Now if someone really obviously slaps a ball over the fence the umps can award more than the 2 bases, correct? That seems appropriate too.

Yup. This is already addressed in the rules as well.

If a fielder intentionally throws/slaps/kicks the ball out of play, all runners are awarded 2 bases from the time that happens.

If the ball goes out of play after the fielder has cleanly fielded the ball and it is ruled unintentional (eg, bad throw to first goes into the dugout), all runners are awarded 1 base from the time the ball goes out of play.

In this case, the ball was never fielded cleanly and there was no apparent intent to send it out, so the fielder is treated as "in play" and the result is an automatic double. This happens from time to time, and every once in a while it works in the fielder's favor (such as in this game).

Honestly I think the uproar here comes almost entirely from the fact that MLB Network's booth was so clueless about what was going on with a known rule, and then instead of acknowledging they got a little overhyped, they doubled down and acted like it was some insane, never before seen situation. For the casual fan or playoff bandwagoneer, a lot of the perception of the game comes from what commentary says, and to hear the commentators tell it, this was some wild injustice instead of just a fluke play that sometimes happens.

I agree with everything you've said here, but do still think that dignifying Renfroe with the ground rule double is a bad precedent.

It's not even remotely a "precedent," though. This type of automatic double has literally happened hundreds of times in the history of baseball. I'll bet you could find more than one instance of a deflected ball going for an automatic double this year alone. And it is spelled out explicitly in the umpire manual, and has been for some time. No precedent was set last night. Just a valid application of a rule that's been established for years, and applied in the same manner in similar situations without controversy for a long time.

What made this situation "unique" is that it was 1) a high leverage situation; 2) a playoff game; and 3) covered by a broadcasting crew that somehow didn't know wtf they were talking about.

I can absolutely foresee this in the future leading to defenders intentionally dropping balls, or giving them the Renfroe air hump to send them over the gate. I hope the rules are amended to more clearly handle what happens in these circumstances before the meta shifts to hackey sacking the ball out of bounds in high pressure games.

The rules are already clear. They already take into account this exact scenario and have given umpires concrete instructions on how to handle it. Just like with any other automatic double, there are situations where a runner on first would've made it home if the ball hadn't gone out of play. Them's the breaks.

And imho these fears are entirely unfounded. If sending the ball over the wall and making it look like an accident were easy, players would already be doing it. The existence of a 2 base penalty from the point of infraction if the umpire deems it intentional has been an adequate deterrent up to this point. I really don't think it's going to suddenly change now.

you know you put on a display of cluelessness when Harold Reynolds is showing you up.

Let's be honest, most players and coaches had no clue about this rule and how it would play out.

I really don't think that's the case. I'm not a rulebook wonk, and watching the play develop live I knew it was going to be called an automatic double, as I've seen this exact play happen more than once. Honestly I suspect you have as well and it just didn't register because it was a 13th inning automatic double in which the go ahead run was called back.

I also knew from listening to the commentators get way too excited about what was happening on the basepaths that they were going to set a narrative that made this play out to be something other than what it was. I'm reasonably certain that if the call had been "And the ball bounces off Renfroe and over the wall for a ground rule double. What a break for Boston!" we'd be having a different conversation today. But Vasgersian kept at it long after the umps had signaled 2 and then covered his ass by acting like this was a never before seen play.

Something I have yet to hear is why should this be treated the same as a ground rule double? I get that's how the rules currently spell it out. I'm saying it shouldn't be that way as this benefits misplays from the fielder and I don't see any downside to treating it like other out of play balls from a fielder. I agree changing rules based on 1 high leverage situation with lots of attention is not usually good because there are a ton of unintended consequences. So if there are unintended consequences I'm not seeing please let me know.

Alright, let's work through this, because it's a fair question.

For one, the "fielded cleanly" rule benefits the offense at about the same rate as it benefits the defense. If an outfielder attempts to make a play on a ball in the air and, in the process, knocks it out of the park, that's a home run. If a ball hits an umpire or player in fair territory in the infield and caroms out of play, it's an automatic double. Melky Cabrera once hit an automatic double off the pitcher's foot.

I think I should acknowledge at this juncture that I prefer a neutral rule base. I would object to a series of rules which made it so that these fluke occurrences always benefit the offense. I think treating players and umps as "in play" until such time as the ball is either fielded cleanly, intentionally manipulated, or out of play, and applying that standard to any quirky circumstance that comes up, is the most fair approach. Others may have other preferences, but that is mine.

If, instead, you wanted to change the rule so that across the board, balls caroming off fielders were treated the same way as any other out of play ball, I'd be fine with that. And that theoretically changes the outcome of last night's play (lead runner was between 2nd and 3rd when the ball went out of play., so it would be ump discretion whether to award 3rd or home).

However, such a rule change would also lead to scenarios that disadvantage the offense.

Take a scenario where you've got runners on 1st and 2nd with less than 2 ours, and the batter hits a moonshot that looks like it might go out, or might die on the warning track. The runner on 2nd stays on 2nd in order to tag, runner on first goes just about all the way to 2nd, batter-runner occupies 1st. the outfielder goes to make a grab at the warning track, and the ball bounces off his glove and goes out of play. Based on the current rules, that's a 3 run homer. Based on our new rule where it's treated like any other ball out of play from a fielder, it's a single, and the bases are now loaded.

Or, perhaps we have two rules - one for balls that hit a fielder in the air and continue on their path, and one for balls that hit the ground and then the fielder. This seems unnecessarily complicated, but let's go with it. Repeat the above scenario except the fielder misjudges the ball, has it land in front of him, bounce off his shoulder, and go out of play. Again, you've got yourself a 330' single with no run scoring.

I'm okay with either rule being in place from a consistency standpoint. However, I think the rule which causes last night's automatic double is, on balance, a more reasonable one than one in which a misfielded home run becomes a single.

I mean... you know this is going to result in an automatic infield triple, right? And probably more than a couple other unearned triples. That seems pretty egregious to me. But I also think you're setting up a situation which unjustly maximizes benefit to the offense, because by making an out-of-the-park deflection a home run, you're not treating deflections the same across the board. You're effectively saying the fielder is "in play" when being so benefits the offense, but deserving of a two base penalty otherwise.

Further, such a rule is fully inconsistent with how balls out of play are currently treated. Are you also going to award two bases when a shortstop double clutches on a routine grounder and throws the ball into the dugout? If not, why not?

With the exception of the umps most of those plays are the result of the fielder's misplay and they should be penalized for that.

Last night we saw a fairly rare application of a rule that, in most situations, works just fine. You're wanting to make a rule change that, in most situations, would theoretically work fine.

"Most" seems like the most important word in this sentence, because you want an across the board ruling that would apply not just to "most of those plays," but to all of them. Line drive off the pitcher's foot and out of play (it's happened)? triple. Ball with crazy backspin hits two walls, the back of the fielder's heel, and goes out of play? home run.

All you're doing there is trading one set of edge cases for another. Personally, I'd take last night's double over an automatic infield triple any day.

​

There is, however one rule change that I do think would make sense, and wouldn't be about just the edge cases. And it's a pretty simple one:

The batter-runner is awarded second base on an automatic double. All other baserunners score.

I mean, let's be real. nearly every ball hit well enough to be an automatic double is going to score a runner from first if it stays in the park. For the entire history of the game of baseball, automatic doubles have cost runs. A ground rule double (ball in the ivy at Wrigley; ball through the scoreboard at Fenway) can be whatever rule the stadium sets. Some of those should probably just be two bases all around. But an automatic double either happens when a ball bounces over the outfield wall, or is deflected out of play by a fielder. In either of those cases, a runner on first is going to score if it stays in the park. Let him score when it goes out of play.

Username checks out.

I'm not familiar with the game you're talking about, but I've no doubt you're correct