Still a ground rule double. By hitting the outfielder's head, it's a fair ball in play. If it had bounced over the wall in fair territory (recall Jose Canseco) it would have been a home run. But by bouncing into the seats foul, it has to be a ground rule double. -- Matt
--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Ray Salemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Ray Salemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Ripken To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 5:46 PM Here's a rule question I think we resolve in the office. Bay's ground-rule double hit the ground fair and bounced into the stands in foul territory for a ground rule double. What if it had high the right fielder in the head in fair territory and gone into the stands in the same spot without touching the ground? Ray On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Steve Gendron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ripken made the point that whenever there is a collision at the plate the umpire always waits to see if the catcher is still holding the ball before making the out call - so why should this be any different? However, I think the difference is that if the collision causes the ball to come loose, then the runner would be safe. But in this case, the runner was tagged, Varitek was in control and the subsequent fall caused the ball to come loose. If the ball came loose in the act of tagging, the runner would have been safe, but that obviously was not the case. By the way, I thought Eck seemed a little nervous on the TBS broadcast. Not quite crisp as I'm used to hearing him on NESN. From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Salemi Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dave Campbell is a tool Cal Ripken raised a point on the post game. He didn't go as far as say he should be safe, but he asked what about when there's a collision at teh plate. If the catcher falls back after the collision and drops the ball, the runner would be called safe. No one had an answer as to why teh calls would be differnet. The anchor guy said maybe it's because the runner dislodged the ball as he tried to get to teh base. I don't see a controversy. The runner was called out five or six feet down teh basepath. As for Campbell, so what? So what if we'd be outraged. We're going to base calls on whether or not they upset the fans?? Aybar blew it (and I think Scoscia frankly overmanaged.) THe ump was fine. Scoscia only cried for 10-20 seconds. For a manager who gripes about every ball and strike it came across as a clearly just-for-show argument. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Beaudoin, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is no controversy for anyone but disgruntled Angels fans. When in doubt, ask a non-partisan baseball fan. Even Yankee fans would agree with the call. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Ouellette Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:36 AM To: Red Sox Citizens Subject: Dave Campbell is a tool He's on the radio going on and on about how the runner should have been safe after the missed squeeze bunt because Varitek dropped the ball after the tag. How Boston would be in an uproar if a similar call had been made against the Sox. He had the ball. He tagged the runner. He stumbled a couple of steps, fell, hit the ground and the ball popped out. Where is the controversy? Steve O -- Blog: http://blog.raysalemi.com "Why should a sequence of words be anything but a pleasure?" - Gertrude Stein --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
