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

[treego14]

55 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

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. 

Bauers has mystical powers!

You will see ... unless you're blocked by a tree!

[treego14]

43 minutes ago, TURBO said:

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

I love it!  Be nice to children and grandpas!

[treego14]

19 minutes ago, groyce said:

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. 

IF so, then the rule is quite wrong ... it eliminates all common sense here!

[Lostpawn]

So if the batter hits the catcher’s mitt when swinging forward, it’s catcher’s interference. But if the batter hits the catcher’s helmet on the backswing, it’s batter's interference. Despite both situations being caused by the catcher’s poor positioning. 
 

Gotta love the nuances of the MLB rulebook. Oh well. Freddy day tomorrow, go Crew!

[Jim French Stepstool]

1 hour ago, Bulldogboy said:

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

Even though Pepiot was excellent tonight, I won't defend them getting shut out. But they scored 22 runs in their last 4 games before today. What they could really use is Yelich back & hitting 3rd. That moves others back, fleshes out the middle of the order more & (you would hope) puts Bauers in the bottom 3rd of the order when he plays.

We don't know to what extent Yelich will be in & out of the lineup this year. But if he gets a substantial amount of ABs & Chourio gets comfortable , check back.

[shanedog19]

I’m over Jake Bauers and would rather have Tyler Black take those at bats.

[BrewerFan]

1 hour ago, BruisedCrew said:

You’re wrong. 
 

The umpires know the rule and made the correct call. 

....No.

They did not. They very clearly made the wrong call. 

[BrewerFan]

36 minutes ago, treego14 said:

Sorry, I agree with Pat Murphy on this one!

Murph knows this turf!

Umps' brains are make of nerf!

What did Murphy say exactly?

That ball was past the catcher when contact was made. The incidental contact did NOT obstruct the catcher from getting to it.

[wiguy94]

Just now, BrewerFan said:

What did Murphy say exactly?

That ball was past the catcher when contact was made. The incidental contact did NOT obstruct the catcher from getting to it.

It doesn't matter. Once the bat hits the catcher in the head the play is dead so no runners can advance.

[BrewerFan]

4 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

It doesn't matter. Once the bat hits the catcher in the head the play is dead so no runners can advance.

Well...if so, then I fundamentally do not understand that rule.

I'm not confident enough to argue, but it's a stupid rule if that's right. 

1-Incidental

2-Didn't impact the catcher

3-The catcher causes the contact by lunging forward trying to block it.

But...I guess I'll take your word for it.

[wiguy94]

4 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Well...if so, then I fundamentally do not understand that rule.

I'm not confident enough to argue, but it's a stupid rule if that's right. 

1-Incidental

2-Didn't impact the catcher

3-The catcher causes the contact by lunging forward trying to block it.

But...I guess I'll take your word for it.

Straight from the rulebook, 

"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 ball in the 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"

It's very cut and dry. The umps made the right call.

[Jim French Stepstool]

9 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

What did Murphy say exactly?

That ball was past the catcher when contact was made. The incidental contact did NOT obstruct the catcher from getting to it.

He made the exact point you just made. He leaned on the idea of the contact not affecting the ball going back to the screen, and he's correct about that. But 'dead ball' was called immediately. The frustration is in the fact that the contact didn't affect anything that subsequently transpired.

[BrewerFan]

3 minutes ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

He made the exact point you just made. He leaned on the idea of the contact not affecting the ball going back to the screen, and he's correct about that. But 'dead ball' was called immediately. The frustration is in the fact that the contact didn't affect anything that subsequently transpired.

Can we just ignore the damn rule and still complain about it!

 

God that's stupid! I suspect it was never intended for that type of situation...oh well. 

[Jim French Stepstool]

12 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Can we just ignore the damn rule and still complain about it!

 

God that's stupid! I suspect it was never intended for that type of situation...oh well. 

It would be nice if there was an element of common sense baked in.......or if replay could get involved & subsequently place runners, as in "Yes, batter's out on interference, but it occured after the PB or WP, therefore..........."

I might have to look up the ins-and-outs on fan interference. Maybe buy a Diamond Box season ticket, take a bat with me, and fling it at Contreras every time a ball goes past him & a runner(s) is going to advance.

[Outlander]

5 hours ago, Lostpawn said:

So if the batter hits the catcher’s mitt when swinging forward, it’s catcher’s interference. But if the batter hits the catcher’s helmet on the backswing, it’s batter's interference. Despite both situations being caused by the catcher’s poor positioning. 
 

Gotta love the nuances of the MLB rulebook. Oh well. Freddy day tomorrow, go Crew!

It is not interference, just a dead ball and a strike. I know Rock kept on saying Bauers should be able to go to first but simply is a strike and dead ball. If the ump knows the rules, which he did, it is an easy call.

[WV Brew]

I don't believe this is as cut and dried as the umpires are making it out to be.  If you notice, there is a chalked area where the catcher is supposed to stand.  The catcher clearly moves forward and to the right, I would say, encroaching on the batter's box.  In that case, the catcher is the one interfering.  The rule the umpires cited assumes the catcher is in a legal position.  It is at least arguable.  The umpires did not even consider this point judging by their comments.  You can think of extreme positions taken by catchers where this would be more obvious but it is at least a judgment call.

[Outlander]

That's the thing, it is cut and dry. Sucks for the Brewers but umpires not given much judgement here 

[BruisedCrew]

7 hours ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

He made the exact point you just made. He leaned on the idea of the contact not affecting the ball going back to the screen, and he's correct about that. But 'dead ball' was called immediately. The frustration is in the fact that the contact didn't affect anything that subsequently transpired.

He also said, correctly, that he doesn’t know everything. 

He was dead wrong in saying the umpire made the wrong call because he does not know about the comment in the rule (quoted in a post above) that specifically addresses this situation.

If you want, you can complain that the comment should have an exception for a situation in which the ball gets past the catcher before the batter hits him with the bat. But, where would you draw the line on that? 

In this case the ball squirted behind the catcher and whether or not the runner on third could score would depend on how well the runner recognized where the ball was, how fast he is, how quickly the catcher recovers the ball, and whether the pitcher comes in to cover the plate.

 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

9 hours ago, treego14 said:

I love it!  Be nice to children and grandpas!

I don't think Turbo was making this point, but I find it laughable when people have complained about kids at the press conferences. Nothing of value comes of those. My favorite is when it's called "unprofessional."

[BruisedCrew]

There have been a lot of comments about how the catcher moved forward and into Bauers’ swing path.

While that is irrelevant according to the comment to the rule as written, I’m not sure it is even factually accurate. 
 

I looked at the play again, and in the side view you can really see how exaggerated Bauers’ follow through was as he let go of the bat with one hand. The catcher had to slide to his right to block the pitch, but it doesn’t look like he moved forward much as the umpire is still right behind him. He really falls forward after he gets hit in the head. 
 

 

[Jim French Stepstool]

7 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

 

If you want, you can complain that the comment should have an exception for a situation in which the ball gets past the catcher before the batter hits him with the bat. But, where would you draw the line on that?

 

 

You make your call. The manager on the short end argues. After the inevitable umpire huddle it goes to review. Someone in NY either sees that the ball got away before the interference & the runner would've easily scored from 3rd, or he is heavily medicated. As the rule is written, that makes no difference since the ball is dead. So what would've happened, conk on the head or not, becomes moot. It's not reviewable. Would've been nice if it was.

I think Murphy handled himself pretty well, considering what transpired the last two days.

 

[Jim French Stepstool]

1 hour ago, BruisedCrew said:

There have been a lot of comments about how the catcher moved forward and into Bauers’ swing path.

While that is irrelevant according to the comment to the rule as written, I’m not sure it is even factually accurate. 
 

I looked at the play again, and in the side view you can really see how exaggerated Bauers’ follow through was as he let go of the bat with one hand. The catcher had to slide to his right to block the pitch, but it doesn’t look like he moved forward much as the umpire is still right behind him. He really falls forward after he gets hit in the head. 
 

 

Agreed. I've caught a lot of years, was a catching instructor, and know of nothing in the books about a catcher lunging forward causing interference. 

He might've moved forward a little, but the contact was all on Bauers.

[pitchleague]

A few days late, but does anybody know how to listen to archives of the Brewers radio pre-game shows?  On tonight's broadcast, I missed the pregames shows but Uecker and Lane were cracking each other up before and after first pitch because of some comment Ueck made about "Larry Cox."  I wanted to hear the rest of the story because it sounded like it might have been pretty funny.

I know it's a long shot, but maybe somebody knows something that I don't know.