Take a moment to reflect on a season that never really happened. To understand
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
352333 Commentshttp://firebrandal.com/2008/10/08/change-the-rule-willits-was-safe.htmlChange+the+rule%3A+Willits+was+safe%212008-10-08+11%3A14%3A37Tito+Crafts to “Change the rule: Willits was safe!”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Fire Brand Poll
Loading ...Recent Comments
Red Sox blogosphere
Fireside Chats Podcast
Search Fire Brand
Categories
Fire Brand Award
J.D. Drew
2010 Fire Brand
Links
- Find cheap MLB tickets including Boston Red Sox tickets NY Yankees tickets 2010 All-Star Game tickets and the Philadelphia Phillies schedule.
- Find great deals on Boston Red Sox tickets from sports ticket broker Coast to Coast!
- MLB Betting and Sports Betting Lines at the Internet’s Premier Sportsbook
- Blogroll
- Trivia
- Twitter: Evan
- Twitter: Fire Brand
- Twitter: Tim
- Advertorial: All Hail The Kings
Quotes
- "It's amazing how many club officials read...Fire Brand of the American League." - Peter Gammons
- "Run by Evan Brunell...this has perspective and weight to it that goes against the stereotype of the screaming Red Sox fan." - Deadspin
- "For in-depth coverage and analysis of everything that happens with the Boston Red Sox, you can’t beat Fire Brand of the American League!" - David Pinto
Fire Brand of the American League is proudly powered by WordPress. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS) | Swift by Satish Gandham a product of SwiftThemes.Com
On Colin’s note…how about a real discussion. Per the Globe’s Extra Bases Blog:
Red Sox manager Terry Francona today announced his rotation for the ALCS:
Game 1: Daisuke Matsuzaka
Game 2: Josh Beckett
Game 3: Jon Lester
Game 4: Tim Wakefield
Game 5: Matsuzaka
Game 6: Beckett
Game 7: Lester
Me personally I’m surprised that its Beckett in game 2 and not Lester. I’d rather have Lester in 2 and 6 rather than 3 and 7. I want him to close it out earlier rather than later. Otherwise, not too much else is a surprise.
The rule across the board should be an out. He made the tag and then lost the ball because of the ground, not because of Willits.
I totally agree it is like the transfer at second base. You get the out but drop the ball and still get the out.
How is the play any different than that other than the player is applying a tag to the runner. The tag was applied, he was out, hit the ground and the ball popped out.
The umpire got it right.
I did not find anywhere in the rule book that was pointed out in bold:
Such fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch………..
Ok Dice-K I’m not surprised with, but as for Beckett, I am slightly. I think he was rather ornery and I definitely think he was kinda shitty against the Angels. He’s had better success against the Rays but with him on the mound it’s really going to be our bats that save the day.
Against the Rays that’s all we can really hope for, strong bats. The Rays THRIVE from close games and we need to deny them their wishes.
Gentlemen, this will not be an easy ALCS. No ALCS for the Red Sox is a cakewalk and now we face a respectable opponent who went from worst to first. They aren’t as predictable as the Angels and they have a more competent manager. That being said, I just hope October Boston and the lot have learned their lessons from the Trop beatings.
@Tim: I think if the call is reversed, we are still talking about it and saying that he was out…
Personally, I think he was out, even after reading the play. I’ve always understood that the rule is that the player has control of the ball for the play and then it doesn’t matter. I’ve seen plays where a fielder catches the ball but drops it on a transfer and the batter is still ruled out. The reason the catcher is not awarded an out play at the moment of collision at home plate is because he HAS to hang onto the ball for the duration of the play.
@Colin, I think that Lester was put in for a potential game 7 because he deserves that role, but Beckett is still put in what can be described as crucial games. I don’t think that you can say that it will be our bats that save the day, he was coming off an oblique. I think he’ll be fine.
How fitting that your last name is Crabb …
Sorry, but I disagree. Varitek clearly held the tag and then tripped over the base much later. To me, that’s no different than if a second baseman holds a tag and then drops the ball on the transfer. I do agree that Varitek needs to learn how to properly execute a run-down.
I agree that Varitek got the tag. The ball came out once he hit the ground after making the tag. The Angels just made to many bad plays against a team that never beats itself. The Rays will give Boston a go but the Red Sox will let their experience carry them back to the World Series.
Walt AKA All Sports on the Web
All Sports on the Web
Sorry. He was out. Ball in glove..tag..out.
I hope this is a sarcastic article, because I watched the replay and he was out. My say is that when the ump makes that call and then the ball dropped, he was still out. The ump’s word is final save for the HR replays now.
The umpire made the out signal and afterwards Tek lands and drops the ball. Honestly for a Sox fan you’ve written some dreck recently.
Man…if I wanted an article that was just there to try and antagonize me I’d go read Shaughnessy in the Globe or Callahan in the Herald (no these aren’t complements). I really hope this was a sarcastic article (which I don’t think it was) and even if it was, it was a poorly written one.
As for the play Tek held onto the ball through the entire motion of tagging him and later tripped on the base. This clearly makes him safe.
Sorry, but is this really going to be focus of this week? I guess only if you’re trying to be “edgy and controversial”.
This is not a sarcastic article. I am a Sox fan, diehard too, but if anything, I’m the Bill O’Reilly of baseball … I don’t mind leaning to one side or the other if I believe in it, and in this case, I think the rule needs to be changed!
I don’t need to defend myself, but I am not going to be a Red Sox homer and talk only about how great they are and how wrong everyone not drinking the kool-aid is …
Here’s the damning point in the definition:
the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag
This is not football….there is no “ground can’t cause a fumble rule”.
Ask yourself this, why did Varitek drop the ball?
Answer – His momentum from diving at Willits in effort to tag him brought him to the ground at which time the ball left his glove.
The ball was dropped due to his lack of control of himself.
Much like the “tuck rule” moment for the Pats, this was an on field ruling that was in the grey area and left up to the umpires judgment. The ump made the call…and so it stands.
But…if we were to go by the letter of the law and rewatch the play with that in mind, I would argue that a majority of individuals with no rooting interest would call Willits safe.
I guess the question here is when did Varitek regain complete control of his body following the tag? Did he exhibit that before tripping on the base? or is tripping on the base within the continuation of the play?
Just to point out that I am not siding on Ryne just because he’s a fellow writer…I found the examples in the article and the tone did some discredit to the overall argument.
But I think that there is validity to the assertion that this wasn’t as black and white as we are all willing to believe because the call went our way.
“I
Sorry if I came off as grouchy this morning. I sort of am due to the debate and then this hitting me the wrong way. My earlier muddled points were twofold.
1. I think Ryne (and I guess on this Tim as well) are wrong. I don’t think that the part of the rule that Ryne or Tim quoted is particularly damning. I say this simply because the runner was not the cause of Varitek dropping the ball. He held onto the ball for a significant time after the tag, tripped on the base afterward, and the ball came out. I personally don’t think the runner was the cause of this like the rule states. Of course here its a matter of interpretation, but then again isn’t everything in baseball just that? I also don’t think a rule change would do anything to “fix” this.
2. My second point was that the article came off on first read as shock journalism. I understand now that that wasn’t the intention at all (sorry Ryne), but the analogy at the beginning came off as an annoying attempt to rile people up. Overall I love reading Fire Brand because people aren’t afraid to write/say things about the team that we should to talk about, but also don’t frame things in a way that is meant to intentionally antagonize their readers like Wilbur or Shaungnessy or Callahan. So, Ryne, I’m sorry if my first comment came across as insulting (its early here in Chicago), but I just felt that this argument could have been framed better at the start.
Bringing up the “Tuck Rule” is something like the sports equivalent of Godwin’s law.
There are three things you need to understand about the tuck rule:
(1) The tuck rule had already been invoked AGAINST the Pats earlier in the 2001 season. So it’s not like the ref made it up on the spot.
(2) Based solely on the motion of Brady’s arm, the call was obvious–in fact, the broadcast announcers said that the ruling of a fumble should be overturned.
(3) You are in fact, correct, though, that the tuck rule was the wrong call–but not because it didn’t apply. Rather, the Raiders defender should have been called for roughing the passer, because he deliberately hit Brady in the head. It should have been 15 yards and an automatic first down.
I agree, Ryne. Willits was safe. I’m thrilled to see the Red Sox advance, and I think mistakes – by umps and players – are just a part of the history of the game.
Of course, umps should try to get this (and every other ruling) right in the future. For now… bring on the Rays!
@Eric, really good point about this being a semantic argument re: the definition of continuation and length there of.
@Tom A, I guess I would argue that there is a more room for debate of this point than you and others think…but at the same time, the call didn’t bother me (rooting interests aside) at the time or thinking about it now. The ump made a judgment call. I just thought that the definition of the rule gave room for some debate on the issue (since there’s no game for a few days to focus my idle mind).
My official stance: He was out, because he was called out on the field and it is a judgment call on the umps part. I think the definition of continuation of the play until the fielder regains control is vague enough that if the play was called the other way on the field, it would not have been egregiously wrong.
“4. I hope this doesn
@Tim: I actually agree with you about it being more debatable. I was just taking a side in the argument (granted, one that I think correct). My overall point is that, as with most baseball plays, it was an interpretation call, the umpire made the call as such and I don’t see why we’re having this argument now. I haven’t even heard complaints from the Angels camp (even Scoicia).
@ Eric: A rule change, even for time of possession wouldn’t do much because no umpire is going to be counting seconds on holding the ball. Additionally, the transfer issues on potential double plays would be further complicated and overall too many plays are decided to quickly to say the fielder has to hold the ball for 2+ seconds. Plus I generally would like to keep replay out of baseball except for the HR calls it is already there for. That’s a whole other discussion though. :)
@Tom A: I blame the fact that we are having this conversation now on the call itself. If the call went the other way, we would be talking about Game 5. With idle time, we have nothing better to talk about as we aren’t quite ready to jump fully into ALCS talk until tomorrow for our own sanity. It’s like bye week before the Super Bowl right now ;)
Tim equals end of discussion.
The call was made and the Sox advance. Everything else is sour grapes.
Pre-emptively accusing anyone who disagrees with you of “drinking the kool-aid” isn’t a great way to foster a “debate.”
Before you accuse any more straw-fans of drinking Kool-Aid, how about paying attention to part a) of the rule as well? Should the runner not be out even if Varitek kept the ball in his glove because Varitek fell over / made contact with the runner?
As for the questions at the end, for someone who stated you’re not a conspiracy theory believer, the rest of this post sure made you sound like one…
1. There is no reason to execute a suicide squeeze in that situation with the momentum that L-Triple-A going for them
How do you figure? This is Anaheim’s style – small ball, aggressive baserunning…they don’t wait for the big hit. If there was no reason to do so, why did everyone in the park know it was coming? If there was no reason to do so, why did the AL’s winningest manager decide to do it? Is a vast Sox conspiracy *really* more likely than a poor decision, or a good decision poorly executed?
2. For a guy who had 9 bunt singles and 9 bunt sacrifices during the regular season, Aybar looked terrible trying to lay that one down.
Yep, and shit happens, especially at a crucial moment. For one of the great pitchers of all time, Pedro Martinez sure looked mortal in the eighth inning of Game 7 in 2003. Are you seriously saying Aybar missed the bunt on purpose?
If so, was there also a Yankees conspiracy in 2003 that put Grady Little up to letting Pedro twist in the wind? Or did Pedro throw a cookie to Jorge Posada on purpose?
Furthermore, WHY would such conspiracies exist? For what purpose? It’s like the TBS broadcasters were saying — it would be good for baseball for someone other than the Sox to advance. *ANY* national sports league wants as many cities involved in the playoffs as possible and high turnover in that involvement from year to year. What would be in it for baseball to keep only one group of fans interested from year to year?
I’m not one to question someone else’s fandom, but I find it surprising that you seem to give credence to any of this. But if you’re going to throw it out there, flesh it out for us — exactly how would this conspiracy work, and to what end?
For arguments sake, picture this…. Jason Bay is running home on Lowrie’s single in the bottom of the 9th. The throw comes home in time, the catcher makes the catch, turns and tags Bay out as a collision ensues. The catcher is knocked onto his back and the ball pops out of his glove. The catcher had clear possession of the ball in his glove when he made the tag, but he lost the ball after the collision – after he had already tagged out the runner.
What is your call?
Every time this happened in the past, the runner was ruled safe.
Now back to the play in question. Varitek made an acrobatic dive to tag Willits out. How do I say that? Because in looking at the replay, there is no way that Veritek could return to his feet after making the tag. He clearly lunged at Willits to make the tag which brought him to his knees. That being said, Veritek did not have control. There was no trip over the bag as some of you have said. In fact, Veritek does not even touch the plate until he has already lost the ball.
In my proposed scenario, the collision with the runner caused the ball to come free.
In Varitek’s case, he dropped the ball without any outside influence – his acrobatic play caused him to not have control of the ball.
How is this different than the scenario I proposed above?
I’m not saying that the Angels would have won. Francisco Rodriguez would have come in and given up a few runs anyhow.
All that being said, I would like to know what rule book the author is referring to. The MLB’s rule book does not contain the bold section that you refer to. Where did you find that rule, or did you make it up?
I’m late to the party, but I got to chime in. Without my Red Sox bias I still call him out. If you watch the video he was tagged (he’s out), then the glove came off him, then he was tagged again and then he hit the ground and the ball came out. He was out on the first tag, the rule doesn’t state you have to be tagged twice :)
It’s clearly an out by the definition of the rule, b/c the ball didn’t hit the ground until after the second tag!
What’s amazing is that the umpire got it right!
Watching it again, he may not have tagged him twice but he clearly tagged him with the ball in his glove and only after that (and w/o the runner forcing the ball out) he hit the ground and the ball came out. I think it’s the right call. However, if the glove had hit Willits heel for instance then I’m not so sure.
Ok this is how I look at the whole thing…
Aybar failed at bunt. Varitek applied tag to Willits. UMPIRE CALLED HIM OUT. Red Sox end rally. Score walk-off win. Game over. End of story.
Umpires opinions are a part of baseball and they effect every game … Ours shouldn’t … So, while a healthy debate is all good, let’s not make this into a big controversy … What happened happened … Enjoy the game for what it is and leave the umpire’s calls alone … Just my take
Thanks for the episode of Jerry Springer…..He was OUT…Basball is judgement call and the up got it right. So did the second one on the grassy knoll
Wow, it seems like you all got your panties in one heck of a knot.
Rynee, excellent article. People worldwide hate Sox fans for their obnoxious attitudes that fail to see reason in regards to their particular team colors. As a fan whose first love is the crack of the bat, and the smell of the grass it is extremely satisfying for me to find a writer that puts his love of baseball before his love of team.
Let them all try to hang you with their comments, but as the writer who has generated the most debate in quite a long while, take it as a compliment.
As for the guy who commented “Shaughnessy in the Globe or Callahan in the Herald (no these aren
I’m Ryne Crabb, and I approve that comment.
And sometimes people who accuse everyone else of drinking “Kool-Aid” give me a headache…
Somebody else commented on this, but I haven’t seen an answer. Can you explain where you found this rule? Section 2.00 of the 2008 Rulebook on MLB.com only has this:
A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove.
Where did you find all the stuff in bold, since that seems to be the crux of your argument?