Comments on: Business Trip

By: seamus

seamus — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:30:00 +0000

[6] so there IS something on point. Nice find! I think your interpretation sounds right. Judgement call by the umpire as to whether or not it affected the play. Doesn’t matter what the intent was.

By: Just Fair

Just Fair — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:13:41 +0000

[9] Just blast “Enter Sandman” out of a boombox and jog out elegantly like it was your duty. : D
GO YANKEES!!!

By: Yankee Mama

Yankee Mama — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:07 +0000

[15] Ya know, now that you mention it, I do feel a headache coming on. Rest is good. There is a lot of crud sufferers these days.

All in all, I thought the homeplate Umpire (Diaz was it?) called a decent game. His strike zone was a tad pitcher friendly, calling borderline low and high ball for strikes. But, he was consistent for all 90 pitchers who played that night.

By: rbj

rbj — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:58:39 +0000

[9] Are you feeling well? You look like you might be coming down with something. Might be better to go home now and get some rest and not risk infecting anyone else. I’m just getting over whatever crud it was I had. Took two weeks. I’ll probably miss the first whole hour as I’ll have to walk the dog when I get home.

By: a.O

a.O — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:58:24 +0000

[11] No. But probably because Guerrero was called out at first anyway.

By: a.O

a.O — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:57:42 +0000

[10] The first (no good look) is a distinct possibility, as the ump was in a similar position (i.e., behind) Molina, and Molina did not appear to see the ball hit Guerrero.

You should try asking someone in the press to ask the crew about the play. Otherwise, as far as I know MLB isn’t like the IRS where you can request an interpretive ruling for your own purposes.

And I think there is a fourth possibility: The ump has the same understanding we do but judged that Guerrero’s contact with the ball did not hinder Molina. That seems pretty unlikely, as it caused the ball to move further from him.

Incidentally, I was very impressed with the call at first. I thought Guerrero was safe when I watched the play in real time, but the replays showed that he was out by an incredibly small margin. Excellent eyes by the 1B ump on that one.

By: Yankee Mama

Yankee Mama — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:55:29 +0000

Sorry about the typos. Dreadful.

By: Yankee Mama

Yankee Mama — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:51:07 +0000

[10] I din’t get homw unti the 6th inning. Did Girardi question the call?

By: RIYank

RIYank — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:50:08 +0000

[8] Right, unintentional hindering is still hindering, and still interference, and the batter would still be out.

I wonder which of these is true: the umpire didn’t get a good look at the play; the umpire doesn’t understand the rule; the umpire has a deeper understanding of the rule than we do. It must be one of those. And if it’s the third, which is entirely possible, I wonder what exactly the rule is and how a person might find out that that’s what it is.

By: Yankee Mama

Yankee Mama — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:46:44 +0000

Jeez. I almost forgot about those stupid-assed monkeys.
[5] I don’t like Weavers. It’s not in our Yankee DNA.

The question is how to leave work early.

By: a.O

a.O — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:46:17 +0000

[6] To clarify, you’re concluding that the batter’s act in hindering the catcher can be either intentional or unintentional? That is my understanding of the rule.

On the play in question, Molina lost track of the ball because of the bounce it took off Guerrero. That would have been sufficient, in my judgment, to call Guerrero out for having committed interference by hindering the catcher.

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:42:36 +0000

An early lead would take the crowd out of the game.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:41:59 +0000

Carrying forward from an earlier thread, here’s the closest rule I could find about what happens when on a dropped third strike the batter makes contact with the ball while it’s in play:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(a) After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball;

“Hinders” doesn’t entail “intentional”. On the other hand, not every contact with the ball would hinder the catcher. So the rules leave it open, though (absent some other rule that actually bears on this situation) it’s not necessary that the interference be intentional. (This makes sense, since other kinds of interference needn’t be intentional — think of catcher’s interference, e.g.)

By: ms october

ms october — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:23:18 +0000

he drives a corvette, i drive a samurai suzuki
and alex and derek got the score truck key

[4] yep be nice to jump on little jered quickly today and give andy a lead

By: a.O

a.O — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:14:53 +0000

Most important thing today is to give Andy a little support. A little warm-weather resurgence from the Teixacutioner?

By: RagingTartabull

RagingTartabull — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:10:05 +0000

what better way to get pumped for the game than with Mo’s OTHER theme song

Yo yo, you’re still pickin on that four-leaf clover?
Bring in the Sandman, sucker – because it’s over

By: seamus

seamus — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:56:47 +0000

[1] i’m not looking forward to all those monkey sticks or whatever they are. my brain is a little muddy right now.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:22:05 +0000

Man, it’s hours before game time, Yanks have a 2-0 lead, and I’m still a nervous wreck. LOL.