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

Friday, July 04, 2014

Odd challenge starts domino effect for A’s, Blue Jays

Here’s an interesting replay:

The incident happened in the top of the second inning with the bases loaded and one out. Blue Jays outfielder Anthony Gose hit a sharp grounder to first base. Nate Freiman fielded the ball cleanly and attempted to make a tag on baserunner Munenori Kawasaki before throwing home.

First-base umpire Vic Carapazza ruled that Kawasaki avoided the tag and immediately made the safe sign. That meant the force play at home was still in order and catcher Stephen Vogt recorded the out when he caught the ball while stepping on the plate.

Gibbons then came out of his dugout and took the unorthodox approach of suggesting that Kawasaki should have been ruled out. He challenged, and when the play went to a review, it was determined that Kawasaki had been tagged.

That prompted the umpires to overturn the ruling on the field. Kawasaki was called out and as a result, Edwin Encarnacion was ruled safe at home because the force play was no longer in effect.

You have to love a ten minute replay and a decision that screws a team because an umpire gets a call wrong.

Jim Furtado Posted: July 04, 2014 at 08:20 AM | 20 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: athletics, blue jays, replay sucks

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. kthejoker Posted: July 04, 2014 at 08:55 AM (#4743139)
If Kawasaki was in fact tagged this is basically the only possible outcome of the play anyway.

Not sure they should be allowed to overturn force out calls as it basically turns routine plays into quantum physics.
   2. steagles Posted: July 04, 2014 at 09:39 AM (#4743142)
could they have sent the runners back to 2nd and 3rd?
   3. McCoy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4743147)
I'm pretty sure MLB will give us a new rule on this within the week.
   4. John DiFool2 Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4743150)
I believe a number of people here predicted exactly this kind of paradoxical outcome.
   5. Rusty Priske Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4743161)
New rule... tag everyone. Even if you don't need to. It is better to be sure.
   6. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4743162)
I believe a number of people here predicted exactly this kind of paradoxical outcome.


Yes, yes I did. How about this rule change? A manager cannot challenge a play in which the onfield ruling is in their favor. In general, the defense cannot challenge that an out call and the offense cannot challenge a safe call.
   7. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4743164)
New rule... tag everyone. Even if you don't need to. It is better to be sure.


Until someone sustains an injury on an unnecessary tag. How about this? If the initial ruling on the field indicates a force is still in effect, no subsequent replay ruling can change that?
   8. Bruce Markusen Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4743165)
Maybe the compromise on this kind of play is to give the defensive team the choice of whether to take the out at first or to take the out at home plate. In this case, the A's would gladly take the out at the plate, allowing the other runner to go to second base.

It's a rare enough play that it's not going to happen every week, or even every month, so it shouldn't make a mockery of the replay rule.
   9. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 04, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4743200)
Yes, yes I did. How about this rule change? A manager cannot challenge a play in which the onfield ruling is in their favor. In general, the defense cannot challenge that an out call and the offense cannot challenge a safe call.


I think this is all you need to do. A manager should not be able to challenge a call that worked out for them.

There are other times this gaming of the rules could make a mockery of a game. Example:

Runner on third, fewer than two outs. Batter hits line drive to right-center field, outfielder makes diving attempt, and umpires says it was a trap, rather than a catch. Outfielder gets up, throws out the batter trying to stretch into a double. Meanwhile, the runner on third has obviously trotted home with a run scored.

You are the manager of the defensive team. You quickly realize that if you successfully challenge the trap as having actually been a catch, not only will the batter be out, but the runner on third will be out for not tagging up at third base.

To me, once an umpire makes a signal on the field that a ball is a trap, rather than a catch, you can't expect the runner on third to go back and tag in case it is challenged.

To ask the A's catcher to tag a runner on a force play "in case", or a runner on third to tag up on a trap catch "in case" changes the game.

In tennis, there is a strict rule: on a ground stroke mid-rally, if you want to challenge a ball deemed "in" as actually "out", you have to call for the challenge at that moment, and stop play. Otherwise, you would just wait, see if things worked out, and then call a challenge. It would be stupid in tennis, and it is stupid in baseball, too.
   10. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 04, 2014 at 12:35 PM (#4743210)
There are other times this gaming of the rules could make a mockery of a game. Example:


But that's not an example of a counter-intuitive challenge. that's a defensive manager challenging a safe call. But I agree, it makes a mess. Here's another example: Runner on third, one out. Batter hits a grounder to the SS who first freezes the runner, then throws to first. On the throw, the runner takes off for home. Close play at first, batter called out. First baseman throws wildly home. Should the batter take off for second in case the call at first gets overturned? Should the defense try to make another play on the batter-runner in case the call at first is overturned? if the batter jogs to the dugout after being called out, can he be awarded second if his call at first is overturned?
   11. boteman Posted: July 04, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4743227)
Wow. Baseball really is becoming more like the NFL.

Why not just allow the benefiting team to decline the penalty???
   12. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 04, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4743241)
There are other times this gaming of the rules could make a mockery of a game. Example:


But that's not an example of a counter-intuitive challenge.


Fair enough - though my point was that if you are on the defensive side of a call where the batter is out, you typically do not come out to argue - but because of another part of the play unrelated to the action involved in the call, they decide it is time to complain. That does feel more like an NFL challenge...
   13. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 04, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4743248)
I can't imagine a runner would be called out for not tagging up when the onfield ruling is no catch, but then before today I would not have thought they would have ruled a runner safe when he wasn't tagged on a force play, so you never know.
   14. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 04, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4743302)
The Blue Jay runner was out at home by 10 feet (or more) and would have been easily tagged if it had not appeared to be a force play due to the umpire's wrong call on the runner between 1st & 2nd base. Seems like the umpires should be allowed to use their judgment - similar to positioning base runners - and call the runner out at home since he would have been tagged out. It becomes messy on closer plays, but in some cases the outcome will be clear.
   15. boteman Posted: July 04, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4743327)
The Infield Fly rule was created to eliminate the many "what if?" scenarios as the play happens. I'm not sure the advent of replay for this rare a play requires a rule tailored to the situation, but it's not like rules haven't been adopted to eliminate such a conundrum. I'd lean toward having the umpires use their best judgment on the field, if they still have the cojones to do that in our brave new replay world.
   16. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: July 04, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4743371)
After a delay of 4 minutes, 27 seconds, the call was overturned and the Blue Jays were given a run.

At least they pulled it out of their ass in a somewhat timely manner.

Replay has been every thing I imagined. The final piece to making the sport unwatchable.
   17. bobm Posted: July 04, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4743376)
[8]Maybe the compromise on this kind of play is to give the defensive team the choice of whether to take the out at first or to take the out at home plate. In this case, the A's would gladly take the out at the plate, allowing the other runner to go to second base.

This would be similar to the recent rule application on catcher's interference:

New York Post
"Yanks score one on rare catcher interference call"
By Howie Kussoy
April 16, 2014

Joe Girardi played the percentages.

In a bizarre play in the fifth inning of the Yankees’ 3-0 win over the Cubs in Wednesday’s matinee, Jacoby Ellsbury appeared to hit a routine ground out to pitcher Jason Hammel, with Brett Gardner scoring from third base, but the speedster was soon sent back to third, with Ellsbury taking first after catcher’s interference was called on John Baker of the Cubs.

Under Rule 6.08(c), the Yankees manager was given the choice of allowing the catcher’s interference call to stand or accepting the result of the play. With Masahiro Tanaka untouchable all afternoon, Girardi, who said he never has seen the play as a manager, but had as a player — opted for the run, giving the Yankees their third run and second out of the inning. ...
   18. PeteF3 Posted: July 04, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4743377)
Wow. Baseball really is becoming more like the NFL.

Why not just allow the benefiting team to decline the penalty???


Already done. You can decline balks and catcher's interference if the outcome of the ball in play is better.
   19. Brian Posted: July 06, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4744717)
First-base umpire Vic Carapazza ruled that Kawasaki avoided the tag and immediately made the safe sign.


Bullshit. That call was in no way immediate. He took so long that the catcher would've had to not seen the call as he had to focus on the throw coming home. So not relying on the call the catcher may very well have tagged him as he slowed up (He was "out" by a mile and surrendered). The firstbaseman has to yell "tag" so loud that people in the upper deck hears it. Fundamentals matter.
   20. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: July 06, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4744743)
In tennis, there is a strict rule: on a ground stroke mid-rally, if you want to challenge a ball deemed "in" as actually "out", you have to call for the challenge at that moment, and stop play. Otherwise, you would just wait, see if things worked out, and then call a challenge. It would be stupid in tennis, and it is stupid in baseball, too.

It wouldn't be -- and wasn't, for decades when this exact practice was the custom on clay -- in tennis. No party has to make a decision about what subsequent action to take based on the call, so literally nothing is lost by continuing the point and then retroactively noting a mid-rally shot was out. The situations aren't remotely comparable.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3601 - 2:08pm, Oct 24)
Last: Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(7 - 2:07pm, Oct 24)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(35 - 2:06pm, Oct 24)
Last: Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(23 - 2:05pm, Oct 24)
Last: Steve Treder

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(55 - 2:04pm, Oct 24)
Last: Monty

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(1 - 1:55pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(23 - 1:55pm, Oct 24)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(914 - 1:52pm, Oct 24)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogPittsburgh Pirates prospect Tyler Glasnow captures Starting Pitcher MiLBY Award | MiLB.com
(1 - 1:33pm, Oct 24)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(13 - 1:29pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogWall Street didn't kill sabermetrics - Beyond the Box Score
(4 - 1:28pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(13 - 1:11pm, Oct 24)
Last: bfan

NewsblogKen Rosenthal on Twitter: Rays’ Friedman going to Dodgers. Colletti remaining as senior advisor.
(93 - 12:32pm, Oct 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-24-2014
(3 - 12:30pm, Oct 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(13 - 12:16pm, Oct 24)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Page rendered in 0.1598 seconds
52 querie(s) executed