Keeping track of replay

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
25,551
Southwestern CT
Bone Chips said:
Yes, but last year the umps would have instantly made a ruling of "out" if Pedroia had left early.  But in the era of replay, when nobody knows what's reviewable and what is not, we have to wait two minutes after the play to know for sure.
 
As others have suggested, you are allowing your (understandable) dismay at the way MLB has instituted replay to cloud your judgment with respect to the facts.
 
The bolded is simply incorrect as a factual statement.  There would not have been an out call because that's not how the rules work - the team on the field has to appeal the play by stepping on the bag and then the ump rules. The Os could have appealed that play last night and for whatever reason chose not to.
 
The conversation Buck was having was irrelevant.  The idea that that it would ruin the game for you tells me that you are not really a fan of baseball. 
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,322
teddywingman said:
I guess it is being called that way now, but I think it's silly. What was wrong with the way a drop on the transfer didn't cancel the out, the way it has been every season until now?
I don't think you can change the transfer interpretation and allow the neighborhood play. it should be one or the other. This was kruk's point I believe. The transfer play should revert to how it was called before and the neighborhood play should be reviewable in order to eliminate the more phantom  egregious force plays. It should be part of the second baseman's skill set to make this play.
 
 I also don't understand why the umpires reviewing the Markakis double didn't go out to the foul line to check the ball mark the way clay court umpires  used to in tennis. 
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
Average Reds said:
 
As others have suggested, you are allowing your (understandable) dismay at the way MLB has instituted replay to cloud your judgment with respect to the facts.
 
The bolded is simply incorrect as a factual statement.  There would not have been an out call because that's not how the rules work - the team on the field has to appeal the play by stepping on the bag and then the ump rules. The Os could have appealed that play last night and for whatever reason chose not to.
 
The conversation Buck was having was irrelevant.  The idea that that it would ruin the game for you tells me that you are not really a fan of baseball. 
I know how the rule works, and I can assure you that I am a fan.  Probably too much of a fan, which is why I think I'm having such a hard time with this.  In a world without replay (ie - prior to 2008 or whenever it first went into effect) Schowalter would have appealed the play after Pedroia scored.  The third base ump would have gave the safe sign, indicting he did not leave early.  I've watched a lot of baseball and I don't think I've ever seen an umpiring crew huddle over an appeal play.  In any event, I think we can all agree the outcome would have been known a lot sooner than 2 minutes and 10 seconds after Pedroia touched the plate.
 
My dislike of replay really doesn't have anything to do with the way it has been butchered from an implementation standpoint.  And I totally appreciate the great points made above by MentalDisabldLst.  My dislike for replay has everything to do with disrupting the flow of the game and this weird state of suspended finality it creates in a live event, especially in a 162 game regular season where last year there were only 377 calls (one in every 6.4 games) that would have been overturned.  I do approve of modified replay in the postseason (homeruns and fair/foul) but that's it.  All this minutia in the regular season is just absurd.
 
But I will concede that I am apparently in the minority on this so I won't belabor my point anymore.  If my only alternative is soccer I guess I am screwed and I'll just have to take it like a man.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
25,551
Southwestern CT
Bone Chips said:
I know how the rule works, and I can assure you that I am a fan.  Probably too much of a fan, which is why I think I'm having such a hard time with this.  In a world without replay (ie - prior to 2008 or whenever it first went into effect) Schowalter would have appealed the play after Pedroia scored.  The third base ump would have gave the safe sign, indicting he did not leave early.  I've watched a lot of baseball and I don't think I've ever seen an umpiring crew huddle over an appeal play.  In any event, I think we can all agree the outcome would have been known a lot sooner than 2 minutes and 10 seconds after Pedroia touched the plate.
 
My dislike of replay really doesn't have anything to do with the way it has been butchered from an implementation standpoint.  And I totally appreciate the great points made above by MentalDisabldLst.  My dislike for replay has everything to do with disrupting the flow of the game and this weird state of suspended finality it creates in a live event, especially in a 162 game regular season where last year there were only 377 calls (one in every 6.4 games) that would have been overturned.  I do approve of modified replay in the postseason (homeruns and fair/foul) but that's it.  All this minutia in the regular season is just absurd.
 
But I will concede that I am apparently in the minority on this so I won't belabor my point anymore.  If my only alternative is soccer I guess I am screwed and I'll just have to take it like a man.
 
Baltimore could have appealed this play exactly as you indicated.  They chose not to. 
 
The "huddle" you refer to wasn't the umps getting together to discuss an appeal play, it was the Baltimore manager stopping the umps from leaving the field and asking for an explanation.  And my guess is that he didn't appeal after one of the umps explained that Pedroia went back and clearly touched the bag.
 
Again - there's much to dislike about the replay process.  The play that ended the game last night has nothing to do with it.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
For the record, I was surprised to learn that "Left the bag early on a caught ball" is not a reviewable play:
 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following calls will not be subject to review:​
  1. The Umpire's judgment that a runner is clearly out on a force play at second base under [the neighborhood play -Ed.]. All other elements of the call shall be subject to review, including whether the fielder caught the ball, had control of the ball, was drawn off the bag, or tagged the runner. In this regard, a determination as to whether the fielder made a catch before dropping the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch shall be reviewable.
  2. The Umpire's judgment on whether a base runner left early when tagging up.
  3. The Umpire's judgment on whether a base runner rounded first base in an attempt to advance to second base.
  4. The Umpire's judgment on whether a base runner abandoned his effort to advance in accordance with Official Baseball Rule 7.08(a)(2).
 
---
 
That's hardly the silliest thing about Replay right now, but it seems an almost petulant exclusion.  I mean, that's one of the few things that's totally objective and easily visible on a replay.  Why wouldn't you want to get that play right?  The neighborhood play, at least there's a player-safety argument in favor of keeping it.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,904
Hingham, MA
I think they don't include it because you don't always have a good camera angle that shows both when the ball was caught and when the runner tagged. Think about a sac fly to right field with a runner on 3rd. You'd have to have a pretty wide angle to capture that and not all feeds may have such an angle. Just my guess.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
tims4wins said:
I think they don't include it because you don't always have a good camera angle that shows both when the ball was caught and when the runner tagged. Think about a sac fly to right field with a runner on 3rd. You'd have to have a pretty wide angle to capture that and not all feeds may have such an angle. Just my guess.
 
This would be my thinking. Two cameras synced by broadcast timecode may be conclusive to the casual fan, but may not be conclusive enough to be absolutely certain.
 
 
Average Reds said:
Again - there's much to dislike about the replay process.  The play that ended the game last night has nothing to do with it.
 
Yes, I'd say that 50% of the problem with replay is the challenge system itself (ie, the object is NOT to get plays right, but to limit managers' ability to insist that plays are called right) and the other 50% is the absurd choice to implement the technology this way (ie, not installing a replay booth in every stadium with a technician/ump manning replay in-house).
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,726
Calgary, Canada
The left early is not reviewable on replay but like several have noted it's an appeal play. I don't for a minute believe Buck asked the umps and they said he did tag up. Umps don't - aren't ALLOWED to - comment until/unless a proper appeal is made. If Buck asked the reply would be "make an appeal and then we'll tell you". So, one of 2 things happened:
1 - Buck wanted an appeal and the umps explained he couldn't because all his players had crossed the foul line already
2 - Buck was confused and didn't ask for an appeal, instead asked for replay and was told the call wasn't reviewable by replay. The umps waited around to see if Buck would ask for an appeal but he never did.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
10,641
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Doctor G said:
I also don't understand why the umpires reviewing the Markakis double didn't go out to the foul line to check the ball mark the way clay court umpires  used to in tennis. 
 
Because they weren't in Fenway Park, and it would take too long for them to get there from NYC, where replays are adjudicated.
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The umpires reviewed the count in the Rays-Twins game with Escobar at the plate after some confusion and blew the call on replay.  That was pretty impressive.
 

semsox

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,497
Charlottesville
Stitch01 said:
The umpires reviewed the count in the Rays-Twins game with Escobar at the plate after some confusion and blew the call on replay.  That was pretty impressive.
 
Here's the MLB story on it: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/min/rays-yunel-escobar-strikes-out-after-umpire-review-misses-ball-four?ymd=20140422&content_id=73018746&vkey=news_min
 
This is in my mind almost irrefutable evidence that the system as implemented is not working, whether it's from a staggering amount of incompetence on either the parts of the umpires, or on what is actually available to them in order to review the call. MLB shouldn't junk replay, but it sure as hell better change whatever is happening with replays now, and do it immediately because it's just a joke at this point.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
12,962
The gran facenda
MLB changes the transfer rule back to the way it has been for over a century.
 
 
Major League Baseball made its first major adjustment of the replay era on Friday, going back to a less strict interpretation of the transfer rule, effective immediately.
Starting Friday night, umpires will rule on catches the way they did in the past, using more of a common-sense approach rather than following the letter of the law, according to major-league sources.
A catch, forceout or tag will be considered legal if a fielder has control of the ball in his glove, but drops the ball after opening his glove to transfer the ball to his throwing hard, sources said. No longer will the fielder be required to successfully get the ball into his throwing hand.
About fucking time. That ruling on the Pedroia play was ridiculous. Not to mention all of the other teams that have lost outs because of it.
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
absintheofmalaise said:
MLB changes the transfer rule back to the way it has been for over a century.
 

About fucking time. That ruling on the Pedroia play was ridiculous. Not to mention all of the other teams that have lost outs because of it.
It was ridiculous. Anybody who has ever played catch knows that if it hits the pocket and the glove is at least partially broken in the ball is under control.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,509
Seattle, WA
I should know this, but the rule now involves a transfer in order to throw the ball. What is the situation if an outfielder loses an obviously caught ball after hitting the wall or the ground?
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
50,561
San Andreas Fault
geoduck no quahog said:
I should know this, but the rule now involves a transfer in order to throw the ball. What is the situation if an outfielder loses an obviously caught ball after hitting the wall or the ground?
The plane of the goal line extends all the way around the world and the ground can't cause a fumble. Sorry. Isn't there a bullshit rule about outfielders saying they have to transfer the ball to the throwing hand without dropping it to complete the out? Didn't somebody flip the ball well after catching it to his throwing hand and drop it to the ground and the batter was declared safe? Would make it seem that in your cases there would not be an out. Not sure though.
 
Just saw an outfield play like you're asking about replayed from an Indians - Padres game from two weeks ago. RFer catches it, momentum carries him into the fence. He drops it after a good two seconds on the transfer and they call him safe. Giants announcers said that would now be an out with the rule being changed back. 
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,964
Alexandria, VA
geoduck no quahog said:
I should know this, but the rule now involves a transfer in order to throw the ball. What is the situation if an outfielder loses an obviously caught ball after hitting the wall or the ground?
They just (yesterday I think) changed the transfer rule back to its traditional interpretation.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,509
Seattle, WA
"There is no requirement that the fielder successfully remove the ball from his glove in order for it be ruled a catch," the committee said. "If the fielder drops the ball while attempting to remove it TO MAKE A THROW, the umpires should rule that the ball had been caught, provided that the fielder had secured it in his glove before attempting the transfer."

(Caps Added)

I assume that if, for example, an outfielder drops a ball which would have been the third out (say by hitting a wall or hitting the ground), it's still up to the umpire's discretion as to whether the ball was secured (in this case there is no throw involved).
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
What do people think of tags plays at 2b and 3b? I'm a proponent of the traditional concept that if the throw beats the runner he should be out and not be rewarded for successfully playing footsies with the glove.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,366
wolfe_boston said:
What do people think of tags plays at 2b and 3b? I'm a proponent of the traditional concept that if the throw beats the runner he should be out and not be rewarded for successfully playing footsies with the glove.
I'm not sure what this means.  If the ball beats the runner but the runner isn't tagged he should be out?
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
snowmanny said:
I'm not sure what this means.  If the ball beats the runner but the runner isn't tagged he should be out?
That's what it sounds like, which is nuts. 
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
It's similar to the "in the neighborhood play".  My computer is not allowing me to paste links but if you google "Stubborn Seamheads" it will pop up and is mentioned in the third paragraph.  I have heard of this "unwritten rule " referred to countless times during baseball broadcasts.
 
The logic is that some random wiggle of the feet should not trump bad base running or a great throw.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,964
Alexandria, VA
wolfe_boston said:
It's similar to the "in the neighborhood play".  My computer is not allowing me to paste links but if you google "Stubborn Seamheads" it will pop up and is mentioned in the third paragraph.  I have heard of this "unwritten rule " referred to countless times during baseball broadcasts.
 
The logic is that some random wiggle of the feet should not trump bad base running or a great throw.
 
This is nuts.  Hook slides and the like are traditional parts of the game meant to slide around potential tags, and they are certainly not random wiggles of the feet.
 
And good slides (to avoid tags) are a huge part of good base running.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC5GppyqVSY
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
12,962
The gran facenda
wolfe_boston said:
It's similar to the "in the neighborhood play".  My computer is not allowing me to paste links but if you google "Stubborn Seamheads" it will pop up and is mentioned in the third paragraph.  I have heard of this "unwritten rule " referred to countless times during baseball broadcasts.
 
The logic is that some random wiggle of the feet should not trump bad base running or a great throw.
Using your logic, Victorino was out on that play.
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
I guess I'm a stubborn seamhead but it's it been an unwritten rule for about a hundred years. It really comes down to whether, as mentioned in an earlier post, you believe hairspliitig reviews improve the game.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Nope. If it ever was an "unwritten rule" it's been moved on from long ago. You're also missing the point of it was a stupid "rule" to begin with, had nothing to do with replay. 
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,941
Maine
What you're describing hasn't ever been an unwritten rule, it's more like lazy umpiring.  A tag play is a tag play...you have to put ball (in glove or not) on runner to put him out.  If umpires are giving the defense the benefit of the throw beating the runner without a tag actually being applied to the runner before he reaches the base, they're making bad calls.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,904
Hingham, MA
Yeah, that is like arguing every rundown should be an automatic out because it is stupid baserunning. Or even every close pickoff throw to first base should be out since it was just the runner's hand moving to avoid the tag. That is some supremely bad logic.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,964
Alexandria, VA
wolfe_boston said:
I guess I'm a stubborn seamhead but it's it been an unwritten rule for about a hundred years. It really comes down to whether, as mentioned in an earlier post, you believe hairspliitig reviews improve the game.
 
No, it hasn't.  
 
Like I said, old-school traditional baseball guys teach hook slide, slide-by-slides, and the like to avoid tags, and they also teach how to apply a tag.  Those skills are part of the game, and as long as I've been watching tag plays at 2nd and 3rd have (in principle) required a tag.  I'm not saying the umps don't blow the call sometimes, but it's never been like the neighborhood play where there's an unwritten rule that touching the base for isn't required.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zazzObBuILs
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,964
Alexandria, VA
wolfe_boston said:
Here is an article that I pretty much 100% agree with:
 
http://www.examiner.com/article/upon-further-review-instant-replay-needs-to-be-simplified
 
I hadn't commented before about hating the manager loitering on the field while he waits for the thumbs up or down.  Maybe he could bring a IPOD with him instead.
The article is terrible. In part it says:
 
There are rules that are unwritten rules in baseball. Instant replay looks to expose these unwritten rules. There are such things as "neighborhood" plays and "the ball beat the runner." I'm not about nit-picking.
He goes on to talk about the difference between how the two are treated. The reason they're treated differently is that he's just flat out wrong to begin with--the neighborhood play is an actual unwritten rule that's specifically exempted in replay rules. There's never been a "ball beat the runner" rule, as partially evidenced by the fact that tag plays are reviewable.

There's no dichotomy there, he's making up some rule that never existed and wondering why it isn't enforced.

See the last video I posted for a runner avoiding a tag on a ball that beat him to the bag last year. The umpire calls him safe, the announcer agree and say it's a good call, and there's absolutely no mention of some mythological "ball beat the runner" call. That's absolutely commonplace, not unusual. I have yet to find a single one where the announcers object and invoke this purported fictional unwritten rule.

EDIT: Typo, the umps obviously called the runner safe not out
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
SumnerH:
 
I didn't make it up; the play is part of baseball's "unwritten rules":
 
http://wwwStevepinto.com/Baseball_Knowledge/Baseball_Rules/6950.html
 
I guess will have to agree to disagree. The video you attached is exactly the kind of play that bothers me.  The dude was picked off, the throw was accurate and ahead of him by ten feet.  He deserved to be out.  The announcers obviously agree with you but one did say something about kudos to the umpire for not calling him out automatically just because the ball beat the runner which I think is an indirect reference to what I'm talking about.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,941
Maine
wolfe_boston said:
SumnerH:
 
I didn't make it up; the play is part of baseball's "unwritten rules":
 
http://wwwStevepinto.com/Baseball_Knowledge/Baseball_Rules/6950.html
 
I guess will have to agree to disagree. The video you attached is exactly the kind of play that bothers me.  The dude was picked off, the throw was accurate and ahead of him by ten feet.  He deserved to be out.  The announcers obviously agree with you but one did say something about kudos to the umpire for not calling him out automatically just because the ball beat the runner which I think is an indirect reference to what I'm talking about.
 
With his skillful slide avoiding the tag, he deserves to be safe.  I don't know what the link proves, it sounds like one old coot who has his own ideas of what baseball is or should be (maybe it's your site for all we know).  Bottom line is on tag plays, the tag actually has to be applied.  That's the way it's been for over a hundred years.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,964
Alexandria, VA
wolfe_boston said:
SumnerH:
 
I didn't make it up; the play is part of baseball's "unwritten rules":
 
http://wwwStevepinto.com/Baseball_Knowledge/Baseball_Rules/6950.html
You can link as many crazy websites as you want, but until MLB umps actually start calling things that way--which they've never done in my lifetime--then it's pure fantasy.

The reason that the neighborhood play is considered a real "unwritten rule" is because that's the way the MLB umps have traditionally called the game, not because there's a random dude running a niche website who thinks it's the right way to play.
 

Byrdbrain

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,470
No one "deserves to be out", they are out or they are safe.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
10,641
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Byrdbrain said:
No one "deserves to be out", they are out or they are safe.
 
 
David Ortiz got called out when he tried to steal 2nd in the 2004 ALCS, and it didn't matter that he got to the base before he was tagged. He's a big slow guy, so he deserved to be out.
 
 
Ortiz had tried to get something going in the 12th inning as well -- in the spirit of Rickey Henderson or Lou Brock.
 
Yep, the big guy tried to steal a base.
 
Yankees catcher Jorge Posada, undoubtedly startled, threw so high that shortstop Derek Jeter had to leap for the ball. He came down and tagged Ortiz and umpire Randy Marsh called him out.
 
"I thought I was safe," Ortiz said.
 
Maybe so. But what in the name of Maury Wills was he thinking? This, after all, was his first steal attempt since joining the Red Sox in 2003.
 
"You know, I'm not a guy who's going to steal bases, but we needed a run and we didn't any action from the hitters, so that's why I went," he said.
 
Link. Sadly, the video link to the "caught stealing" play seems to be busted. But dig out your 2004 DVD's, and you'll see he was on the base before Jeter applied the tag. Oh! That's why he deserved to be out! It was Jeter!
 
He was pissed at getting called out, too.
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
SumnerH:
 
OK, so you don't believe the old coots and my fake website.
 
I can't get the link to paste but type "Cards say questionable calls did not kill them in Game 7" into Google.
 
Don Baylor refers to the "unwritten" rule and Tom Herr said that he shouldn't have been picked off in the first place.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
One player saying there's an unreasonable unwritten rule while complaining about a call he disagrees with does not prove anything.  The play on Herr in that article you mentioned also doesn't constitute proof as it was the ump admitting he was in a bad position and could not see if a tag was made, but guessed it probably was based on the ball arriving first.  That was not a case of ignoring the results of the tag in favor of whether the ball beat the runner, it's a case of the umpire not being able to see and having to make a guess.
 
Regardless, even if there has been some kind of unwritten rule (and I don't think you've provided enough evidence to prove there was), it would be one of the stupidest things in the history of sports.  Can you provide any kind of logical argument for why the actual tag in a tag play should not matter in the call?
 
Edit: I'm also wondering how this has anything to do with replay.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
27,339
AZ
The reason for "ball beats the runner" and similar types of principles is not really an unwritten rules.  It comes from a core principle of how most umpires have been taught at pretty very well regarded camps and training schools concerning making the "expected call."   MLB baseball is only a fraction of the baseball that gets played in America.  Many umpires -- including the ones who become MLB umpires -- have to call games on fields with out foul lines, or using two man mechanics, or with a whole host of other issues that make it impossible for there ever to be 100 percent accuracy on certain types of plays.  When you're calling a varsity game in a light rain with a partner who has a cold and maybe some of the bulbs on the third base side are out, your job is to manage the game, do your best to ensure the participants and the spectators feel they have been part of a fair contest, and to keep the players and the base coaches safe.  So, you have to rely on body language, expected reactions by players, and (horror of horror) sometimes even crowd reactions.  And you have to recognize your own fallibility.  So, umpiring dogma is to make the expected call, unless you're absolutely positive, and then sell the fuck out of your call.
 
To call this an unwritten rule really doesn't do it justice or show any appreciation of umpiring.  This has nothing to do with any nonsense about whether a player "deserves" to be out if the ball beats him, or anything like that.  And the attitude doesn't change up through college, to the minors, and even the majors.  This is how every MLB umpire has been trained.  What changes is the cameras.  They free up the umpire to make his best call, not the expected one.  The impact of HD and replay is the umpires can and (at the MLB level) have, to dramatically narrow the band of plays where they will revert to the expected.  
 
Brent Rice -- who has thought a lot more about what makes a great umpire than probably anyone on the planet -- gave a good interview about this.  It puts to rest any notion that umpires are trained to do anything less than make the correct call.
 
 
I would say that plays on the bases, particularly tags of runners, are the plays most influenced by players' reactions and the flow of the play. Unless something specific to the play dictates otherwise, players, coaches, and managers like to have the expected call made. For instance: If a runner stealing second slides into second base and does nothing to avoid the tag, and the ball beats him to the base, and the fielder puts down a tag; he will be called out 99% of the time. Now, most of the time the tag is actually applied so there is no problem. But on occasion, the tag is missed. You usually don't see arguments from managers on this type of play though, because it was the expected call.
Where you get the arguments is when you don't make the expected call, even if you're right in doing so. And because baseball is putting more and more cameras at all angles in the ballparks, and because of the expected expansion of instant replay, you will see more and more of these expected calls not be called.
Now, a tag of the runner, whether he's trying to avoid the tag or not, is required. Touching the base on the front end of the double play at second is required. Staying on the base at first is required. With umpires being scrutinized more and more, these are the calls you will see increasingly made.
 
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/9/2/4676454/an-inside-look-at-umpiring-talking-to-brent-rice-from-the-wendelstedt
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
Well, one of the previous posts seemed to imply that I was referring to something that never existed, but here is a quote from Don Baylor saying that it does and certainly he knows more about baseball than any of us.  The tag play is part of what is now a reviewable play so it is, indeed, applicable to this thread.
 
If Keltan Wong had made a dash for second and avoided the tag with some tap dance that could only be apreciated in super slow mo I believe that calling him safe would have have unjustifiably gotten him off the hook after committing the heinous crime of getting himself picked off, with 2 outs in the ninth inning, with the Cardinals's best player battting as the potential tying run.
 
Most of the people on this thread are quite offended by calls that can be proven to be wrong only through analysis from several angles in slow motion.  I'm not and don't believe the changes in the game caused by replay such as managers loitering on the field, no more manager/fights fights and the delay in knowing whether it's safe to celebrate are worth it to prevent these "wrongs"
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
wolfe_boston said:
Well, one of the previous posts seemed to imply that I was referring to something that never existed, but here is a quote from Don Baylor saying that it does and certainly he knows more about baseball than any of us.  The tag play is part of what is now a reviewable play so it is, indeed, applicable to this thread.
 
This only proves that Don Baylor doesn't understand the expression "unwritten rules." There are countless examples of umpires making a safe call on missed tags despite the throw beating the runner; those examples disprove the notion that there is such an unwritten rule. Moreover, DDB just offered a very thoughtful post that included quotations from the lead instructor at the Harry Wendelstedt Umpire School indicating how they call these issues and the relations and problems it has with the rules.
 
Making calls on tag plays is difficult. When umps can't see it well enough, there is a presumption of the tag being made as that is more likely, as per Brent Rice's explanation above. That is not an unwritten rule, but rather a matter of expediency. As per DDB's post, replay will influence this as umps may feel more secure in being able to back-up a missed tag call or just through the ability to review it.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
So, in essence... get off my lawn?
 
Your argument is that a player should not be able to use good technique or even luck to get out of bad decision.  I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  It's a tag play.  Not a "the runner made a bad decision so screw the on field results" play.  You still haven't provided a single logical reason why the tag should be secondary to whether the runner made a good choice or not.
 
And again, Baylor complaining about a call he didn't like doesn't prove there was an unwritten rule.  Even ignoring the context, former players say stupid shit about the game all the time.  There's a reason Joe Morgan is in the hall of fame.  There's also a reason he was a terrible announcer.  Being able to play the game is not the same as always being right about the game.
 
And no, this isn't relevant to replay just because it's a reviewable call.  Unless you can prove that tag plays were never or even rarely called based on the tag, rather than the quality of the decision by the base runner prior to the implementation of this system, then replay has changed nothing about it other than allowing for greater accuracy when making these calls.  Considering how many times we've seen Dustin Pedroia avoid a tag at second in his career to get called safe on a steal or while advancing on a wild pitch or whatever, it seems pretty clear that the tag play was being enforced correctly well before replay ever existed.  That you don't like replay does not change that.
 
Edit: reply is to wolfe, not Rev.  Also, Rev was faster.
 

wolfe_boston

Commissioner of Calvinball
Mar 16, 2014
110
"Get off my lawn" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 
All of us loved this game before a review system was implemented.  Again, some people, including me, don't think increasing the accuracy rate from 99.5 to 99.8% is worth some of the other effects it has on the game.  By the way, I also hate the use of a replay system in the NFL.  I hate hearing the announcer say, "he has to make a football move" in reference to a possible catch.
 
If Joe Morgan and Don Baylor are to be dismissed as idtiots, I will now conduct a poll by contacting MLB umpires. 
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,366
Or, if one consequence of instant replay is that fielders have to actually catch a ball, or actually touch second base on a double play, or keep their foot on first base while they are waiting for the throw, or tag a runner even if a shoe might scratch their pinky, then it's all a good thing.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
wolfe_boston said:
"Get off my lawn" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 
All of us loved this game before a review system was implemented.  Again, some people, including me, don't think increasing the accuracy rate from 99.5 to 99.8% is worth some of the other effects it has on the game.  By the way, I also hate the use of a replay system in the NFL.  I hate hearing the announcer say, "he has to make a football move" in reference to a possible catch.
 
If Joe Morgan and Don Baylor are to be dismissed as idtiots, I will now conduct a poll by contacting MLB umpires. 
 
This thread is for tracking the replays and the accuracy of the results. If you want to complain about or otherwise discuss replay in general and its effect on the game, we have a thread for that in the MLB Forum that you can find here.
 
And nobody said Don Baylor was an idiot; at best, I said he used language carelessly.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,964
Alexandria, VA
wolfe_boston said:
"Get off my lawn" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 
All of us loved this game before a review system was implemented.  
 
The tag thing has nothing to do with replay; the video I posted was from last year, and it's been consistently called that way as long as I can remember.  You're the one who's advocating a change.
 


If Joe Morgan and Don Baylor are to be dismissed as idtiots, I will now conduct a poll by contacting MLB umpires.
 
a) You're missing the point.  You could have the unanimous declaration of Bud Selig, the umpire's union, the MLBPA, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, and Abner Doubleday and it wouldn't change the facts on the field.  It's not a question of polling, it's a question about whether historically the ball beating the runner has been called out automatically even if the runner eluded the tag.
b) On top of that, the Don Baylor article is also not directly related to the question we were talking about (to quote you: "What do people think of tags plays at 2b and 3b?"), as it discusses a pickoff at 1B and a play at the plate.
c) Joe Morgan is almost unanimously considered one of the dumbest, most uninformed announcers ever.  Joe Posnanski talks a little about why such a smart baseball player turned into such a dumb announcer in Gelf Magazine:
 


The disconnect between Morgan the player and Morgan the announcer is one that I'm just not sure anyone has figured. Bill James tells a great story about how one time Jon Miller showed Morgan Bill's New Historical Baseball Abstract, which has Morgan ranked as the best second baseman of all time, ahead of Rogers Hornsby. Well, Morgan starts griping that this was ridiculous, that Hornsby hit .358 in his career, and Morgan never hit .358, and so on. And there it was, perfectly aligned—Joe Morgan the announcer arguing against Joe Morgan the player.
 
You're right about Joe Morgan being the ultimate Moneyball-style player, too. It wasn't just his style of play, either; Joe Morgan quotes from 1975 sound like they could have gone into the book Moneyball, verbatim. He talked all the time about how batting average was overrated, and how you had to get on base, and how RBIs were just a context statistic, and how you had to steal bases at a high percentage, and so on and so on.
 
If I had to take a stab at what became of that Joe Morgan, I think it would be that Joe always had this belief, common among great players, that to play baseball well takes something more than athletic ability, practice, and a certain mental dexterity. He always believed that it takes moral courage, the nerves of a cat burglar, the strength of a thousand men. He believed even then that the people who played baseball well had something inside that regular, ordinary people were missing. And that belief has grown since 1975. He is anti-Moneyball, I think, not because he has spent a lot of time analyzing it but because it was written by a guy who didn't play baseball (and it's about a guy who wasn't good enough to play baseball). He is anti-Bill James because James didn't play baseball. These people couldn't possibly understand the game. They had never stared into the eyes of Bob Gibson. They had never been upended by Willie Stargell. They can't understand.
 
And the more years that pass, the more intently he pushes that line of thinking. For Joe, getting a single with a man on second in a tie game isn't just a good piece of hitting, it's a moral triumph. And, yes, that's hard to listen to. The shame of it is, I don't think Joe was a bad announcer in his early years, before this part of himself set in. He's an extremely smart guy and very funny in the right setting.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,364
The wrong side of the bridge....
Reverend said:
 
This only proves that Don Baylor doesn't understand the expression "unwritten rules." There are countless examples of umpires making a safe call on missed tags despite the throw beating the runner; those examples disprove the notion that there is such an unwritten rule. Moreover, DDB just offered a very thoughtful post that included quotations from the lead instructor at the Harry Wendelstedt Umpire School indicating how they call these issues and the relations and problems it has with the rules
 
In fairness to wolfe, I think DDB's quote completely and emphatically confirms his point, and if you want to say the phrase "unwritten rule" doesn't apply to what's described there I think you're arguing semantics. The gist of the quote is that umpires have traditionally called plays based primarily on what they see, but additionally and importantly on what they know about the expectations of the participants. Since the rule book says nothing about this latter part, it's certainly an unwritten something or other....call it an "unwritten secondary criterion" if you want, but let's stop talking as if wolfe is just making up shit, because a pretty good authority has just been quoted resoundingly to the contrary.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
In fairness to wolfe, I think DDB's quote completely and emphatically confirms his point, and if you want to say the phrase "unwritten rule" doesn't apply to what's described there I think you're arguing semantics. The gist of the quote is that umpires have traditionally called plays based primarily on what they see, but additionally and importantly on what they know about the expectations of the participants. Since the rule book says nothing about this latter part, it's certainly an unwritten something or other....call it an "unwritten secondary criterion" if you want, but let's stop talking as if wolfe is just making up shit, because a pretty good authority has just been quoted resoundingly to the contrary.
 
Replied to this in the general replay thread, rather than here.
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/78577-replay-to-expand-in-2014/?p=5376661