White Sox Lose On Crazy Double Play Call
CHECK OUT OUR ELITE HITTING AND FIELDING COURSES! Click the link below to check out our swing course explaining our …
source
"Harmony in Every Heartbeat
November 7, 2024
Headlines
Get our FREE hitting drill by clicking the link below!
https://antonellibaseball.mykajabi.com/hittingdrill
I get it and your explanation is amazingly good. But, what’s weird is they called an infield fly rule it doesn’t matter if the guy even catches it. It’s a dumb rule. I don’t even like the White Sox. But, I feel if the batter is already out via infield fly rule, then there shouldn’t be any interference.
I don't question that the "right call" was made, per the rules. I do have a problem with the rule, however. It's not just that the baserunner didn't intentionally interfere (I agree trying to parse intentionality is a dangerous game to play), it's that there is zero evidence that what the runner did actually had an effect on the play . My god, what was the runner supposed to do? He clearly needed to tag up, he was just looking up in the air (probably to make sure he didn't get beaned in the head), and there is nothing that the runner could reasonably have been expected to do differently. That makes this a b*!!$#!+ rule, full stop.
I think it's an unfortunate call, but accurate.
I think a better outcome would be that the runner is out and the batter runner is placed on first. This would be the result of any other interference call on a batted ball. (For example in this exact situation of the iff was not in effect.)
The "interference" didn't impede or hinder the player from making the play. He was there with plenty of time to spare.
I love how the announcers say the game can't end like that. But it just did.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is why baseball is losing viewership and fans are not watching. This, and the strike zone, of course. Time to let the computer call balls and strikes like we can ALL see on TV …
BS example of umpires who feel they need to make a call so they can be the big man. The runner wasn't even looking at the ball; he was walking back to the bag. Baseball would be better served to include 'intent' in these kinds of interference calls …
I stopped watching at 1:26 because I was getting tired of hearing the narrator. I don't give a flying j as to how much baseball he watches.
I don't understand the basis for the call and therefore I'm not in a position to judge whether it was the right call or not.
I was waiting for the narrator to explain exactly what was the basis for the call and what the dispute was about.
But I only have so much patience to listen to a narrator who instead talks for the sake of talking without getting to the point.
Why not just run into a baserunner the next time an infield fly rule goes into effect? Easy double play.
Considering both players naturally crossed paths due to ordinary positioning (defensively and base running-wise), then both successfully navigated around each other so as to not impede the other, how in the hell is this interference?
Dumb and incorrect call.
The batter was already out due to the infield fly rule. Then he's out again for interference. So it's a double play on the same guy and he's reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaly out.
Bad call! Henderson ran towards the runner to draw the interference call. He knows the batter is out, but by drawing a near collision with the runner, draws the interference call too. Smart play by Henderson, bad umpiring.
this may technically be correct but it is very very very silly. it is never called.
You could’ve just stopped at “White Sox lose.” It’s a trend in 2024.
The interference should only be called when it might make a difference. The runner could have tripped the SS and he still would have caught the ball.
Im an umpire. thats a bad call. here is why. that might encourage in the future other infielders on any pop up. just to run into the base runner intentionally. . because shortstops are always moving around behind the bae runner trying to pick him off.
Mr. Antonelli, thank you for a lucid explanation of the rule. Assuming you are correct as you state the rule, then it is the right call.
Poor White Sox just can't win for losing this year.
No way is that interference. The shortstop took a step in the wrong directoin, and only for that reason was the runner in his path in the first place. If he had gone in the right direction off the bat, then the runner isn't in his way. If you allow defensive poor play to trigger interference, that lets infielder deliberate run into the runner just to create an interference call.
So did the game technically end while the ball was still in the air before Henderson caught it?
I still think that if this was the correct call by the letter something needs to be rewritten or clarified in the rules because I don’t think this violated the spirit of the rule.
Well now you’ve seen it twice lol
This is EXACTLY the kind of play that happens when your team is 14-40 or whatever the White Sox were when this happened. You won't see this happen to the Phillies to end a game they were losing 8-6 in the first place and etc.
MLB contacted the White Sox and told them that the umpires made the wrong call and he did not interfere
If something as unintentional and inconsequential as this is getting called interference, then every single time a runner breaks up the double play should be interference without question.
Sad thing is, the runner didn't even know exactly where the SS was. He certainly didn't try to interfere. I guess the moral of the story is….if you're gonna be called for interference then you might as well go all out and pants the fielder while you're at it…..and trip him up as well!
Maybe it just was not enough of a hindrance to be interference, but assuming it was interference, you should have discussed what the runner even could have done differently to avoid interference. If runner had stood still, likely it would have been more of a hindrance to the fielder than what he did which was move away from the ball. Maybe the runner should have known the fielder was behind him and should have moved forward before heading back to the base, but maybe that could have hindered the fielder even more than first moving back toward the base as the runner did which was moving away from where the ball was going. Maybe you just cannot teach baserunners "rules" on how to avoid interference, just tell them to use their judgment and move away from the infielder's path to the ball, which means watch the ball and infielder and figure out which way the infielder needs to go to the ball, also, realize that there will be situations where the runner just cannot find a way to avoid hindering. I bet Javy Baez is so smart about baserunning and being an infielder, that he would find a way to avoid the interference.