Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

4 balls, you’re out!

I have an idea: steroids for the replay guys.

bunyon Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:28 AM | 59 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: rays, replay, sabermetrics, umpires

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

   1. Fat Al Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM (#4692037)
Hmm. That seems less than ideal.
   2. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4692041)
Shameful discrimination against polyorchids. SHAME!
   3. Shredder Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4692045)
Every time I think umpires can't possibly get any more incompetent, they prove me wrong.
   4. valuearbitrageur Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4692060)
Competence is always too high a standard when your employer doesn't have the ability to hire and fire you.
   5. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4692088)
Which is why employers are invariably incompetent -- nobody can fire them.
   6. A triple short of the cycle Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4692138)
Wow that's bad... er I mean "remarkable".
   7. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4692162)
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.



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?
   8. bunyon Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4692175)

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?


Indeed. It seems to me they simply punted. Either they weren't sure or didn't have the guts to change so rather than award a base or call anyone out, extend the at-bat. Almost a do-over.
   9. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4692190)
People are going to get really confused trying to read the article and watch video. it's very confusing So here goes my attempt to sort this out....

the article is poorly written and the audio commentary does not really help to explain it (to be fair it goes quick and the announcers are trying to figure it out in real time). The whole thing is confusing if you read the article, watch the video and then you get to Maddon's comments at the end, which seem to contradict the whole thing....

Here's the first sentence that is somewhat confusing:


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.


this is not at all clear when you watch the video; because you see the ump calling a strike on pitch 5 (no swing), doesnt that make pitch 5 then strike 3? but no, go back to pitch 4 it looks like he fouled it, for strike 2, but he really didn't. That ruling on pitch 4 is where the whole thing go off the rails.

It is a 2-1 count, and now on pitch 4 he checks his swing, the ball bounces back to the backstop, appears that the bat tipped the ball but really the ball tipped off the catcher's glove, it is not at all clear from the article, what exactly the umpire ruled that. It appears to be a foul, it looks like the ump thinks its a foul. So....that means pitch 5, a called strike is STRIKE 3!

But no, Escobar continues to bat, pitch 6 is a ball, escobar knows something is wrong and asks for time and the umpire review begins...

So the first sentence I quoted is confusing because it does not explain the problem is with pitch 4, and it is not at all clear that it is ball four, it might have been a strike out on pitch 5. BOth outcomes are possible, the sentence is totally stoopid...

But it gets worse, here's the next quote:

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 the hell does that mean? What does the phrase "the umpires ruled the fourth pitch...was a foul ball..." mean?

A) The umps, after review went back in time, and changed what was called a ball, into a foul ball?

but that means, that pitch 5, the called strike, would have been strike 3; but instead pitch 6 was thrown. Did we forget to strike him out? Do we not want to strike him out and just go on??

or b) somehow the home plate ump missed pitch 4, it doesnt count at all, so if we dont count that the count is now 3-2.

or c) really pitch 4 is really a ball, the ump ruled it a ball, and on review they changed it from a ball, to a strike???? In which case he should have had a walk on pitch 6, but we go back in time, turned a ball into a strike, giving him 3 strikes but instead we call it two and he keeps batting./??

The problem seems to be what is supposed to happen when someone has already struck out but not rung up? Did they rule simply not to count pitch 4 as anything? Thats what it appears to me although no one is explaining this correctly.

Thats the only way to make sense of this. Review:

After 3 pitches: count is 2-1
pitch 4: appears to be foul, the ump doesnt say anything, the pitcher tells us later he knows its not a foul;

the count is now, in a perfect world with perfect umps: 3-1,

pitch 5: a called strike, should be 3-2
pitch 6: a ball, should be a walk, no one knows, and Escobar calls time.

Finally at the end of the article, Joe Maddon speaks and guess what he's totally correct.

IT WAS EITHER A STRIKE OUT OR A WALK BY THE TIME WE GOT TO PITCH 6.

That's really the bottom line; but the article doesnt explain that either. Now go back and read the article and watch the video and see if you can figure this out...
   10. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4692201)
Thanks goodness we have replay to get rid of umpiring controversies. Now we just need automated balls and strikes and everything will be hunky dory.
   11. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4692204)
What I find stunning is how the replay rule has seemingly made the umpiring worse! I've seen half a dozen plays this year that the replay revealed a misplaced call but, upon umpire review, failed to be overturned anyway. The worst was a double by an Oriole player that clearly landed out of bounds down the leftfield line. The replay not only revealed the ball hit the ground in foul territory, but the divot in left was clearly visible and was clearly out of bounds. 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.
   12. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4692210)

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 this is why I am not willing to say that this was tremendous bad, but merely just a wrong call on review. I am not certain what the correct call is and/or whether they indeed do it over..

Assume, they reviewed pitch 4, mistakenly ruled it a foul, that much is certainly understanble. Even on replay it looks like a fou, this would have made pitch 5 a strike out, but the umpire allowed the AB to continue.

I dont know what they are supposed to do in that situation. If you call him out, then amounts to going back in time and changing a call. If you call it a walk, well they dont think pitch 4 is a ball so they didnt do that.

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?

I dont think anyone knows the correct call, if you change balls and strikes after the fact. because perhaps it has never happened prior to replay.

But it seems to me, it is a decent call, if you fail to ring someone up, and they remain in the batters box that you cant go back and strike them out retroactively. Yes or no?
   13. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4692215)
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.


I totally do not understand your pt. here. Those replays are done in NY by people who are not on the field umpires. OK?. So what do you want the umpires to do? They are supposed to walk down the line and overrule the replay? That is not how replay is supposed to work.

Your comment just seems to totally misunderstand the replay system, it is not for the umpires to review.

WHich brings up another question on the Escobar play: if the umps iniate a replay, isnt that supposed to be done in NY? Or do the umps do it themselves if they iniate?
   14. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4692216)
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?


If they rule that pitch 4 was a foul, yes, that's exactly what they should do. But that would be a terrible judgement call, as the replay clearly showed the ball never hit the bat, and to boot, the plate ump didn't signal foul, nor a swing. In the absence of both, the pitch is a ball.

In a perfect world, Escobar gets clarification of what the 4th pitch was, and what the current count is after the 4th pitch. At that point he would be told 3-1 or 2-2 and this snafu never happens, but like I said, in the absence of any call after the 4th pitch, it is a default ball, thus Escobar questioning why he didn't get first base after pitch 6.
   15. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4692217)
All replays are done in New York.
   16. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: April 23, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4692222)
are they supposed to ring him up by going back in time, and pretending that pitch 6 did not happen?


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.
   17. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4692231)
Or do the umps do it themselves if they iniate?


Re-reading my quote from #7, it sounds like the guys in NY made the call. It's possible it went this way:

Escobar asks for clarification

Umps ask the replay guys if the 4th pitch was a ball or a foul

Replay guys say foul

Game umps rule 3 balls, not 4.

AB continues.


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?" The most likely explanation is a complete lack of communication. It's hard to believe that anyone with 2 brain cells firing could look at that sequence and not determine that the AB should be terminated by pitch 6 at the latest.
   18. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4692235)
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.


That's a very good point, and indeed the way it should have been handled. Pitch 5 was a very borderline pitch, and it's likely Escobar doesn't let it go by if he knows the count is 2-2 instead of 3-1.
   19. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4692265)
Yes, Misir: it appears replay guys in NYC called pitch 4 a foul/strike, which completely messes up the count there.

if indeed umpires are going to go back in time and review ball/strikes, a dicey proposition, then another way to handle would be simply to call whatever happened after that a non pitch or a dead ball or something.


in that case, they go back in time, rule pitch 4 is a strike, dont count 5/6

So now Escobar bats with the count 2-2. WOudl that be reasonable?

Again I dont think it fair to blame the umps for this one because, a) they were overruled in NYC by people in a booth who apparently did not hear the glove (not bat) hit the ball and b) they are going back in time and trying to do the right thing.
   20. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4692267)

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?"


It is also entirely possible, that the umps had no particular interest in pitch 4, (they were confused by that pitch at that time) if you had asked the home plate ump he would have said it was a ball.

They just werent sure what the count was and simply asked NY: what is the count?

NYC says: "He struck out on pitch 5, you dumb SOB, why you let him throw pitch 6?

ump: Sorry what do we do?

NYC: It's 3-2, just finish the AB.
   21. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4692272)
Again I dont think it fair to blame the umps for this one because,


I blame them for losing track of the count. I don't know how it works at the MLB level, but at my level, the field ump keeps a ball/strike counter just like the plate ump. It's gross incompetance that 4 umpires could lose track of the count. SOMEONE should have said "Hey, it's ball 4." Secondly, even if they all did lose track, they can't ask for a review of a play 3 pitches ago. As #16 pointed out, it's a basic rule of Baseball that a play is not reviewable/appealable, changable, after the next play.
   22. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4692281)
NYC says: "He struck out on pitch 5, you dumb SOB, why you let him throw pitch 6?


I don't know how they could do that. They might have thought it was a foul, 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.
   23. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4692293)
they arent asking for a review of a play, they are asking for what the count is. I see a distinction there. Do you not?

It's like they are asking for a fact, not a ruling. It's like say they ask NY: what is the ground rule in CHI for a ball in the ivy? We dont have the ground rules here. OR how many runs have scored, the scoreboard went out. OR who is batting 9th for CLEV we lost the scorecard.

That's all it is. They were NOT going back to change a call. It was NYC that did that.

it's a basic rule of Baseball that a play is not reviewable/appealable, changable, after the next play.


doesnt that simply bolster my argument that they are not going back to change or review a call? They are simply asking what is the count? Without any reviews of any calls.
   24. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4692295)
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.


then why are you blaming the umps for that? That overturn from ball to strike was made in NYC.
   25. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4692302)
Escobar and the ump have a discussion after pitch #4 to decide what the count is. You can see Escobar asking what the count was with hand gestures. The 5th pitch comes in and it is a strike. At that point the pitchers holds his hands up in the air to ask what is going on as it looks like he thought pitch 4 was a foul tip strike. Now pitch 6 comes in and at that point they realized they aren't really sure how many balls are in the count.

It is not at all clear that review is something that could have resolved this particular situation.
   26. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4692307)
They were NOT going back to change a call. It was NYC that did that.


That's what I mean. NYC can't say "he struck out on pitch 5." Clearly pitch 4 was called a ball initially, and can't be changed.
   27. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4692311)
OK so the umps lost track of the count. That's on them. Changing a ball to a foul/strike is on NYC.

I dont think that makes the umps horrendous, it seems reasonable to call NYC to get a clarification on what the count it.

I dont think there's any reason to think that the umps called NYC to see what happened on pitch 4; the home plate ump probably knew in his mind that was a ball. Just like you said, there no way anybody wants to go back in time and change calls. I see no reason to think that was what the umps were trying to do.

It seems NYC went back in time and changed a call or else they made a call when it wasnt clear. That's on them.
   28. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4692313)
then why are you blaming the umps for that?


I'm blaming them for losing track of the count. With 4 umps, one of them should have been able to say with confidence "hey, it's ball 4." And if they went to the tape anyway, and NYC says 3-2, ONE of them should have said "How can that be? We've had 6 pitches and no foul balls (well, 1, but it was on pitch 2)."
   29. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4692314)
It is not at all clear that review is something that could have resolved this particular situation.


It could have (should have) confirmed pitch 6 was ball 4.
   30. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4692317)
Also I dont understand why you think that's gross negligence.

You said when you umpire there are two guys keeping track.

OK lets say the two guys dont have the same ball/strike.

is it reasonable to call NYC and request the correct ball/strike if home plate/crew chief are not in agreement?

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?
   31. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4692321)
Your comment just seems to totally misunderstand the replay system, it is not for the umpires to review.


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.

They should just let the umps see the video and consider it like in the old days. It worked better that way.
   32. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4692326)
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?


I said 2 umps keep track because we only use 2. Sometimes we use 3, and then all 3 do. I don't know what they do in MLB. maybe all 4 do, maybe only the plate ump does. Maybe something inbetween. It's not unreasonable to ask NYC. 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.
   33. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4692334)
What I find stunning is how the replay rule has seemingly made the umpiring worse! I've seen half a dozen plays this year that the replay revealed a misplaced call but, upon umpire review, failed to be overturned anyway. The worst was a double by an Oriole player that clearly landed out of bounds down the leftfield line. The replay not only revealed the ball hit the ground in foul territory, but the divot in left was clearly visible and was clearly out of bounds. 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.

The only consolation is that the bad calls will even out over the course of the season, but then that would have also happened without replay. The two teams I follow the most (the O's and the Yanks) have been both the victims and the beneficiaries about the same number of times.

On that play you refer to, not only was it obviously wrong, but the O's own announcers (Jim Palmer and Jim Hunter) said that the Orioles caught a break, and that the ball was clearly foul. And during another point in that series, the O's were the victims of that inane transfer rule, on a play where the Red Sox runner would have been called out for the past 113 years before 2014.

More to the point, it seems like that replays now occur at least 2 or 3 times a game, and if you add the time that the managers stroll out towards the umpire while waiting for a dugout signal as to whether to issue a challenge or not, we're adding a fairly significant amount of unneccessary time to games that already drag on for too long.

   34. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4692335)
Those replays are done in NY


They should not do them in NY, then.
   35. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4692336)
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.


I'm reminded of the famous play in the 1969 WS where a ball was later ruled a HBP by the plate ump being shown shoe polish on the ball. Not that anyone uses shoe polish anymore.

I was behind the plate the other day and a ball hit down the 3B line landed right on the chalk behind 3B. I ruled fair, and after the 2 RBI double, the defense argued it was foul. I said "Follow me'" and walked him down to the clear divot right in the chalk. He said "OK' and walked back to the dugout.

Edit: Of course I'm amazed at how ignorant some of these HS coaches are. More than a few would say "See, it hit the foul line. It's foul."
   36. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4692339)
just watched it again. After pitch 4 Escobar asks the ump, he must have it's a ball. The scoreboard on tv is showing 2-2 suggesting it was a foul strike.

But apparently Escobar and ump are fine with whatever...


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.
   37. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4692341)
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.


I agree.
   38. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4692344)
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.


Yes. It's very likely that he failed to register a ball on his counter after pitch 4. It happens. I've done that many times on strange plays. But then I'm a first year guy making $50 a game, not a tenured professional at the highest level.
   39. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4692371)
Changing a ball to a foul/strike is on NYC.

No it isn't. As I said before the issue of what the count truly should be isn't something that the review can resolve. After the 5th pitch the ump calls it 2-2 and then the 6th pitch comes in as a ball so it is 3-2. The reviewer in NY can't travel further back than the 6th pitch and based on the ump's 5th pitch error he has to call the 6th pitch to be the third ball in the at bat.

This isn't a review screwup but yet another umpire screwup.
   40. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4692384)
I disagree w/ you Mccoy; based on what the MLB statement says, it appears that NYC went back in time and changed the 4th pitch. You dont think that is what happended?

it appears originally called a ball as per Misir explanation.



Do the umps still have those hand held clickers in their hands? Or do they rely on the scoreboard? The last time I was at a game, it appeared that they used them but cant be sure. I wonder if the scoreboard could have confused him?
   41. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4692389)
The umpire holding up the 2-2 sign after pitch 5 is a screwup, but not an unfixable one. That's an accounting error that can be fixed, unlike changing a ball to a strike 3 pitches later. That's why I assign most of the blame to the field ump(s), but the review guys share some as well. And MLB seems to agree, given their statement I quoted near the beginning of this thread.
   42. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4692393)
And reading the entire article, and others on the web, it appears that everyone but the field umps thought pitch 6 was ball 4.
   43. A triple short of the cycle Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4692435)
Is there more than one crew on duty in NYC? What happens when two replay situations occur simultaneously?
   44. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4692581)
I disagree w/ you Mccoy; based on what the MLB statement says, it appears that NYC went back in time and changed the 4th pitch. You dont think that is what happended?

it appears originally called a ball as per Misir explanation.


I don't dispute that it was called a ball. I'm saying that after the 5th pitch the ump screwed up the count and declared the count to be 2-2. After that the 6th pitch came in and was call a ball thus 3-2.

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.
   45. Sunday silence Posted: April 23, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4692586)
I agree the MLB statement is fairly non sensical and requires some imagination to glean what is really going on.

If they didnt change pitch 4 to a strike, then what happened? they could have just said it's ball four, puzzling....
   46. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4692593)
Even if they changed it to a strike they still screwed up the count after pitch 5. My whole point is that the reviewers are going off the 2-2 count given by the ump after pitch 5.
   47. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 06:53 PM (#4692606)
The umpire holding up a 2-2 count after the 5th pitch is not dispositive. It's a screw up, but it doesn't change the count. the count is what it is. It may suck for the pitcher or bater to change his approach based on the erroneous signal, but that's baseball. The review crew in NY cannot change the count just because the plate ump gave an erroneous signal.
   48. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 07:00 PM (#4692610)
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.


I agree.
   49. Banta Posted: April 23, 2014 at 07:17 PM (#4692619)
It seems like this article is going out of the way to slam the replay officials though. It's crazy to me that they would rule that a strike based on the fact that they have, you know, replay... and what does that mean anyway? The count is 2-3 on the sixth pitch then. Isn't the batter already in a state of struck out? Or is it because striking out is a dynamic action it requires an additional catalyst to trigger the event? 3 or more strikes is a strikeout?

This is tripping me out.
   50. Lassus Posted: April 23, 2014 at 07:25 PM (#4692623)
One of the replay changes this year that hasn't gotten a lot of play or notice is that the replays - until this year only HR boundary and HR fair/foul calls - used to be reviewed and decided on by the umps on the field as they looked at a monitor just off the field. They would talk to the replay techs (NOT umpires) in NYC - who were under the eye of an umpire supervisor - to ask for forward, backward, slower, highlight this portion, etc., after which they would make the decision.

The change is that the umpires on the field now make none of the decisions and look at none of the replays, the umpire crew is in the city assisted by the tech crew. I think that's probably a big mistake that might have helped this be avoided, possibly, especially in both the immediate aftermath and official explanation especially.

As McCoy notes and Miserlou agrees with, the result of two different things going on in two different locations a hurried manner, with a THIRD group now explaining for those other two (and written about crappily by a fourth) is basically a total disaster.
   51. Robinson Cano Plate Like Home Posted: April 23, 2014 at 07:33 PM (#4692627)
Replay: more trouble than it's worth, and its implementation has been far more absurd than anyone could have imagined.

If a replay detractor had suggested this situation as a possible downside of adopting replay, it would've looked like trolling.
   52. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 07:39 PM (#4692628)
How would this situation been handled before replay?
   53. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 07:51 PM (#4692633)
How would this situation been handled before replay?

Funnily enough they probably would either look at a replay or talk to someone who watched a replay.
   54. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 07:54 PM (#4692635)
The umpire holding up a 2-2 count after the 5th pitch is not dispositive. It's a screw up, but it doesn't change the count. the count is what it is.

By the same logic a screw up in the third that gets caught in the 5th could be rectified. The count is only what the umps deem it to be.
   55. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4692737)
Not true.
   56. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:17 PM (#4692868)
Except in the matter that this very thread is about.
   57. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:31 PM (#4692879)
No
   58. McCoy Posted: April 24, 2014 at 08:36 AM (#4692954)
Y
   59. Sunday silence Posted: April 24, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4693261)
so what are they supposed to do under the rules? Assuming that the crew legitimately does not know or cannot agree.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(26 - 11:29am, Dec 19)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4950 - 11:28am, Dec 19)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogPadres Acquire Derek Norris – MLB Trade Rumors
(43 - 11:28am, Dec 19)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogMax Scherzer not a realistic option, New York Yankees' Randy Levine says - ESPN New York
(15 - 11:25am, Dec 19)
Last: No Maas Cashman

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(114 - 11:22am, Dec 19)
Last: Squash

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(28 - 11:19am, Dec 19)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(75 - 11:04am, Dec 19)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(718 - 10:47am, Dec 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogDo MLB Owners Wield Sabermetrics as a Hammer? – The Hardball Times
(3 - 10:45am, Dec 19)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(16 - 10:32am, Dec 19)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Newsblog2014 Disabled List Information and So Much More – The Hardball Times
(1 - 10:26am, Dec 19)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(8 - 10:17am, Dec 19)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-19-2014
(6 - 10:13am, Dec 19)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogJerry Crasnick on Twitter: "Jake Peavy has agreed on 2 yr deal with
(5 - 10:09am, Dec 19)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9160 - 9:20am, Dec 19)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

Page rendered in 0.4970 seconds
48 querie(s) executed