Cubs up 1-0...bases loaded with two out in the top of the first. Gonzalez getting squeezed like a zit
Was he named after Gio Gonzalez?
Nothing says what shouldn't happen in a playoff game like a run scored on a passed ball.
Well I was a wild pitch, but Wieters should have blocked it.
Looks like Scherzer will come in for the 5th.
Well, that's backfiring edSent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Wow. Nationals falling apart now Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Now a bit by pitch to score a run. I can't believe what I'm seeing Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You apparently didn't watch our 2013 Astros.
Oh, I did. But this is the playoffs, bit different standards to say the least Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Wait a minute. That wasn't a playoff team in 2013?!
Wow. The Nets are playing like dog shit.Dog shit might actually be offended...
Jeff Passan on Twitter: “The last four Cubs have reached base on an intentional walk, a passed-ball strikeout, catcher's interference and a hit by pitch.”Follow up tweet: “I am willing to bet never before in baseball history have four batters in a row reached on this sequence of events. ”Baseball Reference tweets in response: “None of the 2.73m half innings in our db have even had all 4 of these events. 22 w/ 3. Only 5 games had all 4.”
Hate seeing replay used this way.
That replay didn't prove shit, but they still turned it over.
Now that video replay is so prevalent, MLB needs a rule change that makes the area over the bag safe territory - kinda like "breaking the plane" in football.
I only had a quick look at it and had to leave. Nothing definitive but they overturned it?
It's weird how every so often a playoff game comes around like this where both teams take turns screwing things up. Like an anti-playoff game. Hell, the HPU got drilled in the mask on a cross up fastball AFTER a breaking ball bounced in front of the plate and knocked his mask off. Weird juju in DC.The FTC pen was a complete mess and they get out of the 8th with only one batted ball producing an out.And just like that they may be nails the next time out.
I wasn't paying that much attention to the game, did the HPU give the FTC's catcher a clip on the chin?
Yes, he did. (Mostly) in jest, but more than just a little brush, too.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
I don't remember seeing so many Ace starters pitch from the pen before. Are there more off-days between games this year allowing starters more down-time? They have sometimes spit the bit. Shit, Washington is throwing the ball around out there.
So I've been doing some thinking on the third strike/passed ball episode in the 5th, and there is something interesting at play here. Older versions of this rule say:In 2013, the rule was changed slightly to say:See the difference? Now, umpire Jerry Layne said he didn't call the batter interference because the ball was already passed Wieters, and it didn't affect Wieters's attempt to make a play on the pitched ball. That seems to be the intent of the older version of the rule. But the current version of the rule doesn't say that part. It just says if the backswing hits the catcher it's a dead ball. The Nats may have had a legitimate beef on that one. Would have been interesting had Dusty protested that game.
Thanks. I could not figure out what Weiters was getting at.
Wieters said after the game that Layne told him batter interference only applies on a steal, but that is just false. I don't know if Wieters misunderstood Layne's explanation, or if Layne simply explained it to him wrong. Either way, this was a potential misapplication of the rule by the umpires, and grounds for protesting the game. I'm kind of surprised that Baker did not.
