Manager directs team: from now on, if you are obviously going to be thrown out at second, turn around and charge the firstbaseman, because that is not ‘interference’.

@tshandy1

5 жыл бұрын

Precisely. If I had read your comment I wouldn't have bothered to post mine. If the rules of the game are going to allow this type of shenanigan, then they must also get rid of the infield fly rule.

@willeodsson

5 жыл бұрын

Nope not if you're the Yankees.

@cityman1111

5 жыл бұрын

exactly my comment.

@alexchavez3383

4 жыл бұрын

@VictoryRoad04 The baseball rule states specifically that are retired runner can only commit interference after being retired if it's intentional. If they don't think they're out and continue to run (The rule specifically addresses that scenario, because 99.999% of the time they would continue to run forward, not back to a base like here) That in itself it says will not be considered as intentionally interfering. If player started doing this on purpose, umpires would notice that and it would then be intentional, and the runner would be out. This was just a very very once a generation play that the rule book doesn't cover therefore allows (again because usually a runner night keep going forward if they thought they weren't out), and umpires can't override the rule book.

@jmathieson15

4 жыл бұрын

Alex Chavez that makes sense. When you watch it it looks like textbook interference but the way you explained it makes sense

The moral of this story? If you're on first, and see an obvious ground ball for a DP, turn your back, interfere at first, and get out of the DP. A horrible, horrible call. Rule 6.01(a)(5) regarding interference: "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate." There's no intent involved at all. If you hinder or impede, whether you meant to or not, the runner is out. Horrible, horrible call.

@KurtColville

5 жыл бұрын

Edric Sayrs Absolutely goddamn right. Thank you.

@RustyB5000

5 жыл бұрын

amen brother

@chriskhall

5 жыл бұрын

I agree with you but how can a runner who has been put out be put out?

@RustyB5000

5 жыл бұрын

no no, what the rule says is, the runner who benefited from the interference should be called out, meaning BOTH runners would be out in this example.

@KurtColville

5 жыл бұрын

MWYANT19 Correct.

Just when you think that every situation has occurred and every rule has been written, voilà!!! The Yankee announcers were fair and impartial, good for them.

@user-ek7yc5zm1v

Жыл бұрын

My favorite part about them, they love their own guys and praise them a lot, but are usually very unbiased in situations like these, they obviously want it to benefit the Yankees but that never stops them from being honest if a Yankee is out or even dirty

@BachBeethovenBerg

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ek7yc5zm1v Not so much the case with John Sterling...

I love how they had sabotage playing in the background

@clever_girl_766

2 жыл бұрын

They were also playing land of confusion by genisis lol

@chadgetjajet7033

12 күн бұрын

hahahahaha

So what was the eventual call? Watch for 10 mins and video finishes before the resul!

@suer6103

5 жыл бұрын

yeah...all we got out of it was a big P made in the air!

@MorsecodeZ

5 жыл бұрын

The call was the batter was ruled safe, that's why Boston protested the game.

@LiKae975

5 жыл бұрын

Nollywoods

@CaptCovfefe515

5 жыл бұрын

They ruled Ellsbury safe and Holliday out. Farrell thought it was a double play due to interference, and the umps checked with the front office. They couldn’t come to a definitive answer so they stuck by their ruling and Farrell protested it, which basically means that it goes to the front office so they can review it after the fact. That’s what the big letter P was that Cedarstrom made to the camera.

@keithboylan2867

5 жыл бұрын

I'm theorizing here. The rule as they stated before was you cannot assume a double play. As someone said before the 2nd base umpire more than likely did not make an immediate out call and giving the possible appearance that the runner on first was no longer in a force out situation and excused him to go back to first to not be tagged out. Again I'm just spitballing here.

They both should've been out plain and simple. I can see where Holiday could be confused because the field ump did not signal out at 2nd but the first base ump should have called interference on Holiday too.

@wr6497

6 жыл бұрын

but if you've seen the full replay you can see Holladay look towards Moreland and see him immediately throwing to second base, so all in all, Holladay turned out (since call ended up going there way and he did make crucial hinderance, to know exactly what he was doing. So if u think about it, that's pretty headsy and i guess a pro and been playing baseball his whole life that his head can quickly think and decide i'm going to run back towards first and hopefully the ball willl hit me in the back or block view of first baseman and safe my teammate and all though a completely wrong outcome was ruled in Holladay's book he did his job,... Didnt matter as Ellsbury didnt score,.. but Yankees did win later on in the game i think it was 13innings. Also all in all it was what's his Kimbrel who gave up a ninth inning homerun to blow the game anyways,... shouldn't even have made it to extra innings,.. Chris Sale thru an almost perfect game and defintely a shutout but Kimbrel blew that and Yankees tied it at 1.

@LurkMe

6 жыл бұрын

actually, Holladay thought he touched first and threw to 2nd, so went back to avoid a tag

@edwardlkent3508

6 жыл бұрын

I used to umpire little league and this is a double play and called it many times

@arinerm1331

6 жыл бұрын

It's not about assuming a double play. It's about whether the player who shouldn't have remained in play prevented a subsequent out, whether that out was at first base, or third base, or at home. He was no longer supposed to be involved in any play, and did interfere with a subsequent out, which in this case happened to be at first base. "Can't assume a double play" only means that the official scorer cannot assign an error if the defending team fails to complete a double play on a ground ball. It does *not* mean that the second out cannot be the subject of an interference call. We see this all the time when the "illegal slide" rule is applied to the runner from first sliding in to the middle infielder covering second, preventing the batter-runner from being put out at first. In that case, the call is that the batter-runner is also called out.

@robbiemurdza4115

6 жыл бұрын

StrikeForce Dad it doesn’t matter what Holiday thinks happened. It’s the same thing as a fake throwing the ball back to the pitcher and then tagging the runner out as he steps off the bag.

I'm a yankee fan. That should have been an out and the rule needs to be that if the runner interferes like that it's an out. Regardless of the likely result.

@Sshooter444

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah like Reggie Jackson!

@kerrytodd3753

Жыл бұрын

It is the rule….

These types of plays are the reason baseball is an awesome sport. So many different scenarios.

I am pretty sure this is the first time the commentators from the Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network (YES) didn't side with the Yankees.

@YankeesHiro

6 жыл бұрын

Justin Lokere I think you should listen to them more often if that’s what you think...

@mikeb6572

6 жыл бұрын

It's obvious you don't listen to them.

@chrispikoulas1291

6 жыл бұрын

Kay sucks, Sterling is even worse, Susan is also brutal.

@jraymond1988

6 жыл бұрын

Singleton is fine though. A bit boring sometimes, but he's at least rational and has a lot more insight to offer whereas Kay is a biased homer and his voice is irritating.

@fredlandes2279

6 жыл бұрын

GKR rule!

What's bizarre about this?, is a forced out on second and interference on first so it's a double play

@marc21256

6 жыл бұрын

It's bizarre because they didn't call it the way you said. The rules are clear, but the call was that because he didn't know he was out, he wasn't interfering.

@patrickjoseph3618

6 жыл бұрын

How could he not know? The ball took a bite out of the batters box. Besides, ignorance is not a defense against a rule violation.

@wgray8231

6 жыл бұрын

If the first baseman fields the ball and touches first base, it's no longer a force out at 2nd.

@hinney827

6 жыл бұрын

Look at the multiple angles of replays. Zero umpires signaling him out after the throw to second. It's not unreasonable for him to think he's still a live baserunner.

@renardmigrant

6 жыл бұрын

True, but so what?

what the hell was that

@Daremo6969

6 жыл бұрын

The only thing I can think of is that the runner on first thought the ball didn't bounce and was caught for an out, and was going back to tag up. Either way both should be out as he interfered with the play at first as the runner was already out.

@gamelard1963

6 жыл бұрын

i think the runner thought the hitter was already out so he thought he could run back to 1st and be safe.

@enniswhalen2428

6 жыл бұрын

d69 - Some runners ( already out) would love to cause problems on the bases.Do you think Holliday saw this whole thing coming? Look up Reggie Jackson in the 1978 World Series for interference.

@aiyah89

6 жыл бұрын

It doesn't make sense. If the hitter had lined out, 1st baseman doesn't need to throw to 2nd base. All he needs to do is walk to 1st base bag for double play.

@omny6686

6 жыл бұрын

aiyah89 well didn't Holliday turn b4 he threw it?

Ultimately, the Red Sox protest was denied, predominantly because in order to be upheld the protested play has to have an impact on the final result of the game and the Yankees ended up not scoring in the inning. Had this play had an impact in the winning run scoring, the outcome might've been different. New York ended up winning 4-1 in the 16th.

@marcparkinson4118

6 жыл бұрын

Thx for the update.

@BrianPapocchia

6 жыл бұрын

ditto

@johnnick9871

6 жыл бұрын

Yes.... you saved me some time with the update.

@Anthony-nq9ih

6 жыл бұрын

Steve Winsor faxx

@jackjon7763

6 жыл бұрын

Steve Winsor pitch count and situational things as well.

Was the stadium playing Time from Inception around 8:20? That's pretty damn good.

@russell2952

3 жыл бұрын

Made the entire video worth it. Thanks for picking up on that. I skipped past it.

On further review, there was no interference. The runner is out at second, but the batter was safe at first. The rules added the "Amended Rule 6.01(a)(5) Comment to clarify that a runner who IS RETURNING to his last legally touched base after being put out is considered the same as a runner who continues to advance after being put out relative to interfering with a subsequent play." (Emphasis added.) Here, the runner "was returning" to first base, and no other act contributed to the broken double play. The batter touched first base while the first baseman was chasing the ball, so the batter is not out for "not touching first base." The rules do not appear to make a batter out merely by being hit by a throw ball on the way to first base. One must credit the umps here.

@darkarima

5 жыл бұрын

The rule you're quoting directly contradicts you: "is considered the same as a runner who continues to advance after being put out". In both cases, the runner who is aided by it is out. By your reading, a batter put out at first could keep running anyway, and run over the second baseman to prevent him from tagging out someone caught in a pickle between second and third.

@KurtColville

5 жыл бұрын

darkarima Correct, and well stated. Erik has misunderstood the meaning of the phrasing. The rule is saying, once you’re forced out, whether you’re going back to the last bag or you’re going on the next bag, it doesn’t matter, the rules for interfering in the play apply the same to you either way. It’s written this way so that no one has to wonder if there’s one type of interference for going backwards and another type for going forwards. This rule is formalizing that it doesn’t flipping matter - it’s interference either way.

@mediaguardian

5 жыл бұрын

But your last sentence doesn't reflect what happened. The returning runner prevented the first baseman from catching the ball. The batter would not have been hit by the ball if the first baseman was able to get in position to field it. So now there is a new way to break up a double play. Just return to the previous base and prevent the baseman from catching the ball.

@MrGeldhart

4 жыл бұрын

@Joel Zand A retired runner who continues to run the bases cannot be called for interference for THAT ACTION ALONE. Had the BR been retired because F3 stepped on 1st prior to going to 2nd, he would not have been called for interference. The umpires got it 100% right.

@mptr1783

Жыл бұрын

@@MrGeldhart what?????? He had no right to 1st base after being forced out at 2nd base. He clearly interfered with the 1st basemans attempt to field a thrown ball

3:17. The coach says. “Ok then we have a difference in the rules and if that’s the case then I’m going to protest”. The guy on second was out PERIOD he should never have ran back to First. The rules stat. Any player that’s out in an active play must remove himself from any additional play if he is unable to move out of the way First then it would not be an out on first. But this guy was clearly out and had no business getting involved in the play at firsts.

There two ways to look at it. One way is that Holiday is eliminated and should not have been involved at first. If you allow Ellsbury to be safe based on Holiday's interference, then a precedent is set and the sky is the limit of what that runner can do once the base runner is thrown out at second. If absolutely necessary during a routine double play, he could stop and stand in the way of the thrown to first and try to intentionally get hit. On the other hand, if the runner is out going into 2nd and he hits the fielder in a close play at 2nd and the fielder is unable to make the throw, the runner is out there too and like the other scenario, he is interfering with the play. There would have to be a ruling having to do with base runner plays at second being fundamentally different when compared to plays at first.

@jacobworboy6729

6 жыл бұрын

Chicago Shawn I get that feeling but if the MLB allows stuff like this to happen, now any time there’s a guaranteed out at 2nd, you’ll see the runner turn around and interfere at 1st base. Makes the double play only possible if the runner thinks he can make it to second and is just too slow

@joemarshall4226

6 жыл бұрын

If I was the Boston manager, I would have my runners ALWAYS gp back to first and interfere on similar plays in the future. Why not? The umpires made it clear that it's ok.......You wonder what gets into their heads when they make ridiculous calls like this...did NONE of the umpires see the obvious interfernece?

@Sphere723

6 жыл бұрын

There was no contact. The rules require contact.

@ThatRandomSniper

6 жыл бұрын

The difference is that Holiday legitimately thought he could return to first base on the play. Intentional returning to first to interfere would be different IMO. Obviously it's hard to determine intent so I think the rule should be they're both out regardless.

@jasonhoffpauer9044

6 жыл бұрын

If they don't change that rule, I'd just tell the runner at first that on an obvious DP ground ball, to run half way to second then turn around and slide back into first and block the 1B path to the bag since you know the umpires are too stupid to know anything.

Absolutely amazing to me that 4 MLB umpires could not get this call right. And it wasn't even difficult. It was a very simple, clear interference call on the runner. And it also baffles my mind why we have an instant replay system that is for some unknown reason not allowed to overturn this clearly botched call.

@robertbrown7470

Жыл бұрын

And if there is a runner on third, he goes back to third base, two outs. And you have to ask yourself (as an umpire) why is a professional baseball player on a double play ball running back to first? Hello!

@peterp2153

Жыл бұрын

The announcers had a good explanation, which was the runner going to 2nd man have thought 1st Baseman had already stepped on 1st Base based on where he fielded the ball and was throwing to 2nd for the tag out. So the runner went back to 1st to avoid the tag since 1st base was open in his mind. But it was still interference nonetheless.

@slpguy6026

8 ай бұрын

@@peterp2153agree with most, but it’s not necessarily interference by the rule’s description! He’s in the straight path to the base. Not interfering with an attempt to field a ball; this was a throw. When a fielder throws a ball to a base & it hits a runner, it’s the throwers fault. Unless the runner is out of runners lane to first. Period. Point is the rules don’t specifically address this, rules are gray, and always open to interpretation. Very difficult call with no clear correct answer

The result was safe and a protest. How can the umps miss when they have history play unbelievable

@travharrell1713

2 жыл бұрын

That's because MLB umpires are the worst umpires or referees on the planet, from t-ball up.

@mylittlepitbull3143

2 жыл бұрын

@@travharrell1713 yeah those MLB umpires in t-ball are the worst.

That voice crack though 1:55

@cesargzz4459

6 жыл бұрын

Jose Quintero Lopez Sanchez Guzman i

@damianjones9446

6 жыл бұрын

ruNNEr

@madyalbers9769

6 жыл бұрын

Jose Quintero Lopez Sanchez Guzman rrUUner 😂

@daveeast4272

6 жыл бұрын

It’s Tim kurkjian😂😂 jk

@jackson2607

5 жыл бұрын

Lol

Yeah I think he thought the hit was caught and was out so he returned to first not realizing the hit had already touched the dirt so it was still in play, thus why he stopped running to 2nd and turned back to first. Interference from him cause the play at first to just go crazy, who knows if that would of been an out or safe but I think from interference it should be an out anyways.

@zanti4132

5 жыл бұрын

Except if the ball is caught, it's pointless to throw to second - the first baseman just needs to step on first to double the baserunner off. The only way I can see a rundown occurring in this situation is if the baserunner is standing on the base when the ball is caught and inexplicably takes off for second, like a runner trying to advance on a fly out.

The most important takeaway? The announcers were right. With today's technology there is no reason the umpires shouldn't be explaining unusual calls over the PA, or at least sending a real-time explanation up to the booths.

Totally should have been a double play based on the interference by the runner from first base...if not than it’s a free for all, every time a base runner is in a force play like this they can just turn around and run towards their original base and interfere with the throw

In the reply at about 0:54, the umpire seems to never make a signal of an out at 2nd. It is hard to see if Holliday had already turned back to return to 1st before the out is made at 2nd. In reviewing the protest, the protest was denied, with one of the underlying reasons being that this play did not directly affect the outcome of the game since the Yankees did not score in the inning. The play itself (interference by an offensive player) was not reviewable under the replay rules, so if the call wasn't made on the field, it couldn't have been made after replay. I would think that it could have been made after conferencing by the crew, but because it is a judgement call and the play did not affect the outcome of the game (4-1 win by the Yankees in 16), it is just a botched call in a game where there are usually multiple botched calls.

People below are bringing up the rule of intent. The umpires ruled, that since it was not the intention of the runner, to interfere at first base, there was no interference. But, the intention rule should never have been considered. That rule is for a different scenario of circumstances, than what we have here. The instant the runner was forced out at second, by rule, he must get out of the way of the defense making any other plays on the field. Since he did not, no matter what he was thinking on the field, or his intent, interference should have been called, and the batter called out. Double play. (You can't use one rule, to overturn another rule, that had already been broken, on the same play)

@MichaelSimmons.

5 жыл бұрын

A circumstance of the Intention Rule, would be if a player slide into 2nd base, with his hands up covering his face for protection, and the 2nd baseman's arm hit his hand, causing the throw to first to go wild. That would more than likely, not be call interference, because it was not the runners intention, to make contact, and disrupt the play.

If this play stands and the batter is safe at first... then in every future instance of an attempted double play, I'm instructing my lead runner to run back directly to first and interfere with the catch so the batter is safe.

@earthling2215

6 жыл бұрын

You're right Brad.. don't see why this was so difficult to understand.. interference plain and simple. The runner was out inmediately the first baseman threw the ball to second base.. he had to be running to the dugout

@bonsummers2657

5 жыл бұрын

great figuring on that ;)

The batter didn’t touch first until he came back

@letsgomets07

5 жыл бұрын

CJ Perfect and? Has nothing to do with anything

@CJPerfect

5 жыл бұрын

letsgomets07 O I was just pointing it out

The runner thought the ball was caught and thought he was in a rundown. I first thought the ball was actually caught.

The slowness to arrive at this decision another indication that the increasingly glacial pace of the game is turning particularly younger potential fans off.

If the runner going to first base is not out, think about the consequences of this ruling (if it were to become the norm)... In the future the other runner going to the next base could, if he is clear the double-play is inevitable, run back to the base he just left in an effort to interfere with the throw, which could result in only one out, instead of the two outs. That becomes a matter of **strategy** for every team, which is ridiculous. This must be a double play.

@krajcjakub

5 жыл бұрын

The point is, that 2nd base umpire did not make an (at least immediate) out call. Player is not out until ump call him out. It is not player responsibility to knows what exactly happens in the play (ball hit/not hit the ground, the batter is/is not out, etc.). I think if 2nd base ump made out call, the final ruling would be a double play.

I don’t get it. The rules couldn’t be clearer. A runner, already out, hinders or impedes another play. The runner on whom the play was being made, is also out. Simple stuff.

@Rich-rd5te

5 жыл бұрын

Ya this is special because the umpire didn’t show clearly to the runner that he was out. It wasn’t made clear to him which u can see. But you can’t assume a double play. The throw was low you didn’t know.

@GB-ez6ge

5 жыл бұрын

@@Rich-rd5te Of course the throw was low, so the 1st baseman could stretch. Infield 101!

The decision depends on how one interprets "return" and "attempts to return" in the rules. The comment to rule 6.01(a)(5) says that: if a runner RETURNS or ATTEMPTS TO RETURN to his last legally-touched base AFTER he has been PUT OUT, he shall not, by that act ALONE, be considered to have impeded the fielder. (Emphasis added.) Here, the runner running to second began running back to first base BEFORE he was thrown out at second, and he arguably did not reach first base ahead of the throw. So did he ever "return" to first base after being put out at second? Does return mean to land on first base or be in the act of returning to first base? Similarly, does "attempt to return" mean the time when the runner begins running back to first base or does it mean that the runner is in the act of returning to first base? But even if the runner's act of returning to first base did not ALONE constitute interference, he would still have interfered if the umps saw an additional factor that contributed to the busted double play.

Where was the first base coach to tell the guy he was already out?

I think holliday thought it was a line drive, that the first baseman caught.

@mptr1783

Жыл бұрын

doesnt matter what he "thought" , its retired-runners interference, plain and simple

What was the call!?!

@jasonhoffpauer9044

6 жыл бұрын

Inexplicably safe.

@Danlows1

6 жыл бұрын

That’s because the hitter never touched first base, so the runner could tag back up on the first base, which he did, then as the ball went wild, then advanced to second on a stolen base (technically) and the hitter took first base again. So both safe. Weird call, lol

@nallymannebach7933

6 жыл бұрын

Danlows1 That’s not how it works at all. The hitter hit the ball. The first baseman grabs the ground ball and throws it to second without stepping on first. The second baseman steps on second and fires it back to first. However, there were two players over there and this it becomes a wild throw. Really, this should have gone one way. When there is a double play in progress and the runner going to second slides into the second baseman or shortstop (whoever is making the play) then both runners are out no matter what due to interference. This play should have gone that way because of interference rule. It is true. The runner made a mistake and was not aware of the type of play it was. But that is an awareness issue and that’s on the player.

@Danlows1

6 жыл бұрын

nally mannebach ok, just as a theoretical: If a batter hits a ground ball, but the first base runner never leaves the base, and the batter never tags the first base, who’s out? Both? (Runner due to a force play, batter for never touching first?) or just the runner due to a force play?

@thebonesaw..4634

6 жыл бұрын

Assuming that the batter is tagged out on his way to 1st BEFORE a tag is made at 2nd base... the runner at 1st base would still be safe. Upon tagging the batter on his way to 1st, the batter is nullified as a runner (dead runner) and the runner at 1st is no longer compelled to run to 2nd. In fact, this scenario happens frequently whenever there is a dropped third strike. If the catcher drops the ball on a third strike, the batter becomes a live runner and can advance. However, most batters never even realize that the catcher dropped the ball and the catcher picks it up and tags them so fast, they're often still in the batter's box. In many of these situations, there is a runner already at 1st, who normally does not advance because of how quickly the tag is made. The runner at 1st is still safe in that specific situation. Now... if a tag was made at 2nd base BEFORE the batter was tagged out on his way to 1st, the runner at 1st would be out due to the fact that the batter was still a live runner when 2nd was tagged.

The reason the umps didn’t call interference is they believed Holliday didn’t intentionally block the bag. It’s a weird rule but if they deemed it unintentional and that he believed he was not out, they can elect not to call interference on that play. You could argue that he should have known but in the umps judgement he did not. I think the rule should be amended to reflect any interference with a fielders ability to make a play. Intent usually isn’t considered in most cases. It should be here in my opinion.

Why are they all so confused? Holiday was out at 2nd and then interfered with the play at first. DOUBLE PLAY! I'm a Yankee fan so I'm not being biased. That was a weird thing for Holiday to do.

As a Yankees fan, it’s a double play because of obstruction.

@angc214

5 жыл бұрын

Interference. Obstruction is when a defensive player impedes the progress of a base runner.

@jjumpir21

3 жыл бұрын

Obstruction is on the defense , interference is on the offense

Wow that was a dumb ruling. Now every 1st base runner can just double back and screw up the double play. Well done, MLB.

The force out on R1 is clear. The big question is whether R1 interfered by returning to 1B. The mere act of continuing to run is not interference, unless there is some obvious intent to confuse the defense. The case note on 7.09e, however, says that if the batter or runner "continues to advance", that act alone does not establish an intent to confuse. The Boston argument is that R1 didn't advance, he retreated, and that he should therefore automatically be deemed to confuse the defense. The intent of the case note, however, is that merely not stopping isn't enough to make the call automatic, so that argument doesn't work. Now, if even if R1 didn't intend to confuse the runner, he's out if he actually interferes with the play. This part of the ruling is a judgement call (not protestable). I think the umpires considered that there was no actual interference because (a) it wasn't a quality throw to the first baseman and (b) the first baseman was not really prevented from fielding it (he have likely drawn the interference call if he'd tried harder to field the throw and let R1 contact him).

Watched the 'live' play and stopped to write this: base runner is out on the force; then the batter-runner is out because the base runner (trying to slide into 1st base bcause he thinks he is a run-down) interferes with the 1st baseman trying to catch the ball for the force-out at 1st. Let's see how it resolves.

@MichaelHolloway

6 жыл бұрын

Nice video editing - no resolution. " The umpires called New York for what crew chief Gary Cederstrom referred to as a "rules check," which is different from reviewing the play. And after a nearly five-minute consultation, the original calls stood: Holliday was out at second base, but Ellsbury was safe at first." ESPN - Jul 16, 2017 Red Sox play under protest vs. Yankees after claiming interference by Scott Lauber www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/20076415/boston-red-sox-play-protest-vs-new-york-yankees-claiming-interference Incompetent umpiring in my (not so) humble opinion.

Then a man on first on a clear DP ball, don’t run, just stand there blocking the throw so the man running to first won’t be out.

@RS-tz2zn

5 жыл бұрын

That is completely legal. You don't have to run on a batted ball if you don't want to. You just can't make an obvious move to interfere with the fielder on a throw.

@pablovi77

5 жыл бұрын

Ryan Shaffer Why? This guy did, he slid to the base clearly interfering with the play, and he wasn’t called out.

The Inception soundtrack somehow captured the mood perfectly

@joecoolmccall

6 жыл бұрын

davidofpiano423 was it inception? I thought it was Lord of the Rings lol Regardless it fit oddly well lol

I'm a Yankees fan but I'm also an umpire. R1 is out on the force at second and then interfered with F3. BR is out.

So after 10 min and two times on the headsets, the umps still get the calll wrong. How is this even possible? Its clearly obstruction.

Double play on interference

@renardmigrant

6 жыл бұрын

Correct.

@mrmidnight32

6 жыл бұрын

Matt Smallwood no it should be a double play off of the 2 man base rule. There was no interference he was getting back to the base. It’s no different than someone trying to break up a double play with a shadow slide at second. But they both touched first making the batter out on top of them already getting the force. Double play.

@Ebolter1

6 жыл бұрын

the base runner was out , but not the batter - no clean throw as it hit the batter/runner

@brendanbehrens9956

6 жыл бұрын

The umps probably assumed rule 7.09 (f) instead. I guess in their opinion because he is part of the field of play at that point he did not break rule 7.09 (d). Reading it, I don't think it should matter based on 2 man base rule (7.09 d) but I am not an expert in rules, just google xD. baseballrulesacademy.com/user/official-rules/ll/7-09-interference/

@xavier3241

6 жыл бұрын

It’s out in second only. Batter never touched first base

Runner on first must take second base; he cannot return to first and be safe BEFORE touching second SAFELY. He clearly interfered at first and both runners should be out.

@Godfather19704

5 жыл бұрын

As a high school and college umpire, I concur. Two outs. It's actually an easy call, I'VE MADE IT BEFORE!

@alanhess9306

4 жыл бұрын

937mike, The runner can return to first or stay on the base but he would be out when tagged, even if he is on the base.

every time i think i understand this play the next time i watch it i change my mind again.. truly one of the craziest baseball rules situations ever

They got it right. Even though the runner was out, he was entitled to be in the basepath. Interference with a THROWN ball MUST be intentional. B1 safe. You'll likely never see it again in your life. I certainly hope I never do as an official, though I have seen a couple of similar situations on the bags.

Did anyone else notice the Inception theme that began playing at 7:54 ? I thought it was a nice touch to the stadium atmosphere, but it seemed a little bit out of place.

@roguishpaladin

6 жыл бұрын

The name of that piece is "Time". Does it make more sense now?

@mishatex6531

6 жыл бұрын

Ooh smart! Thanks so much!

@babababad

6 жыл бұрын

That was Shin Lim coming out to entertain the crowd during the interruption.

@joecoolmccall

6 жыл бұрын

roguishpaladin I love it

out of all the teams in the world, Boston and New York!!!!

I've no idea what the umpires did here. The rule is: " Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate " Which is 6.01(a)(5). So no, it does not have to be intentional. The rule's clear, no idea what the umpires were doing, if anyone knows please let me know.

I'm a Yankees fan, and even I know that's a double play for interference. Regardless of what the runner thought had happened behind him, he was still a dead runner. How many times have we seen guys not realize they're already out? What they think is going on is immaterial. I like the hustle and thinking ahead though.

More evidence for elimination of umpires. Even when they can calmly review the play they cannot apply rules correctly.

@dougthegreat1808

5 жыл бұрын

You are ignorant!

Instant replay in baseball is garbage. It grinds an already slow game to a halt, the fans attending the game have it even worse as they rarely get any explanation as to what the entire issue was

@rachael3533

6 жыл бұрын

Patrick McQuail I like how it is in hockey. Ref announces it's under review then announces if it's a goal or not. And instant replay is right there showing you what the ref will see. Baseball is already super boring on TV. It's barely palatable in person This was a pretty cut and dry case that should have been a double play from the outset but the mlb has had issues for years with the umpires and its a huge reason why I don't even watch it anymore. This clip is boring af and I was typing most of the time.

@bv6377

6 жыл бұрын

aaaand here you are watching it on your computer. lmao!!

@tqnohe

6 жыл бұрын

Review was not necessary. This was clear.

@slpater1

6 жыл бұрын

Rachael ive said every sport needs this review system. You get 3 minuets. 5 people get to decide. Yes or no. If its not clear enough that you cant make a decision in 3 minutes of review then whatever cant be over turned. In big games you can maybe extend that a bit.

If you notice the Ump at second doesn't make an "out" call. The runner is clearly out at second but the ump never makes that signal.

From an outside-in point of view I would rule that a double play. Simple fact being what the announcers mentioned towards the end. The first baseman was unable to stretch into the play due to the interference and based on the location of the ball in correlation to the runner, the runner would have been out has the dead runner not been there because the ball would have been caught way before the runner got to the base. Of course that begs the question of if the first baseman would have actually caught the ball.

John Farrell:I'm protesting Lol

Final call: Both runs score. **Yankee Magic**

I don't know how they reasoned themselves out of interference by a retired runner, ball is dead, batter-runner out for interference by teammate. The only way I can see is if the umpires themselves felt that their calls were unclear, such that they caused R1's confusion.

Announcers say if he streched without the runner coming in he makes the play. No, the ball hits the runner at 1:25 the moment he hit the base, the ball literally beat tbe runner.

Let me guess: It went the Yankees' way.

@michaelwaldman1515

6 жыл бұрын

Yep it always does

@gseegrist6679

6 жыл бұрын

The Yankees are always right... deal with it!!! #yankeesAREtheLAW

@MichaelClark-uw7ex

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, anyone surprised?

@walterkoziol3822

6 жыл бұрын

Mike Adsetts, and the sad thing is it was a Red Sox home game. I'm a Red Sox fan and man I've seen a lot of crazy stuff at the oldest ballpark in MLB.

@deadeyeddanny

6 жыл бұрын

walter, you and millions of the rest of us! Yanks swallow!

Well they went to new York to see if it was double play hence the new york

What's the music that they start playing at 7:54?

Worst call in history. Yankee's manager turns away from from camera at the end and says "Can you believe we got away with that??!!!"

Is it spring yet??????

@tls5870

6 жыл бұрын

It's next year if that helps.

@liamjar7777

6 жыл бұрын

EZ 10 u not a baseball fan? Baseball has been around before American football and hockey

@EZ1000K

6 жыл бұрын

magic movie exactly. the game has been around so long it's too random a new team wins everytime season. 3 hours for a game man every day. How is that exciting?

@Texan1981

6 жыл бұрын

Pastime, not Pass Time.

@SirFloofy001

6 жыл бұрын

EZ 10 its called Americas Past Time as in the favorite Past Time of Americans. Not Pass Time.

That should have been interference and a double play.

Runner out at 2nd. He then interferes the play at 1st causing runner/batter to be out also. Double play.

They kept saying you can't assume a double play. The only time I have ever heard that applied was in charging someone an error. Such as a bad throw from the SS after getting the runner at second. It gets scored a fielder's choice with no error on the throw.

This seems like an easy call too me. Double play on the interference

@TheEnd-dy1dd

5 жыл бұрын

Nope.

I watched the whole 9:22 of it and still don’t know the result. 🤦‍♂️

@marcparkinson4118

6 жыл бұрын

looks like they let the play stand.

The umpires got it right. There cannot be obstruction on the runner going back to first base because he is no longer a runner, he's out, and obstruction is when a runner obstructs the defensive player who is trying to make a play. Further, the first baseman interferes with the batter, who had to miss first base to avoid a nasty collision. Finally, you cannot assume the first baseman is going to catch the ball before before the batter reaches first base. Baseball is a game of threes, and for these three reasons, the batter is safe at first, and the runner is out at second. The official scorer would record it as FC 3-4.

I think the runner on first didn’t see the ball bounce at the plate after the hit and thought the hitter was out when the first baseman caught the ball after the bounce. When the first baseman threw the ball to the second baseman, the runner thought it was a rundown situation and he thought he was allowed to run back to first since he thought the hitter was out and first base was now open. If the umpires call this based on the rules, it should be a double play because the forced out on second and the interference from the dead runner at first, which is an automatic out.

But, but, it's the Yankees and we have to give it to them because they are THE Yankees . . . .

When a coach protests what does it mean? Come someone please explain it?

@MH-Tesla

6 жыл бұрын

Houston Penrod they continue play. If the team that protests wins, the protest is void. If they lose, the protest is a rule interpretation disagreement. The officials at MLB will determine what the correct call should have been. If they agree with the coach who protested, the game gets replayed from that point. They almost never uphold a protest, but they are at a minimum, an opportunity for MLB to make rule changes or clarifications.

@zgaviation6481

6 жыл бұрын

Also, to further illustrate, judgement calls cannot be protested, only rule clarifications

@_davis_1716

6 жыл бұрын

Houston Penrod seriously?It means they argue about a play they made a certain call on

@runcaz7802

6 жыл бұрын

Houston: It don't mean a godam thing. It's primary significance is symbolic.

@zgaviation6481

6 жыл бұрын

That is normally true, but it could affect the game if the protest is confirmed

So every runner from 1st base thats going to be forced out easily at 2nd base can turn back around and interfere with the play at 1st base , that oughta make things alot more interesting.

If a runner is put out and in the umpires discretion the runner did not know he was put out, there is no penalty for him continuing to run or remaining in play. Therefore the runner is still in play. I’m assuming that since the runner is still in play there can be 2 possibilities. 1, interference double play. 2, the runner is still in play and it was a legal slide so it was the fielders decision to move out of the way, and you end up with a runner on first. I’m guessing if you end up with a runner on first you can also appeal him missing the bag.

@thomasmitchell3604

5 жыл бұрын

Im not sure where you found that "in the umpire's discretion" crap or if you just made that up but the rule is simple and clear and does NOT state that at all.

You can't determine a rule based on if a player accidentally didn't know! hahahaa these guys are professional cheaters, you'd have every player in the league accidentally not knowing lots of other things

@dominickmarshall8559

6 жыл бұрын

Smedley Butler III Youre an idiot

@SmedleyButlerIII

6 жыл бұрын

"TIME! runner was running outside the runners lane! hes out!" "but waaaaait mr umpire! I didn't know!! It doesn't count if I didnt know"!!......

@SmedleyButlerIII

6 жыл бұрын

"Oh yea, I guess your right, go head and stay on 1st just this one time, but now since you know!! I better not see you doin that anymore or I'll have to call you out next time there buddy"

@skydragon3857

6 жыл бұрын

lolol

@_davis_1716

6 жыл бұрын

Smedley Butler III you are right.holiday knew he was out at second,but he didn't want a double play to be turned,so he "accidently"ran back to second to keep a double play from turning

obvious interference... 6.01 (a) (5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate

@mrmidnight32

5 жыл бұрын

Native ButNotOfThisWorld then by that breaking up double plays is an instant interference. It wasn’t an intentional disruption, it should be treated no differently as breaking up a double play

@nativebutnotofthisworld9792

5 жыл бұрын

@@mrmidnight32 it doesn't' have to be intentional... and sliding into second on a double play is different... the rule there is you have to slide... if you don't and the throw hits you it should be called interference.

@mrmidnight32

5 жыл бұрын

Native ButNotOfThisWorld and if he would have thrown it to the first basemen instead of in the dirt would it still be interference? He already made his move during the play. And yes it does matter if it’s intentional because that’s 90% of interference. Is the intent to or knowingly interfering with a play.

@nativebutnotofthisworld9792

5 жыл бұрын

in this situation no intent is needed.

@MrGeldhart

4 жыл бұрын

@@nativebutnotofthisworld9792 Just running back to the base BY ITSELF is not interference. He is continuing to run the bases, so cannot be called out for doing just that. Had there been no force on him, he would have been entitled to go back to first, and no one would be claiming interference. The ONLY reason there is a discussion on this is because he was already OUT, and the rules (or case studies, I don't have my OBR in front of me) state that a retired runner cannot be called for Interference for simply continuing to run the bases. He can still be called for interference if he does something, but that wasn't the case in this play.

I’m a Yankees fan and I was watching this live with my extending family who are Sox fans. Needless to say it devolved pretty quickly into something resembling a facebook argument but with more references to interference

@robertbrown7470

Жыл бұрын

There's no argument. It's interference, plain and simple. Or maybe the runner needs to go back to high school and learn to play baseball all over again. Either that or it was obvious intentional interference anyway. Not that that matters because it doesn't.

Watching BB for close to 50 years. That is the one of the oddest plays I have ever seen

@2themoon863

3 жыл бұрын

Reggie Jackson vs the Dodgers in the World Series?

So what ended up happening

@esinger23

6 жыл бұрын

504Productions I don’t remember.

@blazingcorsair7307

6 жыл бұрын

504Productions baseball ruled that since it was accidental the protest wasn't upheld

@kaitlyna1916

6 жыл бұрын

Ellsbury was allowed to stay on first, but the play didn't have any bearing on the end result. Boston got out of the inning shortly after play resumed, though the Yankees won later on.

@123456789067991

6 жыл бұрын

poopface 1234 which is absurd because in every other instance of obstruction/interference intent/being accidental doesnt make a damn difference in being called... like im damn sure the guys dont TRY to get in the way because they know its a fucking rule

@blazingcorsair7307

6 жыл бұрын

itsok4410 that's true

Am I the only one that noticed that Ellsbury didn't touch 1st base???

@OBmaster

6 жыл бұрын

I noticed that also but a runner is given a limited amount of latitude if their is a certain risk of injury. In this case, you have another player diving into the same spot and a ball heading towards the runner without someone attempting to catch it.

@dmasucci17

6 жыл бұрын

touched it on the way back ,still ok

@antoniominaya3991

5 жыл бұрын

Jon Penny 7

How was there even a discussion. Its pretty damn clear that the play would be made without interference.

Based on watching the video, I think the review was a rule check.once the rule was known, the umps realized it was a bad call. But with the rule being IF he had a chance to make the play. But initially the ump didn't rule he had a chance to make the play, so in order to determine that, they would have to do a replay review. However boston was out of challenges to initiate the replay review. Even if the umpires determined on the replay that a play could have been made, that determination wasn't made on the field. But the why go to the review in the first place? To determine if the rule was a cut and dry interference play, that is automatic out, or if it was a play to make judgement on. If it was the former, they could have changed it to an out, but because it was the latter, they had to go by initial call until a challenge was made, which it couldn't be challenged Or another way to look it it Ump 1 he's safe Ump 2. Could it have been interference? Ump 1. It could have been but not sure if it would have impacted the call Ump 2. Maybe it's a play that it's interference regardless Review booth. It isn't regardless, it's based upon umpire judgment if he would have been out Ump 1 I can't change my call based upon judgment, it could have been either way Ump 2. Then we need booth review to determine if interference happened Review booth. In order to review, they need to challenge, but it should have been an out Ump 1. They are out if challenges Review booth then we have to go with the initial judgment of safe.

Farrell; "Whats the sense in all that?" Thats the point to be made to Joe Torre and the aristocrats. It makes NO sense.

I think the runner on base first thought it was a fly ball

@illestwhitebkoi

6 жыл бұрын

Aaron Turner if it was a fly ball the first baseman would have never needed to throw him out at second. He would have just caught it for the first out and for the second out just tagged first before the runner could come back to safety. That's why on pop flies all base runners hold up to either move on a missed catch or return to the bag to tag up and go or stay safe on base after the ball is caught.

@staticklingon2182

6 жыл бұрын

Either that or when the first baseman threw the ball to second he thought that the first baseman touched first. Since the ump didn't signal that he was out, he assumed one way or the other that the batter was out and he was no longer a force runner, which would allow him to run back to first.

@StellaLotus

6 жыл бұрын

G Skub. Exactly. That's exactly what happened. 1st base fields ball near bag, 1st base runner is already running, ump doesn't call the force (even though it was) runner thinks rundown and returns. Thinks throw to first is also rundown and thinks throw is wild or whatever..etc. Ultimatly I think we all can see he the runner was simply forced out during the throw to 2nd. Shouldve been a double play. Clear as day. I wonder if the Yanks protested the ump not calling 2nd base? That's the ONLY thing I can think of that could be in the slightest barely relevant. Being the non call persueded the 1st base runner to return to first leading to interference and honestly that shouldn't matter. I'm all day long a Yankees fan but...you need to oay attention and be responsible for your self. The 1st base runner WAS out the second 2nd base was tagged. Period.

@staticklingon2182

6 жыл бұрын

Maybe in the commotion they didn't realize at how much fault the ump was? Watching this replay he was strangely motionless instead of calling him out. Maybe he had no clue himself. Haha

@HockeyChick742000

6 жыл бұрын

I didn’t see the ball hit the ground near home plate at regular speed. I only noticed the ball touch down in the slowed down clip. It is totally possible holiday thought it was a fly and was racing to tag up.

I don’t think this should be a double play. A runner sliding into a bag is not interference, this would mean that every player stealing a base that slides is interfering. This slide is no different than sliding into second on a double play.

So simple... RULE 6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions (a) Batter or Runner Interference: "It is interference by a batter or a runner when:" Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate. Salutations from Brazil, baseball fans!

This play is worthy of being studied by law students.

Ellsbury didnt youch first

@slim3d

6 жыл бұрын

He did. He went back and touched first when Holiday ran to second.

@Jivvi

6 жыл бұрын

He didn't touch first when the throw was coming back from second. What happens after that doesn't matter, because the throw would have got him regardless.

@thezola8227

6 жыл бұрын

He was also obstructed by the runner, he would have touched first if Holliday hadn't been there.

@52gt

6 жыл бұрын

I think that is a bad argument that a offensive player is obstructed by his own team mate. Base runners run into each other than tough luck. I cannot see getting an obstruction pass by your own team mate.

Uncalled for LENGTHY Review. OBVIOUS Interference here.....Double Play. Plain & Simple!! WOW!

9 minutes and they didn't even bother trying to throw up a graphic or have the commentators look at the rulebook.

You couldn't fucking edit this into a minute?!

@joeg5414

6 жыл бұрын

Maybe some people like to see the whole thing how it played out in real time.

@jasonhoffpauer9044

6 жыл бұрын

It's the perfect length for a baseball video. Feels like a real game which is so f-ing boring. Pitch clock please. 20 seconds or ball. 10 seconds or strike for the batter.

@wilkyahzee2335

6 жыл бұрын

You could have stopped watching after a minute. Or like the rest of us just press ffd till you hear the crowd reaction.

@renardmigrant

6 жыл бұрын

They didn't want to.

@fredlandes2279

6 жыл бұрын

this is really an illustration of the difference between baseball fans who want to see every (excruciating) nuance, and basketball fans (did he release the ball before the clock expired or not?)

The score was 1-1 in the 11th inning. At the time of this comment, there was 111 likes and 11 dislikes. Illuminati Confirmed!

@PlutoTheSecond

6 жыл бұрын

And now your comment has 1 like, and as a result of this comment, 1 reply! O.O

@thestrangeman069

6 жыл бұрын

Now it has 2 comments so your illuminati is fucked

@PlutoTheSecond

6 жыл бұрын

Michael De Santa 2 = 1 + 1 (except this would be the third reply so that would be 1 + 1 + 1) also I happened to see your reply 11 minutes after you posted it.

@thestrangeman069

6 жыл бұрын

PlutoTheSecond 4th reply, now what.

@runcaz7802

6 жыл бұрын

lol!

What I'd like to know is what stops every runner in the future who knows he's going to be forced out at second from running back to first and interfering with the ongoing play

1:30 ... I like that the beastie boys song "sabotage" was playing in the background; very fitting.

They both should be out, the forced second first, then the ball hit the runner without him on the bag he's out

@reamick

6 жыл бұрын

Alex Hiett That only applies to batted balls, and only if it happens in fair territory. He was hit by a throw.

@indycarr3964

6 жыл бұрын

A thrown ball hitting the runner does not put him out, unless the catcher, throwing to first hits the batter/runner going to first, if batter/runner is out of the running lane. A batted ball hitting a runner puts them out.

@alajondro

6 жыл бұрын

I suppose I'm just imagining my ideal set of rules here

@dannycole125

6 жыл бұрын

This is baseball not handball. Lol

@2AForever-wi8yj

6 жыл бұрын

OMG why do people like you who have no clue about baseball rules make a comment. this is BASEBALL not kickball

reason that Holiday never saw the umpire call him out was because he run back to first before the guy in 2nd base stepped on the bag and we do not see umpire call him out because the cameramen ( in both views ) took the 2nd base umpire away from camera view

the issue is that the 1st base runner was not aware/was not informed he was out, so it should be a force at 2nd, safe on 1st

I think there is one key piece here that the umpires may have considered. I believe the rule is written that a retired base runner can not *intentionally* interfere with a thrown ball. For example if a runner is going from first to second and slides in to second in a normal way during an attempted double play - if the throw from the shortstop hits the sliding base runner he is not automatically called for interference. The umpires have to believe that he *intentionally* got in the way of the throw. He is only called for interference if the umpires believe that he intentionally interfered with the throw. Perhaps in this situation they ruled that the runner returning back to first base was not *intentionally* interfering since he believed he was in a run down. Just a guess.