So I was watching a baseball game on Saturday night, that I had taped from earlier that day and scrupulously avoided letting myself hear a score about all day. Knowing that it was the Red Sox and Yankees, I also added three hours of taping time to the already three hours scheduled for recording the game itself. Those guys take forever to play a game.
As it turns out, even that wasn't enough, but I digress.
The game went into extra innings, tied 1-1, and dragged out to about the 11th inning, when -- OK, let's say it was the 11th for argument's sake; it matters little. At that point there was a curious play that prompts today's piece.
[Aside -- I hate the New York Yankees with a white-hot passion that burns and churns, sort of the way I think of the left, MSNBC and members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (that one may have worn off since college, though). I didn't grow up close to either New York or Boston, so my regard for the Red Sox and utter dislike of the Yankees makes no sense whatsoever but dates to preschool or maybe before. Bear with me; but know my prejudices.]
It was the top of the inning, with the game played at Fenway Park, and the Yankees were batting. They had a runner, Matt Holliday, on first and Jacoby Ellsbury was at the plate with no one out. Ellsbury grounded a ball to the right side of the infield, fielded by the first baseman, who moved in and a bit toward the mound to field.
As soon as the ball was hit, Holliday broke for second. He could see it was a ground ball; Ellsbury had clearly driven the ball into the ground in front of the plate, so he was forced to go to second. The Red Sox first baseman fielded the ball and threw to the shortstop covering second to force Holliday by 40 feet.
However, after being forced at second, Holliday did not veer out of the baseline, as 99.99% of runners do when forced by that much. Instead, Holliday stopped quickly, turned and headed back to first. Here is an article on the play, letting you start the video at the top of the piece and see for yourself.
As you can see, by returning to first, Holliday left no lane for the return throw from the shortstop, which arrived at first about the same time (A) Holliday was sliding back into the base, (B) Ellsbury was reaching first and (C) the first baseman was standing there awaiting the throw. The ball hit Ellsbury and rolled off, whereupon Ellsbury was ruled safe at first.
The Boston manager, John Farrell, came out of the dugout to complain. The rules forbid a runner who has been called out from interfering, intentionally or not, with an ongoing play. The rule certainly includes the case here; where Holliday should have ducked out of the baseline, he ran back to first, interfering with the first baseman's angle to catch the return throw. Ellsbury should have, by rule, been called out as well.
Bizarrely, however, the umpires ruled Ellsbury safe and called only one out (Holliday) on the play. Farrell asked them to reconsider, given, you know, the rules. So right there on the field, they called the MLB offices that handle replay reviews, but they asked not for a replay review but a review of the applicable rule. And the reply (they're in New York, by the way) was that the call was correct, even though the rule was pretty explicit (the inning went on and the Yankees failed to score anyway).
Farrell lodged a protest formally, which can be done only when the manager disagrees with the interpretation of a rule. There are not a lot of protests, and very few are upheld. The sarcastic soul in me thinks that's because the outcome of a sustained protest is to replay the game from that point, a logistic headache.
The Yankees went on to win the game in the 16th inning. Now, one could argue that since the Yankees ended up not scoring in the 11th, the protest was moot and should be dropped -- no harm, no foul. But that's certainly not true. Extra pitches were thrown, the batting order was affected and even if it didn't affect the Boston choice of pitchers, it shouldn't matter. [For the record, the Ellsbury at-bat was the first for the pitcher, Robbie Scott, who had been brought in after Holliday reached base. He only threw three more pitches to retire the side and was replaced for the next inning. Clearly the play did not affect the Boston bullpen, though it did create a one-position change in the Yankees' lineup turn.]
However, none of that (the small amount of change) should matter. The play was called incorrectly, as plenty of people familiar with the rule book have pointed out, and the MLB office got it wrong also. Baseball is a game that is hyperventilatingly finicky about integrity. It has put procedures in place to ensure that rule questions are properly resolved on the spot, and implemented protest rules that take into account that the answers from the office (in New York, did I mention that?) may be incorrect and a protest may be filed.
It will be interesting to see how they deal with it. To many of us, the protest should be sustained; the rules are pretty clear about the fact that what Holliday did was incorrect and that the remedy is for Ellsbury to have been called out at first on interference. For them to sustain the protest is to strike a blow for integrity in the game.
On the other hand, for them to reject the protest is frightening. Suppose it is rejected. What happens if you're an astute player who has reached first base in a game tomorrow, and a ground ball is hit that's an easy double play. You realize that immediately, stop, and as the ball is thrown to second to force you, you make your outline as big as possible, and head back to first, positioning yourself directly in the line of the throw.
The ball hits you, the batter is safe at first, and when the manager of the other team protests, you take out a copy of Farrell v. Holliday and say the magic word "precedent."
_ _ _
I hope that most of you realize this piece was not so much about baseball as about politics and life. The precedents set by the decisions of those with the power to decide are rock-solid when they come from the highest judicial authority. It is an awesome responsibility, for precedents are what guide the future.
Baseball can be an idiot sometimes. I hope they look a bit more forward here.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
No comments:
Post a Comment