PDA

View Full Version : Tigers file complaint over rain-shortened loss Tuesday


doublem23
08-01-2012, 01:52 PM
Really can't blame them. If this happened to the Sox in a play-off chase, I'd be livid.

http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8221340/source-detroit-tigers-file-complaint-rain-shortened-game-boston-red-sox

amsteel
08-01-2012, 02:04 PM
Does it suck? Yes.

Do I feel bad for them? No.

Jerko
08-01-2012, 03:00 PM
Rules are rules. Shoulda batted faster.

Dibbs
08-01-2012, 03:06 PM
Didn't this happen to us in the past couple years?

downstairs
08-01-2012, 03:17 PM
Since I was a kid, I've always hated the rain-shortened win/loss rule. I think all games should be played to their conclusion.

Unless its absolutely clear both teams are out of contention for a playoff spot, and its late in the year. Then, just don't count the game.

Of course, baseball has been around nearly 90 years before I was born... so I'm kinda yelling at clouds here I suppose.

BleacherBandit
08-01-2012, 03:17 PM
Didn't this happen to us in the past couple years?

I remember a game against the Orioles in early 2008 that was suspended. I believe the Sox were winning that game and eventually lost when it was resumed.

jdm2662
08-01-2012, 03:38 PM
I remember a game against the Orioles in early 2008 that was suspended. I believe the Sox were winning that game and eventually lost when it was resumed.

That game was tied and it was in extras. The game was in Chicago, and they had to finish the game in BALT.

Foulke You
08-01-2012, 04:12 PM
Does it suck? Yes.

Do I feel bad for them? No.
Agreed. This has happened to the Sox on more than one occasion. I doubt they would have felt sorry for us in the same situation. It sucks for them but those are the rules. I don't really see what "protesting" this decision is going to accomplish for them either.

asindc
08-01-2012, 04:14 PM
I remember a game against the Orioles in early 2008 that was suspended. I believe the Sox were winning that game and eventually lost when it was resumed.

That game was tied and it was in extras. The game was in Chicago, and they had to finish the game in BALT.

Yes, that was when Brian Anderson failed to lay down a sacrifice bunt that would have won the game.:angry:

Steelrod
08-01-2012, 04:23 PM
They had just as good a chance to win the game in 5 1/2 innings!

Soxman219
08-01-2012, 04:49 PM
Happened to us in the past so, I don't feel bad for them.

TDog
08-01-2012, 05:12 PM
Maybe it's karma for dipping too deep into the Tigers magic bag last season. I don't feel bad for anything bad that happens to the Tigers, especially since I read they won the division with their three-game sweep over the White Sox in July.

Baseball isn't going to change its rules to give the Tigers a chance to win, of course. The Tigers were losing, and the game was official. It isn't even the greatest rain-induced injustice I've ever seen.

On August 26, 1971, the White Sox were playing the Orioles. Baseball Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL197108260.shtml) only tells part of the story. If you scroll down to the date in the Baseball Retrosheet lost home runs (http://retrosheet.org/losthr.htm), you learn about the heroics of Mike Andrews and the rest of those pesky White Sox under rookie manager Chuck Tanner that were rendered unofficial.

The rules that took away a White Sox win that night against the defending World Series champions, assuming a scoreless bottom of the ninth, were changes -- decades later.

TheVulture
08-01-2012, 05:18 PM
The rules are black and white, I don't know how they'd have a leg to stand on.

Lip Man 1
08-01-2012, 06:35 PM
Actually things at one time were worse in rain shortened rulings:

August 26, 1971 - It was the kind of thing that could only happen to the White Sox and only in Baltimore’s ‘house of horrors,’ Memorial Stadium. The Sox trailed 6-0 before mounting a big comeback that saw them take a 9-8 lead in the 9th inning thanks to a home run by Mike Andrews. With two outs, torrential rain hit the area and after a wait of almost an hour and a half, the game was called.

Because of rules in place at the time, the score reverted back to the last completed inning, the 8th, which saw Baltimore ahead 8-7. That’s the way the game ended...typical result when playing the Orioles in Baltimore.

Lip

JB98
08-01-2012, 07:14 PM
:violin:

GlassSox
08-01-2012, 07:27 PM
:violin: :clap:

ChiSoxGirl
08-01-2012, 10:45 PM
:violin:

:clap:

Awesome!!!

SOX ADDICT '73
08-02-2012, 12:00 AM
...Baseball isn't going to change its rules to give the Tigers a chance to win, of course...
Yes, it's not as though there's a precedent for a whiny Central Division rival bringing about a rules change. Oh, wait...

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090917&content_id=7018116

"The White Sox actually had a 9-10 record against the Twins during the 2008 season and would've had to go to Minneapolis to play that game had the new rules -- head-to-head records as the first criteria -- been in effect. The Twins complained bitterly that they had to travel after winning the season series and were the impetus behind the change." :whiner:

Brian26
08-02-2012, 12:36 AM
Maybe it's karma for dipping too deep into the Tigers magic bag last season. I don't feel bad for anything bad that happens to the Tigers, especially since I read they won the division with their three-game sweep over the White Sox in July.

Maybe its karma for Sparky Anderson being a bit too whiney after the disco records blew up. They could have played that 2nd game.

TDog
08-02-2012, 12:56 PM
Maybe its karma for Sparky Anderson being a bit too whiney after the disco records blew up. They could have played that 2nd game.

Things tend to even out, although you wouldn't know it being a White Sox fan. You would like them to even out during a game or even during a season. You end hoping they even out during the course of your lifetime, although I hope the bad breaks never even out for the Cubs. I will only suggest that there are examples with political implications that require generations and even centuries to even out.

Whine all you want. Even Joe Nathan, who whined in 2008 before baseball changed a rule in place for more than a century, didn't convince the league to play the game over in Minnesota. And if by some wild fluke the White Sox and Rangers end up tied for the second wild card spot at the end of the season, maybe Joe Nathan will find something else to whine about.

Frontman
08-02-2012, 01:15 PM
Baseball isn't going to change its rules to give the Tigers a chance to win, of course.

Exactly. If Bud Selig had been a previous owner of the Tigers? THEN there would be a huge change of rules that very day......


:rolleyes:

Rules are rules. Same as those whining about Jordyn Webber at the Olympics. Might not like it, but that's how it broke down.

downstairs
08-02-2012, 06:14 PM
The rules are black and white, I don't know how they'd have a leg to stand on.

There is no black and white rule as to WHEN to call a game, just what happens IF a game is called and who's allowed to call it.

They called it immediately without waiting.

TDog
08-02-2012, 08:46 PM
There is no black and white rule as to WHEN to call a game, just what happens IF a game is called and who's allowed to call it.

They called it immediately without waiting.

I was unaware of that. It was shoving up as being in a rain delay for a very long time before it showed up as a final.

I also thought there were rules as to minimum waits, varying according to the number of previous delays.

Johnny Mostil
08-02-2012, 09:27 PM
There is no black and white rule as to WHEN to call a game, just what happens IF a game is called and who's allowed to call it.

They called it immediately without waiting.

Waiting for what? The AP story (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/red-sox-beat-tigers-4-033006028--mlb.html) on the game said it was called 1 hour, 45 minutes after the tarp came on the field in the sixth.

That said, I was a little surprised to read this game had been called. I told my son I was sure they'd wait at least until midnight before calling the game.

But then I saw in the ESPN story posted that Leyland thought the game wouldn't be able to resume at least until 1 a.m. He also said, at that point, the game should have been called. Though I can't blame the Tigers for being upset about it all.

voodoochile
08-02-2012, 10:11 PM
I was unaware of that. It was shoving up as being in a rain delay for a very long time before it showed up as a final.

I also thought there were rules as to minimum waits, varying according to the number of previous delays.

Waiting for what? The AP story (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/red-sox-beat-tigers-4-033006028--mlb.html) on the game said it was called 1 hour, 45 minutes after the tarp came on the field in the sixth.

That said, I was a little surprised to read this game had been called. I told my son I was sure they'd wait at least until midnight before calling the game.

But then I saw in the ESPN story posted that Leyland thought the game wouldn't be able to resume at least until 1 a.m. He also said, at that point, the game should have been called. Though I can't blame the Tigers for being upset about it all.

Yeah, I was watching the Sox on MLB.TV on my laptop and every time I would refresh the box score to check stats or see updated scores the Kittens/Sawx game was in delay. It was a LONG delay.

all*star quentin
08-02-2012, 10:50 PM
Sorry Detroit, mark that one in the L column. :whiner: