Rays (Pepiot) vs Brewers (Wilson): 4/29/24, 6:40pm

[yourout]

3 hits and 12ks does not win many games.

[Bulldogboy]

Good pitching and of course no hitting. The mark of a team in trouble. This offense is rancid.

[Sixtolezcano]

I knew the offense would fall back to earth. But not like this.

[Simba2020]

I don't pretend to know the rules, but it seems to me that call makes sense. Sort of like the runner losing contact with second base and a double play is called even though there was no way they would have been able to turn the DP. I could easily see this being called catchers interference regardless of what happened to the ball.

[BruisedCrew]

I don’t have a current rule book but I’m sure it’s a situation where interference creates a dead ball with runners returning to their bases. 

And it’s hard to argue that a batter clocking the catcher in the head isn’t interference. It really stinks in the situation because the interference didn’t cause the catcher to let the pitch get by him.

[HarveysWBs]

So, is that situation with Bauers just umpire’s discretion? I have no idea what should happen in that case. I know the home call was sure it was wrong. I’m sure the ball was already past the catcher when the contact happened. And I’m sure the contact was inadvertent—and that the catcher moved of his own volition into the path of the backswing. If it’s truly a judgment call, then it was a bad one.

[BruisedCrew]

Despite his blind squirrel moment yesterday I hate having Bauers in the cleanup spot. To me it’s a sure sign of a weak offense. 

[treego14]

The Brewers were robbed by the MLB umpires!!!! ... no common sense there in the 9th inning at all!!! What a joke!!!!!!

[Simba2020]

3 minutes ago, Sixtolezcano said:

I knew the offense would fall back to earth. But not like this.

The early season highs were just too high so they needed exceptional lows to get us back to our normal lousy offense.

[BruisedCrew]

4 minutes ago, Simba2020 said:

I don't pretend to know the rules, but it seems to me that call makes sense. Sort of like the runner losing contact with second base and a double play is called even though there was no way they would have been able to turn the DP. I could easily see this being called catchers interference regardless of what happened to the ball.

I think that’s a good analogy. 

[sobomp3]

I think the point was that the only reason his back swing hit the catcher was because the catcher had already lost the ball and was lunging forward. 

[Baldkin]

4 minutes ago, BruisedCrew said:

I don’t have a current rule book but I’m sure it’s a situation where interference creates a dead ball with runners returning to their bases. 

And it’s hard to argue that a batter clocking the catcher in the head isn’t interference. It really stinks in the situation because the interference didn’t cause the catcher to let the pitch get by him.

Batters interference is absolutely a call. The umpires handled it correctly for that call. 

The problem is, the catcher dove forward a full foot to cause the contact, so it shouldn't have been called because the catcher was no longer in the catchers box (I think that's what it's called)

[BruisedCrew]

2 minutes ago, treego14 said:

The Brewers were robbed by the MLB umpires!!!! ... no common sense there in the 9th inning at all!!! What a joke!!!!!!

You’re wrong. 
 

The umpires know the rule and made the correct call. 

[adambr2]

Jake Bauers for his career is a MINUS 1.6 WAR player. 

When you're going to put a player like that in the cleanup spot, not for the first time, you kind of deserve for the game to end like that on you with him up and the game on the line. 

[Samurai Bucky]

This isn't the MLB rulebook, but...

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/backswing-interference/

Quote

9. If the backswing interference occurs in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner after a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead, and the batter declared out regardless of the location of the baseball at the time the backswing hits the catcher.

 

[Gump]

I’m going to think about the ending to this game till I fall asleep tonight. Unreal. 

[BruisedCrew]

24 minutes ago, Baldkin said:

Batters interference is absolutely a call. The umpires handled it correctly for that call. 

The problem is, the catcher dove forward a full foot to cause the contact, so it shouldn't have been called because the catcher was no longer in the catchers box (I think that's what it's called)

That’s quite a stretch to think the catcher thought “Oops, that ball got by me I think I’ll dive forward and hope I get hit in the head with the bat”.

If he doesn’t go after the ball quickly two runs would score. 

[Baldkin]

1 minute ago, BruisedCrew said:

That’s quite a stretch to think the catcher thought “Oops, that ball for by me I think I’ll dive forward and hope I get hit in the head with the bat”.

If he doesn’t go after the ball quickly two runs would score. 

What? No. I'm not saying that at all. 

Their catcher was all over the place and not blocking balls properly. He isn't good defensively. 

He literally dove forward to block the ball and was outside of his legal position. 

If this rule is called this way, if a catcher saw a guy start swinging, he can jump into his back swing and it's a strike. 

[TURBO]

These press conferences with Murphy and his grandkids are kind of weird.  And is that kid wearing a St. Louis hat?  C'mon man?

[long ball]

It looks like they got the call correct. It definitely is a bad break though.

a) the back swing contact didn't cause the ball to get by the catcher

b) the bat making contact with the catcher didn't benefit any of the 3 runners. they all would have easily advanced without the contact

c) the catcher lunged forward to field the ball in the dirt and contributed to the contact with the back swing. 

 

In the true spirit of the rule, there was no interference with the catchers ability to make the play. Side note... I kinda hate when guys let go of the bat with their top hand. 

[groyce]

Once the backswing contacted the catcher while the batter was in the box the ruling became clear. The plate umpire called it immediately. He got it right. 

[Jim French Stepstool]

37 minutes ago, Baldkin said:

What? No. I'm not saying that at all. 

Their catcher was all over the place and not blocking balls properly. He isn't good defensively. 

He literally dove forward to block the ball and was outside of his legal position. 

If this rule is called this way, if a catcher saw a guy start swinging, he can jump into his back swing and it's a strike. 

There's some validity to what you're saying. I can also see how it was called the way it was called. 

Despite the valid point you raise though, there's no way that argument would bear fruit unless our manager was Billy Martin. What sucks is that there was grey matter to both what happened tonight, and what happened yesterday. And we were left holding the bag both times.

To those of us who have seen 5 million baseball games, it's typical that you'd score 8 runs over two games & give up thirty, then the next day give up one & get shut out.

[Ignitor 4ever]

I disagree that the umpire got it right.  The catcher created the contact by getting out of normal catching position.  That is not interference.

[BruisedCrew]

I think the relevant rule is 6.01 (a) (1) which says that is interference by a batter or runner when:

“After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch.”

This rule specifically addresses the fact that the catcher did not catch the pitch, so the attempt to “feel the ball“ can only refer to his attempt to retrieve the ball that he didn’t catch.

[treego14]

52 minutes ago, BruisedCrew said:

You’re wrong. 
 

The umpires know the rule and made the correct call. 

Sorry, I agree with Pat Murphy on this one!

Murph knows this turf!

Umps' brains are make of nerf!