IGT 6/23/2013: NYM @ PHI -- With Whiz

[Zvon]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But it's the right call even if an odd one -- and, yeah, I've seen it go against the Mets as well. Just pointing out that there's a practical limit to how long you can enforce the 'clean transfer' thing. I think the thing here is that the glove hand was still in its follow-through motion after catching the ball when the ball rolled out. So even though there was a moment or two where the ball was solidly grasped in his glove, it's hard to argue that he ever had "control" of the ball. I don't know exactly how the rule is worded, but I think the spirit of the rule should be whether the fielder had control of the ball, where he could decide what he wanted to do with it; throw it to the infield, toss it into the stands, wipe his nose with it, lick it, whatever. Revere never really had that possession.

For the Mets, I love the call. Against the Mets, there would be a smoldering crater where my TV is. It was a judgement call and I personally thought Revere caught it . If Lagares was initially ruled out we wouldn't have given it another thought.
The rule about transferring/control does give an ump the option to make that call. And he made it.

Phils post game were all over this.
Ha! Phils post game sucks.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Nice cap to the afternoon, but that was a classic CBP-HR Not sure that's out anywhere else except Houston. Yea, looked like he one handed it. Still, squarin' up the ball all day. I love it. It must be someone's turn to play the Brown Dirt Cowboy today because the captain was fantastic.

My side hurts!


My shoulder hurts!


They kicked me off the team!


Dude, CANADA!

[dinosaur jesus]

Even if the umpire wasn't strictly wrong, it was still a weird call to make. The rule doesn't actually say that the ball has to be transferred to his hand cleanly. It says, "If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional." Revere wasn't in the act of throwing, so the first part of that doesn't apply. The question is whether he had complete control before he released it, and I think it's pretty clear that he did.

I'm glad it turned out to be not that important, except maybe to the Phillies' feeling of the world being against them, which I'm all in favor of. In favor of their feeling that way, that is, and in favor of the world actually being against them. Stick it to those Phils, world.

[Edgy MD]

I got another vidcap here. Harvey was kind of a big baby about the rain delay.



Looks a little like Savery from this angle, too.

[Benjamin Grimm]

dinosaur jesus wrote: The question is whether he had complete control before he released it, and I think it's pretty clear that he did.

I don't think he did. I think the ball was briefly grasped firmly in the glove, but it rolled out before he completed the motion of catching the ball. I say it was the correct call. (I say that, again, without having read the rule. Doing so might change my opinion.)

[Ceetar]

I think the call was ultimately wrong with no runners on. Once he goes to make a transfer, in any way, the ball is caught and the play is over because there is no need to make a throw. But with a runner on, the transfer is part of the action that needs to happen so you can conceivably argue he could be trying to hurry and drop it because he's trying to do two things catch and transfer to be able to throw. With no one on, all he's trying to do is catch the ball.

But whatever, a billion calls go against the Mets including ones where I would've sworn it was a catch and transfer thing and it was ruled a drop.

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: I think the call was ultimately wrong with no runners on. Once he goes to make a transfer, in any way, the ball is caught and the play is over because there is no need to make a throw. But with a runner on, the transfer is part of the action that needs to happen so you can conceivably argue he could be trying to hurry and drop it because he's trying to do two things catch and transfer to be able to throw. With no one on, all he's trying to do is catch the ball.

This^. I love when someone saves me from typing. I hat typing.
I will type more to say that IMO the ball was secure in his glove, if only for seconds. Enough seconds? In real time I thought so.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The important thing was that we kicked the shit out of the Phillies in this series, following a series in which we played considerably better than the Braves. Sure we might be 7-1 on this trip already but 5-3 has been pretty convincing, and if we keep this up for the next 10 weeks straight, we'll be right there for a play-in wild card. Certainly the best 7 days for this team since the earliest days of the year.

[Frayed Knot]

Just keep winning series - especially against the other NL East squads.
Treat this somewhat odd two-in-Chicago/one-in-Denver stretch as if it's one series and take at least two of them, then we'll be riding high in time to host the not-very-good Nationals next weekend (Jayson Werth left today's game limping).

[Edgy MD]

The vicissitudes of baseball dictate that a team that should win/should have won seven of eight will more likely go 5-3, where the gravitational pull of the mean is stronger than in the NBA or NFL. Nonetheless, I find myself a little frustrated that they didn't hit the higher figure. They dug a big hole and I guess I'm a little impatient to see them climb out of it.

[Frayed Knot]

btw, in yesterday's Tigers/Sawx game, the exact same dropped-on-the-transfer call was made on Boston OFer Daniel Nava. So a call you might see once a decade comes up twice in one day.

"I tell you Suzyn, you just can't predict baseball"