Simply cant take your SP out early, Maddon. Your bullpen outside of Strop and Davis ****ing sucks.

Sac bunt with no advancement.

Strategy!

Dude is married to 2nd base.

If they aren’t gonna enforce the rule on that then just get rid of the rule. Which I would be fine with.

That rule is dumb but it’s the rule. Suck it Cubs.
Just like a guy beating a throw to the bag but his foot barely comes off.

Completely agree with Darling

5 minutes to figure it out and another couple minutes for Maddon to complain about it.

If I was Maddon I would of told the umps they better get the commissioner on the phone because I am not leaving the field.

Dumb rule.

Does anyone really care about Buster Posey any more?

Yes it’s dumb but just like last game for the Cubs when they benefited from replay.

That rule sucks and is good at the same time. If its not in place, we get a old school football play.

Gayest ****ing rule, **** mlb for ruining the game.

first one is dumb, 2nd one is not, thats just the right ****ing call, there is no grey area in that call, if you arent touching the bag you are either out or safe. no wiggle room there.

Maddon should have just STFD and STFU. He's at home if not for the umps blowing the strikeout call against Baez.

Cubs gettin outplayed so far, but that safe call was true horseshit.

Neighborhood play? That was part of baseball for over 100 years. ****ing get rid of replay it’s ruining the game.

Maddon: say hey blue, that’s not cooool.

Are you talking about the one that reads "in the umpires judgement"?

Catcher leans in to a back swing to block a ball that he completely whiffs on and you want to call that a strike and dead ball even though the ball is 40 feet away? Was the catcher impaired in any way on that play? Nope.

Do you honestly want to believe that the rule in question wasn't specifically written to prevent a runner from taking a base in the event that the catcher was hit squarely in the head or the back preventing him from making any kind of play for the next couple minutes at least.

For **** sake you might as well start asking your catcher to take one for the team every now and then in critical situations like you do a batter for dropping an elbow on a pitch thats a ball by an inch.

Nice ass on that bullpen girl.

It was dumb for over 100 years.

Like my second girlfriend? LMAO

lol, I liked too.

http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/media/20...PicardOops.gif

things change, just like it changes in football and basketball. I rather them get the play right then, well, he was close enough! Also, if a guy slide over a bad and the ref seen it, he was out. So why cant a replay do that? If a ump see's the guy lift his foot off the base guess what? he's going to call im out too. Sometimes umps miss things. I dont mind if they get them correct. Its not like they challenge 5 play a game, its very limited.

Doesn't matter much in the end because the Cubs aren't even going to get 4 runs to tie what would have been the score.

My only issue with the call is that the runner didn't make contact with Contreras' leg before Contreras had the ball. Did Contreras make a move to block the plate before he had the ball? Ya. But did he have the ball when the block was made? Yup.

As long as there are Umps behind the plate calling balls and strikes the "neighborhood play" shall remain. Some neighborhoods bigger than others.

Not too late to clutch onto last year's trophy for warmth... should you not remember how to... actually hit pitches, and stuff..

Let's do this, Cubbies. wake the **** up! :o(

If the Cubs cant get at least 6 innings out of their starters or Maddon simply wont let them try then they are going to get swept.

For some reason Puig is under the impression he hit a postseason HR a few years ago.

It doesn't read that interference is in the umpire's judgment, you lying bastard; it says that the runners shall return to the last base safely touched in the umpire's judgement.

Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) Comment (Rule 6.06(c) and (d) Comment): If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

It doesn't say "shall call interference if the umpire believes he was interfered with," it says, "shall call interference."

"If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play."

The ball is ****ing dead, either way. Dead.

Let me help you out here.

There is no way that rule is intended to be called on that play.

Oh and also... lets take a gander at the paragraph ignored below what you quoted and above the red box in the tweet.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I don&#39;t want to be an alarmist, but... it would appear they seriously messed that up. <a href="https://t.co/0aABJlzGkC">pic.twitter.com/0aABJlzGkC</a></p>&mdash; Jeff Long (@JeffLongBP) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffLongBP/status/918663182075523072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Glad that call didn't ultimately matter. Cubs just didn't bring it.. LAD did.. meh... more to come....

Yeah, just ignore:

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.


It's literally right there in the ****ing rule book. The ball is dead, and it's a strike. And that was strike three. Batter out. Inning over.

And you conveniently ignore the part of the rule where if the catcher attempts to make a play then it is to be believed that no interference occurred. Next.

You lying mother****er. Just get out of here:

"If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. "

So, if a batter interferes and a catcher throws out someone trying to steal second and is tagged out, then he's out. Otherwise, the play is dead. The runner isn't the batter, you brain dead ****ing Cub-ass-sucking scum. You're a perfect example of that fanbase of baseball-illiterate drunks.

How is that lying. The catcher attempted to make a play. It was a wild pitch. Stop trying to act like that rule has anything to do with the play in question.

You are being completely stupid. Baez was a ****ing runner on a dropped 3rd strike and the catcher attempted to make a play.

You are quoting a part of the rule that rules against interference, something that the rule specifically states ISN'T what is called when a batter makes contact with the catcher in his back swing.

Seriously, get the **** out of here. You're not Johnnie Cochran. You can't twist plainly obvious rules to anyone with a third-grade reading level.

Baez interfered with the catcher. The play is dead. Baez swung and missed. He's out and the inning is over because the play is dead. Wieters attempting to make a play is irrelevant because that rule only applies to runners on base and not the batter, and even if the catcher makes the attempt the only thing that happens is that the runner is either tagged out, or the batter is out, and in all cases, the ball is dead thereafter.

If the catcher is interfered with, the batter is always out unless a runner is thrown out on the play where the catcher is interfered with, and in no cases can any runners safely advance.

Get back to me when you can comprehend what you read.

Well why don't you tell me what is wrong about what I read?

If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.


Show me what is incorrect. I'll wait.

Right there is what you can't comprehend, idiot. Read the whole ****ing rule. When a batter makes contact with the catcher or the ball in his back swing it is NOT ruled interference. It's ruled a strike.

And in this case it is in the judgement of the umpire whether or not that the batter swung so hard that it carried his backswing into the catcher. Which in this case it didn't because the catcher slid over to block a pitch and into the backswing of the hitter and then tried to make a play on the ball after he missed the block.

Mongoloid.

"The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play."--You can't advance on a dead ****ing ball.

Read the rest of the rule, you lying ****ing **** ****. You can't advance on a dead ball.

Butt chug a gallon of Drano, you useless ****ing spore of mold cum.

You are so stupid it hurts.

Is the ball dead before or after the words "in the umpires judgement"?

Just sit your ass back down on your couch with the rest of the Cardinals roster.

No, you ****ing ****, if he hits the head of the catcher on accident in the umpire's judgment, then it's only a strike and the ball is still dead. The ball is always ****ing dead.

"If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he
carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment,
unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him
on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference).
The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall
advance on the play."

Maybe next time before you run your mouth about someone's reading comprehension you'll actually read the ****ing full rule.

Says the guy who quoted the wrong shit. You still ignore the point that they never ruled that he was he hit because he made a play on the ball.

Must suck watching the Cubs in their 3rd NLCS in a row while your team gets eliminated earlier each year.

Keep moving those goalposts by talking about the Cubs advancing instead of the fact that I'm quoting a rule that you A) don't understand and B) keep misquoting because you're a noxious combination of lying moron ****.

They ****ed up because they didn't see him get hit and call interference.

If I'm wrong, then explain this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rrPdpfq9xnk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you don't see the difference in that play then you can't be helped.

Simple question. Did AJ make a play for the ball?

If he did, then this part of the rule would apply:

"If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called."

Someone is always out in that case, either the runner or batter. So how do the Cubs score those runs if there are three outs?

Notice how it doesn't say, "If the catcher makes a play and the runner is safe the batter is not out."?

It doesn't say "or", it says "and" If the catcher makes a play AND the runner attempting to advance is put out. Those two conditions must be satisfied for your claim to be true, but they aren't.

But hey, maybe you'll have better luck rewriting the rules of the English language to suggest that and actually means "or".

If it did say that, you'd have a point. But it doesn't, and you don't, so take the L, you arrogant ****wad.

Some day you will learn that its in the umpires judgement if the catcher was hit in the backswing and the act of Wieters running after the ball to make a play removed any judgement. The paragraph talking about a catcher making a play is still referring to a batter interfering with the catcher which we have clearly read isn't what is called when the catcher is hit by a backswing.

So what we have learned is that a catcher being hit by a backswing isn't ruled interference and it is in the judgement of the umpire if he was hit. We also learned that if the catcher attempts to make a play on a ball during an INTERFERENCE call and throws a runner out then there is no violation called.

So we have a catcher eliminating any judgement to be made about being hit by going after the ball and trying to make a play. And a bitter Cardinals fan that can't follow along with the paragraphs.

I'll take the W and laugh my way all the way to the NLCS.

The umpires didn't **** it up. Wieters did.

Dane it's not cool to steal Hamas's password and post.

Puig trolling Keith Olbermann

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hey <a href="https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KeithOlbermann</a> I flip on singles and doubles &amp; not on homers. Come watch the show. Need a ticket? I got you <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PuigYourFriendToo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PuigYourFriendToo</a> �� <a href="https://t.co/7Ror8AyGRg">https://t.co/7Ror8AyGRg</a></p>&mdash; Yasiel Puig (@YasielPuig) <a href="https://twitter.com/YasielPuig/status/919441044818739200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 15, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So effing tired of Yasiel Puig’s act - particularly his apparently terrible vision <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DontBatFlipSinglesAndDoubles?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DontBatFlipSinglesAndDoubles</a></p>&mdash; Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) <a href="https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/919381126292131841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 15, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Not a fan of Puig either, but Olbermann should be on meds. He is a ****ing loon.

Maddon is bringing Lackey into a tie game in the 9th inning with a runner in scoring position.

Walk off for Justin Turner

FUUUUDGE!

Ball game.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X...2520napoli.gif

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR5YB74VEAANwI7.jpg

Lackey over Davis. Good call.

And walkoff homer. That move might be questioned in the postgame.

Hawk Harrelson doing cartwheels in his living room right now.

La baby

3 runs in 2 games and Maddon being completely ****ing stupid with the bullpen.

That fan caught it!

Thank God the Cubs got punked this weekend. Everybody at work will be as miserable as I am tomorrow. :thumb:

GOOD THING MADDON SAVED WADE FOR THE SAVE.

Maddon and Andy Reid are the same ****ing person

If they were, we'd have a ****ing Lombardi.

i was frowning when the Chiefs lost, i was miserable (football miserable) then the Dodgers win but that frown upside dowN! lol

LMAO

Hamas... That was great.

I hate that ****ing ballpark

Dumb challenge

Jesus. He didn't even have his eye on the ball with that swing in that shit park.

At least it's not Minute Maid Park.

They both suck

Great catch. May have slammed his teeth closer together.

Probably not anything anyone cares about currently, but I'm happy to see my lil' cousin balling out for the Red Sox. Currently listed as their #3 prospect.

http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index...ed_sox_12.html

Very nice!

Does he even talk to a peasant like you though?

:clap::clap::clap:

Gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Felt that one coming