Master Index of Archived Threads


Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Gwreck May 25 2021 08:53 PM

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65515 time=1621990300 user_id=68] Maybe baseball should make up a rule that Mets baserunners are allowed to walk off the base whenever they feel like it, with impunity, and the defense isnt allowed to tag them out while they're off the base. Yeah, it's the rules' fault that Villar and deGrom were tagged out, not Villar or deGrom's fault. /rollseyes

Of course they were out.



The answer is not to get rid of replay. The answer to this is to strictly enforce the replay rules. You want to challenge? You've got to do so immediately. No “put up your hand to hold the game while you watch the replay yourself first.” And the there's the actual strategy of whether you have challenges of if you want to waste them on deGrom's 2 out double or not.

Ceetar May 25 2021 09:04 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

I don't want ANY challenges. just get all the calls correct. You want to allow a safety net around the base for pop-up type slides? change the rules. Make the bases bigger. But the way it's written, they're rightly out. They came off the safety of the base.

Johnny Lunchbucket May 25 2021 09:13 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Being at the game was a joke, I was so upset I nearly left. The three most exciting moments in the game turned into bullshit delays, 2 obvious miscarriages of justice on tickytack reviews that made me want to punch the Rockies manager in the face, whoever that guy is. Seriously I feel as old as I ever have saying there is no way baseball survives if this is highest and best expression of play.

bmfc1 May 26 2021 02:48 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Replay is to show dopes like CB Bucknor that the ball was over the fence and not to call Jake out for leaving the bag for .2 of a second due to physics. Once you're on the bag the play is over but now runners hold the tag hoping for a temporary, infinitesimal, gap between body and base. Yes, they were out by the current rules but fix the damn rules. If MLB is testing rules to encourage steals then do away with this nonsense which discourages steals and slows down an already slow game. In the NFL, once you've "broken the plane" of the endzone you can hand the ball to the opponent and it's still a touchdown. In MLB, even if you're safe by "a mile" until the umpire calls time the other team can hold the ball on you hoping that you'll fall off the base like it's Twister. The other half of FAFIF agrees: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2021/05/26/mas-tomas/

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2021 03:52 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Replay is to show dopes like CB Bucknor that the ball was over the fence and not to call Jake out for leaving the bag for .2 of a second due to physics. Once you're on the bag the play is over but now runners hold the tag hoping for a temporary, infinitesimal, gap between body and base. Yes, they were out by the current rules but fix the damn rules. If MLB is testing rules to encourage steals then do away with this nonsense which discourages steals and slows down an already slow game. In the NFL, once you've "broken the plane" of the endzone you can hand the ball to the opponent and it's still a touchdown. In MLB, even if you're safe by "a mile" until the umpire calls time the other team can hold the ball on you hoping that you'll fall off the base like it's Twister. The other half of FAFIF agrees: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2021/05/26/mas-tomas/ I disagree with most of what youse are sayin'. I don't see how banning replay review on those sliding into the base plays like last night's Villar and deGrom plays solves anything. A baserunner can, just the same, be called out for coming off the base live and in real-time instead of by replay review. And then the team at-bat would be screwed out of a replay challenge and might have to live with an incorrect call if the runner never did come off the base in ticky-tacky style. And what about the ball popping out of the second baseman's glove immediately after he appeared to have successfully tagged out the oncoming baserunner? Should a replay review to determine whether the fielder held onto the ball long enough to constitute possession to record the out also be banned? I don't see the analogy between that tag play and the NFL rule that the play is over as soon as a player with possession of the football crosses the end zone plane. Apples and oranges. The baseball play isn't over as soon as the runner touches the base. That's just made up stuff to support your conclusions. So some of your opinions, in part, are based upon something that isn't even true. And what about when there's another runner, a lead runner involved in that play? What if the lead runner reached third on the play but now wants to advance home because the second baseman is off balance or on the ground from the tag play at second? Is that part of the play dead, too? How would that work? Would the lead runner be deemed "live" with the right to try and advance home while the runner on second is now "dead" because he crossed the plane or something? The runner on second, according to you, can't advance to third because you'd end the play as soon as second base is touched but if he comes off the base, he shouldn't be allowed to be tagged out either. And does he have to slide into the base for the play to be called dead? What if he arrives at second standing up? And what if he reaches second on a line drive in the gap? Is that play called dead as soon as the runner hits second base even if the ball is rolling around in the outfield? The idea that replay review shouldn't be used for ticky tacky plays is just a conclusion and it's not persuasive. Every rule in the rule book must be followed, just the same. Umps don't get to decide which rules are enforced and which are ignored, because if they did, enforcement would be an arbitrary farce and the rules and player expectations would change from game to game. A player has to stay on the base just as much as a ball has to clear the outfield wall in fair territory to be deemed a home run. I agree with you when you say that if the base tag rules are flawed, they should be changed ... improved. That makes sense. I don't know if those rules are flawed but if I thought they were flawed, I'd hope for change, too. But I don't see how replay is creating or exacerbating a problem. It seems to me that replay is shining a light on non-compliance with some of the rules. That's what replay ought to be doing.

Frayed Knot May 26 2021 05:15 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

The problem, as I've stated here a number of times, is that replay is always sold on the idea that it will only be used to correct the most obvious goofs and that it will be limited and that it will be quick. So fans, imagining a world where the Denkinger calls gets reversed, where the Galarraga kid from Detroit gets his perfect game back, and where the handful of blatant calls that go against your team each year (only your team, the other side never gets screwed by the umps) get corrected, enthusiastically embrace the concept and believe that the baseball world becomes a better place for it. But once "getting it right" is set as the ultimate goal there becomes no way to keep it from being used for every infraction no matter how minor. Don't want it to overturn calls where a foot comes off the base by an inch? Then how 'bout two inches? Is two not enough but you could see flipping it if it were four? There's got to be a standard somewhere and the only logical standard is that you have to stay in contact with the base. If you're off it while being tagged then you're out. The goal line analogy isn't remotely the same thing here. So how to "fix" things? 1) The pre-delay is most the obvious answer. If the Rox truly believe that deVillar came off the base in real time then they're free to challenge but they don't get half a minute to study the replay like it's the Zabruder film before deciding to decide. I'd give teams an extra challenge in exchange for eliminating this farce. 2) Stick to whatever the limit is. If you get two challenges then you get two. Not two plus begging the umps for more because it's past the 7th inning and you spent both of yours on ticky-tack calls back in the 1st but this time you really, really think you're right. The manager is going to need to trust his players; if they call for a replay because they swear they tagged him in time and that turns out to be not the case then that skipper is going to be reluctant to take that player's word for it in the future. 3) the umpiring crews in the replay office need to be VERY reluctant to overturn borderline calls. Again, replay is sold on the premise that only "conclusive" evidence will overturn a call but we all know that's not true. If ten years or so of MLB evidence isn't enough to convince you of that then four decades of NFL replay follies should be. What's become the norm instead is what I like to call the 51% rule, if the crew think it's more likely that he's out than safe then they flip the call even though the evidence isn't within a Pete Alonso HR of being conclusive. How many times over the years (again, NFL has the bigger pot of evidence) have you on your couch, or the guy in the barstool next to you, or the announcers in the booth, seen eight different angles of replays and declared that there's "No Way" this one is/isn't going to be overturned ... and yet it is (or is not)? Apply what was supposed to be the standard in the first place then these borderline challenges will get rejected more often which will lead to managers being more reluctant to challenge them in the first place. And if it turns out that the dude's foot did come off the base for a split second but you didn't challenge because you were unsure then you've got to live with it and move on.

Benjamin Grimm May 26 2021 05:33 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

I agree that the goal line analogy doesn't apply, except in the case of home plate, of course.

bmfc1 May 26 2021 06:47 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

"If you get two challenges then you get two. Not two plus begging the umps for more because it's past the 7th inning and you spent both of yours on ticky-tack calls back in the 1st but this time you really, really think you're right." (MATTINGLY!) How about only 2 for the 1st through 6th innings (in a 9-inning game) and then the remaining innings are up to the umps/replay umps? "Every rule in the rule book must be followed, just the same. Umps don't get to decide which rules are enforced and which are ignored, because if they did, enforcement would be an arbitrary farce and the rules and player expectations would change from game to game." Spoken like a lawyer because it frustrates me when you hear "he got off on a technicality". The law is the law. Change the law. Interesting counter-points. I hope that Manfred is thinking about it today, too.

Frayed Knot May 26 2021 07:00 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

I'm repeating myself here too, but what I suspect is that MLB is afraid of two things if they attempt to limit replay. 1) that if they do away with the 'call from upstairs' step they fear that the home team would gain an advantage via some sort of signaling system which the road team wouldn't have access to. 2) if a bad call was allowed to stand, either because a team had run out of challenges and/or it didn't have the benefit of viewing the replay first, the sports media (which, let's face it, is already about 80% anti-baseball) would skewer the sport for still living in the 19th century by having the technology to right the wrong but choosing not to do so, and I think they'd be very sensitive to that kind of criticism.

Ceetar May 26 2021 07:25 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Robot umps. digital bases. They turn green when a baserunner is 'touching' (which you define programmatically if you want to allow a half inch above the bag for instance) replay and technology is exposing how flawed umpiring is. But there's no reason to stick with the flaws just because we didn't notice them or couldn't quantify them before. Fix the flaws. games are won and loss on a subjective spotty judgement by an umpire, and that's NOT sporting. A bad understanding of the rule and how to call it correctly almost cost the Mets the 2015 NLDS.

Edgy MD May 26 2021 07:29 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Frayed Knot wrote: 1) that if they do away with the 'call from upstairs' step they fear that the home team would gain an advantage via some sort of signaling system which the road team wouldn't have access to. I weigh that fear to be of less import than the actually deleterious effect of the call from upstairs. Make the decision on the field. If somebody is standing there looking for signals from the sky, then they're going to look pretty stupid. Beyond that, I could be wrong, but if those two baserunners who screwed up last night were Rockies baserunners, and the Mets protested, but didn't get the calls because the players were technically out but at too nitpicky a level, we'd have trouble thinking of that as a fair and just outcome. We can re-engineer the game, again, or we can teach players to hold the bag better.

bmfc1 May 26 2021 07:35 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

"games are won and loss on a subjective spotty judgment by an umpire, and that's NOT sporting." No, it's not and I don't like when Keith says that it's always been part of the game.

Ceetar May 26 2021 07:36 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

could make the bags bigger. even a few inches on either side would make stolen bases slightly easier, make staying on the bag slightly easier, would make beating out infield singles slightly easier. You'd barely notice, and MLB _probably_ could tweak it without screwing it up like the ball. Of course, they don't actually care, so it's hard to say. Writing a corporate memo to ball manufacturers is one thing, actually resdesigning the baseball field takes work. Or you know, dilute the pool of pitching with 6 new teams. You get the excitement of the bidding for new cities/teams, the draw of seeing a new team around the country, the naming debate. You get more playoffs without having to let half the teams in, players get more jobs, you arguably also get to bring back 2 dozen minor league teams, travel is reduced for some clubs. You could create even more scarcity of matchup that becomes a draw that interleague diluted. Mets might only play the Mariners at Citi Field once a decade! You could introduce more regional rivalries, which drives up attendance/ratings too.

Johnny Lunchbucket May 26 2021 09:06 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction

Benjamin Grimm May 26 2021 09:09 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

That's a good idea, and a reasonable solution. Put it in the category of check swings and fair/foul balls that hit the ground in front of the umpire.

Frayed Knot May 26 2021 09:42 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

=Ceetar post_id=65573 time=1622036185 user_id=102] could make the bags bigger. even a few inches on either side would make stolen bases slightly easier, make staying on the bag slightly easier, would make beating out infield singles slightly easier. You'd barely notice, and MLB _probably_ could tweak it without screwing it up like the ball.

I thought they already did this.

Edgy MD May 26 2021 09:46 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

They've expanded the size of the bases as an "experimental" rule throughout the affiliated minors. It's not in the majors yet, but since it's at every level of the affiliated minors, I've got to expect that it is highly unlikely to not appear universally in 2022.

dinosaur jesus May 26 2021 10:21 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction I agree with this. I'm fine with replay being used to correct things that the umpires should be able to see, even if they miss them sometimes. I'm not comfortable with it being used to correct things no human being could possibly see. For 150 years a player who slid into third like Villar did would have been safe, no question, no controversy. And now suddenly we find out we were wrong all that time. For 150 years we also had runners called out who reached the base before the throw, balls called foul that landed fair, trapped balls called catches. But those were controversial, and I'm glad we can finally get them right. So let's make certain kinds of calls unreviewable. Sliding past the base and getting tagged has always been an out, if the umpire saw it. So review it. Momentarily losing contact with the base while sliding over it has never been an out. So don't review it.

seawolf17 May 26 2021 10:57 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

dinosaur jesus wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction I agree with this. I'm fine with replay being used to correct things that the umpires should be able to see, even if they miss them sometimes. I'm not comfortable with it being used to correct things no human being could possibly see. For 150 years a player who slid into third like Villar did would have been safe, no question, no controversy. And now suddenly we find out we were wrong all that time. For 150 years we also had runners called out who reached the base before the throw, balls called foul that landed fair, trapped balls called catches. But those were controversial, and I'm glad we can finally get them right. So let's make certain kinds of calls unreviewable. Sliding past the base and getting tagged has always been an out, if the umpire saw it. So review it. Momentarily losing contact with the base while sliding over it has never been an out. So don't review it. This. Both of those calls last night were bullshit and everyone involved knew it.

Ceetar May 26 2021 11:50 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

both those calls last night were correct and we'd know. I'd be pissed if the opposition got an extra base they clearly didn't deserve and the rules prevented correcting it. If we're really just concerned with whether a player gest 90 feet before the ball gets there, not so much the tag itself, you can probably do this with Statcast. Anything else and you're just giving in to luck. Where the umpire happens to be positioned to get a decent enough look at the runner, the tag and the base for an unimpeded constant view. Because even if you want to make a play like last night non-reviewable, it's STILL going to be called by umpires sometimes, just wrongly.

Willets Point May 26 2021 11:51 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Edgy MD wrote: They've expanded the size of the bases as an "experimental" rule throughout the affiliated minors. It's not in the majors yet, but since it's at every level of the affiliated minors, I've got to expect that it is highly unlikely to not appear universally in 2022. Are the bases going to have greater depth to them too? Because then maybe they won't separate a few microns from a sliding baserunner's belly.

Willets Point May 26 2021 11:55 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack... Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 26 2021 11:57 AM

Of course it might also tear off skin or break ribs, but it's really important that the baserunner be firmly touching the base at all times.

Willets Point May 26 2021 11:57 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

In fact, MLB should invest in electron microscope to review such plays. If the atoms of the player don't interact with the atoms of the base, can they really be said to be "touching."

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2021 12:23 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Oh c'mon. An umpire shouldn't be allowed to call a baserunner safe because he was "close enough" in tagging the base. Maybe next, a first baseman wouldn't have to have his foot on the base to complete an out play at first. Or maybe the home ump should be allowed to call a strike on a pitch that he truly believes to be a ball because the pitch was "close enough" to home plate. Because it's so ticky-tacky to call a ball on a pitch that, by an eighth of an inch, barely misses home plate. Youse want a really good football analogy instead of the crossing the end-zone plane stuff? This is like a running back who's about to lose control of the football being allowed to call a timeout just before he fumbles the ball.

kcmets May 26 2021 01:44 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Willets Point wrote: In fact, MLB should invest in electron microscope to review such plays. If the atoms of the player don't interact with the atoms of the base, can they really be said to be "touching." Well, the uniform is part of the player but I'm sure in this day and age that can be programmed in.

Willets Point May 26 2021 03:52 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

We should put sensors in the uniform and in the base so that we can be 100% sure.

Johnny Lunchbucket May 26 2021 04:09 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Oh c'mon. An umpire shouldn't be allowed to call a baserunner safe because he was "close enough" in tagging the base. Maybe next, a first baseman wouldn't have to have his foot on the base to complete an out play at first. Or maybe the home ump should be allowed to call a strike on a pitch that he truly believes to be a ball because the pitch was "close enough" to home plate. Because it's so ticky-tacky to call a ball on a pitch that, by an eighth of an inch, barely misses home plate. Youse want a really good football analogy instead of the crossing the end-zone plane stuff? This is like a running back who's about to lose control of the football being allowed to call a timeout just before he fumbles the ball. No it's not. I'm saying leave it to the umpire to determine whether an infintessimal and momentary separation of body and base ought to be reviewable when a guy clearly beats a tag/throw to 2nd or 3rd base and signals no intention to progress further than that bag in the moment. Now if some palooka tries to nick a corner of the bag with his pinky and his entire body slides into the baseline, maybe you can review. Or when a dumbass times his slide poorly and passes the base entirely, yeah review that. But this bullshit we saw last night--beat the throw, only intended to stop his motion and remain in place-- that's the kind of shit that makes every play some theoretical result and reflects poorly on everyone.

nymr83 May 26 2021 04:50 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

If you come off the base at all and get tagged, you are out. pretty simple. I don't buy the argument that for 150 years we couldn't have seen you were out so you shouldn't be now. The same argument can be made about the strike-zone. If we are going to allow review, then make the call whatever the review clearly showed. If you don't like the rule, which we are now better able to enforce than we were before, change the rule. Advocate for the rule that a runner is safe if he touches any base before he is tagged and makes no effort to advance to another base, if that is the rule you want. I'm fine with the current rules and fine with the corner-cases of NFL-like review of inches. If you are worried about frivolous challenges wasting time and just letting ALL close calls stand, I'd also be fine with putting the decision of whether or not to review in the hands of any umpire not named Angel Hernandez.

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2021 05:23 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

=nymr83 post_id=65628 time=1622069432 user_id=54] If you come off the base at all and get tagged, you are out. pretty simple. I don't buy the argument that for 150 years we couldn't have seen you were out so you shouldn't be now. The same argument can be made about the strike-zone. If we are going to allow review, then make the call whatever the review clearly showed. If you don't like the rule, which we are now better able to enforce than we were before, change the rule. Advocate for the rule that a runner is safe if he touches any base before he is tagged and makes no effort to advance to another base, if that is the rule you want. I'm fine with the current rules and fine with the corner-cases of NFL-like review of inches. If you are worried about frivolous challenges wasting time and just letting ALL close calls stand, I'd also be fine with putting the decision of whether or not to review in the hands of any umpire not named Angel Hernandez.

Exactly.



A baserunner who's tagged with the baseball while he's not in contact with a base is out. And that's the rule. If the rule is flawed, then the rule should be changed.



This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed for presenfing the play under review with greater clarity.

dinosaur jesus May 26 2021 06:01 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity.

But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

Ceetar May 26 2021 07:08 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity. But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

That's completely random and arbitrary based on where the umpire is standing. In some cases, the umpire CAN see it, and will call it. There's zero reason to not get calls right in 2021.

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2021 07:46 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity. But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

But what if the umpire on the field did see the runner come off the bag and accordingly, then called the play correctly? Or what about an ump incorrectly calling a runner out for mistakenly believing that the runner was tagged after coming off the base? What if the ump sincerely, but mistakenly, thinks he saw something you say he could not possibly have seen?

dinosaur jesus May 26 2021 08:00 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

It can get complicated, I'll give you that. Ultimately I'd just hope we're not not stuck with the kind of arbitrary legalistic pulled from someone's ass nonsense the NFL seems to prefer. I guess I'd just rather they kept it simple and didn't re-examine every little thing. I'm willing to live with letting the really close calls go if the really clear mistakes can be rectified.

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2021 08:22 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

dinosaur jesus wrote: It can get complicated, I'll give you that. Ultimately I'd just hope we're not not stuck with the kind of arbitrary legalistic pulled from someone's ass nonsense the NFL seems to prefer. I guess I'd just rather they kept it simple and didn't re-examine every little thing. I'm willing to live with letting the really close calls go if the really clear mistakes can be rectified. Sure. But that sliding play, like last night's Villar and deGrom plays, could, just the same, occur in the ninth inning of a late season tie game with a playoff spot on the line. That would, potentially, be a bigger call than a fair/foul home run call in a June game. Context, besides the play itself, also determines the magnitude of the call.

Frayed Knot May 26 2021 08:22 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

dinosaur jesus wrote: ... I guess I'd just rather they kept it simple and didn't re-examine every little thing. I'm willing to live with letting the really close calls go if the really clear mistakes can be rectified. Which is how replay is always sold, that only the egregious mistakes will get examined. But once you open that box there's no way to keep it to only certain levels of errors. The only thing that, IMO, will keep it towards that end would be to not allow teams to micro-examine the replay before deciding whether or not they want the off-site umps to micro-examine it further, AND for those same off-site umps to overturn only those calls where there really is 'clear and convincing' evidence rather than what I call the 'coin flip' calls where they seem to indicate that a given call was probably incorrect and therefore we're flipping it. Eliminate those two conditions and the percentage of challenges that involve this kind of ticky-tack call will disappear almost completely.

Ceetar May 26 2021 09:45 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

I don't know who's selling it like that. it's about getting the calls right. we have the capability, get the calls right. I'm sympathetic to the idea that this isn't how stolen bases are supposed to happen, that it's about touch the base before the ball can get to you, and worrying about coming a bit off is not super important, but then change the rule. It certainly makes more sense than 3-batter minimums, designating players as "pitchers" or "hitters", auto IBB, zombie runners, banning the shift, or hell even the DH.

nymr83 May 26 2021 09:51 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

You can overrun first base legally. It seems like the solution to the issue you seem to have here would be to allow the same at other bases. This is a less drastic change, I think, than any of the things Ceetar mentions which have already been changed, except the automatic ball 4 which while dumb has almost no effect on anything

duan May 27 2021 04:04 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Of all the 'sports with replay' that I've seen I think Cricket has the best use of it - and it's the most similar to baseball in terms of flow. Basically the team on the field has 1 'review' that they can call for at any point in time. If it's successful they keep the review if it's unsuccessful they lose it and they have to appeal any decision within 15 seconds and the people on the field do it. It's got nothing to do with the what people see on a monitor. So in other words if you think something is really wrong you know straight away - that stops the howler - and then if there's a judgment call (and cricket has a very unique thing called LBW which has a lot of judgement) you have to really think "he's out" to use it. [url]https://www.icc-cricket.com/video/312199 it's a very quick way to stop this interminable 'standing at the top of the steps' thing that goes on. That's my biggest issue with it. Other thing is that when the '3rd umpire' is reviewing a decision you see the process he's going through in real time so you can see what he's looking at.

Frayed Knot May 27 2021 05:16 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

I don't know who's selling it like that. Every time replay was introduced, and in each sport where it was introduced, it was done so with the promise that it won't be an added intrusion on the game because standards are going to be in place to keep it limited, decisive, and quick. But it's never any of the above because, once "getting it right" is set as the ultimate goal, it never can be. My stance here isn't to do away with it it's to point out that those who enthusiastically embraced expanded replay (beyond the initial HR/not-HR calls) were naive if they thought that these sort of 'micro-corrections' were somehow going to be exempt. Nor am I trying to un-reverse the calls from the other night but rather am suggesting that the best way to limit reviews of such minor misses would be the elimination of the delayed request and a phasing out of reversals where the review is clearly less than conclusive, aka: 'coin-flip' calls.

batmagadanleadoff May 27 2021 11:49 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Oh c'mon. An umpire shouldn't be allowed to call a baserunner safe because he was "close enough" in tagging the base. Maybe next, a first baseman wouldn't have to have his foot on the base to complete an out play at first. Or maybe the home ump should be allowed to call a strike on a pitch that he truly believes to be a ball because the pitch was "close enough" to home plate. Because it's so ticky-tacky to call a ball on a pitch that, by an eighth of an inch, barely misses home plate. Youse want a really good football analogy instead of the crossing the end-zone plane stuff? This is like a running back who's about to lose control of the football being allowed to call a timeout just before he fumbles the ball. No it's not. I'm saying leave it to the umpire to determine whether an infintessimal and momentary separation of body and base ought to be reviewable when a guy clearly beats a tag/throw to 2nd or 3rd base and signals no intention to progress further than that bag in the moment. Now if some palooka tries to nick a corner of the bag with his pinky and his entire body slides into the baseline, maybe you can review. Or when a dumbass times his slide poorly and passes the base entirely, yeah review that. But this bullshit we saw last night--beat the throw, only intended to stop his motion and remain in place-- that's the kind of shit that makes every play some theoretical result and reflects poorly on everyone. I didn't think I was responding to your post. But if I was, or did, I'd say that I don't have a problem with this kind of play being reviewable. In fact, I'm for more reviewability. I also disagree with DJ where he opines that events that the umpire can barely see with his human eye shouldn't be reviewable either. That's gonna change for sure in due time, when balls and strikes calls are eventually automated as soon as the technology is solid enough. That should eliminate entirely the catcher's ability to "pitch frame" some balls into incorrectly called strikes. There's an example of replay rightfully fixing something that the umpire on the field can't possibly see correctly -- the pitch that's infinitesimally close to the edge of home plate - but not quite over home plate itself. So I'm all for replay. The more the better. I do agree with FK, though, that a team should have a set number of challenges -- a firm number. And that the team should have a reasonable amount of time to declare a replay challenge, but not enough to conduct its own internal replay review before deciding whether or not to call for a replay challenge. And the standard for overturning the call made on the field should be clear and convincing indisputable evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. The field umpires should be given the benefit of the doubt on a replay challenge and absent indisputable evidence of a wrong call, the replay umps should defer to the field umps.

batmagadanleadoff May 27 2021 04:37 PM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity. But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but isn't every single replay review, no matter what kind of play is being challenged, ultimately decided based upon visual evidence that the field umpire could not possibly have seen with his own eyes?



For example, the replay umpires have access to many different angles, including reverse angles and angles that come from the opposite side of the field umpire's point of view. And if the game is a national broadcast or a playoff game, the replay umps might have more than ten angles to work with. The field umpire has just one angle with which to view the play from.



Also, the replay umps can view the challenged play in slow-motion, or in super slow-motion, and can stop the replay at any frame or point in time. Obviously, the field umpire is not capable of seeing the play as it unfolds, in that manner.

roger_that May 28 2021 01:42 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no?

Centerfield May 28 2021 06:57 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction This is the answer.

Willets Point May 28 2021 07:13 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Obviously the only answer is a fleet of drones hovering over the field at all times with cameras, radar, heat-sensing technology, and the aforementioned electron microscopes to observe and analyze base contact with scientific precision. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY! Also, all records back to 1876 should be erased because those fuckers were cheating left and right and the numbers they put up can't be trusted. It's a real disgrace that MLB has allowed this to go on for so long.

Ceetar May 28 2021 07:24 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

that sounds like a more fun game than just letting stupid faulty human umpires subjectively decide.

dinosaur jesus May 28 2021 10:12 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no? I didn't say they were cheating. Villar wasn't cheating on that slide. I'm saying that if you slide straight into a base and right over it, and only a close examination with a high-speed camera can show that his upper body came off the ground a millisecond before his lower body reached the bag, then maybe it's not worth making that examination. Maybe if the umpire had been lying flat on the ground with a good view of Villar's belly he might have caught it. But he was in perfect position and he didn't. A tag-up play is a completely different situation. It's hard to call, because you have to assess two things happening hundreds of feet apart. But it's not impossible. And umpires almost always get them right. We've gotten into the territory of trying to judge whether a horse's feet are all on the ground at the same time, or whether urine flows in a continuous stream or a collection of droplets. Interesting questions, but nothing to do with how the game is played.

LWFS May 28 2021 10:50 AM Re: IGT 05/25 - COL @ NYM - He's baaack...

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction This is the answer. That could work. Those of you who like a little human-judgement-uncertainty mixed into your replay might prefer a FIFA-ish system, whereby you let the umps call the game, and when something needs to be looked at (any close scoring-related play; any egregious/obviously visible error, as determined by a replay official), replay umps signal the umps. No challenges. (Of course, if y'all like this petifogging fun... wait'll you see what the Premier League has done with offsides calls this season!)

Edgy MD May 28 2021 12:09 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

I've always found offsides in any goal-based sport to be kind of silly. "The object of the game is to score, while pretending to be humble enough to pretend that you don't want to."

Ceetar May 28 2021 12:17 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

This is an out. it should always be an out. The only times it's not an out is when an umpire misses the call, which should be almost never. [attachment=0]villar.jpg[/attachment]

MFS62 May 28 2021 02:14 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

This discussion brings to mind the story about the famous umpire Bill Klem. The ball and the runner arrived at second base in a cloud of dust. The fielder applied the tag, then jumped up and said to Clem, "Is he safe or is he out?" and Clem replied, "He ain't nuthin' 'till I call it." Whether we use electronics to ensure the call is right is now moot. What if the umpire got the call wrong? What recourse is there for the "injured party"? Well, the umps can conference and maybe put a runner back on the base. But some calls are not reviewable (by rule). What then? Remember, there is no more "playing the game under protest" with hope a higher authority will do something (has a game ever been replayed because of such a situation? I'd guess never.). Protests have been eliminated - one of the rules they slid in under the smoke screen when other rules were implemented this year (e.g.- seven inning games in doubleheaders and runner on second base to start extra innings). It should go back to the umpires getting the call right, and if there's a question about an interpretation of the rules (e.g.- ball hit a wall over or under the home run line, fair or foul), deciding it with a meeting of the umpires. Other plays, where a rule interpretation is not involved (e.g- tag plays), should not be reviewable. BUT, there should be stricter enforcement of umpire evaluations, to make sure the most capable umpires are still there and bad ones culled out. Right now, that is close to impossible, but it is a change that must be made by MLB. Later

batmagadanleadoff May 28 2021 03:35 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT) Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 28 2021 04:08 PM

Whether we use electronics to ensure the call is right is now moot. ??????????????? What if the umpire got the call wrong? What recourse is there for the "injured party"? I dunno. What about replay review? You know ... using electronics to ensure the call is right. But some calls are not reviewable (by rule). What then? I give up. I'm still trying to figure out why using electronics to ensure the call is right is supposed to be moot. Remember, there is no more "playing the game under protest" Yeah, I remember. No team ever won a protest on grounds that an ump made an incorrect judgment call anyways. That was never a basis for a successful protest. Protests were granted where an ump misinterpreted the rules and it was deemed that that rules misinterpretation was not a harmless error, but that the error materially impacted the outcome of the game -- like the Merkle boner game or the George Brett pine tar game. It should go back to the umpires getting the call right, and if there's a question about an interpretation of the rules (e.g.- ball hit a wall over or under the home run line, fair or foul), deciding it with a meeting of the umpires. Other plays, where a rule interpretation is not involved (e.g- tag plays), should not be reviewable. So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense? I have no idea what you're saying. You don't even distinguish between errors in judgment and errors in rules interpretation, lumping them all together to compound your confusing post.

Edgy MD May 28 2021 03:45 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

We're getting more granular without getting clearer.

MFS62 May 28 2021 04:52 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65856 time=1622237714 user_id=68] So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?

No, They are moot because protests are no longer an option. And in the examples you gave (Brett and the other one)no subsequent actions were taken by MLB even after the protests were upheld.

I have no idea what you're saying. You don't even distinguish between errors in judgment and errors in rules interpretation, lumping them all together to compound your confusing post.

Yes I specifically did. Please re-read my post. I even gave actions to be taken where an umpire blows a call or a rule - the umps could conference to get it right, like they do now.



Later

Edgy MD May 28 2021 07:45 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

=MFS62 post_id=65862 time=1622242330 user_id=60] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65856 time=1622237714 user_id=68] So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?

No, They are moot because protests are no longer an option. And in the examples you gave (Brett and the other one)no subsequent actions were taken by MLB even after the protests were upheld.
I don't remember the Brett incident the way you do.

MFS62 May 28 2021 08:59 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

I stand corrected. Action was taken and the game replayed from the point of the incident. But this was a protest of an umpire ruling. Replay, which is the subject of this thread, was not a factor. Later

Edgy MD May 28 2021 09:33 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

I didn't bring it up.

batmagadanleadoff May 28 2021 10:07 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65856 time=1622237714 user_id=68] So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?

=MFS62 post_id=65862 time=1622242330 user_id=60]No, They are moot because protests are no longer an option.

So what? How does ending a team's right to protest an entire game make replay moot? You keep on repeating this conclusion of yours, but have no logical explanation for what you mean -- i.e., how you arrived at your conclusion that replay is now moot.



Also, replays and game protests are separate issues. And almost every replay challenge, maybe every single replay challenge ever made, involved a judgment call -- which couldn't be successfully protested under the old rule anyway.



Game protests were upheld (about once every 15 years on average, historically) only when there was a misapplication of baseball's rules that adversely affected the protesting team's chances of winning that game. The error also had to be material for the protest to be upheld. The context in which the rules misapplication was made had to be considered. So a team that was aggrieved by a rules misinterpretation in the last inning of a game it were trailing by 10 runs and ended up losing by 10 runs would almost certainly be disregarded


=MFS62 post_id=65862 time=1622242330 user_id=60]No, They are moot because protests are no longer an option.

So a team shouldn't even bother to ask for a replay review of a judgment call because, as you say, replay review is moot? Or because protests are no longer an option, even though a game protest would never have been upheld on grounds of an incorrect judgment call?



Yeah, that also makes a lot of sense.

roger_that May 30 2021 04:27 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

dinosaur jesus wrote: This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no? I didn't say they were cheating. Villar wasn't cheating on that slide. I'm saying that if you slide straight into a base and right over it, and only a close examination with a high-speed camera can show that his upper body came off the ground a millisecond before his lower body reached the bag, then maybe it's not worth making that examination. Maybe if the umpire had been lying flat on the ground with a good view of Villar's belly he might have caught it. But he was in perfect position and he didn't. A tag-up play is a completely different situation. It's hard to call, because you have to assess two things happening hundreds of feet apart. But it's not impossible. And umpires almost always get them right. We've gotten into the territory of trying to judge whether a horse's feet are all on the ground at the same time, or whether urine flows in a continuous stream or a collection of droplets. Interesting questions, but nothing to do with how the game is played. No, that was me calling all loss-of-contact-while-being-tagged "cheating." It plainly is cheating, pure and simple and indisputable. The only difference was that for 150 years there was no way on God's green earth to tell, and less way to confirm, that the runner had been tagged while he briefly lost contact with the base. So runners cheated and they got away with it. Think about it for two seconds. If a runner STEPS off the base, so that everyone can see he's lost contact, and he gets tagged, he's ALWAYS been called out. His manager doesn't even come out on the field, and his teammates avoid him in the dugout like he stinks of rotten cheese. And if he's standing on the base with two feet firmly planted, and the fielder tags him, no one pays the slightest attention. He's plainly safe. The fielder is treated like a stupid douchebag for wasting our time tagging someone standing on the base. Them's the rules, simple rules. Contact = Safe, Loss of contact = out. But now we have the technology to tell for sure whether contact has been lost. The old fogie position is "You can't call that because for years and years that used to be ump's judgment. I don't WANNA have him called out in that situation." Problem is, it doesn't matter if you WANNA. If he's out, he's out. The solution is to retrain baserunners. "Now, when you slide into a base you have to be careful you don't overslide. They're calling you out now if you break contact, so DO NOT BREAK CONTACT." Very simple.

batmagadanleadoff May 30 2021 04:46 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

dinosaur jesus wrote: This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no? I didn't say they were cheating. Villar wasn't cheating on that slide. I'm saying that if you slide straight into a base and right over it, and only a close examination with a high-speed camera can show that his upper body came off the ground a millisecond before his lower body reached the bag, then maybe it's not worth making that examination. Maybe if the umpire had been lying flat on the ground with a good view of Villar's belly he might have caught it. But he was in perfect position and he didn't. A tag-up play is a completely different situation. It's hard to call, because you have to assess two things happening hundreds of feet apart. But it's not impossible. And umpires almost always get them right. We've gotten into the territory of trying to judge whether a horse's feet are all on the ground at the same time, or whether urine flows in a continuous stream or a collection of droplets. Interesting questions, but nothing to do with how the game is played. No, that was me calling all loss-of-contact-while-being-tagged "cheating." It plainly is cheating, pure and simple and indisputable. It's not cheating and there's no indisputable evidence that a runner coming off the base for two seconds is cheating. Cheating requires intent. These runners are briefly coming off the base accidentally and without any intent -- they've generated an enormous amount of momentum in running to the base as quick as they can to arrive safely and then suddenly can't shut off that momentum on a dime even though they have to in order to remain in contact with the base. That's what 's happening. Nobody's cheating. What would be the runner's incentive to cheat -- to purposely come off the base for a fraction of a second? There's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost -- risking being called out and also losing possession of the base. There's no point in coming off the base for a fraction of a second on purpose.

roger_that May 30 2021 06:31 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

I'm sure that a guy who drops a pop fly had no intent to drop it either. Still an error, still a runner on base. This is a very silly argument. Play the game right.

Edgy MD May 30 2021 07:27 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional. Your purpose has always been above all else to touch the bag before the throw. In order to gain that achievement, you're frequently willing to slide in a manner that risks you not maintaining contact. I got caught in a rundown between third and home once and I felt like the kind of the world when I slid back into third and eluded the tag with a hook slide. I then felt like the douchiest of douchebags when I couldn't create enough slowing friction and maintain a strong enough kung-fu grip in order hold on to the bag and my awesome hook slide took me a few inches past the bag, and Scott Pastor tagged me out and there was no disputing he had me. Getting in there was half the battle, and I was so desperate to do that, that I sacrificed my capacities for the second half of the battle — hanging in there. I lost. I didn't intend to do that, but I risked it, and I lost. Pastor and catcher Danny LaJoie won. I took my team out of a bases-loaded, no-out situation. To his credit, Danny gave me no shit on Monday day at school. Similarly, there's an advantage to a popup slide. You place yourself instantly in a position to see if the ball trickles away and to take off it does. Going for that advantage came with a risk if your bounce up becomes too buoyant, as it does. Frankly, I have a problem with the fact that the rule book has been re-written a couple of times now to deal with situations when the Mets got caught with their pants down. When they seemingly got caught without a starter in the 2006 post season because they burned a starter in a game that was rained out, MLB changed an age-old — and good — rule that forbade teams making roster changes in the middle of a playoff series. That stunk, and now it's abused all the time. Meanwhile, the rule didn't need to be changed. The Mets just needed to overcome the situation — which, excitingly they actually did that year when Oliver Perez stepped into the breach. Similarly, the takedown of Ruben Tejada by Chase Utley created all sorts of new sliding rules that we still are trying to consistently interpret. The third one I'm thinking of, I think, is the 10-Day IL — largely triggered (unless I'm misremembering) by the Mets' inability to manage the 15-day window. The Mets found themselves in an embarrassing situation last week. But the rule don't need to be more granularly written to protect them? I mean, when has this ever happened before, twice in one game, even in the age of replay review. What they need to do is slide better than other teams, just like they need to hit and run and throw and pitch and catch better than other teams. I don't want the rule book re-written because Jay Bruce had trouble beating the shift or because Jonathan Villar had trouble holding on to the bag. I want Bruce and Villar to up their game. And sliding is totally part of the game. It's a defining and beautiful part of the game. And guys who do it badly shouldn't be protected from their failures by a rule change. They should be out. At least, they should be out more frequently than guys who do it well.

seawolf17 May 30 2021 07:39 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

There's a world of difference between "oversliding the bag and getting tagged out" and "your torso loses contact with the base for a millisecond but you're still on the base."

Edgy MD May 30 2021 07:51 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

I don't think so. It's only a matter of degrees. I gave up a degree of control in order to beat a throw and I paid the price, so did Villar. deGrom gave up a degree of control in order to gain an advantage in potentially advancing further. Burned. The safest way to beat a tag is frequently to slide in like a demon, contorting your limbs and torso to avoid the tag but find the base, not worrying a whit about whether you can maintain possession of that base until you've initially made contact. The safest way to maintain control of the bag is to jog in and come to a stop, not worry a whit about a tag coming in and getting you. You've got to both get in there and stay safe after, and maybe even get an advantage toward continuing on after you get in there if the opportunity arises, and the way to do all of this is to find the best compromise between those two extremes. Commit too much to reaching the bag and you risk losing it. Commit too much to maintaining it and your risk never gaining it in the first place. That's baseball. And you want to play it better than the other team. For one day, at least in that category, the Mets did not. Thankfully, they won anyway. Next time, if they do it better and do it right, it may win them a game.

batmagadanleadoff May 30 2021 08:02 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT) Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 30 2021 08:43 PM

I'm sure that a guy who drops a pop fly had no intent to drop it either. Still an error, still a runner on base. This is a very silly argument. Play the game right. But what does this example have to do with cheating? The "guy" that accidentally dropped the pop fly in your example wasn't cheating, either. I agree that this is a very silly argument. But you're all mixed up as to who's being silly here.

dinosaur jesus May 30 2021 08:08 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

The Mets didn't get caught with their pants down when Utley broke Tejada's leg. The new rules came about because MLB was embarrassed that its old rules, under which Utley should have been ejected, weren't being enforced. That wasn't the Mets' fault, any more than MLB overthinking how to keep catchers from getting run over was Buster Posey and the Giants' fault. MFS62 mentioned Bill Klem. I bet Klem made a ton of bad calls, and I'm glad there are probably a lot fewer umpiring mistakes than there used to be. But I'm sympathetic to the idea of someone like Klem who makes the decision, it's done (though you can bitch about it if it makes you feel better), and let's get on with it. But we'll never be there again.

batmagadanleadoff May 30 2021 08:32 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional. Perhaps. But still, (and to the other guy's comment) that doesn't mean that a baserunner who came off the base like both deGrom and Villar did the other night was "cheating", let alone indisputably "cheating".

Edgy MD May 30 2021 08:48 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

dinosaur jesus wrote: The Mets didn't get caught with their pants down when Utley broke Tejada's leg. The new rules came about because MLB was embarrassed that its old rules, under which Utley should have been ejected, weren't being enforced. That wasn't the Mets' fault, any more than MLB overthinking how to keep catchers from getting run over was Buster Posey and the Giants' fault. MFS62 mentioned Bill Klem. I bet Klem made a ton of bad calls, and I'm glad there are probably a lot fewer umpiring mistakes than there used to be. But I'm sympathetic to the idea of someone like Klem who makes the decision, it's done (though you can bitch about it if it makes you feel better), and let's get on with it. But we'll never be there again. They didn't need to change the rules to protect Tejada. They needed to enforce the rules they had, which is what they need to do here. And yes, entering the World Series with Wilmer Torres as your starting shortstop and a guy who had never played a single day in the Majors as his backup sure seemed like getting caught with their pants down, but I understand the distinction.

batmagadanleadoff May 30 2021 08:54 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Edgy MD wrote: They didn't need to change the rules to protect Tejada. They needed to enforce the rules they had, which is what they need to do here. I agree with this. This is exactly what I wrote when we discussed that play in 2015. Also, I think those deGrom and Villar out calls are very rare, even with the use of replay challenges. If those calls had become very frequent with the use of replay review, then maybe I'd be on board with a rule change. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

batmagadanleadoff May 30 2021 09:33 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional. Perhaps. But still, (and to the other guy's comment) that doesn't mean that a baserunner who came off the base like both deGrom and Villar did the other night was "cheating", let alone indisputably "cheating". Because, and going back to your hook slide at third memory, it's not necessarily about the intent to briefly come off the base. Cheating is about the intent to deceive the umpire or an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by intentionally breaking a rule. A sliding baserunner who comes off second base because he suddenly, as the tag play is unfolding, decides to try for third base, but is tagged out as soon as he comes off second base isn't, on these facts alone, cheating, even though he came off second base intentionally.

roger_that May 31 2021 04:02 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

It's not cheating to get tagged out for losing contact. You're right about that. That's just baseball. It is cheating to insist that you were safe when the umpire calls you out for what he saw with his own eyes, whether on replay or in real time. The correct move there is to say "Damn, I thought I might've gotten away with breaking contact, wasn't even sure I had, but you got me. Good call."

batmagadanleadoff May 31 2021 06:16 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

It is cheating to insist that you were safe when the umpire calls you out for what he saw with his own eyes, whether on replay or in real time. The correct move there is to say "Damn, I thought I might've gotten away with breaking contact, wasn't even sure I had, but you got me. Good call." Just because the ump saw it with his own eyes doesn't necessarily make the call correct. I think that the baserunner would have to be 100%:certain that he was out to be accused of cheating for nevertheless arguing the out call. And even then, I'm not sure it would be cheating because arguing with the ump is essentially symbolic; the player should have no expectation of persuading the ump to change his call. (But, see, shoe,-polish incident, 1969 WS). And if the player has a good faith belief that he's safe, then he's not cheating for arguing the call.

roger_that May 31 2021 07:00 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

But you could argue (and I think you are) that every player always has "a good faith" belief that it's possible he's misremembering losing contact with the base. In reality we know that most runners arguing they were safe know perfectly well they were out, and are lying about what they know to be true, which I call cheating. You don't. In any case, I give it no credence at all. They're out, I'm glad they were called out correctly, let's get on with the game. Get your ass off the field, crybaby.

batmagadanleadoff May 31 2021 07:20 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

=roger_that post_id=66041 time=1622466050 user_id=128] In reality we know that most runners arguing they were safe know perfectly well they were out, and are lying about what they know to be true....

How do you know this? I don't. Also, runners barely argue anymore what with replay review now available. Also, I see several calls reversed by replay review every week and I follow just one team. So field umpires are hardly infallible.

Edgy MD May 31 2021 07:56 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Well, deGrom sure knew he was out. But what is and isn't cheating vs. a guy who sincerely thinks he's safe is another issue. They may be trying to get away with deceit or they may be merely trying to get away with risk, but the issue before us is safe vs. out, regardless of motive.

dinosaur jesus May 31 2021 08:03 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature? That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with.

Edgy MD May 31 2021 08:28 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

My experience is that runners mostly know whether they're safe or out, probably more than anybody else on the field.

dinosaur jesus May 31 2021 08:32 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

They probably do. But how often do they argue about it when they're clearly wrong?

roger_that May 31 2021 08:34 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

dinosaur jesus wrote: . You going to make a rule against human nature? . Exactly. I want a law against human nature that wastes my time and everyone else's while you bitch and whine and pout that you screwed up but it's someone else's fault WAHWAHWAHWAH!!! Shaddup you mouth and GTFO the field! Precisely.

roger_that May 31 2021 08:35 AM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

Oh, forgot to add: "you cheating SOB"

batmagadanleadoff May 31 2021 03:10 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

dinosaur jesus wrote: Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature? That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with. Yeah. I don't think arguing is cheating even if the player arguing knows for sure that the ump's call was correct. It's mostly theater, and like you said , part instinct and an outlet to release frustration and perhaps, to motivate or inspire his teammates, and also, when the player thinks the ump was wrong - to let the ump know he was wrong. And even when the arguing player truly thinks the ump was wrong, he doesn't expect to "argue the ump" into reversing his call. Corking the bat -- now that's cheating!

batmagadanleadoff May 31 2021 03:17 PM Re: Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

dinosaur jesus wrote: Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature? That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with. Yeah. I don't think arguing is cheating even if the player arguing knows for sure that the ump's call was correct. It's mostly theater, and like you said , part instinct and an outlet to release frustration and perhaps, to motivate or inspire his teammates, and also, when the player thinks the ump was wrong - to let the ump know he was wrong. And even when the arguing player truly thinks the ump was wrong, he doesn't expect to "argue the ump" into reversing his call. Corking the bat -- now that's cheating! I think a player has to violate a rule to have cheated. There's no rule against arguing a tag play, although there probably are limits. Likewise, pitch-framing is legal, even though the catcher is intentionally trying to deceive the home plate umpire by making a ball look like a strike to the ump. There's nothing illegal about the way a catcher catches a pitch very near to the edge of home plate to make it appear as if it were a strike even though that pitch never crossed home plate.