Peter -
You're not making any sense. As for my understanding, when "such wild throw" is NOT the first play by an infielder - as was the case tonight - the umpire "shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made." Are you telling me the umps got it right that Reimold wasn't at 2nd when the throw was made? Shouldn't matter if he rounded 2nd base hard (and in fact, he shouldn't have, he should have stayed at 2nd), he should have been awarded home plate. Am I wrong?

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: You're right that it shouldn't make any difference how hard he was running. All that matters is whether he had passed second base before the ball left the outfielder's hand. The replay is not conclusive since they've not shown one that has both Reimold and Gutierrez in the same frame. If I was to guess, I would think he got there based on how he was running when the camera leaves him to focus on center field, but you don't get to see for sure. Everyone is assuming since the umpire apparently said that Reimold didn't run hard into second that he was saying that was the reason he doesn't get to score. It might be he was saying that he should have run harder so he would have been on second when the ball was thrown.

Who's ready to see Tillman or Matusz instead of Guthrie go and pitch like that? I know that I am, for one.

What the heck happened to Guthrie? I came up to my PC to check to see if you had anything to say about the umps ruling on the errant throw (which you did, thanks for not letting me down) and next thing I know Hendrickson's in. Palmer did mention several times early in the game that Guthrie didn't look right. Tillman, welcome to the bigs (after the break and the Futures Game).

Peter:
Was there any talk about Luke Scott being passed over for the All-Star Game? Seems to me his numbers better Zobrist's, and it's not like TB was hurting for All-Stars.

...........................................................................................
Pete's reply: Haven't heard much. Joe Maddon's team won the pennant and that's one of the things you get for winning the year before.

Hallion sure looks like he's having fun back there tonight. Don't pull a muscle.

Peter,

It seemed to me both live and in the replays that as the camera followed the ball to the outfield you can see Reimold almost to second base, and as it followed Gutierrez's throw back in Reimold was stopped past second watching the flight of the ball ready to advance or retreat as necessary.

I can see how the umpires may not have seen Reimold at second before the throw, and therefore cannot change that call once they make it (since MLB hasn't evolved to the point of admitting official fallibility and expanding replay). However, that also means we cannot change our call on how poor a decision was made.

I loved the fracas, though; especially the "taped live and uncensored" version shown on MASN...

Umpires, umpires, umpires, when is MLB going to find some? It's the same old problem. Now these 4 will move to TB or Cincy and this will all be forgotten. Noone has to answer for anything. Nobody pays. These guys laff themselves to sleep every night knowing they are untouchable. DT finally showed he had a set of baytsim.

What I don't understand is why did Trembly go back to the dugout and let the game continue before going back out to argue with the umpire?
What I think happended was that there was poor coordination between the third base coach and Reimold. Reimold thought the throw was cut off so he stopped at second base.
Bottom line, Dave Trembly is on the hot seat for O's baserunning and this play happened right after Adam Jones failed to run out a bloop single thinking it was foul. After this play, the umpire touched a nerve by saying Reimold wasn't running hard and Trembly took it personally. For that, Trembly is to blame and his tirade didn't help the team one bit.

I saw the Mariners' broadcast and their replay certainly seemed to show Reimold past the bag

The most distressing thing about the call, according to articles, is the umpires did not seem to initally know the rule....

I don't have a problem with the Trembley tirade since he shows more passion for the game than half his players, however, if he thinks the umpires misinterpreted a rule that cost his team a run he needs to OFFICIALLY play the game under protest.

Cameron, Trembley couldnt play the game under protest because the umpires werent saying anything that was wrong by the rulebook, they were saying that he hadnt reached 2nd base yet which is a judgement call. You cant protest a game on a judgement call, only calls where the manager thinks the umpires have gotten a rule wrong.

You are correct Chris. Even though the judgement call was wrong, I hope Reimold's teammates understand that his proper baserunning put the team in a position to benefit if the umpires had got it right. Too many of the other guys would have jogged to second because of an assumption that they were not going to advance past that base.

It was nice of SportsCenter to show the play when they showed the highlights of the game this morning. Oh wait, neither of those happened.

If you look closely at the replay of the errant throw last night that led to the ejection, you'll see that Reimold wasn't even remotely near the viewing window of the 2nd base ump. That guy was looking to his left and Reimold had already passed him. Trembley was exactly correct in saying that the umpires lied about what they saw. My take on this is that the 2nd base ump should have been watching 2nd base and Reimold (duh), but instead chose to watch the flight of the ball to home --- who knows why. If he said he saw that Reimold was not at 2nd when the throw was made, he fabricated it. He should have said, I didn't see it.

Pete,

Put on your manager's hat, please.

Educate me, please. It has to do with the tried and true baseball axiom of “staying out of the big inning”. I offer an alternate strategy.

Situation; bases loaded, none out. Most teams play at DP depth, so that they can get one if they get a ground ball. OK. Say a ground ball is hit. Turn two. Run comes in, man on third and two out. Say there’s a base hit. Run scores. Result: man on first, two runs in, two out. Say there’s a ground out. One run scores total.

Alternate strategy. Play the infield normally. Same ground ball. Throw to home for the force-out. If the catcher can go to first for the DP, so be it, but let’s say they just get one out. Bases are still loaded, one out. No runs in. Then a ground ball for a DP means that NO runs score. But if that same single follows the ground ball, like in the first example, then you either get one run or two, depending on the direction and speed of the hit.

My point is that you still need a hit to get in a run in either scenario. The first scenario, with the hit, assures that two runs score. The second scenario --- my strategy --- could produce zero runs.

Now I know that they play it the tried-and-true way so that a couple back-to-back singles don’t lead to three runs and the “big inning”, but I think that’s playing for the worst expectations. If a manager always plays the game expecting his pitcher to give up multiple hits in a row, then that’s just dumb.

Agree?

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Not exactly, because I think the depth of the infield varies depending on who's hitting. Manager's don't always play at double-play depth. I also don't know if there's often a safe play at home at normal depth. That's why teams play the infield up if they want to get someone at home.

You missed my major point. The major point is why not go for the forceout most of the time instead of occasionally? How many times have you heard "looks like they're going to give up a run to get the DP and avoid the big inning." And all I say is why is that the standard?

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I can't answer that. Just one of the things manager's generally do, but they don't do it all the time.

At least 99% they do. I don't think they have ever thought through the string of actions that I presented. Maybe you can ask DT one day.

............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I will do that.