Posted on 11/01/2025 7:55:47 AM PDT by Az Joe
Game 6 of the World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and Toronto Blue Jays ended with one of the most controversial calls you’ll see on this stage.
Video
https://x.com/iam_johnw/status/1984457722763624470?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1984457722763624470%7Ctwgr%5Ed777259df871c69c151a4e31b131f6fc9f594b0d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthespun.com%2Fmlb%2Fmlb-accused-of-rigging-world-series-after-dead-ball-decision
Just admit you didn’t know the rule (See Post 12), and be done with it.
The 1845 Knickerbocker rules...maybe you are exaggerating a tad..?
Agreed. On top of that, Toronto still had an opportunity to win the game, had the offense performed. That play didn’t end the game.
Very quick thinking on the part of the fielder. Strictly speaking a good call but not exactly clean.
It was basically a ground rule double.
Reminds me of the Don Denkinger (spits on the ground) blown call in the 1985 World Series. A bad (we’re talking really really bad) call opened the door. The Royals got an extra chance and took advantage of it. Not cheating or rigged. Just a plain old dumba$$ ump messing up a call.
Agreed...Once the ball is "stuck", regular play is stopped...otherwise it becomes a discussion of how hard was it stuck etc...and endless argument.
The outfielder when seeing the ball lodged at the base of the wall immediately put up his arms signaling to the umpires that the ball was lodged.
The Fox announcer mentioned it was a heads up play by the outfielder because if he didn’t do that and attempted to play the ball they would then lose the right of having it ruled a dead ball. It was the right call.
it’s the rule
A way to "exploit" the rules.
Obviously, he wasn't playing the game the way it was intended to be played. But he's getting paid millions. He's a professional.
Don’t ground rules vary from park to park?
As I recall there was an orange line on the Shea Stadium outfield wall. If the ball hit above the line it was a home run even if it bounced back into the field of play.
I clicked through to read the full article and watch the embedded video.
It seems the outfielder played it correctly by not touching the ball when it got wedged under the wall and the umpire made the correct call according to the rule as it is written.
It would be nice if judges would do the same and interpret our laws as they are written.
NO, it did not roll into the fence, it landed there on the fly with force and lodged into the fence. Had it rolled, it would have been slower moving, or had it bounced from the wall, the outfielder could have reached it much more quickly in either case, affecting the game play. As it was, it gave an unfavorable advantage to the runners. The ability to reach the ball does not affect the ruling, per the rules. The outfielder made the very smart play on a technical issue. It really helps to know the rules, both for players and fans. That’s why baseball is truly “the thinking man’s game.”
Wrong, if it had hit but not lodged, it would have bounced or rolled quickly back to the outfielder. The lodging was a disadvantage to quick retrieval. Even a second’s difference can make or break a win.
Please don’t be stupid and add to the conspiracy BS. The ball did not bounce off the wall. It was lodged into the wall. Clearly. That’s a dead ball, ground rule double case closed. I’ve played outfield in baseball. I would have done the same thing rather than make any effort to retrieve the ball. The call was made immediately.
“...it would have bounced or rolled quickly back to the outfielder. The lodging was a disadvantage to quick retrieval.”
You will have to explain that. I have seen baseballs bounce off the walls and the fielder had to chase it down which sometimes took some doing. I have seen it bounce into the fielders glove once, and it amazed me. In this case, the ball was immbolized; it seemed to have caught under the edge of the plastic padding. All the fielder had to do was walk up and pick it up. But no, he turned around and tried to look helpless.
The only way anyone can think this was legitimate was if the person is a Dodgers fan.
“...as opposed to play it off the wall with a predictable bounce, the runners were able to advance further.”
Predictable bounce. You must be kidding.
That is ALSO "an effect on further play".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.