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

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Deven Marrero HR changed to single upon review

Well, that’s not good.

Jim Furtado Posted: April 15, 2018 at 10:42 AM | 86 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: diamondbacks

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. The Duke Posted: April 15, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5654065)
This is the kind of ticky-tack stuff I hate about replay. Frankly, replay has lost me. I think they could use it in some very specific situations (fair-foul, homer or not), maybe bang-bang plays at first base, but this kind of after-thought use of replay really bothers me. Plus, it really slows down the game. I liked the imperfections of the game.
   2. Endless Trash Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5654068)
Don't blame replay for a dumb rule that serves no purpose.
   3. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5654070)
Yeah...I get the aesthetics of having people run around the bases when a ball is hit over the fence; but I was talking to a friend about this the other day and it's pretty pointless.
   4. BDC Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5654071)
I agree with Trash – passing a baserunner is one of the imperfections of the game. Maybe it's a little archaic. The requirement to run out (or trot out) a home run might some day be eliminated, like the pitched IBB. (Wouldn't that wreak havoc with traditionalists; but I don't think batsmen have to run out boundaries in cricket, for example.) As long as the rule is there, and the play reviewable, I don't think that replay is the problem here. The run should not have counted, and they appear to have gotten it correct.
   5. SoSH U at work Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:26 AM (#5654073)
I agree with Trash – passing a baserunner is one of the imperfections of the game. Maybe it's a little archaic. The requirement to run out (or trot out) a home run might some day be eliminated, like the pitched IBB. (Wouldn't that wreak havoc with traditionalists; but I don't think batsmen have to run out boundaries in cricket, for example.) As long as the rule is there, and the play reviewable, I don't think that replay is the problem here. The run should not have counted, and they appear to have gotten it correct.



I don't think you agree with Shock there. He either thinks the rule that prevents one runner from passing another serves no purpose, or (like Panik) that runners shouldn't have to run out home runs. In either case, I strongly disagree.
   6. Brian C Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5654074)
Don't blame replay for a dumb rule that serves no purpose.

I agree with this general sentiment, but on the other hand, there's also no reason why this play in particular needs to be a reviewable play.

That said, I'm getting to the point where I'm starting to wonder if replay isn't basically pointless* in sports other than football. That seems to be the one of the 4 major league US sports where replay is used constructively more often that not. In MLB, and the NBA and NHL, it seems most of the time to be used for either judgment calls (like flagrant fouls in the NBA) or stupid stuff (like a ticky-tack offsides 5 minutes before a goal in the NHL). I like getting stuff right but like The Duke in #1 says, I feel like MLB would be best served radically reducing the kind of stuff that's reviewable.

*ETA - I shouldn't say "pointless". I should say "more trouble than it's worth."
   7. Brian C Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5654076)
I don't think you agree with Shock there. He either thinks the rule that prevents one runner from passing another serves no purpose...

...but only on homers, I would assume. I doubt anyone thinks that the rule is pointless as applied to balls still in play.

If you think that the rule serves a purpose on homers, though, please explain what that purpose is. I'm genuinely curious.
   8. Endless Trash Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5654078)
I don't think you agree with Shock there. He either thinks the rule that prevents one runner from passing another serves no purpose, or (like Panik) that runners shouldn't have to run out home runs. In either case, I strongly disagree.


I think you can pretty easily make an exception for homeruns, when the base running is ceremonial and serves no function. The play is dead and normal base running rules don't apply.

The game is in no way improved by making sure things like this don't happen.

I don't like replay, but it's not replays fault. It would have been just as dumb if the ump had made the correct call and there was no replay.
   9. McCoy Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5654080)
Follow the rules that's why. Baseball is also about being aware of your surroundings. Who has the ball, where is the next runner, is there a force on, so on and so on. It's pretty simple. Don't pass a runner. Why create an exception that could possibly open up loopholes? How many passed runner plays on home runs happen each year? Each decade? Each century? Kvetching about it seems rather pointless.
   10. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5654081)
(like Panik) that runners shouldn't have to run out home runs.


Just to clarify, I am fine with people having to run out home runs; and I actually think it is aesthetically pleasing to watch them do so. It is also pointless in the sense that 9999 times out of 10000, nothing out of the ordinary happens. I don't want anyone to think I'm advocating for a rule change here.
   11. SoSH U at work Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5654083)
I think you can pretty easily make an exception for homeruns, when the base running is ceremonial and serves no function. The play is dead and normal base running rules don't apply.

The game is in no way improved by making sure things like this don't happen.


OK, I can see that.
   12. Endless Trash Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5654084)
That said, I'm getting to the point where I'm starting to wonder if replay isn't basically pointless* in sports other than football. That seems to be the one of the 4 major league US sports where replay is used constructively more often that not. In MLB, and the NBA and NHL, it seems most of the time to be used for either judgment calls (like flagrant fouls in the NBA) or stupid stuff (like a ticky-tack offsides 5 minutes before a goal in the NHL). I like getting stuff right but like The Duke in #1 says, I feel like MLB would be best served radically reducing the kind of stuff that's reviewable.


It is an interesting conundrum.

To me, replay was instituted to fix calls that were clearly incorrect. If an umpire makes a mistake where, you watch a replay once and it's obviously wrong, it's nice to get it right.

But of course, you can't determine this before the fact, and as soon as you introduce replay you get into this situation where all these bang-bang, too-close-to-call plays are getting reviewed, and I can't stand that. If it's not obviously wrong it should just go to whatever was the call in the field/ice. This is why I have been a dogged advocate for time limits on replay. If you can't reverse the call after 30 seconds (maybe even less) then by definition it is inconclusive.

The off-side thing in the NHL is the most miserable thing. Awful, awful for the sport.
   13. Endless Trash Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5654086)
Follow the rules that's why. Baseball is also about being aware of your surroundings. Who has the ball, where is the next runner, is there a force on, so on and so on. It's pretty simple. Don't pass a runner. Why create an exception that could possibly open up loopholes? How many passed runner plays on home runs happen each year? Each decade? Each century? Kvetching about it seems rather pointless.


It's not like I'm lobbying for them to change it. I hardly care. I was just saying it's a dumb antiquated rule and, now that we have replay, its a dumb antiquated rule that caused an annoying delay.

The stat nerd part of me (the best part) loves the quirk that this is going to cause in the records.
   14. K-BAR, J-BAR (trhn) Posted: April 15, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5654091)
its a dumb antiquated rule that caused an annoying delay.


The 1st base umpire's inattention and the existence of replay caused this annoying delay.
   15. Colin Posted: April 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5654092)
That said, I'm getting to the point where I'm starting to wonder if replay isn't basically pointless* in sports other than football. That seems to be the one of the 4 major league US sports where replay is used constructively more often that not.


I know it's not one of the major American sports, but line-call review works really well in pro tennis. Takes just a few seconds and it's done, and if anything it speeds up the game by eliminating a lot of arguments.
   16. puck Posted: April 15, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5654093)
Does Avila get any blame here? Is going back to 1st to tag up the right play or his he supposed to have a lead where he's close enough to 1st to get back safely if the ball is caught, but far enough out that he can do something if the ball hits the wall?

Edit: ok, read the article instead of just watching the video, I guess Avila was getting a lot of blame.
   17. Sean Forman Posted: April 15, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5654098)
Replay it at full speed and if it's not immediately obvious, call stands.
   18. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 15, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5654105)
The whole idea that there is some category of 'immediately obvious' is an epistomological error. Sometimes the first three camera angles don't really show much but the fourth angle makes it 99.5% clear the call is in error.

Heck, the umpires on the field are making calls that are 'immediately obvious'. It was immediately obvious to Denkinger that Orta was safe at first.
   19. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: April 15, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5654108)
30 second time limit. You can get 5 or 6 angles in 30 seconds and if you can’t change it then the call stands. Stuff like Denkinger/Orta and other blatant errors would all be turned over by then.
   20. Leroy Kincaid Posted: April 15, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5654109)
Hideous uniforms.
   21. baerga1 Posted: April 15, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5654112)
Marrero should have pulled a George Brett there.
   22. Brian C Posted: April 15, 2018 at 01:56 PM (#5654114)
I know it's not one of the major American sports, but line-call review works really well in pro tennis. Takes just a few seconds and it's done, and if anything it speeds up the game by eliminating a lot of arguments.

Very true. It's even fun to watch those replays on TV!
Replay it at full speed and if it's not immediately obvious, call stands.

I don't really like this, either - if it's worth doing in the first place, it's worth getting the call right as much as possible. This idea doesn't seem to address either side of the question, honestly - it'll leave enough bad calls standing to make calls for better replay louder, while at the same time it's enough of a break in the flow of the game to annoy people who don't like replay. "Let's do it, but very carelessly" is not much of a proposal, IMO.

Still, I get it. One of the big problems with replay in baseball is that a lot of safe/out calls aren't very conclusive, even on slo-mo, freeze-frame replay; it's just impossible to get all the camera angles needed to get the necessary coverage on tag plays, and even at first base, on the closest plays it's pretty much impossible to tell when the ball is fully the 1B's mitt.

But to me, that's an argument against replay in the first place - that it's simply more trouble than it's worth. But I dunno. It's only recently that I started turning against the replay system. Been a lot of little moments building up over the past couple years.
   23. The Duke Posted: April 15, 2018 at 02:06 PM (#5654116)
I think replay is the issue not the rule. I’m the old days, the Dodgers manager likely would not have said anything. In the event he had, the umpires would have dutifully gotten together and concluded they weren’t going to screw around with the home run and told the manager that no one had a good angle

Now we have a technical answer that they have to yield to.

It makes for a much worse game.

I think they should stick to line calls and home runs ( similar to the tennis analogy). I never thought I would say give more power to the umps but the AI answer is worse
   24. Shredder Posted: April 15, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5654123)
The off-side thing in the NHL is the most miserable thing. Awful, awful for the sport.
They changed the rule this year so that it happens a lot less frequently. If you challenge and lose, it's a penalty, so you better be sure that you're right. What the really need to do it change the rule so that if your skate is behind the plane of the blue line, you're onside. You shouldn't go from onside to offside just because you happened to pick up the wrong skate without your body moving an inch forward. Everywhere else on the ice, it's the plane, except at the blue line. At any rate, it was bad, but is was nowhere near the problem that enforcing goaltender interference has become*. Nobody seems to know what the rule is. It's like a catch in the NFL.

I once had a ref in a game come up to me between periods and tell me "I just want to let you know, you've been cutting it really close, and I've almost whistled you for offsides four or five times". I was like "umm, THAT THE WHOLE IDEA!" It's like an ump walking out to the mound to tell a pitcher "Hey, I just want to warn you that a bunch of those called strikes have been right on the black and I've almost called them balls". Yeah, that's what I was trying to do.

*If I was king of the world, I'd make it so the rule was no contact allowed in the crease, ever. Outside the crease, the goalie becomes a sixth skater. If he goes behind the net to play the puck and doesn't get rid of it quick enough, feel free to light him up. As it is now, the crease is essentially meaningless. Might as well paint the whole ice blue.
   25. DanG Posted: April 15, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5654135)
The 1st base umpire's inattention and the existence of replay caused this annoying delay.
I remember when I was a kid and Dalton Jones hit a grand slam single for the Tigers. I'm thinking it was probably a Saturday afternoon because the game was on TV, IIRC.
   26. DaveSimon Posted: April 15, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5654144)
What is troubling is that the most likely circumstance where this would occur, is when the home run is a highly emotional one. Where the runners on base and the hitter are tremendously excited and not paying particular attention to their relative position. The crowd is going nuts. Mass jubilation. And then, whether in the moment, or after-the-fact as here, the ump takes back the homer? Imagine if this were an important game, or if this was in the playoffs. Imagine if the game was on the line -- if this was a go-ahead or tying homer. To have a game hang in the balance on something as inconsequential as passing a runner on the basepaths during, what is essentially, a ceremonial trot for show, is absurd. I do not think even the most purist of the Baseball Purists would care about this rule being rescinded.
   27. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 15, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5654150)
I don't think you agree with Shock there. He either thinks the rule that prevents one runner from passing another serves no purpose...

...but only on homers, I would assume. I doubt anyone thinks that the rule is pointless as applied to balls still in play.

If you think that the rule serves a purpose on homers, though, please explain what that purpose is. I'm genuinely curious.
There should be as few special cases as possible in the rules. There's no reason to have a different rule for baserunning on homers than for baserunning on other plays. "You can't pass a runner on the bases except on home runs" is a silly rule.
   28. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 15, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5654156)

Imagine if this were an important game, or if this was in the playoffs. Imagine if the game was on the line -- if this was a go-ahead or tying homer. To have a game hang in the balance on something as inconsequential as passing a runner on the basepaths during, what is essentially, a ceremonial trot for show, is absurd.
Tell it to Fred Merkle.
   29. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 15, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5654162)
30 second time limit. You can get 5 or 6 angles in 30 seconds and if you can’t change it then the call stands. Stuff like Denkinger/Orta and other blatant errors would all be turned over by then.


Where does that number come from?

The historical average is about 1:50.
   30. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: April 15, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5654169)
I know the average is near 2 minutes. I’m saying give it 30 seconds. If you can’t overturn it in 30 seconds let it stand. That’s going to catch the truly egregious stuff and the rest of it as far as I’m concerned comes out in the wash.
   31. Obo Posted: April 15, 2018 at 04:25 PM (#5654177)
(like a ticky-tack offsides 5 minutes before a goal in the NHL)

Oh lord do I hate that. If a team goes offside but the linesman misses it then scoring a goal on the subsequent play has likely become impossible even though everything appears to be continuing normally. I don't think offside should be reviewable at all for that reason.
   32. Greg Pope Posted: April 15, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5654198)
I know the average is near 2 minutes. I’m saying give it 30 seconds. If you can’t overturn it in 30 seconds let it stand. That’s going to catch the truly egregious stuff and the rest of it as far as I’m concerned comes out in the wash.

Personally, I'd take it a step further. Did they end up putting an umpire in each stadium, or is it still handled from New York? Either way, I'd have one umpire assigned per game. That guy can look at replays any time he wants. So he reviews close plays on his own. Manager throws a challenge flag? The replay ump has already seen the play 5-6 times. So the manager throws the flag, the home plate umpire calls up to the booth, the replay ump gives his decision, end of story.

Maybe have an exception if the manager is challenging something that wasn't obvious, so the replay ump has to look at it. But then you go with 30 seconds.
   33. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: April 15, 2018 at 05:17 PM (#5654208)
I am 100% on board with #32. This really doesn’t need to be the drawn out process it is.

Today’s Red Sox game had a great example. Benintendi was thrown out trying to score on a hit. It was a bang bang play and if I was calling it based on thereplay alone I would have said he was safe but they decided (rightly IMO) that the evidence wasn’t conclusive to overturn it. But we wound up with a 2 minute delay in the game on a 50-50 call. For me that’s not what replay is for. Replay is to fix the Denkingers, the Jeffery Meiers, the Joe Mayer doubles, stuff like that. The stuff that a first or second look says “holy crap that’s embarrassing” and most of the delay comes from other umps laughing at the poor schnook who made the call.
   34. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2018 at 07:42 PM (#5654282)
Primates have been advancing variations on #32 since years before replay was ever implemented. I'd get rid of the manager challenge system entirely. I find it ridiculous. Just have the 5th umpire do his thing, within 30 seconds.
   35. Brian C Posted: April 15, 2018 at 07:48 PM (#5654287)
I think a "30 seconds or bust" system will very possibly lead to more mistakes, and not fewer. The fact of the matter is that people miss things pretty easily on first glance, especially when working quickly under pressure. The most likely outcome is that we'll just be arguing over a) what exactly "obvious" means, and b) how the guy could have missed that "obvious" call.

Again, we either take replay seriously or we don't do it at all. Doing it half-assed is just stupid and will compound the problems.
There's no reason to have a different rule for baserunning on homers than for baserunning on other plays. "You can't pass a runner on the bases except on home runs" is a silly rule.

There's a perfectly good reason - with homers the ball is not in play, and on other plays, it is. Trying to advance a base with a ball in play is a fundamentally different play than what DaveSimon rightly referred to above as "a ceremonial trot for show". Insisting that we have to be consistent despite that difference just for the sake of consistency puts you in bizarre hobgoblin territory.
   36. Zach Posted: April 15, 2018 at 07:56 PM (#5654289)
I hate replay. The number of obviously wrong calls which are made right is barely larger than the number of correct calls made wrong. At the very least, there needs to be a dramatic revision in the set of calls which are reviewable. Taking two minutes to determine whether one baserunner crossed an invisible line on a dead ball is ridiculous. There is no need for perfect accuracy on this kind of call. It should not be reviewable.
   37. Zach Posted: April 15, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5654293)
The two sports that benefit from replay are instructive:

In football, there's so much going on during a play that officials miss things all the time.

In tennis, line calls can be made with great certainty very quickly.

Baseball replays are closer to the infamous football replays trying to distinguish catches from non-catches. It takes forever, and the rulebook definition is impossibly vague in the context of a real play. Replays should not be allowed unless they give a systematically and substantially better answer than the call on the field.
   38. Brian C Posted: April 15, 2018 at 08:18 PM (#5654297)
Baseball replays are closer to the infamous football replays trying to distinguish catches from non-catches.

They're more like the replays trying to determine whether a guy at the bottom of a pile got the ball across the goal line - there's too many people in the way and we can't see either the ball or the goal line clearly.

One of my pet peeves was all this nonsense about the catch rule. The catch rule was very well-crafted and clear, and the refs generally did a fine job being consistent with it. But the sports press thought a handful of plays looked funny and freaked out and all the sudden, every fan and pundit is mindless parroting the line that "no one knows what a catch even is!" even though a catch was clearly defined and consistently enforced. It was a perfect demonstration of how groupthink works.

But mark my words, the new change in the catch rule will lead to more confusion and arbitrary calls and outrage, because now the rule has lots of room for interpretation and judgment, and that never ends well.
   39. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 15, 2018 at 08:26 PM (#5654298)
There should be as few special cases as possible in the rules. There's no reason to have a different rule for baserunning on homers than for baserunning on other plays. "You can't pass a runner on the bases except on home runs" is a silly rule.

Agreed. Not sure why the No Passing Rule suddenly became so unpopular here. It's a long standing rule, and it's usually tough to violate it without two players screwing up, and maybe a coach, too. Judging a batted ball in flight is a baseball skill, why give a pass to those who misjudge the ongoing play?
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: April 15, 2018 at 08:38 PM (#5654300)
One of my pet peeves was all this nonsense about the catch rule. The catch rule was very well-crafted and clear, and the refs generally did a fine job being consistent with it. But the sports press thought a handful of plays looked funny and freaked out and all the sudden, every fan and pundit is mindless parroting the line that "no one knows what a catch even is!" even though a catch was clearly defined and consistently enforced. It was a perfect demonstration of how groupthink works.


I think the problem is the NFL's determination of a catch is so far removed from the rest of the world's definition* of what constitutes catching a ball, that no one gives a damn how consistently applied it is.

* Including, it should be noted, the NFL in other places.
   41. BDC Posted: April 15, 2018 at 08:56 PM (#5654306)
Agreed. Not sure why the No Passing Rule suddenly became so unpopular here. It's a long standing rule, and it's usually tough to violate it without two players screwing up, and maybe a coach, too. Judging a batted ball in flight is a baseball skill, why give a pass to those who misjudge the ongoing play?

Nah, my initial (half-thought out) point was that there's no need to run home runs out at all (again, based on the analogy to cricket). I am not really sure I agree with the point, but it's at least arguable. Passing a runner is a separate issue, and if you're going to run out over-the-fence home runs, sure, the rule should be the same, HR or not.
   42. PreservedFish Posted: April 15, 2018 at 09:05 PM (#5654310)
Again, we either take replay seriously or we don't do it at all. Doing it half-assed is just stupid and will compound the problems.



Disagree. Half-assed is ideal. The impulse to take it "seriously" is related to the impulse that allows the replay system to blow through 10 minutes of nothing in order to get the calls perfectly perfectly correct. What I want corrected are the plays where a guy watching on television knows something wrong happened, and quickly. And I want to eliminate that foot-off-the-bag-for-a-nanosecond garbage.
   43. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: April 15, 2018 at 09:25 PM (#5654316)
Either way, I'd have one umpire assigned per game. That guy can look at replays any time he wants. So he reviews close plays on his own.


This is the way it works in most Australian sports. Booth guy is just known as the 3rd or 4th umpire. When a close play happens though there is a huge difference in the proceedings to the way the U.S. sports handle it.

What happens is this...

Umpire/Ref on the field makes a call, if it's close he goes upstairs for confirmation(the ref does this, not coaches). By this time, guy in booth has had a look at like 6 different angles and unless it's obvious field ref was totally wrong, call stands. Simple as that. Usually takes about 30 seconds.
   44. Zach Posted: April 15, 2018 at 09:43 PM (#5654332)
Disagree. Half-assed is ideal. The impulse to take it "seriously" is related to the impulse that allows the replay system to blow through 10 minutes of nothing in order to get the calls perfectly perfectly correct.

Exactly. I'm fine with the no passing rule, and I'd be fine with an exception on dead balls. If the umpire catches it live, then sure, he's out. I am not fine with endless reviews of the most arbitrary elements of the sport.
   45. The Duke Posted: April 15, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5654347)
I never expected replay to be used so much. Too many replayable plays. Just narrow it down to a few plays - the review of these crazy plays where someone’s foot is off the bag in slo-mo replay but couldn’t possibly be seen with the human eyes is silly. This play in the Arizona game never should have been reviewed.

I have season tickets and I hate these replay delays - really screws up the flow of the game.

And what’s with idea of letting teams look at the replay first? If it isn’t obvious, it shouldn’t be reviewed
   46. Greg Pope Posted: April 15, 2018 at 10:23 PM (#5654368)
What happens is this...

Umpire/Ref on the field makes a call, if it's close he goes upstairs for confirmation(the ref does this, not coaches). By this time, guy in booth has had a look at like 6 different angles and unless it's obvious field ref was totally wrong, call stands. Simple as that. Usually takes about 30 seconds.


Yes, I didn't bring it up in my post, but I'd also do away with the manager challenge. Either it's wrong or it's not. I'd modify my #32 a bit in that case. I'd give the booth guy a button where he can buzz the onfield umps if he's looking at something. They don't have to stop the game or anything, just let the players go about getting ready for the next play. Then a second buzz to let them know the result.
   47. Greg Pope Posted: April 15, 2018 at 10:28 PM (#5654371)
I never expected replay to be used so much. Too many replayable plays. Just narrow it down to a few plays - the review of these crazy plays where someone’s foot is off the bag in slo-mo replay but couldn’t possibly be seen with the human eyes is silly. This play in the Arizona game never should have been reviewed.

I have season tickets and I hate these replay delays - really screws up the flow of the game.


This is it. I was in favor of replay, but did not anticipate the foot bounce for 2 millimeters space between the foot and the bag. I don't agree with the human eye definition though. I don't think that should be the driving factor. I think if the runner beat the throw or if the 1B foot came off the bag, then make the true call. The issue is that I don't want a 2 minute delay to make every call. So, give me a technology solution that can light up red if the guy is out on a force play, and I'll take it. I want robo-umps for the strike zone. As long as it doesn't affect the flow.

And what’s with idea of letting teams look at the replay first? If it isn’t obvious, it shouldn’t be reviewed

QFT. I mean, if the guy stealing second jumps up and says "Hey, I was safe", then go to replay. He might be wrong, I get that. It's OK. But letting the team review tape for 30 seconds is not right.
   48. bunyon Posted: April 15, 2018 at 10:31 PM (#5654372)
If we're going to retain the manager challenge, they should be forced to challenge within 10 seconds of the end of the play. The challenge system isn't great but no system is perfect (none - you cannot create a perfect system, sorry, calls are going to be missed). We now get delays on every play because each team wants some time to review the tape on any close play and the umps give it to them. It's insane.
   49. Brian C Posted: April 15, 2018 at 11:30 PM (#5654389)
I think my preference would be to keep the process the same as it is, but cut down on the stuff that is reviewable.

For example, on tag plays, only the initial tag should be reviewable. In other words, when the initial contact is made by the person applying the tag, the runner is either safe or out in that moment and that's all that gets reviewed. A defender holding a tag until a runner momentarily breaks contact with the bag would not be reviewable. If a runner obviously comes off a base, the ump naturally should call him out, but if the ump misses that, it's not reviewable.

Any slide rule play would not be reviewable - that's a judgment call and has no business being reviewable in the first place. Same with the plate-blocking rule, or any kind of interference call. Umps make their calls and that's that.

I'm sure there's more ... stuff that doesn't come up but is ridiculous all the same. Joe Maddon used a challenge a couple years ago to have the umps review the count, which he knew he'd lose, just to give the bullpen time to warm up. That's ludicrous. The Marrero homer last night, that's ridiculous. Just go over the list of reviewable plays and strike all the stuff that isn't runner beating a throw/tag, catch/not catch, fair/foul, or homer/not homer. Stick to the basics and get out of the weeds.


   50. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:01 AM (#5654406)

Today’s Red Sox game had a great example. Benintendi was thrown out trying to score on a hit. It was a bang bang play and if I was calling it based on thereplay alone I would have said he was safe but they decided (rightly IMO) that the evidence wasn’t conclusive to overturn it. But we wound up with a 2 minute delay in the game on a 50-50 call. For me that’s not what replay is for. Replay is to fix the Denkingers, the Jeffery Meiers, the Joe Mayer doubles, stuff like that. The stuff that a first or second look says “holy crap that’s embarrassing” and most of the delay comes from other umps laughing at the poor schnook who made the call.
I was of course happy with the call and was glad it wasn't overturned, but it was pretty obvious after viewing the replay once that the evidence was going to be insufficient to overturn the call on the field (whichever way the call had gone). Now, the problem is that they have multiple camera angles and they have to view each one to see if there's something definitive in one that's not observable in the others. But in this particular case, there was no such angle. To sit there and try to microanalyze each frame of the video in a desperate attempt to find a millimeter of daylight between his hand and the plate when the tag was put on (or conversely to find a millimeter of daylight between hand and glove when he touched the plate) is silly. If it's inconclusive, you can say that right away.
   51. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:12 AM (#5654408)
I never expected replay to be used so much. Too many replayable plays. Just narrow it down to a few plays - the review of these crazy plays where someone’s foot is off the bag in slo-mo replay but couldn’t possibly be seen with the human eyes is silly. This play in the Arizona game never should have been reviewed.
The original replay rule was just a few plays -- fair/foul and HR/no-HR, as I recall. Or maybe even just HR/no-HR. But there was no way on earth it was going to be limited to that; once you establish the principle that we should use such technology to overturn calls on the field because getting the call right is more important than just playing the game, there's no way to cabin it to a few situations. If you're going to overturn a mistaken HR call because it's obviously wrong to viewers, then how can you not overturn a Denkinger/Joyce call at first when it's just as obviously wrong to viewers? But as SdeB points out above, there's really no such thing as immediately obvious.

And what’s with idea of letting teams look at the replay first? If it isn’t obvious, it shouldn’t be reviewed
This. I thought, in fact, that MLB had done away with the manager getting time to decide whether to challenge, but apparently not, because they still do it. If we're going to operate under the challenge system, then the manager should have to challenge within a few seconds. In fact, maybe one of the players involved should have to challenge, without getting time to consult with the manager. That would limit challenges to truly obvious ones, because if a player wastes his team's challenge, he'll take the heat for it.
   52. Walt Davis Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:14 AM (#5654409)
I was anti-replay (with possibly egregious exceptions) from the get-go.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that I've seen fewer challenges, faster turn-around and more decisions of "inconclusive" than in the last couple of years. But surely somebody actually tracks that.

And all that said -- it does seem to have cut down on arguments, maybe especially player arguments. Which also means no more "Happ is yelling at the ump, the 1B coach intervenes, now here comes Maddon to stand up for his player, now Maddon is tossed, now Maddon is going to get his money's worth." The player points to the dugout to tell them to review, they decide whether to review, the player lives with the call either way since no point screaming at the replay ump in NY ("excuse me ump, could I borrow your headset to give this guy a piece of my mind?") That bit it seems is a bit similar to how it's been working in tennis, rugby, etc. -- the players (so far) believe the system's decisions.

On the other hand, even if arguments take up more time than replay, they were rare while replay is ubiquitous. And even though they're correct, I get annoyed with broadcasters simply accepting "well, Joe might as well use his challenge here since this is his last chance to use it so he's got nothing to lose" or "since it's a key point in a close game." It's already accepted that it's a bit of strategy rather than a love of truth, justice and the NL way that motivates a lot of replay usage.
   53. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:23 AM (#5654414)
For example, on tag plays, only the initial tag should be reviewable. In other words, when the initial contact is made by the person applying the tag, the runner is either safe or out in that moment and that's all that gets reviewed. A defender holding a tag until a runner momentarily breaks contact with the bag would not be reviewable. If a runner obviously comes off a base, the ump naturally should call him out, but if the ump misses that, it's not reviewable.
But that goes back to what I said in my previous comment: there's no way to have that principle. If you're going to have a situation where we can go to video to see whether the runner evaded the tag initially, there's no principled way to say "Okay, but that same video shows that he came off the bag afterwards, but... we'll just ignore it." Once you're looking at the video, you're looking at the video.

EDIT: Note that I'm not saying that one can't write that arbitrary restriction into the rule; I'm saying that one can't sustain it, because it is so obviously arbitrary.
   54. Brian C Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:02 AM (#5654417)
Note that I'm not saying that one can't write that arbitrary restriction into the rule; I'm saying that one can't sustain it, because it is so obviously arbitrary.

I dunno, all kinds of arbitrary things are sustained. Why three strikes instead of four? Why nine fielders instead of ten? Why allow stolen bases instead of forcing runners to advance only on batted balls? It doesn't necessarily follow that something can't stay in place just because it's arbitrary. All of the rules of the sport are arbitrary to some extent or another.

And besides, I don't see "arbitrary" as much of a slur in this case anyway. We're not trying to lay down principles for just war here, it's a baseball game. Rules are already written in all sports with the entertainment value in mind. That only thing that really matters for sustainability is if people accept it. Maybe they would or maybe they wouldn't accept my preferences, but I don't see what arbitrariness has to do with it.
   55. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:25 AM (#5654420)

Speaking of pointless challenges in the Orioles-Sox series, there was one on Friday in which Adam Jones hit a pop fly down the RF line. It dropped in, but he was thrown out trying to advance to second (while trailing by 5 runs) because he jogged. Specifically, he initially jogged to first thinking the ball was going to be caught. He reached first just as it fell in; then he started running hard as it bounced away. But then it bounced up onto the tarp, and he started jogging again, apparently thinking the ball was out of play. But then Betts picked up the ball from the tarp and tossed it to second, prompting Jones to finally decide to run again, but he was thrown out. So Showalter challenged. Apparently he was complaining about whether the ball should've been deemed out of play or not. I don't understand how that's a replay challenge at all, but they spent a bunch of time with it before deciding Jones was out.
   56. Endless Trash Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:25 AM (#5654421)
Right. Whether or not a rule is considered arbitrary or not is pretty arbitrary.

This isn't a courtroom David, it's baseball. What's important is improving the game. The game is better off when it's not taking away homeruns for reasons that nobody would ever suggest implementing were it not already there.
   57. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:55 AM (#5654424)

And besides, I don't see "arbitrary" as much of a slur in this case anyway. We're not trying to lay down principles for just war here, it's a baseball game. Rules are already written in all sports with the entertainment value in mind. That only thing that really matters for sustainability is if people accept it. Maybe they would or maybe they wouldn't accept my preferences, but I don't see what arbitrariness has to do with it.
Uh, the whole point here is that we're already talking about a situation where people have proven they won't accept arbitrary. We started with very limited replay, but it quickly expanded. You can have no replay, or you can have replay of anything for which review is practicable. You can't have "Well, yes, video shows that they got the call wrong... but we have to pretend that we didn't see it in this case, even though we do correct other mistaken calls via replay."

That's not remotely analogous to the rules of play. You have to have a certain number of strikes be a strikeout, or balls be a walk, or a certain number of players on the field. You don't have to have limits on replay that do not conform to the limits of the technology.


The game is better off when it's not taking away homeruns for reasons that nobody would ever suggest implementing were it not already there.
False. The game is better off when the rules are simpler and there are fewer special cases. It would be like, I dunno, adding a ghost runner at second base in extra innings to "improve" the game.
   58. Endless Trash Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:03 AM (#5654426)
Nonsense. A five year old can tell the difference between a homerun trot and ordinary base running. Explaining to a child why a homerun suddenly became a single is much harder than the converse.
   59. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:19 AM (#5654429)

Explaining to a child why a homerun suddenly became a single is much harder than the converse.
Not in the least: "Just like I told you: the runners always have to run the bases in order, without skipping one or passing a teammate."

As some have noted above, if you want the rules to call for skipping the homerun trot altogether and just calling it automatic run(s), that's one thing. I mean, I think that's a lousy idea, but at least it's consistent. But if you're going to make them run the bases at all, then the same rules should apply.
   60. Endless Trash Posted: April 16, 2018 at 02:24 AM (#5654431)
Okay. I disagree. The game is more fun when players hit homeruns and trot around the bases than when we play lawyer ball.
   61. JAHV Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:44 AM (#5654439)
One runner passes another - he's out, and I'm fine with that being reviewable. I think it makes the game more interesting and I'm happy to explain to my kids why the guy who hit a homerun got called out - neither he nor the baserunner were paying attention and they made a mistake. If one or both had been paying attention, this wouldn't have happened. I don't consider that lawyerball. It's a rule, they broke it, and the correct call was made.

As for replay itself, if we're going to do it, I want them to get calls right*. If a guy's foot leaves the base while the tag is on, he's out, regardless of how little space there was between him and the base. I'm not a fan of the coach's challenge. These plays should be reviewed by a 5th umpire somewhere and he should make the call to go to review in the first place.

*I would, however, be fine with limiting the amount of time a replay takes. I have to think you can see every angle of a play in slow motion in less than a minute. Maybe even 30 or 45 seconds. While I'd love every call to be perfect, it's also not worth the time spent on some of the 50/50 calls. That will eliminate some of the 4-minute reviews on tag plays where a guy's foot might have come off the base.
   62. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: April 16, 2018 at 03:59 AM (#5654440)
Explaining to a child why a homerun suddenly became a single is much harder than the converse.

Not in the least: "Just like I told you: the runners always have to run the bases in order, without skipping one or passing a teammate."
When I first heard that this was a rule that was enforced on home runs I thought someone was pulling my leg. A home run trot looks purely ceremonial--to learn otherwise is quite surprising.
   63. RMc Has Bizarre Ideas to Fix Baseball Posted: April 16, 2018 at 07:28 AM (#5654447)
Fit all players with electronic sensors. If a player passes another on the basepaths, he is instantly electrocuted.

A bit harsh, yes, but it's better than watching the umpire futz around for ten minutes.
   64. shoewizard Posted: April 16, 2018 at 07:52 AM (#5654449)
Interesting discussion.

Wow, Avila has been terrible. And I don't just mean a slump in less than 60 AB's to start the season. (.125/.300/.250 to start season) This play was an example. Unaware. Puts heads down and jogs back towards first base....as if he was going to ever tag up anyway.....sloth that he is. He just always seems out of sorts, out of place. Doesn't run hard. Sluggish. (I know catcher, but still.....). The way he moves the behind the plate does not create confidence either. It's also sluggish....does not have the quick hand movements you expect from a catcher. At the same time, he seems "Max effort" to get up out of his crouch to make a throw down to second. It's like it takes every ounce of energy he has just to get out of the crouch and stand up and throw.

He has quickly become the least favorite player on the team for many D Backs fans. I'm sure once he hits more that will change. But it's not his hitting I'm worried about.

Tigers fans, what say ye ? Cubs fans ?

   65. Lassus Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:20 AM (#5654450)
The original replay rule was just a few plays -- fair/foul and HR/no-HR, as I recall.

It was initially (2008, last two months) ONLY home runs, not fair/foul. (The HR would be reviewed for fair/foul, but no other hits.)

I wasn't part of the MLBAM replay team in 2009; I don't THINK non-HR fair/foul hits were added in 2009, but I don't really remember the timeline of the additional replay rulings.

EDIT: Wikipedia, of course, has the timeline
   66. Lassus Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:24 AM (#5654451)
Replay is lame, but whining about the outcome of this call is even more lame.
   67. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:49 AM (#5654461)
Speaking of pointless challenges in the Orioles-Sox series, there was one on Friday in which Adam Jones hit a pop fly down the RF line. It dropped in, but he was thrown out trying to advance to second (while trailing by 5 runs) because he jogged. Specifically, he initially jogged to first thinking the ball was going to be caught. He reached first just as it fell in; then he started running hard as it bounced away. But then it bounced up onto the tarp, and he started jogging again, apparently thinking the ball was out of play. But then Betts picked up the ball from the tarp and tossed it to second, prompting Jones to finally decide to run again, but he was thrown out. So Showalter challenged. Apparently he was complaining about whether the ball should've been deemed out of play or not. I don't understand how that's a replay challenge at all, but they spent a bunch of time with it before deciding Jones was out.


That replay made sense to me, it was just a boundary call like fair/foul or a home run call. But on that one hell, Jones didn't keep running I wanted him to be out for aesthetic reasons.
   68. Spahn Insane Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:00 AM (#5654467)
Tigers fans, what say ye ? Cubs fans ?

All of 112 PAs in a Cub uniform, so small sample size, but Avila was handy for the Cubs to have when Contreras went down with a hamstring injury soon after the trade.

His receiving, what I saw of it, didn't impress me, and he's at an age where catchers, especially non-stars, can hit a wall. I don't know if the sluggishness you describe is lack of effort or just eroding of skills; I didn't really pay enough attention to get a sense of his intensity level.

EDIT: So Avila's nickname is "Titanium Catcher." Okay then.
   69. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5654470)
That replay made sense to me, it was just a boundary call like fair/foul or a home run call.
But what were they reviewing? It took about 1.5 seconds from one angle to see where the ball went.


EDIT: Oh, and despite being an Os fan, he so deserved to be out for dogging it. Twice. On the same batted ball.
   70. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 09:28 AM (#5654471)
You can't have "Well, yes, video shows that they got the call wrong... but we have to pretend that we didn't see it in this case, even though we do correct other mistaken calls via replay."


Well, they do that already. If there is a review at 2nd to see if the runner violated the Utley rule, and it shows that he didn't, BUT is does show that he interfered with the throw in another way, that cannot be overturned.
   71. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: April 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5654497)
But what were they reviewing? It took about 1.5 seconds from one angle to see where the ball went.


Well that gets back to the 30 second limit. Move it the #### along.
   72. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 16, 2018 at 10:23 AM (#5654498)
Well, they do that already. If there is a review at 2nd to see if the runner violated the Utley rule, and it shows that he didn't, BUT is does show that he interfered with the throw in another way, that cannot be overturned.
Again, I think people misunderstand me. When I say "You can't," I obviously don't mean that literally; clearly you can. You can have a rule that says that you only review plays in odd-numbered innings, or involving players from Canada. I mean that you can't maintain such a rule without discontent eventually forcing you to change it. The whole reason we have replay is because there was too much grumbling about calls that were indisputably wrong when viewed on video. Given that, there will be continued pressure to use replay on every type of call where video could prove the call wrong. (As we discussed above, it has already expanded from its original design.)

(Several people above said, "Why have manager challenges at all?" But the only way you can mollify fans for not reviewing every play that goes against their team is to say to them, "Well, hey, your team's manager didn't challenge it, so that absolves us..." Even then we have the late inning silliness in which a manager can "ask" for a replay if he's out of challenges; they almost always do because it's impossible to justify not reviewing a potentially wrong call.)
   73. Tom T Posted: April 16, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5654510)
Fit all players with electronic sensors. If a player passes another on the basepaths, he is instantly electrocuted.


Please, please, pleeeeeeease let us make these! Already working on some automated penalty-calling for football sensors, so this would be pretty simple to add.

Also, it should be trivial for replay to be done with 30s of a call --- given everything is digital, all we need is for someone (okay, here enters a likely fallible human element...) to key the "beginning" of action and then once the action ends, some guy in a booth can immediately begin seeing all replays on a big ol' bank of monitors. Put it on loop, give him some usual replay controls, and no biggie. Presumably this is what was indicated as happening in Australia? It isn't like anyone has to physically rewind tape and cue it up for someone...just have the file pointer jump to the correct frame. (And, truth be told, I can think of several ways to use automated approaches to identify the "beginning" of action for a play.)
   74. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: April 16, 2018 at 11:39 AM (#5654546)
Just a heads-up to those who are suggesting that baseball should do things a certain way because that's how they do it in cricket: in cricket, they use a computer-generated simulation of what *would have happened* to determine if a batter is out leg before wicket.

Also, last year I was watching a Caribbean Premier League game and a photographer waved for a fielder who was blocking his line of vision to move to one side--and the fielder moved! Cricket is a whole other animal.
   75. The Duke Posted: April 16, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5654548)
I’m not sure why we have to have replay for everything. We had 150 years of baseball with umpires making mistakes and 30 years of television replay showing mistakes. It was just part of the game. I don’t think it was a big deal. Just review line calls and plays at firstand everyone will be happy or eliminate the manger reviews and have the player request one on the spot (or a fifth ump upstairs). They need to get back to one or two replays reviews a week. Seems to be 10 or more “hold on let me check” moments every game right now.

And I miss player/manager/umpire arguments which were far more entertaining than replay reviews.
   76. Ziggy's screen name Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5654566)
I mean, obvious solution is obvious: replay ump watches the whole game, buzzes crew chief if he wants to change a call. Crew chief waves his hands and lets everyone know the call has been overturned and where the baserunners should go, and play resumes. We don't need time outs for this, with every pitcher pitching like Steve Trachel there's plenty of time between pitches. And if getting the right call takes more time than that, then the call is too close to overturn anyway.
   77. manchestermets Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM (#5654568)
Does anyone know what the original rationale for the runner-must-not-pass-another-runner rule was? I'm not going to suggest it should be abolished, but it's not clear to me what bad thing it is supposed to be preventing. By all means, make the runners touch the bases in the correct order, but what does it matter if runner B briefly steps ahead of runner A?
   78. JAHV Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5654570)
Even then we have the late inning silliness in which a manager can "ask" for a replay if he's out of challenges; they almost always do because it's impossible to justify not reviewing a potentially wrong call.)


Unless you're Ned Yost and your baserunner gets thrown out trying to steal second to end the game in a one-run game on a ridiculously close play. Apparently then it's okay just to get back to the clubhouse buffet.

(Oh and he didn't even have to ask for an umpire replay - he had his challenge to use and STILL declined to use it.)
   79. JAHV Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5654577)
Does anyone know what the original rationale for the runner-must-not-pass-another-runner rule was? I'm not going to suggest it should be abolished, but it's not clear to me what bad thing it is supposed to be preventing. By all means, make the runners touch the bases in the correct order, but what does it matter if runner B briefly steps ahead of runner A?


If you allow runners to pass other runners, you'd either have to add additional rules to make sure they ended up at a base prior to the runners who started on base (which seems like an invitation for all sorts of confusion) or you'd have to allow them to continue past the existing baserunners.

Imagine a scenario where a guy hits a long fly ball with runners on first and second. Both runners decide to tag up. If you allow the hitter to pass the runners with impunity, he might get all the way past second, and, therefore, past both existing runners, by the time the ball drops. Then he either has to wait in a convenient, out-of-the-way location for the runners to pass him (or perhaps even backtrack), or we have to allow him to continue running toward third and possibly have him score before the other runners do, which seems like a scorekeeping nightmare to me.

That seems worse to me than the way they currently do things.
   80. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:15 PM (#5654578)
Imagine a scenario where a guy hits a long fly ball with runners on first and second. Both runners decide to tag up. If you allow the hitter to pass the runners with impunity, he might get all the way past second, and, therefore, past both existing runners, by the time the ball drops. Then he either has to wait in a convenient, out-of-the-way location for the runners to pass him (or perhaps even backtrack), or we have to allow him to continue running toward third and possibly have him score before the other runners do, which seems like a scorekeeping nightmare to me.


Runners on first and second, batter hits a triple, no runs score.
   81. manchestermets Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5654580)
If you allow runners to pass other runners, you'd either have to add additional rules to make sure they ended up at a base prior to the runners who started on base (which seems like an invitation for all sorts of confusion) or you'd have to allow them to continue past the existing baserunners.


Could this not more simply be handled by stating that the runners must touch the bases in the correct order (ie each runner must touch second in the right order, not a single runner touching first then second etc)?
   82. JAHV Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5654589)
Could this not more simply be handled by stating that the runners must touch the bases in the correct order (ie each runner must touch second in the right order, not a single runner touching first then second etc)?


Would that be all that much easier for the umpires to monitor than the current rule? At that point you're allowing a baserunner to pass another baserunner and then allow himself to get passed again so as to remain in compliance with the rule. For an umpire trying to watch several things at once, that seems just as difficult to call.

Runners on first and second, batter hits a triple, no runs score.


Ugh. I shudder even thinking about that scenario. I like things the way they are.
   83. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 16, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5654603)
I think replay is the issue not the rule. I’m the old days, the Dodgers manager likely would not have said anything. In the event he had, the umpires would have dutifully gotten together and concluded they weren’t going to screw around with the home run and told the manager that no one had a good angle

Now we have a technical answer that they have to yield to.

It makes for a much worse game.

I think they should stick to line calls and home runs ( similar to the tennis analogy). I never thought I would say give more power to the umps but the AI answer is worse


I'm pretty much with you on this (other than that I don't think the game is much worse, just that this is bad in a different way) and I agree with the way you phrased it about how the situation would unfold on the field pre replay. The problem is the manager would have spent 5 minutes arguing and then probably gotten kicked out, thus the call would still be wrong and the time still wasted.

Obviously we can't go back to limited replay now that the cat is out of the bag so we're stuck with this new reality. Is it any better, over the course of a season, then the old reality? I'm not convinced. On a granular level sure but over 162 games I don't think it adds up to a net positive the way it's used now.

If I had a magic wand I'd probably limit challenges to HR calls, fair foul, plays at 1st and HBP. That's it. And all challenges would come directly from the replay ump, that is at the game and is already watching every replay in every angle on every close play.

The playoffs would see expanded replay as it's much more important to get every call right in a short series (or hell one game playoff) than over 162 games.
   84. SoSH U at work Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5654609)
Runners on first and second, batter hits a triple, no runs score.


Could still get a double play by throwing to third and then to second?

   85. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:16 PM (#5654620)
Could still get a double play by throwing to third and then to second?


Well that's the question. If the batter passes the runner, and reaches the next base, is the force still in effect?
   86. SoSH U at work Posted: April 16, 2018 at 01:19 PM (#5654624)
Well that's the question. If the batter passes the runner, and reaches the next base, is the force still in effect?


I think we might need to keep that no passing the runner ahead of you rule, at least for a little while.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 OCT 22: Meet the New York Teenager Who Created the 'Mets Are a Good Team' Super PAC
(303 - 2:44am, Oct 23)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogMets narrow GM search down to three: Doug Melvin, Brodie Van Wagenen and Chaim Bloom
(17 - 2:42am, Oct 23)
Last: Endless Trash

NewsblogMLB -- Manny Machado, Yasiel Puig embrace their villain roles all the way to the World Series
(61 - 2:34am, Oct 23)
Last: Tuque

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(902 - 1:29am, Oct 23)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(122 - 11:34pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDo the Nationals need to go modern and develop a hybrid reliever? - The Washington Post
(15 - 11:20pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogYankees mull Manny Machado, free agents, more
(11 - 10:36pm, Oct 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2297 - 10:28pm, Oct 22)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(856 - 9:50pm, Oct 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogCatch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)
(556 - 8:15pm, Oct 22)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1010 - 7:35pm, Oct 22)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogDavidson Aiming To Be Legitimate Bullpen Option
(4 - 7:29pm, Oct 22)
Last: This is going to be state of the art wall

NewsblogBrad Ausmus named Angels manager | MLB.com
(27 - 6:13pm, Oct 22)
Last: phredbird

NewsblogHochman: In new baseball world, money still has loudest voice | Benjamin Hochman | stltoday.com
(3 - 5:59pm, Oct 22)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogFor Dave Dombrowski, Another World Series on the Path to the Hall of Fame - The New York Times
(17 - 5:05pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 1.5771 seconds
46 querie(s) executed