Replay to Expand in 2014

[MentalDisabldLst]

Diaper condition confirmed upon review. To clarify, I believe the play at the plate would be eligible for review, but only in regard to whether the runner beat the throw. In other words, the review should be made with respect to the conditions at the time of the play, which was that the force was in order. Tough one, and I'm still somewhat uncertain that it is the correct legal policy.

 
It absolutely is the correct policy, because the players react and adjust their play according to the calls that umpires make on the field.  A catcher's behavior for a force is completely different from his behavior in a tag play, and it would be entirely unfair to the defense to tell the catcher, ex post facto, that he didn't do it properly.
 
This is one of those scenarios that it is not within the remit of replay to fix, it's a natural consequence of the rules.  If umpires screw certain things up, sometimes you can't un-scramble that egg.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

 
It absolutely is the correct policy, because the players react and adjust their play according to the calls that umpires make on the field.  A catcher's behavior for a force is completely different from his behavior in a tag play, and it would be entirely unfair to the defense to tell the catcher, ex post facto, that he didn't do it properly.
 
This is one of those scenarios that it is not within the remit of replay to fix, it's a natural consequence of the rules.  If umpires screw certain things up, sometimes you can't un-scramble that egg.

Then the A's got screwed, if I'm reading you right. Because that's exactly what the umps did.

 

[Lowrielicious]

I found it curious that Oakland decided to play under protest because the run was counted.  It's their own fault the run scored because the catcher should have tried to apply the tag regardless.
 
Despite the fact that the runner from first was initially ruled safe, in real time, the first baseman doesn't have time to hear the call before he makes the throw home.  So given that he knows he tagged the runner (he clearly made contact), it was on him to communicate to the catcher that the force was off and a tag required.  No different than a play in which the ball is hit to the 1B and he tags first before throwing to second to get the other runner.  First basemen are taught to yell "tag" or something to communicate to the SS/2B that they have to tag the runner because the force is off.  He should have done the same thing upon throwing home.  Based on the fact that the catcher simply caught the ball and made no attempt to tag the runner, we have to conclude the first baseman didn't say anything.  All players involved demonstrated a lack of baseball smarts all around, IMO.

 
Agree that this is a key take away point here for the defense on all teams going forward in the replay world. He knew he made the tag and regardless of the on-field call he knows this can be reviewed and corrected, so he should be yelling to apply the tag.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

Then the A's got screwed, if I'm reading you right. Because that's exactly what the umps did.

The A's were screwed because the umps changed the conditions of the play at the plate after the play had been made. They did not do what I (and I believe this is MDL's view, too) think is appropriate. Your second sentence should end "...did not do."

----------------

Also, the argument - if I'm reading it correctly - that the fielders are at fault for not taking a belt and suspenders approach to putting out runners is dubious reasoning. It is sound practical advice, but it's not a justification for poor rules enforcement policies. You can't change the conditions of a scenario and then enforce punishment based on the altered conditions.

 

[Rice4HOF]

Not in the OBR, but in case studies and interpretation manuals (and advanced umpire clinics), we are taught to "where possible, correct situations caused by umpire mistakes".  A specific example used is that of a base runner stealing 2nd base on ball four.  Here is the exact wording of that situation:
"Situation.. runner attempts to steal second on the pitch, and the umpire calls the runner out. Ball four was called on the pitch. The runner, because of being called out, is now off the base is tagged again.
Interpretation... Because the runner was entitled to second base on ball four, and is called out in error, the umpire shall call time, and place the runner back at second".
Now I know the MLB does NOTapply that specific interpretation. You often see in that situation, the 2nd base umpire looks at the plate and makes sure ball 4 was not called, before making a safe/out call to avoid this issue.  However, I think the general principle should apply.  
For example, If a ball is trapped and the umpire gives a no-catch/safe signal and a runner doesn't tag up.... if after replay, or even the umpires just getting together, they determine that the ball was in fact caught, I don't think you should allow an appeal that a runner didn't tag up. He didn't tag up based on the original erroneous call - can't penalize him for that.
So... I think this situation is similar. Based on the umpires' initial call, there was a force. They got the out on the force, just because after the fact the force was removed shouldn't remove the fact that it was on at the time.  In other words, I think if Oakland had lost, they had a good chance of having the protest upheld. 

 

[BigJimEd]

My question if what if the runner would have been safe on a tag play but was out on the force play.
I haven't watched this play yet but what if the catcher is stretching towards foul on the first base side to get the force out but he clearly wouldn't have been able to apply the tag in time.

Do you give them the double play? Then you are compounding the original mistake.

What if it is questionable if they could have applied the tag in time?
Do you leave it up to the umpires judgement?

 

[glennhoffmania]

This is pretty awful.
 
Link

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I'm not sure that isn't a good application of the new rules against trucking the catcher.  The catcher can't block the plate without the ball.  Likewise, the runner can't plow into the catcher in an attempt to dislodge the ball.
 
In the play in question, Mathis stood in the basepath well before he had the ball.  Cozart changed his running path to avoid injuring Mathis, meaning he did what he's supposed to do under the rule.  The fact that the ball eventually beat Cozart to the plate doesn't mean that it isn't Mathis' job to stand aside until he has the ball, and then try to make the tag once he does.  If Cozart had continued to charge forward (on the very basepath, mind you) in an attempt to pull a Kit Keller, he might have seriously injured Mathis, which is the exact play the rules are now designed to avoid.  Cozart did his job, Mathis didn't do his, and I think the play call was justly reversed.
 
None of the above is changed by the fact that if Mathis had stood to either side of the basepath, he would have still received the ball early enough to tag Cozart out.  That would have been the wise play, but he didn't do that.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Mathis only went into the basepath to field the throw that was up the line.  My understanding is that a player can go into the path to field an offline throw.  He clearly didn't move to his left until it was clear that the throw was up the line.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Yes, but he was already IN the basepath.
 
Moving to his left or right to field an errant throw from RF would be irrelevant to whether he needed to stand in the basepath, wouldn't it?  He could stand on either side of the line and still move to his left or right without obstructing the runner.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I honestly don't know what you're looking at.  Watch the clip at 2:11.  Mathis was not in the bathpath.  As the throw was coming in he moved to his left to catch it.  Under the new rule that's permitted.  He then had the ball and stayed in the basepath, which is also permitted.
 
In other words, agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[Average Reds]

I think that call is an incredibly poor interpretation of the new rules. 
 
You can clearly see in the video that before Mathis set up, he looked down to make sure he was not setting up in the baseline.  (It's right there in the video at the 5:44 mark - he sets up and checks where he is to make sure he's not in the basepath.)  Then when the throw comes in, he shifts to the left and back to receive the ball.
 
I do understand that in moving to get the ball he placed himself in the baseline, but that is allowed in the rules. 
 
Just a very, very bad call.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I totally agree.  Because of that you can cut your time out short.

 

[Infield Infidel]

This is a bad call, but the rule is terrible. It makes the catcher set up on the first base side of the plate, and then reach over the plate to make a tag. But if the ball is up the third base side, he has to cross the plate into the third base side, which brings him into the runner's baseline. This is exactly what the catcher did in this instance. He did the right thing according to the rule.
 
The problem with the rule is the baseline exemption. Either the catcher can be on the baseline, or he can't. Once he is allowed on the baseline, for any reason, there's no exception for the runner to run into him if the catcher is on the line trying to catch the ball, so he has to run around. The runner doesn't have a choice, he has to avoid contact. The catcher is not just going to let the ball go buy him if he can reach it. 
 
They should just say the catcher must stand inside the line, and the runner must stay outside the line. That's more cut and dried.
 
If the catcher sets up inside the diamond, at the front of the plate, he doesn't have to lunge up the baseline if the throw is a little up the line. He's in position to field balls toward either line since he's in the middle. 

 

[Gdiguy]

To me, this call is reminiscent of the Middlebrooks WS obstruction call - I don't think Mathis intended to block the plate, but once the throw went up the line he only really had two options, (1) to let the throw get past him or (2) to move into a position that blocked the plate and opened himself to this call. Watching the replay I can't really disagree with the call; whether he intended to set up there or not, to me he was already borderline before the throw and moved into the base path so early (before the throw arrived) there was absolutely no way for the runner to take a line to the plate without going through Mathis.
 
I do agree with Infield Infidel, it would be simpler to just remove the exemption entirely and just make it a clear "the catcher can't block the path to the plate for any reason" rule, and just bring it in line with every other base. The current situation is a bit of a 'we'll make the change slowly' thing, but really if a 3B made the same play on a runner at third, it would be obviously obstruction... so if we're no longer considering catchers as armored tanks to be smashed through there's really no reason to give them more leeway on blocking the base than any other defensive player.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I think you need to read the rule again.

 

[Average Reds]

I totally agree.  Because of that you can cut your time out short.

I had no idea what this meant until I read the other thread ...

 

[Wingack]

I think this is the most dedicated instant replay thread so I am going to bump it. Today during the Yanks - Indians game an Indians runner was called out on a pretty bad neighborhood play call at second base. He was definitely safe, Tito came out to call for the replay, but the umps decided not to check the video. It was a case of a new rule bumping up against an unwritten rule and the umps were caught flat footed. What does everyone think should have been done under those circumstances?

 

[jon abbey]

I think this is the most dedicated instant replay thread so I am going to bump it. Today during the Yanks - Indians game an Indians runner was called out on a pretty bad neighborhood play call at second base. He was definitely safe, Tito came out to call for the replay, but the umps decided not to check the video. It was a case of a new rule bumping up against an unwritten rule and the umps were caught flat footed. What does everyone think should have been done under those circumstances?

 
I think the neighborhood play is explicitly outlined in the replay rules, the umpires just blew this one badly. Francona talks about it here, and is right in all of his points, I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITHublz7eeQ

As I said in the NY game thread, I do think it's a problem when the black/white of replay conflicts with a grey area of tradition, the NBA has a problem with this and the late game out of bounds call. A lot of these calls involve hard contact, but instead of calling a foul, the ref just gives the team that was fouled the ball out of bounds. The problem now is that once that call is made, it can be reversed via instant replay, and it ends up less just that it did in the pre-replay days. But MLB anticipated that here and put it in the rules, the umps just badly botched this one. 

 

[Wingack]

Fact of the matter is, because there were questions about each of those points that Francona raises, the umps should have at the very least gone and looked at the video to see if he was correct about any of those things. They still could have determined to rule the runner out if they wanted to. I don't really understand why they dug in their heels here. 

 

[grimshaw]

The umps have been pretty inconsistent about when to review plays when manager's are out of challenges too.
Last night, Walt Weiss argued that Granderson  should have been out when stealing second and he came out and argued.  The crew chief had made the safe call, but agreed to look at it anyhow.  If Weiss had looked at the replay first, he probably wouldn't have argued it, and it was just a waste of time as he was clearly safe.