Comments on: Ruiz-Giles and the rules on taking out the double play http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/ Baseball, Cheating, and Rules discussion at the author's blog for the Cheater's Guide to Baseball Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:29:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Conor Glassey http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-984 Conor Glassey Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:36:57 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-984 Similarly, there are two more rules that specifically call the double play out: (e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner. and, to a lesser extent, (f): (f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference. Derek - In (e), the runner sliding into second base isn't interfering "with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball" and in (f), the runner sliding into second base is not the batter-runner. The batter-runner is the player who hit the ball. I don't believe either of those rules are related to your discussion. Similarly, there are two more rules that specifically call the double play out:

(e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

and, to a lesser extent, (f):

(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.

Derek - In (e), the runner sliding into second base isn’t interfering “with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball”

and in (f), the runner sliding into second base is not the batter-runner. The batter-runner is the player who hit the ball.

I don’t believe either of those rules are related to your discussion.

]]> By: ClubMedSux http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-982 ClubMedSux Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:13:59 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-982 Derek: I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the final out of last night's Phils/Mets game. Unlike the Ruiz play, Marlon Anderson may have actually had a piece of the bag when he made contact with Iguchi. Of course, chief umpire Joe West said, "Marlon Anderson went after the second baseman to break up the double play and did not, and could not reach the base, which is what he argued," so the issue here may have been factual (with CB Bucknor simply failing to see Anderson make contact with the base) rather than one of rule interpretation. Derek: I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the final out of last night’s Phils/Mets game. Unlike the Ruiz play, Marlon Anderson may have actually had a piece of the bag when he made contact with Iguchi. Of course, chief umpire Joe West said, “Marlon Anderson went after the second baseman to break up the double play and did not, and could not reach the base, which is what he argued,” so the issue here may have been factual (with CB Bucknor simply failing to see Anderson make contact with the base) rather than one of rule interpretation.

]]> By: John Bean http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-981 John Bean Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:25:49 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-981 On Aug 29 the Mets lost a run when Marlon Anderson intefered with the 2nd baseman who was attempting a throw to first. In doing so he was incontact with the base but he did deliver a shot with his arms to knock over the fielder. If he had not raised and hit the fielder wiht his arms I believe he would not have been called for interference On Aug 29 the Mets lost a run when Marlon Anderson intefered with the 2nd baseman who was attempting a throw to first. In doing so he was incontact with the base but he did deliver a shot with his arms to knock over the fielder. If he had not raised and hit the fielder wiht his arms I believe he would not have been called for interference

]]> By: Evan http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-979 Evan Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:05:18 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-979 And that's sort of my concern. If what's called and what isn't isn't clearly demarcated, then players are forced to guess, or even make good-faith decisions that turn out to be wrong. That's not how rules are supposed to work. Compare Ruiz's tackle to Joe's Guillen's pair of takeout slides about a week ago. On his second slide Guillen didn't come close to the bag, though he perhaps could have reached it if he'd tried (he didn't make any effort). That wasn't called interference. And that’s sort of my concern. If what’s called and what isn’t isn’t clearly demarcated, then players are forced to guess, or even make good-faith decisions that turn out to be wrong.

That’s not how rules are supposed to work.

Compare Ruiz’s tackle to Joe’s Guillen’s pair of takeout slides about a week ago. On his second slide Guillen didn’t come close to the bag, though he perhaps could have reached it if he’d tried (he didn’t make any effort). That wasn’t called interference.

]]> By: DMZ http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-978 DMZ Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:29:55 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-978 I'm not sure he does touch the bag. Ruiz is clearly taking out Giles, and the location of the bag is almost lucky. He comes right at Giles, runs into him, and his left hand comes down near the base -- but it's almost unintentional. Whether or not he touches it, my thought is that that's not relevant to whether or not he committed interference. Nowwww how that differs from what is and isn't called normally, well, that's enforcement for you. The play isn't all that much less plausible than many others you'll see over the course of the season. I’m not sure he does touch the bag. Ruiz is clearly taking out Giles, and the location of the bag is almost lucky. He comes right at Giles, runs into him, and his left hand comes down near the base — but it’s almost unintentional.

Whether or not he touches it, my thought is that that’s not relevant to whether or not he committed interference.

Nowwww how that differs from what is and isn’t called normally, well, that’s enforcement for you. The play isn’t all that much less plausible than many others you’ll see over the course of the season.

]]> By: Evan http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-977 Evan Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:19:24 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/08/27/ruiz-giles-and-the-rules-on-taking-out-the-double-play/#comment-977 The Phillies commentators on the play (I don't know who the Phillies analyst is, but he sounds like a pretty rough dude) were adament that Ruiz's play was legal because he DID touch the bag. You say Ruiz is "clearly not trying to get to the base", but he does actually get there. So either he is trying, or he just happens to reach down and touch the base by random chance. I just don't see how this call is logically consistent with the way the rules are traditionally enforced. The runner is permitted to infere with the fielder in his approach to the bag (like Lowell did on Cano) as long as he doesn't deviate from his path to the bag so greatly as to make reaching the bag impoosible. He (as you assert) arguably isn't allowed to take specific action unrelated to running the bases (like punching the fielder) in doing so. But running/sliding, diving/falling all seem to fall within the normal behaviour of a baserunner. What about Ruiz's actions make what he did illegal? I just don't get it. The Phillies commentators on the play (I don’t know who the Phillies analyst is, but he sounds like a pretty rough dude) were adament that Ruiz’s play was legal because he DID touch the bag. You say Ruiz is “clearly not trying to get to the base”, but he does actually get there. So either he is trying, or he just happens to reach down and touch the base by random chance.

I just don’t see how this call is logically consistent with the way the rules are traditionally enforced. The runner is permitted to infere with the fielder in his approach to the bag (like Lowell did on Cano) as long as he doesn’t deviate from his path to the bag so greatly as to make reaching the bag impoosible. He (as you assert) arguably isn’t allowed to take specific action unrelated to running the bases (like punching the fielder) in doing so. But running/sliding, diving/falling all seem to fall within the normal behaviour of a baserunner. What about Ruiz’s actions make what he did illegal?

I just don’t get it.

]]>