Asia Studios Massage
Toronto Escorts

amazing seventh inning

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,328
19
0
will go down in bluejay lore

inning lasted an hour


great calls by the umpires

two very difficult calls

1 throw by catcher back to pitcher that hit batters bat allowing run to score from third

there was no intent on batter to interfere and both batter and bat were in batters box so it was not interference


2 slide by Pompey to take out catcher

catcher has more rule protection than other infielders but Pompey took him out with slide to prevent double play

play was legal
 

Nad Smith

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
1,642
125
63
I have been watching baseball since 1958...played, coached, umpired.....and never saw the throwback to the pitcher affect a game since a pee wee game in the sixties when a 12 year old catcher threw the ball over the pitchers head and the winning run came in from third.....maybe a million to one play

but we came back after ranger infield had the yips and deserved the win. The mouth was wide open in the seventh not believing what I was seeing.
 

glamphotographer

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2011
16,312
16,124
113
Canada
After this game wonder what the TV ratings will be? The ALCS will now be night games with only 4 teams left.
 

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
Really glad the team picked up Russell Martin. He must have felt awful at the time.

I vaguely recall John Roseboro almost hit the batter (Juan Marishal) on a throwback to his pitcher. Some people say it was intentional because Marishal was throwing at Dodger hitters.
 

busterhut

Member
Oct 5, 2008
297
2
18
Really glad the team picked up Russell Martin. He must have felt awful at the time.

I vaguely recall John Roseboro almost hit the batter (Juan Marishal) on a throwback to his pitcher. Some people say it was intentional because Marishal was throwing at Dodger hitters.
Juan Marichal then hit Roseboro in the head with the bat in one of baseball's ugliest on field incidents.
 

destillat

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2001
2,795
42
48
mississauga
1 throw by catcher back to pitcher that hit batters bat allowing run to score from third

there was no intent on batter to interfere and both batter and bat were in batters box so it was not interference
After this point the Jays were playing the game under protest.
Does anyone know what would/could have happened if they ended up losing?
I'm guessing nothing would happen since the play ended up being legal?
If the play wasn't legal and the Jays lost, what would happen?
 

JohnHenry

Well-known member
Aug 27, 2003
1,303
263
83
rural ontario
I am still puzzled about that play. I don't have a problem with the ruling that the ball was still in play. but rather with the actions of the home plate umpire. He clearly stepped in front of the plate and waved his arms to indicate that the play was over. How is this different than hockey or football where the referee blows his whistle and afterwards a player takes a shot, or runs the football over the goal line; the goal or touchdown never counts even if the referee realizes in review that he was wrong.
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,591
215
63
The Keebler Factory
How is this different than hockey or football where the referee blows his whistle and afterwards a player takes a shot, or runs the football over the goal line; the goal or touchdown never counts even if the referee realizes in review that he was wrong.
Because in baseball umpires routinely award bases after the ball is dead. Different rules in different sports.
 

Nad Smith

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
1,642
125
63
Had the jays lost, the protest would have had to be ruled on within minutes or hours after the game ended. If by some miracle, the protest was allowed the game would have to resume from the point of time of the play..and I guess fans who had not lost their tickets would be back today to watch the `new`ending. In regular season, the commissioner office can take more time as the resumption could be scheduled for later in the year. Only time I can recall this was the George Brett pine tar case.

As some one who has been involved or watched as much as 10000 games in my lifetime (I am old)...I estimate I have seen more than a million throw backs to the pitcher - the most mundane thing in baseball other then the wave...and only twice have I seen it affect a game......Las Vegas should offer odds on it happening again
 

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
Having seen the replay several times I've surprise that this incident doesn't happen more often. You have a right hand throwing catcher and a left handed batter who holds his bat out at a right angle, there's only a narrow open path for the throw back ball to travel.
 

teassoc

New member
Mar 29, 2005
2,067
0
0
Having seen the replay several times I've surprise that this incident doesn't happen more often. You have a right hand throwing catcher and a left handed batter who holds his bat out at a right angle, there's only a narrow open path for the throw back ball to travel.
Rangers manager had seen that play before. Who knows maybe he told his guys to be aware of that kind of play in that exact situation, wave your bat around a bit, and who knows what might happen. I'd like to think that wasn't the case though.
 

ultistar

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2009
3,957
199
63
Had the jays lost, the protest would have had to be ruled on within minutes or hours after the game ended.
I think the Jays had a valid protest. The ump admitted that he made a mistake calling the play dead very early. The ball rolled towards Josh Donaldson, a former catcher like Gibbons and Banister, may have known the rule and made a play had the ump not wave the play dead.
The rule states that the ball is live until play is halted which the ump did call before the runner scored.
Good thing it was moot but I think we had a valid case.
 
Toronto Escorts