Tampa vs Boston - Ground Rule Double?

NewUmpire - I think any one who watched the game would agree with you.  Yes,  the Rays got screwed by the rule book and interpretation (if any) on that one.  It looked to me like the umpires handled it pretty good and explained the ruling.   I didn't see a manager or player lose their mind.   My youngest son and I watched that game from start to finish, and couldn't believe our eyes when they put them on 2nd and 3rd with Zinino coming up and 2 outs.   

Common sense would tell you the 1st base runner would have scored the go ahead run, but the previous hitter (Arozerena) would have been stranded at 3rd base as Zunino struck out (again).  He would not have stolen home.  Vazquez hit a two-runner homer, so in my mind it really didn't affect the outcome, but it did add some drama and get me out of my seat.

Speaking of umpire calls.....did you see the Astros / White Sox game?  Grandal hit a ball to first base with a runner on third.   Astros firstbaseman is playing in, fields the ball, throws home and the ball glances off Grandal's arm/should running to first.   He is clearly blocking the throwing path of the firstbaseman.  Grandal is at least 2 to 2.5 feet running inside the base line.  Trust me, I'm no Astos fan, but they got hosed on that one.   Dusty had a good argument there, but they did not change the call.  That was utterly ridiculous in my mind.

I didn't see the game, so a quick google brought up the play and this was what was was reviewed:  (fwiw- what I saw and what it said was that the ball ultimately went into the dugout, not in to fair territory as you said above)

“It's item 20 in the manual, which is, balls deflected out of play, which is in reference to official baseball Rule 5.06(b)(4)(H). It says, ‘If a fair ball not in flight is deflected by a fielder and goes out of play, the award is two bases from the time of the pitch.’”

In the post game interview cash said, “ The runner would have scored. But the rules are the rules. It was an unfortunate bounce.”

But Vasquez hit a two run homer in the bottom of the inning making the issue irrelevant.

It’s a new century. Karma has changed. The Sox get more bounces to their favor. No more catcher’s interference non calls. No more broken bat singles to center. No more dribblers through the legs of a former Gold Glove 1B. No more Bucky F’n Dent homers. And now that the Sox beat the Yankees in the post season more than not it’s not a delusional chant. The Yankees do suck.

Last night was the Christian F’n Vasquez homer. Fenway is the only park that would have been a home run. It was definitely a Fenway homer.

Right call, bad rule

I've seen many mentions on line that this is a bad rule.  To me the fact that its formulaic and does not require an umpire guessing "what would have happened" is a positive.  If you think it should be three bases instead of two, fair enough.

@K9 posted:

I've seen many mentions on line that this is a bad rule.  To me the fact that its formulaic and does not require an umpire guessing "what would have happened" is a positive.  If you think it should be three bases instead of two, fair enough.

I think the runner being in motion has to be considered, especially with two outs.

Does he score from first? Maybe, maybe not.

Does he score from first when he's already in motion? Easily.

@PABaseball posted:

Right call, bad rule

Agree.  The announcers in the following Astros game were talking about that play from the previous game and joking about how the outfielders in spring training next year would be practicing bumping the ball over the fence off a bounce.

As for the Grandal play, it was a gross and obvious display of gamesmanship on his part….and it worked.  The rule is that the batter/runner establishes the line out of the box and only has to be in the designated path in the last 45 feet before 1st base.  Grandal clearly did not take a direct path and bowed significantly into the infield in an attempt to disrupt the play at home.

In watching Dusty Baker argue, without the benefit of hearing what he was saying, it seemed he would have benefited from a cooler head and a more thought out argument. There has to be a limit to “establishing your line” as a batter runner, which I would argue was definitely exceeded here.  Baker just lost his shit and yelled about Grandal being on the grass, from what I could discern on replay of the “discussion”, which on its own is not against the rules.

Here are two perspectives of Grandal’s position relative to the foul line as he leaves the box:

Here is Grendal’s position when he is impacted by the ball on his left arm just at the stripe on the bottom of his sleeve:

From the batter’s box he literally took a line directly at the fielder, not the base.  I applaud the gamesmanship, particularly since it worked, but the Umpire can’t let that happen.

First case... just like any "traditional" ground ruled double, the hitting team gets sort of penalized with an R1 at 1b.  It would have been much more interesting if there was some subtle intent to bump/push it over.

Grandal... is hitting lefty.  No way any established running lane should include a full step inside the infield grass.

As for the Grandal play, I agree @22and25.  If my team was down 0-2 in a best of five series with a chance to get an edge, I hope my team would take it too.   Grandal and the White Sox forced the umpires to make the call and they didn't make it.   Simple as that.

But let's be real here, this was a very easy call that was missed by the home plate umpire who would eventually get trucked less than a second later.   I wonder if the contact affected his judgement or if he is trying to watch two things at the same time.   Grandal running to first and you have a rather large and fast human being  barreling down third base line to home plate where the umpire is standing.  Nobody had the homeplate umpire's view, so I'm not sure any of the other umpires felt comfortable changing his call.   There is little doubt in my mind they are looking at it today and realizing they made a bad call.

JMO.

Yep, and unfortunately interference and obstruction are not reviewable.  I would like to see a shot from that camera at the moment Grandal was hit to know where the the umpire’s attention was focused. He may well have been already set up to make the call at home and not even looking toward Grandal. I  still think if Dusty keeps his head, clearly articulated his point by referencing Grandal’s starting point and position when hit with the ball he might have had a chance to allow the umpires to confer and change the call.  Heat of the moment and such….the game goes on.

No doubt there will be suggested rule changes that come of both situations.  As for the GRD ... there should be some consistency with the 2 base rule.  A runner gets 2 bases from the last base AT THE TIME OF THROW when a ball is thrown OB.  IMO this should be the same -  2 bases from the last fielder contact.   The run would have scored - not sure the batter would get third.  Intent of the fielder should not be part of the equaition.   As for Grendal - I would think there would be some consideration to the 45 ft lane would apply to all plays and not just on plays to first.   The basebath argument (6 ft wide) only applies if there is a play made on that runner.  If no play then the runner makes the base path.

Ground rule doubles that prevent a runner on first from scoring probably happens every week in MLB. It isn’t a big deal until it happens in the playoffs.

I agree with K9 about taking the guesswork out of the call. On this play the runner would have absolutely scored. But I’ll bet there are a lot more tweeter calls that would have the manager of the team not getting the call flipping out. Where is the theoretical line where the runner would have definitely scored?

I would agree if ball bounced over fence untouched by a fielder, then GRD it is... two bases.  But it was the fielders actions that caused the ball to exit the playing field.  Intentional or not the offense was penalized.  All I suggest is that when a ball in fair territory exits the field off the body, glove, throw of the fielder then 2 bases are awarded from the time of the touch, not the time of the pitch.  In all likelihood, we may never see this type of play again in our lifetime, so all conversation is mostly academic.

w/r/t GRD - hard to determine intent in all cases... I suspect we'll see language about knocked or batted into DBT rather than just thrown or kicked... That's a tough one in an important game - over there in RF I could see that happening with that low fence in the corner.

w/r/t Grandal - running lane interference is only applicable on throw to 1B... a requirement to be "in the box" at 45ft could leave a lot of interpretation when a player is out of the lane rounding to go to 2B (I know that's not what happened here). My point is be careful how you interpret that 45 lane - not sure 22and25 has the best wording.

I agree from just the pictures it looks egregious. Still, did the 1B-man have time to take another step inside the diamond in order to clear the runner? Could the C have set up more towards 3B rather than point of plate towards 1B? The picture shows him closer to line than the runner! Does a rule change cause a 1B-man intentionally throw at a runner just to get an interference? Grandal's job is not to make it easier for the fielder especially since he's not out - think other bases (especially 3B -> Home).  Other than running, we wasn't waving his arms or otherwise trying to deflect the ball. He has no idea where the C is. If (most) batters don't appreciate an HBP especially in the face area - imagine how a runner feels with a ball thrown from a fielder with much less "control" anywhere towards the facial area...

Re ground rule double …

Any time there’s a runner on first with two outs or there’s a runner on first with decent speed if the ball bounces over the fence for a ground rule double the offense gets screwed.it occurs all season long. Given Renfroe didn’t intentionally push the ball over the fence file this play under “that’s the breaks.”

The play didn’t cost the Rays the game. Vasquez hit a two run homer in the bottom of the inning.

@JohnF posted:

w/r/t GRD - hard to determine intent in all cases... I suspect we'll see language about knocked or batted into DBT rather than just thrown or kicked... That's a tough one in an important game - over there in RF I could see that happening with that low fence in the corner.

w/r/t Grandal - running lane interference is only applicable on throw to 1B... a requirement to be "in the box" at 45ft could leave a lot of interpretation when a player is out of the lane rounding to go to 2B (I know that's not what happened here). My point is be careful how you interpret that 45 lane - not sure 22and25 has the best wording.

I agree from just the pictures it looks egregious. Still, did the 1B-man have time to take another step inside the diamond in order to clear the runner? Could the C have set up more towards 3B rather than point of plate towards 1B? The picture shows him closer to line than the runner! Does a rule change cause a 1B-man intentionally throw at a runner just to get an interference? Grandal's job is not to make it easier for the fielder especially since he's not out - think other bases (especially 3B -> Home).  Other than running, we wasn't waving his arms or otherwise trying to deflect the ball. He has no idea where the C is. If (most) batters don't appreciate an HBP especially in the face area - imagine how a runner feels with a ball thrown from a fielder with much less "control" anywhere towards the facial area...

I completely understand the rules with regard to the Grandal play. My point is that there has to be a theoretical limit to what line he is allowed to choose.    My point is that the path itself can be the overt move to disrupt the play, without the need for flailing arms or jutting the shoulder out. Let’s say there was a ground ball to SS in the same situation , can Grandal establish a line directly at the SS and hook a right turn after the pitching mound to get to first base?  No, obviously not.  So where is the limit?  The spirit of the rule is that the batter runner has some liberty to establish his line from wherever his swing might take him to the base.

Lets say that was a bunt for example and Grandal was all the way forward in the box and lunging toward the pitcher.  His momentum takes him out through the front of the batter’s box and he then establishes his line to 1st base from that point.  He may, in that scenario, have a legitimate claim to a line that is well into the infield grass.

For the play in question he was in the back of the lefty box, made a fully rotational swing, pulling the ball to 1st base, with his momentum taking him to the first base dugout.  Gathers himself and starts to run to 1st base from outside the foul line.  You can see from the one pic I posted that he is fully turned toward first, shoulders squared to the bag and running while still in foul territory.  You can see he is several  feet, yes feet, off the throwing lane between Gurriel and Maldonado.  At this point Grandal has established his line and the point he was impacted with the ball is well off the line he initially established.  There is just no way Grandal reaches the point of where he was hit with the ball without an intentional effort to interfere with the throw.

22and25 my caution was more to your line "The rule is that the batter/runner establishes the line out of the box and only has to be in the designated path in the last 45 feet before 1st base. " - the "only has to be" part is only true on the throw to 1B...   Your theoretical SS example could happen, but is a bit overstated IMO.

I don't disagree with your assertion about a theoretical limit and yes I agree what Grandal did looks quite intentional. Easy for us with still cameras to debate. Who's call is it to make though? What rule is applied?

Consider the PU's PoV, the "time" he had, and what the situation was w/ R3 (and he got trucked too). Without R3, he trails BR.  With R3 you've got to get into the best position possible - do you peek to see which way R3 is coming? Do you watch the play from F3?  What is the C doing? He's probably taking that play in the "left pocket" because the C set up on the right side of the plate. He's also thinking (now) to make sure C is not obstructing the plate without the ball. The BR is the least of his concerns, besides the C is at least partially blocking his view as I don't see him in the right pocket of the C in the picture where Grandal gets hit.

Now let's consider U1 - does he have the best angle to determine interference (regardless of intent) - what kind of time did he have, what did he have to think about on that play? Do you believe he was thinking about how the batter swung and watched his first few steps? In one picture above, just before fielding the ball it looks like U1 is just taking a step onto the field... Part of me wonders what happens if F3 says eff it, I'm going to get the out at 1B (don't see F4 coming, but P could be). Still because F3's momentum is taking him to the plate U1 is working to get into position, but yeah probably just doesn't have the best angle to determine and is also moving on the play.

I still wonder about the C position on this - why wasn't he in front/center of the plate ready to receive a throw? Can you or anyone judge the intent of the defense? The 1B wasn't "in on the grass" on the play - he looks like he's playing it halfway. These are keys all 3 teams look for (offense, defense, and umpires).

Anyway, let's say you can change the rule, what do you write?  Allow me to remind you that the wording used would then be applicable to all bases. I've seen R3 be on the infield grass trying to make it harder to make the play to the plate - do you call him out just because he's there or only if he gets pegged in the back with the ball? Should we talk about the "skunk in the outfield", too ;-)?

@JohnF posted:

22and25 my caution was more to your line "The rule is that the batter/runner establishes the line out of the box and only has to be in the designated path in the last 45 feet before 1st base. " - the "only has to be" part is only true on the throw to 1B...   Your theoretical SS example could happen, but is a bit overstated IMO.

Consider the PU's PoV, the "time" he had, and what the situation was w/ R3 (and he got trucked too). Without R3, he trails BR.  With R3 you've got to get into the best position possible - do you peek to see which way R3 is coming? Do you watch the play from F3?  What is the C doing? He's probably taking that play in the "left pocket" because the C set up on the right side of the plate. He's also thinking (now) to make sure C is not obstructing the plate without the ball. The BR is the least of his concerns, besides the C is at least partially blocking his view as I don't see him in the right pocket of the C in the picture where Grandal gets hit.

Now let's consider U1 - does he have the best angle to determine interference (regardless of intent) - what kind of time did he have, what did he have to think about on that play? Do you believe he was thinking about how the batter swung and watched his first few steps? In one picture above, just before fielding the ball it looks like U1 is just taking a step onto the field... Part of me wonders what happens if F3 says eff it, I'm going to get the out at 1B (don't see F4 coming, but P could be). Still because F3's momentum is taking him to the plate U1 is working to get into position, but yeah probably just doesn't have the best angle to determine and is also moving on the play.

I still wonder about the C position on this - why wasn't he in front/center of the plate ready to receive a throw? Can you or anyone judge the intent of the defense? The 1B wasn't "in on the grass" on the play - he looks like he's playing it halfway. These are keys all 3 teams look for (offense, defense, and umpires).

Anyway, let's say you can change the rule, what do you write?  Allow me to remind you that the wording used would then be applicable to all bases. I've seen R3 be on the infield grass trying to make it harder to make the play to the plate - do you call him out just because he's there or only if he gets pegged in the back with the ball? Should we talk about the "skunk in the outfield", too ;-

As to the position of PU and catcher, I think these shots tell the story.  As the ball is put into play PU takes a neutral position behind the plate to set up for a view or both R1 and R3. C does move to front center of plate. PU’s attention is in the direction of Grandal until after ball hits him, as seen in pic 1, then he rotates his head 90 degrees (this is seen clearly in video) for a view of the potential play at the plate .

As to U1, there is no screen shot that shows his face but he is positioned directly behind 1B and his feet are squared to position him to look down the line to HP throughout the play.  He may well have been looking elsewhere though.

Again, I think the only aspect of the play discussed by the umpires or brought up by Baker were a.) Grandal was on the grass which is not on its own against the rules and b.)  Did he make an overt move to contact the ball with his arm or shoulder and he did not.  I still content that the path was the overt attempt to interfere and that was not likely discussed and may not have been enough to change the call based on how the rule is written.

As for rewriting the rule I would simply add:

A runner shall be deemed to have interfered if, upon the judgement of the umpire, he both chooses a path that is determined not to be a direct path to the base and interferes with the defense’s ability to complete an out.  

Think of how they changed the slide rule at 2B.  If the umpire deems that a runner did not take a direct path into 2B, in an attempt to interfere with the defense’s ability to complete an out on the batter runner, the batter runner is called out.

I am sure you can find a quibble with that wording and I am sure it could be written better but you get the idea.  Most baseball rules have an intended and generally accepted understanding, spirit of the rule and such, that can be easily adopted by the umpires.

I get your gist and quibbling about judgement, intent, or spirit is a life long past time of baseball fans !

The FPSR could happen elsewhere not just second. It's a safety thing for the fielder (ask Pedey).

Agree, and a nice way to pass a few idol moments today. I appreciate the discussion.