think the right thing to do would have been to call both...run counts, runner goes to second, runner coming home is ejected and suspended.

 

[Moogy]

I've seen a few of them the last two days, so figured I'd start up a thread for them.

First one was in the Oregon NCAA tournament game last night...



Initial call was nothing, and runner safe. After review (and a really long one at that), they went with no Obstruction on the catcher, and malicious contact on the runner (which makes it an out, an immediate dead ball so the other runner was returned to first, an ejection on the runner, and he's suspended for the next game).

This was a tough one, but I think you have to call obstruction on this one. Catcher is clearly blocking the base path and doesn't have the ball. Yes, he's trying to make a play on the ball so you give him some leeway, but he's giving the runner no path. The malicious contact is a 50/50 call for me...runner looked like he started to slide, catcher was in the way, and it was an attempt where he had momentum and went through the catcher. I don't think I call that, but I have no issue with them calling it. However, if they go with the obstruction call, then the run counts and there is no out (and the other runner can be placed on 2nd).

This call was absolutely ridiculous. I was watching the game when it happened. Couldn't believe it.

Anyone who has been in the position of deciding whether or not to slide, where to slide and then how to deal with contact, knows that there was nothing "malicious" about what the runner did.

The catcher was blocking the plate. Runner's coming in and starts to drop down to slide ... catcher lowers the leg, and now the runner is potentially EFFED if he completes the slide. Broken ankle, broken leg ... his and/or the catcher's. So he pulls up and braces himself for the unnecessary impact wrongly caused by the catcher. There wasn't anything else the guy could do there, unless he wanted to risk serious injury, or just give himself up (which would have worked here, since the catcher didn't catch it, but you can't be expected to play like that). And, yes, when you brace for impact, you also push out to keep the impact from your body.

It's not even questionable.

Calling it as they did puts bodies at risk.

 

[Moogy]

Other one was from a high school game in Illinois. Also a malicious contact call. I've watched this one 20 times, and I still have no idea what should have been called. It was a late slide, the slide was a little higher than you'd like to see, but is it enough to call malicious contact? I really don't know. 50/50 call for me, but the ump seems to be catching a lot of heat for it (granted he was late arriving to the play, but that's a tough one even with a perfect angle)...in real time watching it once, I thought it was an obvious malicious contact. But the benefit of replay told me that it might have looked a little worse than it was (especially with the 2nd baseman out in front of the bag a bit and very low).

Fielder should have been tossed, not the runner. Fielder got the ball and had his knee on the bag. Could have made the tag from there. Instead, last second, he moves his leg in front of the bag, obstructing the baserunner's ability to get to the bag. He does this after the runner is already dropping into his slide, so the runner is screwed. Because the runner gets prematurely stopped in his lower body by sliding into the fielder's leg, his upper body comes up over the top (physics) and makes contact with the fielder. The only thing the runner did was give an extra little forearm shove at the end, and that's nothing ... that's a "get off me, you just friggin jammed my body into itself and made me collide with you" nudge.

These two plays highlight how awful the rules are written/interpreted. Fielders shouldn't be allowed to block a bag with their leg/body. Period. It's incredibly and needlessly dangerous. THAT should be an ejection, by rule. There's no need for it and it just causes potential injury. If you're standing up and have the ball well in advance of the runner approaching, yeah, you can be between the runner and the bag and tag him. Otherwise, get your body out of the way.

Don't allow baserunners to slide over and around the bag to interfere with infielders, and don't allow infielders to impede the progress of the runner to the bag. Very simple. Very safe. Instead, they have all these judgment calls that end up in confusion, anger and injury. You put runners in a position where they have to "defend" themselves, and in bang-bang situations, where you're sliding and don't have full control of your body, defense isn't always pretty.

Dumb.

 

[BobPSU92]

“Malicious contact.“ For f*ck’s sake. Pussification. Just play ball.

 

[CDLionFL]

From the perspective of a 21-year HS umpire:

#1, you can't call malicious contact upon video review. That has to be made in the moment and on the field, not off a monitor after minutes and minutes of guesswork.

The Oregon situation should have been obstruction on the catcher and that's it. Stick with the call that was made on the field. As a result of that poor call, Oregon loses that game and then lost today's game to end their season.

On the HS play, the first thing I notice is that the calling umpire is nowhere near where he's supposed to be. He showed zero hustle to get into position and should have been standing in the cutout between the base and the mound to make that call. My best guess is that he got caught watching the ball from his original position instead of busting inside to get where he's supposed to be. Therefore, he's lucky that the ball was dropped in order for him to have an easy out/safe call. But he's in zero position to see if there's obstruction by the fielder and he's not in a position to be able to make an educated call on malicious contact. In my judgment, I wouldn't have malicious contact here either. It's a late slide, yes, but there's no rule on the books about late slides and making contact UNLESS it's a double play situation. There, you could potentially have interference. But it's on a case-by-case basis. What the video didn't show us was if the base umpire made the malicious contact call or did he and the plate umpire confer about it. If it's a bases empty situation, the plate umpire is watching the ball down and then follows it into the infield. While he doesn't have a call at 2nd, he can certainly have an opinion about the slide. In that crew's judgment, they thought it was malicious. In my judgment, I don't think so. The base umpire also did a very poor job of quelling the attitude that the second baseman decides to show towards the runner. I can understand the shortstop being mad because he got contacted. But there's zero reason for 2B to come in there and make contact with the runner and yap at him.

Keep em coming, @Erial_Lion . There will be many more to choose from this month and throughout the rest of the MLB season.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Here is one from a game my chapter was covering a decade ago. Pitman (Alma mater of the Crispin brothers) against Woodbury (only PSU connection I can think of was lightly used WR Shawney Kersey).

Luckily two pretty experienced guys on it so that it didn’t get completely out of hand. I know that NJSIAA handed down suspensions to several (two players that started it off, Woodbury 3rd base coach, and if I recall both head coaches got a game too).

And as is usually the case, the parents are just adding fuel to the fire rather than setting an example.

 

[Ludd]

Here is one from a game my chapter was covering a decade ago. Pitman (Alma mater of the Crispin brothers) against Woodbury (only PSU connection I can think of was lightly used WR Shawney Kersey).

Luckily two pretty experienced guys on it so that it didn’t get completely out of hand. I know that NJSIAA handed down suspensions to several (two players that started it off, Woodbury 3rd base coach, and if I recall both head coaches got a game too).

And as is usually the case, the parents are just adding fuel to the fire rather than setting an example.

Sounds like one of the parents needs anger management classes as well.

 

[Moogy]

Here is one from a game my chapter was covering a decade ago. Pitman (Alma mater of the Crispin brothers) against Woodbury (only PSU connection I can think of was lightly used WR Shawney Kersey).

Luckily two pretty experienced guys on it so that it didn’t get completely out of hand. I know that NJSIAA handed down suspensions to several (two players that started it off, Woodbury 3rd base coach, and if I recall both head coaches got a game too).

And as is usually the case, the parents are just adding fuel to the fire rather than setting an example.

The one coach in a yellow jersey should have been tossed (I believe he was), and should be fired. Going after an opposing player like that ... get the eff out of here.

I thought the parents were pretty restrained, given the circumstances. The crazy yelling fits were, I think, from the psycho coach who shouldn't be near children. Grown man goes after my kid like that, I'll make sure he never works anywhere again.

 

[kgilbert78]

Last week I saw the leadoff hitter get to first on a passed ball/wild pitch third strike. I've not seen that in a while. He then went to second on a balk.

 

[AvgUser]

I've seen a few of them the last two days, so figured I'd start up a thread for them.

First one was in the Oregon NCAA tournament game last night...



Initial call was nothing, and runner safe. After review (and a really long one at that), they went with no Obstruction on the catcher, and malicious contact on the runner (which makes it an out, an immediate dead ball so the other runner was returned to first, an ejection on the runner, and he's suspended for the next game).

This was a tough one, but I think you have to call obstruction on this one. Catcher is clearly blocking the base path and doesn't have the ball. Yes, he's trying to make a play on the ball so you give him some leeway, but he's giving the runner no path. The malicious contact is a 50/50 call for me...runner looked like he started to slide, catcher was in the way, and it was an attempt where he had momentum and went through the catcher. I don't think I call that, but I have no issue with them calling it. However, if they go with the obstruction call, then the run counts and there is no out (and the other runner can be placed on 2nd).

That was a terrible call

 

[AvgUser]

Other one was from a high school game in Illinois. Also a malicious contact call. I've watched this one 20 times, and I still have no idea what should have been called. It was a late slide, the slide was a little higher than you'd like to see, but is it enough to call malicious contact? I really don't know. 50/50 call for me, but the ump seems to be catching a lot of heat for it (granted he was late arriving to the play, but that's a tough one even with a perfect angle)...in real time watching it once, I thought it was an obvious malicious contact. But the benefit of replay told me that it might have looked a little worse than it was (especially with the 2nd baseman out in front of the bag a bit and very low).

That was even worse then the first video

 

[CDLionFL]

Last week I saw the leadoff hitter get to first on a passed ball/wild pitch third strike. I've not seen that in a while. He then went to second on a balk.

I had a game this year where the leadoff batter got on via that same deal and then the pitcher set down the next 18 batters he faced. Lost the no-hitter on a clean gapper to lead off the 7th. If he had completed it, it would have been my 2nd no-hitter worked this season.

 

[PSUFBFAN]

“Malicious contact.“ For f*ck’s sake. Pussification. Just play ball.

Damn right. Back when men were men!

 

[Erial_Lion]

Balk call to end a 13 inning State Title HS game in Pennsylvania (and happened at PSU).



Here is a better angle of it...


It's probably the right call...tough spot to call it, but that's why you're assigned to a game of that level. But reading the twitter comments (I know, big mistake) and you'll read all about how the umpire should let it go in that situation, he's trying to make it about himself, he's corrupt, etc.

 

[MtNittany]

One of my favorite Dad stories has Tacoma going into Reno - at the time the only place PCL players could gamble. Tacoma was 20-something games up and Reno was the worst team in the league.

Well, every one is hung over and all the RH pitchers arms are sore from pulling slots every night and they lose the 1st two games. Gaylord is pitching the 3rd game and he didn't do well in the casinos that trip and wasn't in a good mood. Reno starts shelling him and about the 4th inning he tells everyone to "be on your toes".

He proceeded to hit 5 batters w/ a few walks sprinkled in before the benches cleared and he was ejected.

 

[[email protected]]

Who is gaylord

 

[Bison13]

Balk call to end a 13 inning State Title HS game in Pennsylvania (and happened at PSU).



Here is a better angle of it...


It's probably the right call...tough spot to call it, but that's why you're assigned to a game of that level. But reading the twitter comments (I know, big mistake) and you'll read all about how the umpire should let it go in that situation, he's trying to make it about himself, he's corrupt, etc.

Absolutely the right call. Sucks that it happened at that time but you have to call it.

 

[1995PSUGrad]

Balk call to end a 13 inning State Title HS game in Pennsylvania (and happened at PSU).



Here is a better angle of it...


It's probably the right call...tough spot to call it, but that's why you're assigned to a game of that level. But reading the twitter comments (I know, big mistake) and you'll read all about how the umpire should let it go in that situation, he's trying to make it about himself, he's corrupt, etc.

I give the umpire credit for making the call. If it's a balk, it's a balk, whether it's in the first inning or the 13th.

 

[Erial_Lion]

I give the umpire credit for making the call. If it's a balk, it's a balk, whether it's in the first inning or the 13th.

I had a friend give a penalty kick in added time of a state championship soccer game. Fans/coaches/players of the losing team laid into him. The observer of that game told him that having the balls to make the right call there was the reason he had that assignment.