1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Utley single

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by HeinekenMan, Aug 2, 2006.

  1. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Because now they have to cover something outside of New York and Boston.
  2. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Seam sucker.
  3. HeinekenMan

    HeinekenMan Active Member

    I think the controversy stemmed from the initial ruling, which was that it was a fielder's choice because he opted to hold the runner rather than get the out. Since he threw the ball, however, that logic is out the window. It's a hit.

    Now, keep in mind, that I still haven't seen the play. But ignorance of the facts has never stopped me from posting in the past, by heavens. Why start now?
  4. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    If there had been no one on base, would the ball in play resulted in an out?
  5. beefncheddar

    beefncheddar Guest

    Here's the play:

    Utley hits a dribbler just to the third-base side of the mound. Left-handed pitcher goes after it and briefly looks to third for a possible play there. No play there, though, so he throws wide to first. Utley was busting ass down the line and appeared to beat the ball there, but it was verrrry close. Did appear, after replays though, that he beat the ball to the bag.

    Scoreboard flashed hit, but official scorer never ruled hit. In fact, his original ruling was FC. He then changed from FC to a hit.

    AP story says rulebook confirms that if player is safe because fielder looked to a base before throwing, it's a hit. "Smith cited section 10.06 of the Official Baseball Rules, which states that a hit should be scored when a fielder looks or feints at a base before throwing late."

    Became irrelevant with the 9th inning single, but if it wasn't a hit in the 8th, I'm not sure if Utley would have gotten a chance in the 9th. You wonder if some of the guys in front of him might have gotten tight, trying to get him back to the plate in the 9th.

    Either way, made for a pretty wild couple of minutes for this Phils phanboy.
  6. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Yes, it was. And there's the aforementioned Rule 10.06 (it's actually noted as an exception to Rule 10.06 in the book) to consider.
  7. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Hilarious that that is in the rulebook.

    What bullshit.

    Clearly, any extra time a fielder takes based solely because of a runner on base is a "fielder's choice."

    If no one is on, Utley is easily out.

    Baseball. I live for this.
  8. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Again, the throw was not wide to first. Pujols did pull his foot off the bag, but the throw was not wide enough (IMO) to make it an error. Utley was already past him regardless.

    Just passed: Rogers Hornsby, 33 games (1922)
    Next up: Luis Castillo, 35 games (2002)
  9. KYSportsWriter

    KYSportsWriter Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't say he'd easily be out. He was hauling ass down the line.

    And so looking back a runner at second on a grounder to short is considered an FC? I always thought it was just a F6?
  10. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    I'm saying... if you take extra time because you are looking him back, that is a choice you are making as a fielder.
  11. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Unless you then try to make the play on the batter, who beats your throw. Then he's earned a base hit.
  12. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    You take an extra second holding the ball.... and the guy deserves a hit?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page