If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Major League Baseball)   With a runner on third, MLB umpire gives the manager a choice of taking the run and the out, or having first and third and not take the out. Yup ... it's the rarely used Rule 6.08(c)   (m.mlb.com) divider line 54
    More: Interesting, Major League Baseball, umpires, runners, manager  
•       •       •

4151 clicks; posted to Sports » on 17 Apr 2014 at 7:18 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-16 11:45:23 PM
Rule 6.08(c):
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base when] the catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

Or, in NFL terms ... take the penalty or the yards and the down.
 
2014-04-16 11:52:54 PM
Wacky. Even as a baseball rules nerd, I'd forgotten that one.
 
2014-04-16 11:55:23 PM
huh.  Never seen that before.
 
2014-04-17 03:06:49 AM
First of all Subby's headline is wrong.  There was already one out before the play.

Second there must be some missing information here:

Principal Clarinet: Rule 6.08(c):
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base when] the catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.


Because the rule does not say anything about a dead ball.  The runner on third advanced on the play.  The rule does not say electing the interference negates the play.

Why couldnt Girardi have accepted the play and the interference?  There is no "or" in the "if" sentence.
 
2014-04-17 03:35:23 AM

Frederick: First of all Subby's headline is wrong.  There was already one out before the play.



Headline probably should have read:

With a runner on third, MLB umpire gives the manager a choice of taking the run and the out, or having first and third with no and not take the out.
 
2014-04-17 07:06:16 AM

Frederick: First of all Subby's headline is wrong.  There was already one out before the play.

Second there must be some missing information here:

Principal Clarinet: Rule 6.08(c):
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base when] the catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

Because the rule does not say anything about a dead ball.  The runner on third advanced on the play.  The rule does not say electing the interference negates the play.

Why couldnt Girardi have accepted the play and the interference?  There is no "or" in the "if" sentence.


Once the catcher interfered with the batter (Ellsbury) the batter would be awarded 1st base. Since there was no force Gardner would have to stay at 3rd. Girardi took the option of accepting the play, where Gardner scored and Ellsbury was thrown out at first. The key words are "elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play." That's an either/or situation, with no option for both.
 
2014-04-17 07:23:27 AM
Lost in all of this is the catcher getting hit on the fingertips by a bat on a cold day. The only worse pain is getting the tip of your frozen ear flicked.
 
2014-04-17 07:23:39 AM
How does this affects each players WAR+/MIPS?
 
2014-04-17 07:26:59 AM
The Aristocrats?
 
2014-04-17 07:48:13 AM
Makes sense
 
2014-04-17 08:01:59 AM

Principal Clarinet: Rule 6.08(c):
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base when] the catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

Or, in NFL terms ... take the penalty or the yards and the down.


In this case, it's more like "take the penalty or the points." The Yankee pitcher was doing so well that Girardi knew that run could be a game-winner.
 
2014-04-17 08:03:04 AM
I was listening to that game, John Sterling had no idea what was happening. Not unlike any other time during the game.
 
2014-04-17 08:14:09 AM
Fark the Yankees
 
2014-04-17 08:15:46 AM
Girardi had to remind the umps of the rule. He'd seen it before as a catcher back in the '90s when he got his glove in the way of a home run swing. Home run stood. That's the sort of thing that sticks with you.
 
2014-04-17 08:24:43 AM
I guess now, I've seen almost everything in baseball.
 
2014-04-17 08:34:22 AM
I always love to see these little-known rules being applied by someone who actually knows what's going on. (I'm looking at you, Donovan McNabb.)

I also like it when MLB shows all four sets of announcers on the highlights. It's always nice to see that your hometown color guy isn't the only clueless one.
 
2014-04-17 08:34:59 AM
Only the Cubs could cause this scenario. So Cub.
 
2014-04-17 08:47:30 AM

HaywoodJablonski: How does this affects each players WAR+/MIPS?


Yes.
 
2014-04-17 08:48:07 AM
Since this is the Cubs, Girardi make the wrong call.

He should have opted to leave Gardner on third, because Soriano would have come up and shot out of his slump with a line dropping into center.  Ruggiano, who's played more in right than center in the last 12 months, inevitably mis-fields the ball, and after having to back up to grab it off the bounce, is forced to throw it to Valbuena at third to keep Ellsbury from an in-the-park home run.

Because this is the Cubs.
 
2014-04-17 09:09:47 AM
Girardi knows the rule, because it happened to him.
 
2014-04-17 09:16:51 AM
Yup ... it's the rarely used Rule 6.08(c)

Sudden death?
 
2014-04-17 09:33:48 AM

Arkanaut: HaywoodJablonski: How does this affects each players WAR+/MIPS?

Yes.


Thanks
 
2014-04-17 10:02:58 AM

Badmoodman: Only the Cubs could cause this scenario. So Cub.


Yesterday also marked the first time in 52 years that the Cubs got shutout in both games of a doubleheader.
 
2014-04-17 10:23:01 AM
now that I think about it, yesterday on a whole was a really fun day of baseball..

Fernando Rodney losing his cool and blowing a game (rookie 3B pulled Cano off the bag at 2nd on what should've been an easy game-ending putout, Rodney got all pissy and threw the next pitch wild, allowing the tying run to score.. then a bloop single the next batter for the winning run)

Hawk Harrelson's dejection as the White Sox lose in the 14th inning.

The Dodgers losing in a game where Mattingly benched Puig yet again.
 
2014-04-17 10:24:25 AM
I coached 20 seasons of youth baseball (5th-12th, grades as my kids grew up) and I saw this rule a lot.  It's a lot easier to convince a catcher not to reach for the pitch once they get popped a couple times on the fingers.  It's an "Aha!  So that's what you meant, coach" moment while they shook the sting out of the hand.
 
2014-04-17 10:45:23 AM
I can't believe Ron Coomer of all people (the cub's radio guy in the last clip) knew the rule before anybody.
 
2014-04-17 10:48:49 AM

The Bestest: Hawk Harrelson's dejection as the White Sox lose in the 14th inning.


I didn't mind the Red Sox winning if it meant Hawk Harrelson went to bed an unhappy man. God that guy sucks.
 
2014-04-17 11:54:19 AM
Take the penalty or take the play?  Seems pretty freaking reasonable.
 
2014-04-17 12:05:03 PM

phamwaa: Principal Clarinet: Rule 6.08(c):
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base when] the catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.

Or, in NFL terms ... take the penalty or the yards and the down.

In this case, it's more like "take the penalty or the points." The Yankee pitcher was doing so well that Girardi knew that run could be a game-winner.


Yeah, it's like if you had 4th & 3 from the 30 and kicked a FG, but the other team was offside.  Do you keep the three points or take the penalty and try for seven?

In this case, with runners on first and third and one out, the probability numbers would suggest, on average, that they'd score 1.146 runs.  With nobody on and 2 outs, they'd score .101 runs (plus the initial run obviously).  So, technically, it could be argued that the better play was to decline the out and take the runner, but in this case the margin is so small (and single runs so valuable) that taking the run is the obvious choice.
 
2014-04-17 12:27:32 PM
Well THAT doesn't happen every day.
 
2014-04-17 12:35:53 PM

The Bestest: now that I think about it, yesterday on a whole was a really fun day of baseball..

Fernando Rodney losing his cool and blowing a game (rookie 3B pulled Cano off the bag at 2nd on what should've been an easy game-ending putout, Rodney got all pissy and threw the next pitch wild, allowing the tying run to score.. then a bloop single the next batter for the winning run)


Miller isn't a 3B, nor is he a rookie.
 
2014-04-17 12:42:59 PM

Shame Us: Miller isn't a 3B, nor is he a rookie.


2nd year SS.. whatevs.. doesn't make seeing Rodney blow it any less sweet (nothing against the Mariners specifically, I just really, really hate Fernando Rodney)
 
2014-04-17 12:43:34 PM

VvonderJesus: I can't believe Ron Coomer of all people (the cub's radio guy in the last clip) knew the rule before anybody.


The broadcasts I've heard, it seems that Coomer knows his stuff pretty well - but I haven't adjusted to his style (or he hasn't settled into the role just yet). Somewhat related, it is still really weird to hear Pat say "over to you Ronnie," or have the pre-game show end with "up next Pat and Ron for Cubs baseball."
 
2014-04-17 02:09:52 PM

snowybunting: Lost in all of this is the catcher getting hit on the fingertips by a bat on a cold day. The only worse pain is getting the tip of your frozen ear flicked.


I was a catcher for a few years (insert power bottom joke if you'd like) and generally, it's okay. Between that bigass mitt with like an inch-thick roll of cow around the edges and your fingers not extending all the way to the end, I never got hurt the few times this happened.
 
2014-04-17 02:14:28 PM

The Bestest: Badmoodman: Only the Cubs could cause this scenario. So Cub.

Yesterday also marked the first time in 52 years that the Cubs got shutout in both games of a doubleheader.


That was the most surprising thing to me. I became a Cubs fan in the 70s, and there was a good stretch of years which combined some awful Cubs teams and scheduled doubleheaders every month or so, in addition to doubleheaders to make up rainouts.
 
2014-04-17 02:40:08 PM

Trainspotr: The Bestest: Badmoodman: Only the Cubs could cause this scenario. So Cub.

Yesterday also marked the first time in 52 years that the Cubs got shutout in both games of a doubleheader.

That was the most surprising thing to me. I became a Cubs fan in the 70s, and there was a good stretch of years which combined some awful Cubs teams and scheduled doubleheaders every month or so, in addition to doubleheaders to make up rainouts.


Yeah, I know people that were catcher and hardly notice it happened. Tip of the bat just catches the tip of the glove. If he got a solid hit on the hand it would probably sting like a biatch, but he probably wouldn't hit the ball either.
 
2014-04-17 04:56:19 PM

UNC_Samurai: Since this is the Cubs, Girardi make the wrong call.

He should have opted to leave Gardner on third, because Soriano would have come up and shot out of his slump with a line dropping into center.  Ruggiano, who's played more in right than center in the last 12 months, inevitably mis-fields the ball, and after having to back up to grab it off the bounce, is forced to throw it to Valbuena at third to keep Ellsbury from an in-the-park home run.

Because this is the Cubs.


No he made the right call. If there weren't any outs then he should have taken the first and third, but since there was an out he was right to take the run and the out. If he would have taken the first and third with one out he is taking the chance that the next batter will hit into an inning ending double play and lose the run. If the batter hits into a double play with no outs and men on first and third the run still will score despite the double play.
 
2014-04-17 05:20:26 PM

ongbok: UNC_Samurai: Since this is the Cubs, Girardi make the wrong call.

He should have opted to leave Gardner on third, because Soriano would have come up and shot out of his slump with a line dropping into center.  Ruggiano, who's played more in right than center in the last 12 months, inevitably mis-fields the ball, and after having to back up to grab it off the bounce, is forced to throw it to Valbuena at third to keep Ellsbury from an in-the-park home run.

Because this is the Cubs.

No he made the right call. If there weren't any outs then he should have taken the first and third, but since there was an out he was right to take the run and the out. If he would have taken the first and third with one out he is taking the chance that the next batter will hit into an inning ending double play and lose the run. If the batter hits into a double play with no outs and men on first and third the run still will score despite the double play.


Also blindly doing what statistics says is best is not a good idea. Statistics work over a series of events, not discrete events. You always must look at the context because, while the statistics are good over 100 of this decision,they aren't so good for one. And they assume average hitter, runners, pitcher, and defense, which may not be the case in and one event.
 
2014-04-17 05:48:47 PM
Who gives a shiat, the Yankees won.
 
2014-04-17 08:05:17 PM
fun game today too.. Price is getting lit up.. and the Yankees turned a triple play on the Rays in the bottom of the 2nd
 
2014-04-17 08:25:35 PM

Snuffybud: Since there was no force Gardner would have to stay at 3rd.


You need to explain this to me further.  Why would Gardner, the third base runner, need to stay?  What does a force have to do with anything?  It obviously was not a dead ball, and indeed the runner advanced and scored.

I think Girardi made the wrong call.  He was thinking back to when it happened to him as a catcher and assumed the same circumstances would mean the same call.  It wasnt the same circumstances.  In his example there was a HR meaning (However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.) would apply.

According to the rule, there is no reason why the 3rd base runner was not free to advance.  You take the interference AND the run scores.
 
2014-04-17 08:35:32 PM

Frederick: Snuffybud: Since there was no force Gardner would have to stay at 3rd.

You need to explain this to me further.  Why would Gardner, the third base runner, need to stay?  What does a force have to do with anything?  It obviously was not a dead ball, and indeed the runner advanced and scored.

I think Girardi made the wrong call.  He was thinking back to when it happened to him as a catcher and assumed the same circumstances would mean the same call.  It wasnt the same circumstances.  In his example there was a HR meaning (However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.) would apply.

According to the rule, there is no reason why the 3rd base runner was not free to advance.  You take the interference AND the run scores.


Except the bolded part didn't happen yesterday. The batter was tagged out by the pitcher. If you take the interference, by definition the ball is dead and the runners cannot advance (unless forced). If you want to accept what happened after the ball was put in play, you have to accept all of it. Whether it's a home run or a groundout.
 
2014-04-17 08:41:35 PM

Frederick: Snuffybud: Since there was no force Gardner would have to stay at 3rd.

You need to explain this to me further.  Why would Gardner, the third base runner, need to stay?  What does a force have to do with anything?  It obviously was not a dead ball, and indeed the runner advanced and scored.

I think Girardi made the wrong call.  He was thinking back to when it happened to him as a catcher and assumed the same circumstances would mean the same call.  It wasnt the same circumstances.  In his example there was a HR meaning (However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.) would apply.

According to the rule, there is no reason why the 3rd base runner was not free to advance.  You take the interference AND the run scores.


If catcher's interference is ruled, the play would be ruled dead from when the interference happened.  The runners stay where they are and the batter gets the base.  But, with interference, they let the play carry on, like a delayed penalty in hockey, so that if Ellsbury were to, for example, hit a double in spite of the interference, the offensive team could take the result of the play, which could be a better result than the interference.

In this particular case the result of the play was an out instead of a base hit, so the question of whether to take the interference or the result of the play was more of a question, but the manager only gets those decisions.  He can take the interference, in which case the play is ruled dead before Ellsbury even hits the ball, he gets first and Gardner stays at third.  Or he can take the result of the play, in which Ellsbury is out at first but the runner scores.

The key here is that the interference occurred before the batter hit the ball.  If it had been fielder's interference, after the ball was hit, the run would have scored.  But if you take the interference, there is no batted ball.
 
2014-04-17 08:47:51 PM

Frederick: Snuffybud: Since there was no force Gardner would have to stay at 3rd.

You need to explain this to me further.  Why would Gardner, the third base runner, need to stay?  What does a force have to do with anything?  It obviously was not a dead ball, and indeed the runner advanced and scored.

I think Girardi made the wrong call.  He was thinking back to when it happened to him as a catcher and assumed the same circumstances would mean the same call.  It wasnt the same circumstances.  In his example there was a HR meaning (However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, the play proceeds without reference to the interference.) would apply.

According to the rule, there is no reason why the 3rd base runner was not free to advance.  You take the interference AND the run scores.


You've got a basic misconception of the play. Notice the bolded part of your post? The batter did not reach first safely, he was thrown out. Joe had 2 choices - accept the play and get the run, or accept the interference and put the batter on first. You don't get both the play and the interference. Just because the word "or" doesn't appear in the rule doesn't mean you get both. The only player awarded a base due to the interference is the player interfered with. The "or" is "the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play"

If the bases had been loaded when this play took place then Gardner would have scored because all the runners moved up.
 
2014-04-17 08:51:19 PM
so this is only my second time listening to John Sterling this year..

has he moved on from idiotic catchphrases for homeruns to -singing- now?
 
2014-04-17 09:29:15 PM

Trainspotr: If you take the interference, by definition the ball is dead and the runners cannot advance (unless forced).


Thanks for being patient with me folks.  This was what finally got through to me.
 
2014-04-17 10:22:08 PM
ugh.. he HAS taken to singing after home runs now
 
2014-04-18 12:37:05 PM

idesofmarch: The Bestest: Hawk Harrelson's dejection as the White Sox lose in the 14th inning.

I didn't mind the Red Sox winning if it meant Hawk Harrelson went to bed an unhappy man. God that guy sucks.


I cannot stand listening to him call a game. I don't mind a little bit of a "homer" in the booth, but he is ridiculous. Makes my ears bleed.
 
2014-04-18 12:49:44 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: idesofmarch: The Bestest: Hawk Harrelson's dejection as the White Sox lose in the 14th inning.

I didn't mind the Red Sox winning if it meant Hawk Harrelson went to bed an unhappy man. God that guy sucks.

I cannot stand listening to him call a game. I don't mind a little bit of a "homer" in the booth, but he is ridiculous. Makes my ears bleed.


Exactly.  John Sterling and Michael Kay show some excitement when the Yankees succeed, but they never actively root for them while broadcasting.  Also, Hawk's calls are verrrrrrrry annoying.  Way worse than Sterlingisms AFAIC.
 
2014-04-18 01:27:15 PM

idesofmarch: Way worse than Sterlingisms AFAIC.


..but.. he's -singing- now
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report