clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Rogue bat boy collides with Mets infielder, ruins play

New, comments

The Mets would have gotten away with a bases-loaded jam, if it weren’t for this meddling kid.

It was just a few hours ago that we were gorging on Mets, enjoying the Mets, letting the Mets drip off our chins and onto the keyboard. Well, I hope you’re happy. Because there’s no way to turn this Mets faucet off.

Our latest example of the Mets metsing all over the place came on Thursday, when a bat boy dressed in Brewers garb collided with Mets third baseman Wilmer Flores, who was trying to catch a pop-up.

And I love these two screenshots, which are a play in two acts:

The batter was initially called out, but the call was reversed after an umpire conference because of Rule 6.01(d), which states ...

The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been

And all I want now is for a police officer to kick a ball 100 feet from a fielder, just to see what would happen.

Regardless, Mets manager Terry Collins was not happy, which gave us an absolutely stellar argument, which we really don’t get that often in the era of video review:

The runner from third didn’t end up scoring, however, so the play didn’t mean a whole lot, other than Collins getting ejected, which might be a net positive for the Mets, depending on which talk-radio station you’re listening to these days.

Even though it didn’t affect the game a whole lot, we can all agree that it was supremely Mets, and for that we should be thankful.

As for the poor bat boy, well, things took a turn.

Keep him in your thoughts.