MovieChat Forums > Mr. Baseball (1992) Discussion > last play of game

last play of game

posted 16 years ago by comairmht
15 replies | jump to latest

During the play when Jack bunts and runs to first base, it was down only wrong but a violation in any league to interfere with an active fielding like Jack did. He shoved and knocked down the first baseman so the throw was not made and the Dragons won. The only time a runner can interfere and do what he did is at home plate when you can charge and knock down the catcher. A-Rod tried this in the playoffs on the Red Sox (Red Sox nation member 4ever) when he swated the glove of the first baseman (or the pitcher cant remember) and knocked the ball out of his glove. Luckily he was called out because of it.

[–] TheKara 16 years ago

then why is it allowed for baserunners to interfere with a double play attempt when they are running for 2nd base?

[–] PizzaDaHut 16 years ago

The first baseman was on the first base path so it was open season. When A-Roid did his slap play the fielder was not blocking his path.

It is open season on the fielder if he is blocking the path of the runner. It was a dirty play that Jack did. Also it is a movie.

[–] stadiumstatuz 16 years ago

i saw this and thought it was stupid because anyone that knows anything about baseball felt a big letdown cuz he couldnt even get a clean hit to win the game? dunno bout that.. alos manny-roid helped ur red sux win championships so keep it shut

[–] biscuithammer-1 16 years ago

Jack didn't swing at the ball, he bunted it. It was a bunt for base hit. It showed how far he came as a man and a player. He was willing to change and give up the home run record for the good of the team.

[–] PizzaDaHut 16 years ago

I agree Jack learned the art of baseball in Japan and it meant more to win the game than to get the record.

[–] nutsberryfarm 13 years ago

and what a bunt!

"It's for the pain. Rarely touch the stuff...Can I have another?"

[–] Menthol-Love 15 years ago

Good one. More members of the Yanks have tested positive for steroids than any other team.

Yanks are the highest paid team. They buy championships, not earn them.

Tell me, how's Derek Cheater and A-Roid doing for ya?

[–] kurtangle12312 15 years ago

Weel, actually Derek Jeter and A-Rod have been doing great for us because we just won the World Series. Also, there is no way to buy championships. The players still have to play good. It's not like they spend all their money on research teams to build androids.

I don't see why all the other fans of teams can't face that the Yankees are the best franchise ever.

[–] willydoe71 15 years ago

Also, there is no way to buy championships.

Spoken like a true Stankees fan.

[–] SSJGoten-2 14 years ago

So do the players for your team play for free? Also, unless they stealth-changed the rules, I don't recall baseball having a salary cap. And no, I am not a Yankee fan, I'm not even from NY so save the NY/BOS bull.

[–] eternalhennessy 11 years ago

Former Senator George Mitchell, who created that famous steroid report had prior connections to the Red Sox organization. Many have suggested this might have created a reason why the Red Sox were scantly listed in that report.

From a news source....
"A few Red Sox players are also listed. But all are fringe players, with the exception of Mo Vaughn, a big star with the Red Sox in the 1990s. And even Vaughn is only mentioned as having used banned substances in 2001, several years after he had left the Sox. Clemens, of course, also played for the Red Sox for many years. But he, like Vaughn, is only accused of having used banned substances after he left the team (in Clemens' case during his stints with the Toronto Blue Jays and Yankees in 1997-2003).

Unfortunately, the prominence of Yankees stars in the Report and the near-absence of Red Sox stars raises the question of whether Senator George Mitchell, the Report's primary author, was compromised by his status as a Boston Red Sox director. Was he deliberately targeting Yankees players and/or purposely overlooking offenses by Red Sox?"

[–] SurvivorAlpha11 15 years ago

Blah Blah Blah. It was a good movie.

My Sig: Nothing Here.

[–] Rockhound6165 15 years ago

Jack didn't interfere with the fielder. The runner has the right to the base path, not the fielder. If anything, had Jack been out, the correct ruling would be that Jack was interfered with. It's not like the fielder had the ball. It is only interference when a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball.

When you steal from Peter and give to Paul, you will always have the support of Paul.

[–] HowYaLikeDemApplesWill 11 years ago

I just re-watched it and he definitely interfered with the fielder.

But this play was laughable on so many levels...

1 - Bunting with an 0-2 count, 2 outs and bases loaded.

2 - The pitcher fields the ball cleanly, and could have easily intercepted and tagged Jack, yet decided to attempt to beat him to the bag.

3 - And here is where the interference was clear - the pitcher was running well inside of the first base line towards the bag, as he was coming from in front of the pitcher's mound. Jack begings running right down the line but halfway down swerves into the field of play and shoves the pitcher from behind as he is racing him to the bag, at which point the pitcher tumbles and drops the ball. The running lane was chalked outside of the first base line just as in the US, so deviating from this and initiating the contact, is clear interference on the runner.

Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

re: 2: that was a little odd...

🎄Season's Greetings!🎁🎅🎄