E63 - Aaron Boone Ejected as Infield Fly Interference Rule Strikes Again w Vic Carapazza in Anaheim
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2024
- 2B Umpire Vic Carapazza ejected Yankees manager Aaron Boone for arguing an infield fly interference call on Juan Soto in the 1st inning that we know is correct because it just happened last week in Chicago! How can a runner prevent this? Just stand on your base. Report: www.closecallsports.com/2024/...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/closecal...
Patreon: / lindsay715
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports - Спорт
I am SO glad you are back! You are literally the only channel to actually reference the rule book and give a very clear explanation without emotion getting in the way. Many big channels get things like this very wrong so I'm so glad that you are making videos again
Love her channel and videos, but she is not the only one who references the rule book when doing these breakdowns. Antonelli Baseball and Jomboy Media are always going to the rule book on their breakdowns.
@@Pepperrelish they tend to be less accurate
Umpires should’ve been fired on the spot if mlb said it wasn’t the right call !!
I umpired amateur baseball and softball for 30 years, working more than 2,500 games. This situation never happened in any game. Amazing!
Full disclosure, I am a Yankees fan who watched this play and was pissed the umps made the call they did. However, after this summary, I understand why the call was made; even if I am still angry 😅
I saw it too and was steamed at the call. I understand the rule now but they really need to change the rules to it's a dead ball when the infield fly rule occurs. No advancing to the next base and no interfering with the guy catching the ball. The runner should then be able to go back to the base he was on before the ball was hit. Even if he is not on the base after the catch is made.
It's understandable. It's weird because MLB had this call twice in a week after nothing in the prior decade, and when it happened last week, the Chicago manager and Steve Phillips on MLBN both said we're going to see it again because teams are always looking for an edge and they now know they can force the situation by having the infielder make contact with the baserunner. Not saying Neto did that here, but MLB probably should amend the rule to avoid this again,.
@@MikeD_ I never stopped to consider that Neto may have leaned in to get the kind of advantage you mentioned. Makes sense.
@@stoneymcneal2458
Nobody considered that because he didn't. His head was facing the sky and his eyes were on the ball the entire time. He never knew the runner was there until he got toppled.
@@bhamsoxfan72 You must not have very good peripheral vision as it is entirely possible the fielder was aware of the runner, and engaged in what is known as as gamesmanship. Of course, I have no clue what the fielder did see, or did not see. However, it is at least worth mentioning as it is possibility. The runner is still out no matter how you and I conclude this discussion.
GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE BACK! FINGERS, LEGS, AND TOES CROSSED FOR GOOD LUCK, HOPE YOU HAVE NO MORE INTERFERENCE!
Who would have thought this rule would be tested twice over the span of a week? Except in this case, it's pretty clear cut. Good handling by the crew. Plenty of opportunities for Boone to stay in, but he wanted no part of it.
Ironically, I think Soto was taking his time to try and avoid interference, because he was watching the infielders. He just got unlucky that the ball was coming down right on top of second base. But now players will know to hustle back to the base. Crazy to see this twice within a week.
Lol, are you high?
@@irgilligan he must be
And the weirdness keeps on going lol
If players hustle back to the base you can still impact a fielder moving and get called.
No. It was intentional by Soto. A well-timed hip check.
Thanks again Lindsey, my appreciation for baseball increases with your education!
Thank you for helping to demystify the world of baseball.
You've had a long week, and now there are two reaction videos in my feed this morning. Take the rest of the day off and get some rest. You've earned it.
I can’t wait until they get rid of runners and just use exit velocity and AI to determine base advancements
You are not a baseball man, or fan.
@@rayray4192 Sarcasm dude, sarcasm.
@@joelsanford my name is not dude little boy.
Former hall monitor big mad 😠
@@rayray4192dude dude dude dude😅
In hockey, that was a fantastic hip check. ALSO: The Yankees coach and announcers need to read the GD rule book.
Thank you again, for the educational video. I understand the game better with every one of these I watch. Even as someone who has been in baseball for almost 30 years to some degree
I think you need to start making videos been Boone ISN"T ejected. That would be a rarity.
Yeah, Boone has one of the highest all-time ejection rates and is constantly berating umpires, then gets surprised when it seems like they have it out for him and don’t give him the benefit of the doubt (like the fan yelling incident). Maybe he’ll learn but I doubt it
I saw a comment that when managers were tested on baseball rules, Boone only got 10% correct...
Well he gets ejected weekly over some kind of wackiness……Its always a play or incident that only happens to him and his team……
Come on now - we don't want CCS to go under from lack of revenue
Another great piece of analysis. I don't know how many times I've had to explain to people "it didn't happen because the ball was dead on the interference". I remember telling someone that "the fielder could have manifested Jedi powers, guided the ball to the left fielder who caught the ball cleanly, but it didn't happen because the ball was dead from the interference." Thanks for all you do.
What "didn't happen" because the ball was dead on the interference? On an infield fly, where interference happens - the ball is alive until it is determined if it is fair or foul. If fair, both the runner and the batter are out. If foul, the runner is out, and the batter only gets charged with a foul ball, and returns to bat (even if the ball was caught).
This was great! Super informative!
Love this analysis! Just based on the “eye test” this checked all the boxes. Just glad you’re back!
Keep up the hard work, THANK YOU young lady!
Great explanation of the rule! Thank you!
Brainiac Boone again 😂 Love this channel. Thanks CCS
Love to see a breakdown on the Giminez play for the guardians .
Lindsey basically did a week or two ago if you look for it. Believe it was Lindor in NY.
I’m not understanding your answer to What is Soto supposed to do. If he hustled back to the base he would have interfered with the fielder on his way back.
Well at least they will have plenty of new material to review and be informed about during off-season. Haha.
Damn, twice in about a week.. I knew the rule about the base protection.. and great eyes on the umps seeing that he was not quite back on yet because it was close..
Glad you are still with us! Have the copyright issues been resolved?
For the moment, yes
Go to his channel. Posted a video about it! 😊
@@stevehamman4465 Her
That was the most ridiculous decision that MLB has ever made...
I suggest making another rule or addendum to the infield fly rule. When the infield fly rule is called, a runner will be safe if they are staying reasonably close to the base, (not trying to advance) and doing so to avoid interfering with the fielder. Even if they are off the bag, they are automatically safe just as the batter is automatically out. They must return to the base as soon as the catch is made or dropped. For example, if an infield fly is called with runners at first and second, and the second baseman or shortstop is in position to catch the pop-up, but is blocking the path to second base, the runner may stay in his position, indicate to the umpire that he is attempting to return to second base (for example by pointing at the bag) and then as soon as the catch is made or dropped, he returns to second base. In addition, the runner may make wide deviations to the base path but as long as he is pointing to second base, and his movement makes it obvious that he is trying to avoid interference, he is automatically safe. He must return to the base after the catch is made. Any tags by infielders to a runner off base will not result in an out as long as the runner is moving back to the base. If the fielder drops the ball, the batter is still out, and the runners may return to their base without risk of being tagged out. Once the runner touches the base, regular play resumes. This would not be the only rule where a runner off base may not be tagged out. It's similar to the rule that a batter who overruns first base on a ground ball and beats the throw to first is automatically safe if he stays in foul territory and is not attempting to advance to second base.
Interesting that on groundballs and running at pace, baserunners twist turn and jump to avoid either ball and or fielder, but on the slow developing flyball all athleticism is out the window. Key off course the runner must avoid being the cause of interference. Even on last week's play - no paying attention to fielder. My take on the ball being caught, it is the same effect as it is not caught. So essentially the same thing, so keeping judgement in mind, whether it is caught or not, the effect on batter-runner is the same. What if fielder intensively drops the ball, basically fooling around, same effect. Always appreciate your posts - keep on keeping on
In this case, they can still tag Soto out if he's not on the base. Since the play was going to be close to 2nd, he should have hustled back instead of watching the ball.
I agree with the umpire - and with Lindsay - here, after disagreeing vehemently on the Orioles-White Sox call. This struck me as interference on Soto; the one on Vaughn (Henderson) was not an instance of interference.
I actually particularly like when the ejection videos include the season "pace" statistic. Just saying a thing I like; not trying to be pushy.
There is no right of a pathway back to the base when a protected fielder is attempting to field a batted ball.
That’s also why the umps call the infield fly, so the runners should know they need to tag the base without interference towards the infielders. Clear as crystal.
Thanks for the explanation, CloseCallSports! If making a B-line back to the base is bound to cause interference, what should the baserunner do? When the fielder is close to the runner and the runner is off the bag, the fielder often moves around seemingly randomly making it near impossible to ensure that you don’t interfere.
With the way the rules are presently written, you’re totally right. It’s the runner’s responsibility to avoid the fielder and in this case, it’s difficult to do quickly. Might as well have been a ground ball double play.
These videos are great.
I was on the other side of this argument before I saw this video, but you’re totally right, he shouldn’t have been so lax getting back to the base. The rules around this make a lot more sense to me now.
I might be crazy, but could Soto maybe, I don't know, move around the front of the fielder?
Soto didn't know which way the fielder was going to move. Generally infielders catching a pop fly will back up and then move forward into the ball to catch it. This is because it doesn't come down straight and has a tendency to curve parabolically towards the OF. This does sometimes cause a fielder on a really high pop up to misjudge this curve and quickly move backwards which is what happened here. It's tough to tell which way the fielder was going to go. Soto was trying to guess (wrongly) and slip behind the fielder to the base. There was no guarantee that going in front of the fielder would not have caused a collision either as the fielder might have judged the popup correctly and stepped into the catch. Not arguing, just explaining.
@@ScottCostelloI think Soto actually paused to let the fielder cross in front of him. Only because the fielder misjudged it does it end up interference. If the fielder got to where the ball was going initially, then Soto would have crossed in front of him.
Soto never had to leave the bag to begin with. He did so at his own peril.
@@jackbauer123321 They actually lead off the base in MLB. So he was not on the base to start with.
Nice to have you back!
Right on target in the critique of all three. Nice work.
The other thing he could have done is go around. When the fielder is the protected player due to it being a batted ball, the runner can't necessarily bee-line to the base. They have to avoid the fielder.
This one is on Soto. On an Infield Fly, the fielder is going to have their eyes up in the air, and the runner can run whatever circuitous route back to the base is necessary. Yes - run back to the base while avoiding the fielder.
he had to guess which way the fielder would go, as the fielder stepped back suddenly at the very end. If the fielder had been under the ball earlier, no interference would have happened.
I don't put this on soto. He thought the fielder was under the ball, went behind where the fielder was and only the last instant movement by the fielder caused the interference.
These guys are professional athletes and the majority can be exceptionally agile when they want/need to be. Soto needed to perform a maneuver that achieved two criteria: (a) get back to the base, and (b) avoid contact with a moving player fielding a pop up.
I'm 100% certain that Soto could have easily done both if he was aware that he needed to do both in order to be safe. His actions clearly showed that he was only trying to achieve (a) without any regard to (b). He made no attempt to achieve (b). Why? Because he did not know the rule that applied to the situation. Soto is out because he did not know the rule.
@@TPinesGold knowing that the ball would come down somewhere right around second base but not being able to determine exactly where, tell me what specific path would you suggest he take? Remember, the fielder doesn't have to not make sudden moves as soon as you get close to them.
No matter what path he chooses, that could have been where the ball was going to come down as far as he could tell. Even if he judged the ball perfectly (somehow) and then looks to find the fielder, the wind could move it.
@@zachansen8293 Here's the drill: the base is stationary, the defensive fielder is not. The baserunner needs to focus entirely on the moving fielder. This is easier than a childhood game of tag because the other person is not trying to tag you. All you have to do is get to the base without being tagged. There are no other constraints upon the path taken such as staying within a defined base path; no such base path exists.
Here's a hypothetical. Let's say you are a coach and you are tasked with teaching your players to prepare for this exact situation as the baserunner. How would you go about it? Does it look like Soto had been through coaching and drills to be prepared for this situation? It doesn't look like it to me.
@@zachansen8293 bs he made collison and looks purpose sit the hell down
Is that ASL-Y signal for IFF an MLB-specific signal? I've never seen that mechanic used - in all other levels the umpires will signal each other by touching the brims of their caps with either a fist (0 outs) or one finger (1 out). The ASL-Y is mainly used in 2-umpire crews by the PU to let BU know 1st-to-3rd coverage on a hit to the outfield.
04:20 So if Soto had run back to the base would he not have then been in FRONT of the baseman just like at 01:08? He was in no mans land.
Thats his own fault for standign there and watching, instead of going RIGHT TO THE BASE as soon as it was popped up. I mean, he has no reason to walk back to the base. He can't advance. He's in jeopardy of gettign doubled up if he doesn't go back. Why make this a footrace when it's a towering pop up? Just get to the base! Run as far away from the fielder and get to the base.
Why would people talk about the runner needing a clear pathway??? The runner is allowed to run into centerfield, as long as he/she is not doing it to avoid a tag.
The basepath is defined as a straight line from the runner to the base - from WHEREVER HE/SHE IS.
But the batter/advancing runner ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS must move out of the way of the fielder and give him/her a chance to field the ball,
I think Soto actually knew the rule that if there was contact while he was on (touching) the base, then it wouldn't be interference. It looks intentional that he was slow to get back, and had a little push with his right arm - probably thinking it would be okay while he is touching the base with his foot, however, the contact and even what looks like the subtle push, occurred right before his foot hit the bag. Great rules analysis as always!
It was just unfortunate that the Angels shortstop badly misjudged the pop up, causing the collision with Soto. I’m sure Soto won’t stray the next time.
Hey Linds, I'm curious if you saw the Cody bellinger out of the basepath call over the weekend when the Cubs faced the cardinals. It felt to me like he was well within his rights as a runner (but i may be a bit biased)
Second this request!
By my interpretation, but I look forward to a CCS recap, that play should have been obstruction by Arenado (Cards 3B) for forcing Bellinger (runner) to leave the baseline without possession of or being in the act of catching the ball.
For some reason that is something the fielders tend to get away with a lot in run downs.
@@gaspara9817 Professional baseball protects a fielder who is in the act of catching a thrown ball from obstruction. Under OBR, Arenado did not obstruct Bellinger.
@@teebob21 I quite literally stated that the runner was forced to deviate from his basepath before the ball left the hand of the fielder (i think 2b) chasing him therefore Arenado was not in the act of catching a thrown ball.
@@gaspara9817 Yes, you stated that. It's not what happened, but you did in fact make that statement.
This is the right call and why the rule is in place. Unlike last week, this is clear interference. This also would have resulted in a run. Which is why this rule is in place.
Please do a reaction to the Cody Bellinger out of the Basepath call against the Cardinals a few days ago!!
No, looking at this again, I stand by what I thought yesterday: The interference is a subtle "hip check" done by R2 to impede the catch by the fielder. Batter is out, infield fly. R2 is out, standard interference. Double play.
If baserunner was hustling, he would have been deemed safe. Note to all young players, hustle on all plays. Run out your ground balls. Run to first on a walk. Run, don’t trot, when you hit a home run. Bring your best. Soto didn’t bring his best. It cost him. Even worse, it cost his team.
The Chicago call didn’t appear to be intentional. He was looking at the ball in the air and had no way of knowing the path of the fielder. The one on 3rd base looked like that hip check was given with intentional force and was timed.
This is crazy!🤪
Hey Linds, wouldn't a solution to this rule be to install a delayed interference call similar to a delayed obstruction? Call the obstruction, and if the ball is dropped, or the interference causes a mis-play, then kill the play and call him out, and let no runners advance? In the Chicago play, I think that would be justified. On this play, I think it would still be a double play considering the contact and the drop.
Sometimes it's just bad luck where your teammate hits the ball. That's ok. We don't need a rule change to stop it from happening.
But in this case it doesn't really look like the runner was being lazy. He was at a normal lead and he couldn't run directly back to the base because the fielder was there. The only real option was to run quickly in a circuitous path way around the base and then come back to it to avoid the fielder and even then basically guess which way the fielder was going to go at the last second and go the opposite way.
This one was much less the runner's fault, in my mind.
When you take a lead, you take a risk. He could have stood on the bag from the start and not moved, had the collision and wouldn't get called because that's non-deliberate.
@@bigpoppa1234 Not taking a lead would be a TERRIBLE baseball decision. Remember, you judge decisions based on the information available at the time the decision is made. It's OBVIOUSLY statistically correct to take a lead.
It's not lazy or wrong to do the thing you are coached to do.
@@bigpoppa1234this ain’t little league brother
@@zachansen8293 Can't have any complaints about this situation then.
@@zachansen8293 The lead was not the bad decision, not knowing the rule is the bad decision. This is the second time it has happened in a week, and I guarantee there are still runners that will not know the rule and run if the ball is left to hit the ground thinking they will be forced out. It's on the runner to know the rule 100% of the time.
Aaron Boone’s first ejection without Angel Hernandez
It's really sad that the announcer says the runner has to have a path back to the base. By rule the fielder does not need to give him that path. Why on earth on a high pop fly with less than 2 outs is the runner not going back to the base as quickly as he can.
My understanding of the rules is that a runner is entitled to be on the base. Thus, one can not be guilty of interference when on a base. Soto's foot was on the base before the fielder backed into him. Calling Soto out was therefore incorrect.
Well Nick, the way you are understand the rule is wrong! The base is not a safe haven!
Soto looked at the fielder, turned his back and knocked him off with a hip check. Not sure why people are so wound up...
Gotta say, last time while it was correct by rule it felt unfair... not this time.
It was a nice body check by Soto.
@@mikecumbo7531 Soto is trying to touch the base so he is not liable for interference. He was just too lackadaisical in doing so.
It appears to me that contact isnt made till hes touching the base
Well, i don't think anyone would argue Soto didn't interfere. During the play last week, the "interference" was so minimal it was ridiculous.
I had to watch in Slo-Mo to see that he was not touching the bag. In live action, I would have ruled that he was on the base and therefore protected from interference.
@MwD676 ok, so how do you start that far off the bag, and then suddenly you're not responsible because you're "on the bag" It was pretty obvious at normal.speed he interfered WHILE getting back to bag.
@@hulenbryant5637 It can’t be “obvious” when his foot is literally inches away from the base when contact occurs. The contact happens during the action of his step onto the base.
Soto should have hustled and not walked back to the base. He could have taken a path further away from the fielder. Had he been in the same exact spot but clearly touching the base, there would be no interference called.
It looked deliberate from Soto too 😂
Curious, but how does one score that runner batted ball interference on the scorecard?
When a runner is called out for having interfered with a fielder, the Official Scorer shall credit the putout to the fielder with whom the runner interfered. When the batter is called out on an Infield Fly that is not caught, the Official Scorer shall credit the putout to the fielder who the scorer believes could have made the catch. (OBR 9.09(c))
SS gets both putouts (without a catch or tag).
Ya, I have to say, Soto has a very hi baseball IQ and I think he timed it perfectly so as to make it look like he was “not” interfering. But I lean towards thinking he knew exactly what he was doing. Pretty smart play if you ask me.
3:35 linds, are you saying Soto should have done the most acrobatic slide in history to avoid the fielder and reach the bag in time? This play was screwed from
The moment the pop up happened. MLB needs a full rewrite of this rule it’s so stupid.
This is how it's supposed to go.
You are stopped at a stop sign, you are a runner, the guy who doesn't have a stop sign (such as from a two-lane road to a four-lane road) the traffic (fielders) always have the right of way
The lesson here is, the moment you see a pop up in an infield fly situation, you sprint back to the base before it's even possible to get in the fielders way
I think that is even more likely to result in interference calls against you. If you spring back without trying to determine where the fielder are and where they are trying to go then you are more likely to get in their way.
It will always be possible to get in the fielder's way, especially if the ball is right over the base and the fielder misjudges then makes a last second adjustment to it as was the case here.
But what if the shortstop was on second for a pickoff possibility. Now you've sprinted into them and gotten called for interference. The way the rule is badly written there's no perfect choice for a runner. The fielders merely need to intentionally get in their way while pantomiming looking to catch the ball to get free interference calls.
@@frankcarlone5130 if the runner was on the bag before the interference occured, it wouldn't be interference
@@Thanatos2k in that incredibly unlikely scenario, I guess you're just fucked then
So we go halfway on a popup now?
Also funny that the Yanks had a bit of bad luck on the Soto interference and a bit of good luck on the Rizzo one because that ball would most likely have been a DP if it hadn't hit Rizzo, but by the rule, they can't say it's a DP, so the Yanks got one more out to play with as a result.
So we all know how well Bonne knows the rules...
I wanted to add this. The fielder appears to misjudge the pop-up, and he came in too far and then had to back pedal to get under it. I feel the fielder made contact with the runner and not the runner making contact with the fielder. Is there a difference? Even though Soto took his sweet time going back, the fielder still moved right into his path after he basically messed up the pop-up.
Soto should have been going back to the base quicker, anyways because if Neto catches the ball, he could have very easily tagged him out for a double play. Not sure why he was so far off the base and lackadaisically running back.
Interference on what they called infield fly rule batter is already out he doesn’t have to catch it for the out
Correct call. Perhaps a rule change is in order?
I mean what are the odds?!
Soto definitely interfered but the White Sox didn’t. What do they expect runners to do? Teleport back to the base?
now that angel has retired, the lack of angel videos will probably force youtube out of business.
If I had a nickel for every time I have seen this called, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. Right?
Your information is wrong and runners can advance on an infield fly if the ball is not caught. They do not have to tag up. So Soto not rushing back to the bag is not his fault. Bad take.
Did you watch the video? Yes, runners can advance on a dropped ball, but they do it at their own risk. Why? Because all runners will be standing on their base to prevent a tag out. Soto should have hurried back to his own base as soon as he saw the play headed in his direction.
This is why MLB needs to leave LIndsay alone.......how else is Aaron Boone going to learn the rules?!?
I wonder where the line is for the fielder wandering around places where the ball isn't actually at. If you watch the fielder in this clip, he's all over the place before finally settling down.
At 2:35 we see the fielder at least 6' away from where the ball is caught. If he weren't "fielding" that would be obstruction.
At some point that's obstruction, right? You can't just "field" wherever you want. At some point it has to be connected to where the ball is, right?
Presumably there's some "good faith effort" to field or something?
The one last week was questionable. This one was obvious. It’s Soto’s job to avoid hitting the fielder in this instance. Intentional or not doesn’t matter. He knocked the fielder over and prevented him from making the catch. Interference all day long. This play was over either way as soon as he failed to run back to the bag quickly enough.
Soto is out because he didn't hustle. He'd better be running laps in practice for a week or two.
Love your analysis but there's no such word a "laxadaisically". It's "lackadaisically". 😀
Most stupid call ever. Soto basically needed to foresee that the ball was falling in that direction
Announcers need to have a rules expert explain to them what rules are in effect during plays. So much ignorance going around.
Well, when the manager of your team only gets 1 correct answer on the ESPN rules quiz, how can you expect much more out of the players and broadcasters?
They do it for the NFL, don't see why they can't do it for MLB.
@@dfscott62 Obviously it's not because they can't do it, so I'm guessing the real reason is because most of the time...the guy would be a completely pointless addition to the booth. Think about it. How often do "controversial" or "confusing" plays and calls like this actually happen during a season? A handful? At most? I'd bet that in 95% of games the guy would barely even speak. Even on challenged calls, do you really need a "rules expert" to come in and tell you the guy beat/avoided a tag?
@@zeked4200 So do you think there are more controversial plays in the NFL and that's why they do it there?
@@dfscott62 They could if it was a national broadcast, but most games are on some local sports network. You'd need like 30 of them.
If Soto ran back to the base immediately he could have collided with the fielder and been called anyways. Soto was explicitly looking at the fielder so he wouldn't run into them...at first. But the ball lands directly in the airspace of the bag. Saying the runner shouldn't leave the bag and should remain motionless is fantasy - they're already off the bag taking a lead when the ball is hit, and they can't know where it would land.
I think this was interference and the correct call because of the sudden violent act of shoving the fielder but there really was nothing Soto could have done differently in the beginning because of the badly written rule he could be judged to be interfering no matter what he does.
Players are safe if they stay on the bag. They stray off the bag at their own peril. Soto just happened to find the wrong time to chance it.
He walked back to the base. He could have easily jogged and got around the play and back to the base before the collision. Completely on Soto for dogging it.
Soto was unlucky Neto adjusted his position right into him just before he got to the bag. But you can't say there was nothing Soto could have done differently. Even being back to the base a second earlier would have resulted in no interference. At the start of the video Soto is slowly walking to the bag looking up at the ball. The ball had been hit long enough before that the fielders have moved into the base path. How long was he just standing there watching the ball before the video started?
@@Noordhof, if your saying that his foot was on the bag before the collision,, you would be completely WRONG!! The base is NOT a safe haven!
@@stevehamman4465 You said, "if your saying that his foot was on the bag before the collision,, you would be completely WRONG!!"
Due to your next line I'm guessing you meant to say, "if your saying that (if) his foot was on the bag before the collision,, you would be completely WRONG!!"
This is from the MLB Rules:
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional.
I disagree that the difference between the Gunnar Henderson play and the other plays is that the fielder caught the ball or not. That's IMMATERIAL to an interference call, which should be made at the moment the interference is detected by the ump, and not "wait and see" if the ball was caught or not. My beef with the Gunnar play is that it looks to me like he INTENTIONALLY drew the interference call by starting out right at the runner, and then immediately shifting to his right and went right to the spot where the ball came down and camped under it. He didn't look like he changed his path to compensate for the wind pushing the ball, his movements looked consistent with someone trying to intentionally draw an interference call. The umps, IN THEIR JUDGEMENT (as the lady in the video says), should have seen this for what it was and said "no interference" (although I admit that it is easy to see on a replay than in real time).
I agree with the call on Soto, as unfortunate as it was for him, he put himself in a bad situation by just standing there for several seconds, and THEN trying to get back to the base at the last instant. If he went back sooner, he could have taken a wider path to make sure he avoided the fielder and made it back to the base before the fielder was even close to catching the ball, and if we was standing on the base and doing the best he could to not get in the fielder's way, I doubt they call interference.
Once again, further proof that announcers don't know the rule book or watch CCS!
New rules: infield fly rule ( dead ball automatically) batter out Thats iiiit
Juan Soto could have prevented the doubleplay by *not* being an ass-bite. He saw the infielder drifting to catch the high pop-up directly above 2b. Soto capped his last step to the bag with an accidentally-on-purpose collision with the defender. Boone should have ripped Soto a new one, instead of the umpire.
He couldn't prevent what the SS did
Nice Judo Demonstration...=)
Soto should've done what Reyes did here (see video ID S3lUrLquolk), although this other play was not an infield fly rule situation (only a runner on second).
MLB needs to come out and clarify what a runner is supposed to do in that situation. If Soto doesn't go back to the bag he would have been out. He was really damned if he did damned if he didn't. Also if Soto never left second base is it still interference when they inevitably bump into each other?
Nevermind I should have finished the video lol.
Great call by the umpire. Soto and Boone doesn’t know the rules. Easy double play for the Angels. Aaron Boone just being Aaron Boone because he has to protect his STAR …
Bad call by the umpire that was 100% on the sss for bad fielding
You are obviously a Yankee fan….
You say hurry up and get back but also watch the ball . Its hard to do both. Soto literally watched the ball and fielder and tried to get back w.o. hitting him, but the fielder made a fast backward lunge at the ball.
He watched the ball while walking. A little pep in his step while watching them and he could've gotten to the back corner before Neto adjusted to the pop up carrying
I disagree that was on the shortstop 100% he went into soto regardless of the rule ump got that wrong
You're saying Soto could have just gotten back to the base with haste, and I agree, but with the White Sox example, how can you say they got that one right, bc that's exactly what that runner did. If the White Sox call was made correctly, then basically you're saying any baserunner who had a lead prior to an infield fly popup was hit will be out. I say that bc any run who has a lead (every runner ever) will automatically be off the bag when the infield fly popup is hit, and so even if they go directly back to the bag and don't interfere with the catch like in the White Sox example, you'll still say the double play call was correct? How can you possibly justify the White Sox call? I don't get it. The runner literally went right back to the bag
So you would think that these announcers calling the game would know about the rules themselves but they just make up nonsense as they go along pretending as if they know what it is they're talking about when in fact they have no clue.... just confuse the viewers & fans even more with their stupidity .....
OH WAIT I PAUSED TOO EARLY
Also, did Soto have to be called out when, in fact, the ball does not even need to be caught. The fly rule was called, so why is Soto out (Nedo caused the contact). Now if the ball bounced away and it allowed runners to move up then you could call Soto out. But nothing else happened. A bad rule or was it a judgment call by the ump? Could the ump have not called Soto out? Or is it one of those automatic things and had to be called? I just feel due to the automatic fly rule out the contact did not create any further advancement of the runners then Soto is not out. Confusing.
Right in the case the ump got the call wrong
Atleast we still won the game but this could have been the game
IMHO, the rule needs to change: when there is unintentional interference on an infield fly, batter is out, and all the baserunners lose their ability to advance at their discretion and are returned to their original bases if they had succeeded in advancing (if they managed to get themselves thrown out during the course of action though, they are still out).
Becuase, of course, the baserunning rules aren't complicted enough.🤣
TBH though, this lags behind the check-swing rule and (our newest issue) catcher interference in needing a look see and revision.
Who are you to criticize an official rule?
I agree. The whole point of the infield fly rule is to prevent double plays. Why introduce this loophole for getting a double play on an infield fly? Clever players will learn to draw this call because its not like catching the ball matters. The only thing the interference might do is give the runners a better chance to advance, so just change the penalty to prevent that.
Runners have an opportunity to advance if the defense doesn’t make the catch. The ball is live and in play. You always want the ball to be in play when possible. Runners have no right to hinder, impede, confuse, or interfere with a defensive player. There’s nothing wrong with the rules. Boone needs better players that don’t hit pop ups and don’t interfere with the infielder attempting to catch the pop up.
@@rayray4192 Yeah, so just take away the runners right to advance in this situation. It's the only possible advantage the offense might get through interference after the infield fly has been called.
The current penalty is very odd. The runner isn't really preventing the defense from getting an out because the batter is already out, and the catch is meaningless.
@@Sphere723 I understand your point. I reject your point. This case play is highly unusual. The offense deserves two outs. The pitcher Bear the batter, and the runner ran the bases poorly. Why bail the runner out? Why change runner interference for a scenario that almost never happens? Remember, the base runner had a solution to his problem- quickly move to his base and stand on the base. It’s impossible for a runner to be out when struck by a batted ball when he is on his base. He performed poorly. It’s interesting you think that the rule is unfair. Runner interference is an out. He interfered so he was called out. He had an opportunity to be safe. He blew it.