IGT 6/20/14 Mets @ Marlins Dice-Met v. Alvarez

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I can't believe I'm waving the white flag on June 20.

[Edgy MD]

Stupidest difference in the game has to be the bare-handy crap.

[Frayed Knot]

One for their last 786 w/RiSP has something to do with it too - and even when we do get hits there it doesn't always score runs!!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Frayed Knot wrote: SLIDE TO THE FUCKING BASE!!!!!!

Yes, and if it's blocked you'll be vindicated.
(rule still sucks)

[Frayed Knot]

Plus we make a fuckofalotta outs on the base paths -- caught stealings, GiDPs, tag outs, doubled-off, etc.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Frayed Knot wrote: Plus we make a fuckofalotta outs on the base paths -- caught stealings, GiDPs, tag outs, doubled-off, etc.

Someone should answer for it

[Frayed Knot]

d'Kong76 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: SLIDE TO THE FUCKING BASE!!!!!! Yes, and if it's blocked you'll be vindicated. (rule still sucks)

I can't tell anymore if the rule suxx or not because I don't know what it is. I thought I did originally but now I'm not so sure and, what's worse, no one else seems to be sure either.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I guess it's an experiment ... not going well so far

[Zvon]

d'Kong76 wrote: So they just showed the MLB decision video ... he didn't totally block the plate. Can someone not totally slide into the catcher. It's crazy.

Running down the third baseline the view looks a bit different, and that's twice our guy slid to the right to avoid contact with the catcher. He was definitely partially blocking the plate, and I think the rule says no blocking at all without the ball.

Under the guise of discretion that call could have been perceived differently, and it was a good challenge IMO.

[Frayed Knot]

In the meantime, this was just another one of these 8-1/2 inning, low-scoring, 3-1/2 hour game -- and it still was quicker than the Yanqui game (which is still ongoing)

Edited June 20, 2014 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

I've already waffled on this, ZZZ haha

[Frayed Knot]

Part of the problem is that these players have gotten so used to that off-center slide that they use it almost automatically. And now the new rules have just pushed them towards it even more.
Had Nieuwenhis slid straight in there's no question in my mind that he would have been safe - but he seemed to intentionally avoid doing so. That Terry seems confused about the whole deal isn't helping, but in Terry's defense, a lot of people seem to be confused.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Beltran hits a motherfucking 3-run walkoff HR for the MFYs.

[seawolf17]

And Beltran just hit a walkoff game-winning homer for the Yankees.

This was a very Metsy night of baseball.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Certainly Wright too ... my lower the shoulder comment
on another page withdrawn ... woulda been closer.

[seawolf17]

HOLY HELL SCREW THE FUCKING LANE. Wright was out by fifteen feet. There's not even a fucking call there.

edit: Just realized I might be the only person actually sitting here watching the stupid postgame because I'm still too stunned to go to bed.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I just watched the replay five time, no HOLY HELL

[Guest d'Kong76]

Not saying I would have sent him

[seawolf17]

I don't know. I want to pillory Teufel for it, but don't at the same time. Did we know Ozuna had a great arm? I'd rather have the bases loaded with one out there and the tying run at third, but I wonder if that's only obvious in retrospect. This team can't score runs for nothing; I think you've got to send him there. And you obviously have to send Kirk in the 9th. So I don't know if I'm mad at Teufel or not.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Let's go with Teuf!

[Zvon]

Well, what was a boring loss became an exciting loss, and that's something.

Wright was out by a mile, true, but the rule says what it says and, like the force play call the other day, could be interpreted differently. One could say that if the catchers foot blocked any part of the "lane" to the plate he was in obstruction and all that happens after is moot.

It would have been a horrendously bad reversal but it could have been reversed, as things stand now.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'm gonna stop, or we'll be mocked in the morning.
Let's Go Mets!

[Zvon]

seawolf17 wrote: This team can't score runs for nothing; I think you've got to send him there.

Bingo. That was my feeling there. Don't know if I was viewing the entire layout of the play if I would have thought differently, but as it was happening I thought he had a fair chance to make it. But he was out by a mile.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

It was dumb to send to send Wright; one reason we don't score runs is because we make way too many stupid outs on the basepaths. Tuefel can suck me, that was a dumb call.

Neiuwy I'll bet got a poor start or left too late, to me it seemed he was still too far up the line when they cut to that shot before the throw arrived; that was when I realized a good throw could get him.

Credit to Ozuna for making it but yes, we have to go after it harder there. If TT was dumb enough to send Wright to his death he coud have failed to alert Nieuwy when to go.

Obviously I'm framing a suspect but what the fuck. I can live with us having less firepower than other teams but to be so foolish on top of that is a sin we cannot commit.

[Frayed Knot]

Wright should NEVER have been sent. Even if there were two outs that would have been a shaky call. With less than two it was just dumb.

Nieuwenhuis had to go -- that throw was from at least 30 feet further away than the one that nailed Wright -- and he would have been safe had he made a straight-in slide.

And of course the biggest culprit is 2-10 w/RiSP and one of those 2 hits led to a run while the other just led to another out.

[Ceetar]

Young's sac fly seemed to hang up there too, which allowed Ozuna to take more than a couple steps in and really build momentum. It looked like Nieuwenhuis left well, but didn't see any side by side shots. Perhaps if we didn't gave a way a third of the remaining game on the play before..

Wright was clearly going to be out, but that's completely irrelevant. Under the old rule Wright should've lowered his shoulder and tried to clobber the catcher, and i'm 100% on board with trying to alleviate collisions and head injuries. So when Salty CLEARLY stepped in the lane between the plate and Wright in a very distinct blocking motion, with the ball still in the air by third base, he should've been ruled in violation of the new rule. That's EXACTLY what the rule is for. Not that they enforce it accurately there either, but wouldn't he have been called for obstruction of he blocked second base like that? or first?

[Frayed Knot]

The rule, as I interpret its intent, is simply that the catcher can block the plate only if he has the ball and that the runner can hit the catcher only if he he's given no path to the plate. It doesn't mean blocking the plate isn't allowed, and it doesn't mean steamrolling the catcher isn't allowed, only that there are specifics as to when each party can legally do what.

Where the confusion seems to be--and apparently what had Sandy, who was on the rules committee that devised all this, raving mad last night*--is that some read the rule as if the catcher can never be in the baseline at any time prior to receiving the ball. If that's truly what they meant, and Sandy himself seems confused as he carefully said after the game that the rule isn't necessarily what the rules committee decided but rather a later compromise involving the union, then Wright was essentially safe the moment Salty planted a foot in the path no matter if David was 5 feet or 50 feet away from home when the throw came in.

I certainly don't see it that way - although at this point NO ONE seems to know what's going on: not announcers, not umps, not managers, not players, not the guys who had a hand in making the rule (see my comments about the Pirate game from the other night earlier in this thread). To me it's only illegally blocking the plate if he actually blocks Wright from reaching the plate. But by the time David got there Saltalamacchia had already caught the ball, smoked a cigarette, and made a few phone calls, before calmly putting down the tag. What's the difference if you don't "have a lane" when you're 30 feet out? And if you don't have a lane then either slide or crash into him and you'll automatically be safe. But calling a catcher for obstruction because he set himself in a position where he'd be obstructing if a runner were actually there seems beyond silly and Terry came off last night like someone looking for a loophole in order to negate a bad decision.





* although it's unclear how mad he was at the rule and how mad at just another frustrating loss

[Guest d'Kong76]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Beltran hits a motherfucking 3-run walkoff HR for the MFYs.

I didn't realize it was a SHOT and righty until just
now see re-run of SNY SN. Now a true Yankee.

[ashie62]

Ceetar wrote: Young's sac fly seemed to hang up there too, which allowed Ozuna to take more than a couple steps in and really build momentum. It looked like Nieuwenhuis left well, but didn't see any side by side shots. Perhaps if we didn't gave a way a third of the remaining game on the play before.. Wright was clearly going to be out, but that's completely irrelevant. Under the old rule Wright should've lowered his shoulder and tried to clobber the catcher, and i'm 100% on board with trying to alleviate collisions and head injuries. So when Salty CLEARLY stepped in the lane between the plate and Wright in a very distinct blocking motion, with the ball still in the air by third base, he should've been ruled in violation of the new rule. That's EXACTLY what the rule is for. Not that they enforce it accurately there either, but wouldn't he have been called for obstruction of he blocked second base like that? or first?

Young's ball did seem to die in the air setting Ozuna up...

[Frayed Knot]

"Wright was clearly going to be out, but that's completely irrelevant." --- I don't think it's irrelevant at all.


"Under the old rule Wright should've lowered his shoulder and tried to clobber the catcher," --- And as far as I know (although I'm getting more confused by the day) he still can. The new rules merely state that a runner can't go out of his way to bowl over a catcher who's giving him another option, aka: access to the base.


"So when Salty CLEARLY stepped in the lane between the plate and Wright in a very distinct blocking motion, with the ball still in the air by third base, he should've been ruled in violation of the new rule. That's EXACTLY what the rule is for." --- I'm not sure how we define "a distinct blocking motion" here. Salty's foot was in front of the base which would have given Wright the right to slide/barrel through it/him and, if said foot/other body part were still there prior to him having the ball, the ump should be calling Wright safe even if the tag is applied in time. But the foot (or entire leg, or lying down across the path, or whatever) is no longer illegal once he has the ball and, in this case, the ball got to home about 5 minutes prior to the runner.


"Not that they enforce it accurately there either, but wouldn't he have been called for obstruction of he blocked second base like that? or first?" --- Again, as with any other base, if the fielder has the ball he also has the right to be in front of the bag. The only real difference with home is that the tradition of barreling over the catcher grew because there's no penalty for over-running.