Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Major League Baseball released a statement after the game confirming that the incorrect call was made, as the umpires ruled the fourth pitch of the at-bat, which deflected off catcher Kurt Suzuki's glove, was a foul ball, even though it never hit Escobar's bat.
"An error was made when replay officials and supervisors mistakenly thought one of the pitches was a foul ball, when it was actually a ball," the statement read.
But the review didn't notice that the count was already 3-2 when Escobar took Deduno's sixth pitch, which should've been a fourth ball to give Escobar a walk.
Major League Baseball released a statement after the game confirming that the incorrect call was made, as the umpires ruled the fourth pitch of the at-bat, which deflected off catcher Kurt Suzuki's glove, was a foul ball, even though it never hit Escobar's bat
What a load of crap. If that's what they thought upon review, why didn't they call him out, as the 5th pitch was then a called strike 3?
But did the umpires, after seeing the replay, go down the line to examine the out-of-bounds divot? Nope. They just let the double stand.
So before you call these guys idiots, I want you to tell me right now in real time, what are they supposed to do? are they supposed to ring him up by going back in time, and pretending that pitch 6 did not happen?
are they supposed to ring him up by going back in time, and pretending that pitch 6 did not happen?
Or do the umps do it themselves if they iniate?
I think you have to play it like an appeal play. Once the next pitch gets thrown the call on the field should stand. Escobar should have been walked on pitch 6 because by calling the way they did the at bat changes. The pitcher changes his pitch sequence and the hitter changes how he approaches each pitch.
They might not have asked the right, or complete question, as in "What is the ruling on pitch 4 and given that, what is the count now?"
Again I dont think it fair to blame the umps for this one because,
NYC says: "He struck out on pitch 5, you dumb SOB, why you let him throw pitch 6?
it's a basic rule of Baseball that a play is not reviewable/appealable, changable, after the next play.
but given that the plate ump failed make any sort of strike/foul signal, it's a called ball, and not reviewable since 2 subsequent pitches happened.
They were NOT going back to change a call. It was NYC that did that.
then why are you blaming the umps for that?
It is not at all clear that review is something that could have resolved this particular situation.
Your comment just seems to totally misunderstand the replay system, it is not for the umpires to review.
Its not a failure of 4 umps as you suggest, by your own admission two umps are keeping track. Its a failure of one guy, someones wrong and someone's right, why not just call NYC?
Those replays are done in NY
Thus the problem. Giving sole decision rights to people in NY looking at one bit of evidence without consultation with the boots on the ground or ability to examine other countervailing evidence is an epic fail.
It's far less reasonable for all 4 to accept 3-2 count as the ruling. Someone should have realized that all 6 pitches should have advanced the count and thus a walk was in order, or, worst case, strike 3 was overlooked, and thus a walk was in order.
Pitch 5 is a called strike and the ump holds up his fingers 2-2. YOu can see clearly this on the video.
so he messed up right there.
As for what MLB said I don't think they really know what is going on with this situation as their explanation isn't adequate and probably close to nonsensical.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (8 members)
Page rendered in 0.6874 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed