The Washington Nationals, as unappealing as ever
Roger Cormier enjoys a comedy of errors in interpreting the rules because it’s funny in baseball; Addy Baird is sick of MLB.tv’s ad reel
It’s the law
By Roger Cormier
I'm the worst kind of baseball rule geek: I nerd out on complicated once-in-a-generation scenarios requiring a knowledge of the entire MLB rulebook, but don't know all of the rules myself. I also straight up root for the announcers to be totally confused and wrong when trying to figure out what's going on (they usually oblige). So I enjoyed the hell out of the absurd play that went down in the nation's capital last Wednesday. Even better: it cost the Washington Nationals the game.
There was one out in the top of the 5th inning. The Pirates had runners on second (Hoy Park) and third (Jack Suwinski). Ke’Bryan Hayes lined out to Nats first baseman Josh Bell. Bell threw to third baseman Ehire Adrianza, who tagged Park for the third out. The Nationals left the field. Pirates manager Derek Shelton argued with the umps that Bell didn't catch the ball. He did. Then the umps signaled that Suwinski scored. What in the what?
Record scratch, freeze frame, and all of that.
Nationals manager Davey Martinez was obviously upset and confused, never a winning combination. He was told that if the Nats had indicated they were appealing at third, then Adrianza had touched third with the ball, then Suwinski, who did not tag up because he thought Bell didn't catch it, would be out, and his run wouldn't count. But Adrianza tagged Park, and he did so after Suwinski crossed home plate, and the Nationals already walked off the field, and apparently if you do that you can't come back to make an appeal play. Martinez was literally told his team had to and failed to get a fourth out to keep Pittsburgh from scoring. The Nationals ended up losing by one.
This is insane. It's also the law. Rule 5.09(c)(4) baby:
"Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play. If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half-inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field.
"An appeal is not to be interpreted as a play or an attempted play. Successive appeals may not be made on a runner at the same base. …
"Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent 'fourth out.' If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.
"For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has 'left the field' when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or Clubhouse."
Got it?
It's confusing, but it makes sense. If you tag a guy as the third out after a runner scores, the run should count. If a team leaves the playing field, they shouldn't be allowed to come back and make an appeal play.
Now, what if the Nationals decide that the rule needs to be changed because it doesn't help them. And what if a majority of the rules committee ideologically believed that Washington should always have the advantage, so they just change a long-standing rule the majority of the teams are fine with? That's what happened and is happening with the Supreme Court (you might have been ahead of me there). After abolishing Roe v. Wade and loosening gun restrictions, they're going to rule on Moore v. Harper. There's a strong possibility — it all comes down to what Amy Comey Barrett decides — that the court will allow state legislatures to decide who wins elections. All of the battleground states in the previous federal elections have Republican legislatures. A lot of SCOTUS decisions and POTUS executive orders have threatened to be The End of Democracy. But this just might do it. Kind of exciting to live in these times. Exciting might be the wrong word.
I find relief in knowing there are long-standing rules in baseball that aren't going to change (unless it helps speed the game the fuck up), and that every team is beholden to them. It makes Major League Baseball a welcome escape from the real world. Until Civil War II causes realignment.
There Are Only Four Commercials On MLB.tv And I Hate Every Single One Of Them
An Ode To The Baseball Moments of Zen
By Addy Baird
Let’s first just address the commercials on MLB.tv for MLB.tv. Some of these are okay, like the Mookie Betts one, but, because Major League Baseball hates me personally, the ones I am forced to watch most often are the Giancarlo Stanton and Gerrit Cole “Catch me on MLB.tv” ads, both of which are just Yankees highlights reels. I hate them! I hate the Yankees, and I really hate Gerrit Cole. I would like an option to mark these commercials as offensive to me.
As usual, Gary Cohen says it best:
Between these Yankees hype videos, I've been subjected to some Meta propaganda lately that’s like “you’ll never believe it, but these children haven’t actually gone back in time, they’re just in the Metaverse!” MLB.tv has been playing this one on a loop lately — literally three times in a row, multiple times a game — and it’s starting to like, Jokerify me.
The whole thing is trying to make living in the Metaverse seem really awesome and moral, and while I confess that I guess it seems good for surgeons to practice surgery in VR, it does seem like that would be pretty different than doing surgery in real life, and also it seems really bad to me to live in a fake reality controlled by Facebook, based on all the evidence we have from, you know, currently living in a fake reality controlled by Facebook.
Speaking of Jokerifying, there’s been a spate of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association advertisements in the last couple weeks, and sorry, but I just simply do not believe that an insurer that gave at least one CEO a 109% raise — while premium costs continued to rise during a global pandemic — is truly that invested in making health care more affordable.
And then there is Naked Wines. This has been a fresh and frequent addition to the rotation, and it feels literally so inappropriate it’s… I don’t even know what to say. I’m talking about the one with the adult man in the baby carrier strapped on the chest of a bigger dude while he plays tennis, while the baby man talks about how middlemen make wine more expensive. Or something. I can hardly understand it, because my entire brain goes blank watching this bizarre, terrifying scene that I did not consent to viewing.
MLB Advanced Media, if you’re reading this… please, please, never fix that glitch where sometimes the commercials just randomly mute themselves.
