How Do You Spell That?

Here's the reality: attempting to interfere with the play is something that happens *all the time*. Earlier in the game, they even had a "Sounds of the Game" where Cabrerra (I think it was) was being told by the 1st base coach to make sure to take out whoever was on second in a DP situation. Then, lo and behold, he runs nearly three feet to the right of the base trying to aim for Jeter.

In those pictures, it's clear that:

(a) A-Rod is heading for the outer-basepath, the line he's entitled (actually SUPPOSED) to be running on, and
(b) that he really didn't do much more to "interfere" than any runner sliding into second base does when he splays his arms and legs out in various directions trying to disrupt the throw from second to first.

The Yankees didn't play all that well last night, but both the controversial calls were clearly off-base. The footage of the "home run" clearly shows that the ball is out in play first, and only after hitting the fan's hand does it leave the field of play, and this is nowhere near being "interference" unless they're going to start calling interference 50 times a game on DP situations.

And these are supposed to be "the best umpires the sport has"? *sigh*

Apparently the entire Fox Sports crew disagrees with you. Now don't get me wrong, I know that most people don't like the Yankees (just like how Al Michaels on MNF always rails on the Chicago Bears whenever they play during his show). But A-Rod clearly brought his hand up (completely different from the motion he had while he was running down the baseline) and smacked it down on the pitchers arm.

A-Rod is entitled to the outer base path but he is not entitled to smack the arm of someone tagging him out. Sliding into second to take out the shortstop is a gray are since if the runner was standing up while the shortstop was throwing the ball, they would be in the way and would get called for interference.

I'm positive the call on ARod was the right one. If he would have just brought his arm in to protect himself from a collision; there wouldn't be a problem. It's when he lifted his arm up and smacked the ball that got him in trouble.

And when the guy slides into second base and *clearly* splays his body out to one side of the base and intentionally throws the other leg up in the air so that the SS or 2B has to jump into the air to avoid being mowed down while they try to complete the play, *that* is somehow "different"? Just the night before, someone sent the 2B "Hide End Over Teakettle" (Fox Sports' description of the incident) trying to break up the DP with no interference call made there.

Now, you don't watch baseball that often, so you may or may not realize that the play I describe at second base happens *several times a game* all throughout the season, for every team in the league. It's not considered "grey" at all, it's "part of baseball".

The Fox crew can't call a friggin' ballgame to save their lives. I'd give my right testicle to have NBC get the rights back, so they could put Costas in the booth, someone who both understands and enjoys the sport, as opposed to the hacks they've got in there now. The only one with a modicum of "street cred" is Buck, and he's usually just drowned out by the moronic stuff the rest of the booth is saying.

Most of the Fox crew (Thom Brenneman and Steve Lyons) came from calling Chicago games so I'm used to their spiel. Costas would be great to have, but I highly doubt NBC is going to put out the coin required to get back MLB.

I don't know how you can compare something that you yourself call a "routine" play to what A-Rod did in the game. Again, he purposely aimed to knock the ball out of his glove and nothing else. We can guess what might have happened if he didn't swat his hand down, whether the pitcher was in the baseline, whether the humidity was above 40%; it doesn't matter.

If the Yankees blow this one (which I'm positive they won't), it will remind me of a certain self immolation that took place during the NLCS last year. ;-)

And the guy who splays his arms and legs out aiming them for the 2B isn't *ALSO* "purposely aiming to knock the ball out of the glove or knock the fielder off-balance to prevent the DP"? And the runner from third to home when he bullrushes the catcher isn't ALSO trying to knock the ball out of the glove?

He was in the base-path, where he was permitted to be, performing no more "interference" than is accepted casually in various other places in the game. The call was bullshit.

I understand your point about "interfering" with the shortstop/2nd baseman during a double play; but what is the runner supposed to do? Dig a trench? Open a chaise lounge and read the latest "Time" magazine?

The runner is already heading to second when the play starts, even before the ball hits the glove. I have seen cases (mind you they are rare) where the base runner clearly went to take out the shortstop and not try to slide into the base. In those cases, interference was called and the double play was held up.

Is the break up of a double play technically interference? Depends on what happens during that play? In the case of A-Rod running to first and smacking the glove to knock the ball out, it clearly is.

He can just slide in "as normal", and not throw his legs and arms into the fielder attempting to knock him over and such. You say you've seen interference called, but I watch about 120+ out of 161 games a season and I've *NEVER* seen interference called there.

And, I say again, him hitting the glove is no more or less interference than the guy who tries to slide-tackle the SS as he comes into second to break up the DP. If they want to call the former, they damned well need to call every case of the latter, and they don't. Heck, Cabrera was *TOLD* by the coach to do it earlier in the same game. Fox broadcast the conversation on their sounds-of-the-game bit. So why is THAT "ok" somehow when A-Rod is "bad"?

Answer: Because TV loves an underdog, and Yankee-bashing is the national-sport for TV sportscasters.

Now you're making me dig...

Rules for sliding - http://www.umpire.org/writers/force.html

And an interference call made earlier this year (which I didn't see, but knew I heard about it earlier).
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/052604/pro_tigers001.shtml

You might have seen 121 games this year, but MLB had over 2000+.

If they want to call the former, they damned well need to call every case of the latter, and they don't.

Dude, you want a perfectly fair game. Hell everyone does. But it doesn't happen. We can get close to it in some games, but there's always going to be that element of error. If we start reviewing every bad call, it stops being a game and starts becoming an accounting class.

You know, if your guys would have just won one of the last three games, this wouldn't have happened. ;-)

The rule you quote is for high-school baseball, not MLB. Just FYI.

I'm simply saying "if you're going to penalize the Yankees runner for behaving exactly like the Red Sox runner, then it's disingenuous to claim that this is any definition of 'fair'".

The ruel interpretation might be "slightly" different that what MLB uses, but it definitely the basis of the rules in MLB.

Dude, how many bad calls were made in favor of the Yankees this year? Did you keep a tally? Baseball, Football, any sport that has a referee in it can see/interpret things differently. Your desire for a "perfectly" called game is never going to happen even if you had computers calling the game. Because in the end, it's just a game. It's already bad enough with Instant Replay in Football, imagine what it would be like in baseball?

Let me ask this...taking everything else out of the game, did A Rod committ interference on that play?

"Did A-Rod commit interference"

If we are to compare "what he did" to what is clearly (by years of action, or rather inaction, by the umpires) interference, the answer is no, he didn't. Various deeds of similar stature happen all the time and are infrequently, if ever, called as interference. Thus, what he did must also *not* be interference.

It's as if the courts have set a precedent that "Action X is not Crime Y" by never convicting someone of Crime Y when they do X. Now, you can point to the "letter of the law" and say that "your interpretation of the law is that X is actually a Crime Y", but nobody's ever been convicted of it. If, suddenly, you're one of the myriad people who are using that precedent to safely do "X" and are suddenly convicted of "Crime Y", you'll cry foul that it's a load of shit, and what about the bajillion other people who do "X" all day long, and have been for years.

Dude, if that's the case, then every single game played in the last year is completely invalid. Trying to "Morally Relate" everything to everything else is a losing proposition.

Jees, "Moral Relativism" and baseball. Two things I never thought would appear in the same post.