Lost in the angst of a second straight tough loss for the Buccos...

[bjf1984]

If MLB is going to have Rule 7.13 in the books (the "blocking the plate" rule), how can they NOT call Florimon safe on that play in the 8th inning?
I hate that stupid rule, but it is in the books, and it has been called (including one of the most inane baseball calls of all time, when Martin was ruled in violation last year....when he was standing ON the plate on a force out, and the runner was ruled safe because Martin was "blocking the plate" - which led to MLB instantly issuing the directive that "blocking the plate" didn't apply to force plays. Really? LOL Kinda' like MLB having to issue a "directive" to the Umps that water is wet.)

If that play last night does NOT constitute a violation of 7.13......I've NEVER seen one that did.

And, just to make matter worse, the call completely changed that game.

You can see the video here: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/150016882/cubs-pirates-force-extras-after-wild-eighth

Run the first video....especially at about the 30 second mark.....Montero is absolutely parked in front of the plate, blocking off the entire plate, all while awaiting the throw from Baez.
Again, how MLB can put that rule in the books, call that rule multiple times in VERY iffy situations, and then NOT call it here?? Unreal?
Was LaRussa the replay official? Seriously, it would be nice to know who the joker was in New York.

 

[psu_83_drummer]

If MLB is going to have Rule 7.13 in the books (the "blocking the plate" rule), how can they NOT call Florimon safe on that play in the 8th inning?
I hate that stupid rule, but it is in the books, and it has been called (including one of the most inane baseball calls of all time, when Martin was ruled in violation last year....when he was standing ON the plate on a force out, and the runner was ruled safe because Martin was "blocking the plate" - which led to MLB instantly issuing the directive that "blocking the plate" didn't apply to force plays. Really? LOL Kinda' like MLB having to issue a "directive" to the Umps that water is wet.)

If that play last night does NOT constitute a violation of 7.13......I've NEVER seen one that did.

And, just to make matter worse, the call completely changed that game.

Yep, if they get that call right, the Bucs have tied the score and have men on 1st and 2nd with no outs.

 

[LeatherHelmets]

I hate the plate blocking rule but you're right they got that wrong.

 

[Mixolydian]

First of all that rule is poorly constructed and impossible to enforce with any consistency. Second (and unrelated to the play) the home plate umpire absolutely stunk on balls and strikes last night. Terribly inconsistent. Having said that, Montero did step in front of the plate (barely) before quickly responding to the perfect throw that took him into the path of the runner. Just a great baseball play. I actually thought they got it right.

 

[PennStateNate]

What you saw the last 2 games will be how the wild card plays out. I just don't see the Pirates beating Lester or Arrieta,

 

[basic blues]

First of all that rule is poorly constructed and impossible to enforce with any consistency. Second (and unrelated to the play) the home plate umpire absolutely stunk on balls and strikes last night. Terribly inconsistent. Having said that, Montero did step in front of the plate (barely) before quickly responding to the perfect throw that took him into the path of the runner. Just a great baseball play. I actually thought they got it right.

Barely.........???? Montero had the plate straddled from the moment he stepped out from behind home plate. I absolutely hate the "Posey rule" however, a rule is a rule. After seeing the Bucs get hosed several times last year on calls which were much less obvious that this one, I am beyond pissed that these jokers of umpires got this call wrong. Last night was a huge game for both the divisional race and for potential home field advantage in the wild card and for Joyce to miss the call at home initially is terrible....however, what is even more inconceivable is that they can review the call and come up with some BS interpretation about the infielder playing in and the catcher not having enough time....BS.

I am to believe that the catcher didn't have enough time to step 2 feet further towards the field of play in order to allow a path to the plate, BUT he did have enough time to straddle home plate and await the throw. That is an absolute garbage call.

 

[nits74]

If MLB is going to have Rule 7.13 in the books (the "blocking the plate" rule), how can they NOT call Florimon safe on that play in the 8th inning?
I hate that stupid rule, but it is in the books, and it has been called (including one of the most inane baseball calls of all time, when Martin was ruled in violation last year....when he was standing ON the plate on a force out, and the runner was ruled safe because Martin was "blocking the plate" - which led to MLB instantly issuing the directive that "blocking the plate" didn't apply to force plays. Really? LOL Kinda' like MLB having to issue a "directive" to the Umps that water is wet.)

If that play last night does NOT constitute a violation of 7.13......I've NEVER seen one that did.

And, just to make matter worse, the call completely changed that game.

You can see the video here: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/150016882/cubs-pirates-force-extras-after-wild-eighth

Run the first video....especially at about the 30 second mark.....Montero is absolutely parked in front of the plate, blocking off the entire plate, all while awaiting the throw from Baez.
Again, how MLB can put that rule in the books, call that rule multiple times in VERY iffy situations, and then NOT call it here?? Unreal?
Was LaRussa the replay official? Seriously, it would be nice to know who the joker was in New York.

Oh, it was a blown call. But something more to worry about than that is this: Aside from having to deal with Arietta, look for favorable umpiring for the Cubs in the WC game. Who do you think MLB would rather have make a long playoff run, small market Pittsburgh or mega market, media darling Chicago Cubs? Same goes for the Mets. Ratings and advertising money mean everything in professional sports.

 

[fairgambit]

What you saw the last 2 games will be how the wild card plays out. I just don't see the Pirates beating Lester or Arrieta,

They should have beat Arrieta last night. He's good, but he's not Cy Young. He has never pitched in the post season and while last night was a playoff like atmosphere, it is not the same as pitching in a one and done game.

 

[bjf1984]

First of all that rule is poorly constructed and impossible to enforce with any consistency. Second (and unrelated to the play) the home plate umpire absolutely stunk on balls and strikes last night. Terribly inconsistent. Having said that, Montero did step in front of the plate (barely) before quickly responding to the perfect throw that took him into the path of the runner. Just a great baseball play. I actually thought they got it right.

Go look at that linked replay.....with your glasses on.....and let me know if you still feel that:

"Montero did step in front of the plate (barely) before quickly responding to the perfect throw that took him into the path of the runner. Just a great baseball play. I actually thought they got it right".

 

[fairgambit]

Oh, it was a blown call. But something more to worry about than that is this: Aside from having to deal with Arietta, look for favorable umpiring for the Cubs in the WC game. Who do you think MLB would rather have make a long playoff run, small market Pittsburgh or mega market, media darling Chicago Cubs? Same goes for the Mets. Ratings and advertising money mean everything in professional sports.

I'm not buying what you're selling here nits74. We may get some bad calls but not because we're a small market team. If I had the slightest thought that the umpiring favored a particular team I personally would turn the game off and never watch another one.

 

[bjf1984]

They should have beat Arrieta last night. He's good, but he's not Cy Young. He has never pitched in the post season and while last night was a playoff like atmosphere, it is not the same as pitching in a one and done game.

Arrieta is obviously on a roll....and no one in the league has been hitting him for the last 2 months.

That said, the Bucco hitters missed A LOT of very hittable pitches last night. Arrieta's stuff was not great.
Cutch alone had 3 or 4 absolute MEATBALLS to hit, including the dead cat hanging breaking ball right over the heart of the plate (that he whiffed on for his last strikeout against Arrieta)........and managed to strike out four times overall.

The Bucs have been swinging pretty good bats since the break, but they acted like Arrieta was in their heads last night. His stuff was very beatable.

 

[NewYC]

What you saw the last 2 games will be how the wild card plays out. I just don't see the Pirates beating Lester or Arrieta,

There is no Lester in that equation. It'll be Arrieta.

 

[fairgambit]

Arrieta is obviously on a roll....and no one in the league has been hitting him for the last 2 months.
That said, the Bucco hitters missed A LOT of very hittable pitches last night. Arrieta's stuff was not great.
Cutch alone had 3 or 4 absolute MEATBALLS to hit, including the dead cat hanging breaking ball right over the heart of the plate (that he whiffed on for his last strikeout against Arrieta)........and managed to strike out four times overall.
The Bucs have been swinging pretty good bats since the break, but they acted like Arrieta was in their heads last night. His stuff was very beatable.

All I know is despite his admirable record, the Cubs still trail us by 3 in the standings. We still have the 2nd best record in baseball. It's not like we're getting into the playoffs by the skin of our teeth. When you get to the post season you face the best the other team has, on the mound and in the field. If you're good enough, you win and move on. We are, and we will.

 

[bjf1984]

All I know is despite his admirable record, the Cubs still trail us by 3 in the standings. We still have the 2nd best record in baseball. It's not like we're getting into the playoffs by the skin of our teeth. When you get to the post season you face the best the other team has, on the mound and in the field. If you're good enough, you win and move on. We are, and we will.

True and True.

But there is a HUGE difference between a one game "series", and a 5 or 7 game series.

Looking at the Bucs/Cubs.....what are the advantages for the Bucs? I think between the two teams, the clear Bucco advantages are a deeper quality bullpen, and a deeper starting rotation (after Arrieta, what do the Cubs have? Lester? Not much). NONE of that matters one iota in a one game "series".

In a one game "series" the most important parameter - by far - is the quality of that ONE starting pitcher.....and that is why the Cubs have a huge edge in a one game "series"....even though I would take the position that the Buccos are a better team from top to bottom.

 

[fairgambit]

True and True.

But there is a HUGE difference between a one game "series", and a 5 or 7 game series.

Looking at the Bucs/Cubs.....what are the advantages for the Bucs? I think between the two teams, the clear Bucco advantages are a deeper quality bullpen, and a deeper starting rotation (after Arrieta, what do the Cubs have? Lester? Not much). NONE of that matters one iota in a one game "series".

In a one game "series" the most important parameter - by far - is the quality of that ONE starting pitcher.....and that is why the Cubs have a huge edge in a one game "series"....even though I would take the position that the Buccos are a better team from top to bottom.

The Cub's haven't been in the playoffs since 2008. I think the Buc's experience the past 2 years is a big plus. I have no doubt the game will be in Pittsburgh, also a big plus. Yes, we lost to the Giants last year, but so did everyone else. I would rather be in our shoes than in the Cubs'.

 

[bjf1984]

The Cub's haven't been in the playoffs since 2008. I think the Buc's experience the past 2 years is a big plus. I have no doubt the game will be in Pittsburgh, also a big plus. Yes, we lost to the Giants last year, but so did everyone else. I would rather be in our shoes than in the Cubs'.

I do think the Buccos have a better chance of winning the WS than the Cubs do.
But I don't think they have a better chance of winning that one game "series".

However, if they do get past the WC game, I think the Buccos chances are good.

I mentioned a couple weeks ago - before the Buccos - Cards series in StL, that the Cards staff is wearing down a bit (since then, their numbers are not nearly what they were all season).

The Mets don't have the length in their lineup like the Buccos do, and neither the Mets or Dodgers have the bullpen depth that the Buccos have - which would both be huge Bucco advantages in a longer series.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

wow, too many fan reactions here. I do give credit to mixolydian, as he seems to have gotten it correct.

Rule 7.13: (Bold added by me)

A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (even if the player covering home plate loses possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other baserunners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

Rule 7.13 comment: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner's lowering of the shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 7.13. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 7.13. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner's buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher.

Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.

After the ground ball, Montero stepped in front of home plate. As such, he did not set up to block the plate. The throw from Baez was to the left of the plate, and as such Montero moved to his left, which put him in the base path. Most importantly, Montero received the throw before the runner arrived. As such, no aspect of the rule should have caused the home plate umpire to call the runner safe due to catcher blocking, or for the replay officials in NY to call the runner safe due to catcher blocking.

 

[bjf1984]

The Cub's haven't been in the playoffs since 2008. I think the Buc's experience the past 2 years is a big plus. I have no doubt the game will be in Pittsburgh, also a big plus. Yes, we lost to the Giants last year, but so did everyone else. I would rather be in our shoes than in the Cubs'.

I do think the Buccos have a better chance of winning the WS than the Cubs do.
But I don't think they have a better chance of winning that one game "series".

However, if they do get past the WC game, I think the Buccos chances are good.

I mentioned a couple weeks ago - before the Buccos - Cards series in StL, that the Cards staff is wearing down a bit (since then, their numbers are not nearly what they were all season).
Cards ERA this month......5.0 Their starters ERA this month is 5.5......about what you expect from the Colorado Rockies

The Mets don't have the length in their lineup like the Buccos do, and neither the Mets or Dodgers have the bullpen depth that the Buccos have - which would both be huge Bucco advantages in a longer series.


If the Buccos get past the WC.......look out!!!!

(remember, as I "predicted", the Buccos have called up Vanimal.....for the sole purpose of plunking Arrieta and knocking him out of the post-season )

 

[fairgambit]

wow, too many fan reactions here. I do give credit to mixolydian, as he seems to have gotten it correct.

If it goes against the Bucs, I don't care if it's correct.

 

[bjf1984]

wow, too many fan reactions here. I do give credit to mixolydian, as he seems to have gotten it correct.

Rule 7.13: (Bold added by me)

A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (even if the player covering home plate loses possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other baserunners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

Rule 7.13 comment: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner's lowering of the shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 7.13. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 7.13. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner's buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher.

Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.

After the ground ball, Montero stepped in front of home plate. As such, he did not set up to block the plate. The throw from Baez was to the left of the plate, and as such Montero moved to his left, which put him in the base path. Most importantly, Montero received the throw before the runner arrived. As such, no aspect of the rule should have caused the home plate umpire to call the runner safe due to catcher blocking, or for the replay officials in NY to call the runner safe due to catcher blocking.

Huh?

Read that....watch the video....and tell me the runner should have been called out?

Really?

It was the TEXTBOOK example of 7.13 violation....and writing that:

"After the ground ball, Montero stepped in front of home plate. As such, he did not set up to block the plate. The throw from Baez was to the left of the plate, and as such Montero moved to his left, which put him in the base path"

Doesn't make it so. That is absolutely NOT what happened.....as was clear watching it live....and verified by watching the video (for those who didn't see it live).
Montero was park in position fully blocking all access to the plate....while awaiting the throw. He NEVER positioned himself anywhere BUT in a position to completely block the plate.

The rule - IMHO - sucks. But that was the TEXTBOOK violation.


Try these....LOL:

FWIW - The "excuse" that was relayed from New York wasn't that Montero "wasn't blocking the plate", or that "the throw forced him to move into position to block the plate".....both of which would have been ludicrous assertions.

But that excuse given was that someone in the infield was "playing in"....and therefore the Rule 7.13 (now Rule 6.01) couldn't be invoked.

Of course, even Mr Magoo knows the infield was NOT playing in (another thing that can be verified by the video), and even if someone in the infield had been playing in, it would be irrelevant (see the actual rule below)
.
FWIW, the Rule is now known as Rule 6.01....after it was modified to eliminate the "obstruction" on force plays (the "Russel Martin" amendment).

No where in the 2015 rule book does it mention negating the "blocking the plate rule" due an infielder playing "in" (which, again, wasn't even the case last night), but only to the infielder who actually made the throw....which was Baez....and he was clearly not "in".

This is the rule as currently written.

Rule 6.01 (2015) - (as it applies to the Catcher....there is another section that deals with the baserunner initiating contact with the catcher):


Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score.

If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe.

Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2)

(Rule 7.13(2)) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder).
In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) (Rule 7.13(2)) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding.

__________________________________________________

This - the bolded, underlined passage is the excuse that "New York" gave.....and it is 100% flat-out, indisputably WRONG!!

 

[PSU1983PHAN]

If a Bucs loss means I don't have to see another insufferable raise the jolly roger thread, then whoever is playing the Bucs are my second favorite team...

 

[cavic]

First of all that rule is poorly constructed and impossible to enforce with any consistency. Second (and unrelated to the play) the home plate umpire absolutely stunk on balls and strikes last night. Terribly inconsistent. Having said that, Montero did step in front of the plate (barely) before quickly responding to the perfect throw that took him into the path of the runner. Just a great baseball play. I actually thought they got it right.

But according to the rule (and, yes, I agree, it's an absolute bullspit rule) it doesn't matter that he set up off the plate & moved to take the throw. If you block it, you block it

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Doesn't make it so. That is absolutely NOT what happened.....as was clear watching it live....and verified by watching the video (for those who didn't se it live).
Montero was park in position fully blocking all access to the plate....while awaiting the throw. He NEVER positioned himself any BUT in a position to completely black the plate.

The rule - IMHO - sucks. But that was the TEXTBOOK violation.

Debating with a fan that has a vested interest is usually a waste of time. Not sure why, but I'll give it 1 more try.

First off, what you describe is not what is on the video. Montero did step in front of the plate just after the ball was hit. You can debate whether Montero moved to a position in the basepath due to the throw, or did it on purpose to block the plate. However, that is immaterial in this situation, because the ball arrives before the runner does. Montero can stand wherever the hell he wants because he's in possession of the ball.

Your central claim would be valid if Montero did not have possession of the ball. In that case, then he would have been blocking the plate and the runner could have been ruled safe if he was impeded to the bag. Since Montero did have possession, you really have no argument.

 

[bjf1984]

Debating with a fan that has a vested interest is usually a waste of time. Not sure why, but I'll give it 1 more try.

First off, what you describe is not what is on the video. Montero did step in front of the plate just after the ball was hit. You can debate whether Montero moved to a position in the basepath due to the throw, or did it on purpose to block the plate. However, that is immaterial in this situation, because the ball arrives before the runner does. Montero can stand wherever the hell he wants because he's in possession of the ball.

Your central claim would be valid if Montero did not have possession of the ball. In that case, then he would have been blocking the plate and the runner could have been ruled safe if he was impeded to the bag. Since Montero did have possession, you really have no argument.

No, there is no argument.

Go back and re-read the post.

Strawman contentions as to whether one is a "fan" of Pittsburgh Pirates, Chicago Cubs, or the Staten Island Fairies makes no difference. It was flat out wrong.

All the "stuff" you listed was not only wrong, but also was not the justification given by "New York".
Even THEY wouldn't make the contentions you listed.

Their justification (that the play involved a "drawn in fielder") was CLEARLY wrong.

 

[nits74]

I'm not buying what you're selling here nits74. We may get some bad calls but not because we're a small market team. If I had the slightest thought that the umpiring favored a particular team I personally would turn the game off and never watch another one.

As a refresher, go back and look at the ball/strike calls in the 1992 series against Atlanta, particularly in the last game. Also remember the 19 inning safe call at home plate vs Atlanta in 2012. Not saying the games are fixed, but there is subtle favoritism shown toward larger market teams.

 

[bjf1984]

As a refresher, go back and look at the ball/strike calls in the 1992 series against Atlanta, particularly in the last game. Also remember the 19 inning safe call at home plate vs Atlanta in 2012. Not saying the games are fixed, but there is subtle favoritism shown toward larger market teams.

You might be right nits....but I am not certain that if it is all about $$$ (ie TV ratings) that MLB wouldn't be more than "ok" if the Buccos went far in the post-season.

They are a nice story, the atmosphere at PNC makes for real good TV, and they are one of the most "entertaining" teams to watch (and - often - frustrating for the fans)

 

[fairgambit]

As a refresher, go back and look at the ball/strike calls in the 1992 series against Atlanta, particularly in the last game. Also remember the 19 inning safe call at home plate vs Atlanta in 2012. Not saying the games are fixed, but there is subtle favoritism shown toward larger market teams.

If there is any favoritism, subtle or otherwise, that means to me that the games are fixed. The umpires may be terrible, but they should always be above reproach. Perhaps I am naive and you are correct. I'm going to pay more attention and see how the calls go the rest of the season.

 

[lobo lion]

If MLB is going to have Rule 7.13 in the books (the "blocking the plate" rule), how can they NOT call Florimon safe on that play in the 8th inning?
I hate that stupid rule, but it is in the books, and it has been called (including one of the most inane baseball calls of all time, when Martin was ruled in violation last year....when he was standing ON the plate on a force out, and the runner was ruled safe because Martin was "blocking the plate" - which led to MLB instantly issuing the directive that "blocking the plate" didn't apply to force plays. Really? LOL Kinda' like MLB having to issue a "directive" to the Umps that water is wet.)

If that play last night does NOT constitute a violation of 7.13......I've NEVER seen one that did.

And, just to make matter worse, the call completely changed that game.

You can see the video here: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/150016882/cubs-pirates-force-extras-after-wild-eighth

Run the first video....especially at about the 30 second mark.....Montero is absolutely parked in front of the plate, blocking off the entire plate, all while awaiting the throw from Baez.
Again, how MLB can put that rule in the books, call that rule multiple times in VERY iffy situations, and then NOT call it here?? Unreal?
Was LaRussa the replay official? Seriously, it would be nice to know who the joker was in New York.

Actually, the replay seems to support the call by the umpire. At the 20/21-second mark, the catcher is directly in front of home plate -- one step toward the pitcher's mound and clearly not blocking the plate. Then the throw is made and the catcher steps back into the baseline (i.e., blocking the plate) in order to catch the ball. Apparently, that is permitted by the rule and is not considered blocking the plate.

 

[bjf1984]

Actually, the replay seems to support the call by the umpire. At the 20/21-second mark, the catcher is directly in front of home plate -- one step toward the pitcher's mound and clearly not blocking the plate. Then the throw is made and the catcher steps back into the baseline (i.e., blocking the plate) in order to catch the ball. Apparently, that is permitted by the rule and is not considered blocking the plate.

LOL.

Did you even READ the post you replied to?

You COULDN'T have.

 

[lobo lion]

LOL.

Did you even READ the post you replied to?

You COULDN'T have.

Sure did. And I've reread it since. No sense arguing with you over this.

 

[bjf1984]

Sure did. And I've reread it since. No sense arguing with you over this.

Exactly.

The folks in New York said they "waived" the blocking the plate rule because the infielder was playing in.

He wasn't.....right?

So.....how was that not a bad call?

Unbelievable.


Is this stuff wet?