|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Sunday, April 15, 2012
From True Blue L.A.
I don’t know how they did it, but the Dodgers are somehow 9-1. Dee Gordon’s walk-off single capped a wild ninth inning that had a bizarre triple play in the top of the inning that may or may not have been legitimate. The bottom of the inning included a Juan Uribe sacrifice bunt. More details later, but wow.
—-
From Gaslamp Ball
This was a perfectly good game until the umpire decided to call the absolute most ######## call I’ve ever seen, throwing up the foul ball sign for a good two seconds after a Jesus Guzman bailout accidental bunt and then after all the runners have registered the fact that they’re not supposed to run, Dale Scott ##### #### up by pointing to third base and making up the rule that says, on a foul ball, you’re allowed to throw the ball to third base and I’ll award you a triple play, because I am a horse’s ass.
DALE SCOTT, MLB UMPIRE, YOU SUCK.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: ‘Old man’ Arroyo pitching better than ever (14 - 12:42am, Jun 20)Last: base ball chickNewsblog: OT: NBA Finals and June thread (1025 - 12:41am, Jun 20)Last: NJ in NYNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for JUNE 19, 2013 (87 - 12:41am, Jun 20)Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of AnaheimNewsblog: Matt Harvey challenged Jon Rauch to a fight (78 - 12:35am, Jun 20)Last: base ball chickNewsblog: Sports on Earth: Super-Royal (43 - 12:23am, Jun 20)Last: ZachNewsblog: Deadspin: Manny Ramirez is Leaving Taiwan (6 - 12:17am, Jun 20)Last: GamingboyNewsblog: Former New Orleans baseball player Gene Freese dies at age 79 (2 - 12:09am, Jun 20)Last: Bruce MarkusenNewsblog: Draft signings (141 - 12:07am, Jun 20)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (1128 - 11:52pm, Jun 19)Last: Bull PainNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread June, 2013 (644 - 11:04pm, Jun 19)Last: SpiveyNewsblog: Neyer: Computing Manny Machado's shot at the record (47 - 10:49pm, Jun 19)Last: Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)Newsblog: [OTP-June] Economic Times: Hope politics, sports don’t get mixed up: Manmohan Singh (2282 - 10:42pm, Jun 19)Last: KurtNewsblog: WSJ: Well That Was an Unlikely Mets Comeback (76 - 10:15pm, Jun 19)Last: LassusNewsblog: ESPN.com: Yankees Acquire Fartinez (26 - 10:03pm, Jun 19)Last: Cooper NielsonNewsblog: NCAA Baseball Division I Tournament OMNICHATTER (274 - 9:49pm, Jun 19)Last: Mike Emeigh
|
|
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.
No more than 3-4 seconds after the play had begun, the runner at first was still standing on the first-base bag, so it appears he hadn't even made a move toward second. On a play like that, when ball hits bat, the runners' job is to run, not to stand stationery while waiting for the umpire to signal.
The runners' job is to run until told not to run, like, say, by the umpire signaling foul ball. Which happened.
Except the batter took about seven steps toward the home plate dugout. He had no chance of making it to first under any circumstance.
It appeared to me that Scott was raising his arms as part of backing out of the way, not as a signal. He did raise them again (not sure why) just before signaling a fair ball, but by that time the Pads' baserunners had oddly retreated all the way back to the bags.
Frankly, I don't think the Pads' have much of a case here. The original raised arms were not a clear signal of a foul (or dead) ball, so absent a vocal call to support that ruling, they should have been running.
Disagree, at least in this case. The runner on second might have a legit complaint because the play was in front of him and he'd be relying on the home-plate umpire's signal, but Ellis immediately threw to third. No base runner in baseball gets from second to third before Ellis makes that throw. Meanwhile, the runner on first might have had a complaint if the second-base umpire was signaling "foul," but the replays show he wasn't. The runner on first never moved a muscle. The only real debate here is whether the batter would have beat the relay to first (which he probably could have if he ran, but it seems he was selling the foul ball/HBP angle instead).
Watch where the batter ends up. There's no way he's making it to first.
Wow, you were quick on the reply. I edited #8 about 5 seconds after posting it. As I said in my edited comment, I meant the batter might have made it to first had he run from the start (or even when Ellis started his throw to third), but the batter tried to sell the foul ball/HBP instead. (And, as you said, it appears he bailed way out of the box in the opposite direction of first.)
Anyway, this was an interesting series. Aaron Harang struck out nine in a row on Friday, and then the first 2-5-6-3 triple play in MLB history occurred on Sunday.
What part was unclear? The runner on first should have ran as soon as he saw the ball hit the bat (or even the ball possibly hitting the bat), not wait an additional half a second for the home-plate umpire to signal. I'd have more sympathy if the runner at first made a move for second but stopped because the second-base umpire signaled "foul" (which he didn't).
Interestingly, the San Diego crew(s) initially said the opposite, saying something like, "If it hit the bat, this could be a triple play."
It does look like that might be what happened.
In any case, I think he would've made it to second even with the delay. Or maybe he had reason not to run.
This seems like an "inadvertent whistle" case from football, although it's in dispute whether Scott actually signaled "foul" or simply raised his arms while getting out of the way. (Ellis claims Scott never said "foul," and Scott's arm motions were happening behind Ellis.)
Never know what you'll see when watching a baseball game. Hard to believe it was the first 2-5-6-3 triple play in MLB history (although the "6" part is an oddity).
In the clips I've seen, it didn't appear the runner at first ran at all. No more than 3-4 seconds later, when the relay was made to first, the runner was standing *on* first, sort of like a Little Leaguer. It looked like he wasn't duped by the (alleged) "foul" signal so much as he saw the pitch was way inside to the right-handed hitter and appeared to hit him. Weird play.
The ball is live and in play, so he has to be back at his base or he gets tagged out.
I think that basically Scott was going to signal foul, got his arms up instinctively and then realized that he didn't think it was foul. Bit of an "oh ####\" moment. Honestly, though, saying that he didn't say, "Foul Ball" is a bit of a copout. There's a lot of noise on the field. That's why they do the hand signal crap.
Yup. How often do these umpiring protests work out? One in a hundred? One in a thousand?
Maybe, maybe not. My understanding is that Scott would normally be shouting "Foul! Foul!" in that situation, so he either got caught in between or there was a disconnect between what his arms did and what his eyes saw. Remember, Scott is behind both the catcher and the batter, so if he's not shouting and the other umpires aren't signaling, there's no reason for Ellis not to throw to third (and perhaps no reason for the batter not to run).
Plus there's the matter of what should happen — i.e., should the perhaps-inadvertent "foul" call override what apparently wasn't a foul ball?
I think the more likely scenario is he moves towards second, sees that the runner on second is standing on the bag because he's seen the dead ball call, and so he retreats. No matter what the 2B ump does it seems a bit foolsih to run to a bag that has a runner standing on it.
The play was tailor-made for Ellis: All he had to do was reach down, pick it up, and throw to third. For a catcher, it doesn't get much better than having a live ball six inches from the plate.
I think if they run it's a 2-5-3 DP. The batter wasn't getting to first the way he spun out of the way but things were delayed enough that the runner on 1st should have made 2nd easily.
There was a lot of talking after that, and I think the coaches ended up compromising on two out and a man on second.
The man on first, as he is being tagged, has his arms out in imitation of the ump's signal, so it seems clear he thought the ump was signalling foul.
Who is this referring to? The only way this is live and in play is if it's a fair ball, in which case both runners have to run (until the force is removed). That's why I don't have any sympathy for the Pads. If it's a foul ball, they go back to their bags without harm. If it was an HBP, they move on to the next base without fear of being put out. The only way they can screw this up is by retreating to the base they came from, which is the course of action they took.
Yes, the initial arms thrown up was confusing, but didn't strike me as a foul ball call as much as an instinctive "whoa, the catcher and batter are plowing into me," reaction. The second time he briefly raised his arms, right before he called it fair, was less defensible. But by that time, it was also irrelevant, as the Pads baserunners had already gone back to their bases and thus would have been put out regardless of Scott's arm action.
This. There's no scenario under which the batters shouldn't be running full speed.
The play could only be 1) fair ball, 2) foul ball, 3) HBP. There is no option where they could have been put out for being off their base.
If you watch just Dale Scott and try to complete blind yourself from the play, there's no other intial interpretation to what you think he's calling with the hands raised like that, other than a 'foul ball'. It is like the classic premature 'out' call turned 'safe' after a ball is dropped by the fielder. Despite all that, the baserunners and batter should've assumed no such call until they either hear it from the ump(s) or see it from the base umpire in the direction they are running.
Just a terrible, terrible call. While ideally every runner would be going balls-to-the-wall at all times, that's not the reality of any profession. All of the runners were miming the foul signal while they protested, so they obviously were all looking in at the umpire and acting on his overt signalling.
It may have only cost the Padres one out in hindsight, but that doesn't change what an awful call it was. The umpire shouldn't be allowed to signal one thing and then immediately signal something else, particularly if it's a fair/foul call with runners on.
normally i would agree, but we have seen this before. a first baseman has the ball in his glove before the runner gets there, and the ump is in the process of signalling out, but the ball pops out and the ump quickly reverses himself. and i've also seen it on a play at the plate. it looks like the runner has been tagged out, the ump is in the process of signalling, but the ball rolls loose, and its apparent the catcher did not have control of the ball. those things happen. so i guess i'm kind of reversing myself from my comment upthread, though in a perfect world the home plate umpire last night should not have had his arms in the air at all. that's what caused the confusion.
It was a confusing play, and would have been without any action from Scott. That's why I think it's on the Pads' baserunners. The ball clearly hit something, and landed on the ground. In that case, you go, and let it get sorted out later. This wasn't a damend if you do, damned if you don't situation (like say, a potential trap). There was only one thing the Pads baserunners could do to screw it up, and that's what they did.
That's not really the same thing though; new information causes the ump to change the call. There was no new information here: the ump just changed his mind and called a dead ball live. Safe vs. out doesn't change the status of the play, it's still a live ball either way.
The baserunners are entitled to rely on the signals of the umpire. The ump here CLEARLY signalled foul. He didn't just inadvertently raise his arms (though he did do that), he then proceeded to make an obvious dead ball signal. It's like an inadvertant whistle in football; you can't just blow a play dead and then blow it back live again, it's fundamentally unfair.
I find it telling that the only person who wasn't confused on the play was the catcher, and he was the only person who couldn't see the umpire.
I also feel for Scott -- he has to make a split second reaction and it's pretty natural to assume dead ball one way or the other. From his perspective, I'd be very surprised it was a live ball too. Certainly it's his fault but that is a tough one because it's just so unlikely to actually be a fair ball.
If the rules don't cover "inadvertent foul call" then I guess it has to be a triple play, in the vein of the reversed trap/catch calls on outfield diving grabs.
It was sorted out later. Then un-sorted out. The baserunners should have been running, but they're entitled to stop once the umpire signals it foul.
Thiat argument is tantamount to "run until the play is over, then continue running just in case the play starts again."
But the runners didn't react to the obvious dead ball signal (which was immediately followed by the fair ball sign). They responded to the less obvious inadvertent one. And as far as I can tell, neither signal was accompanied by ANY verbal signal that generally comes with these plays. If they had stopped running when he raised his arms right before he signaled it a fair ball, I'd be a lot more sympathetic.
So an umpire can signal whatever he wants, but as long as he doesn't say anything out loud, it doesn't count? Then what's the point of signals?
My problem here is more procedural than specific. How badly this hurt the Padres is up to debate, but there is no legitimate procedural justification to allow an umpire to signal a play dead, then signal it back live. Maybe I'm influenced by doing football games, but there any time the whistle is blown, the play is over, even if the whistle is inadvertant. Everything that happens after the whistle is purged as tainted by the fact that some or all of the players may have stopped playing in response to the whistle.
I see the same thing here. The ump signalled the play dead. Full stop. Everything that happened after should be disregarded. It's like playing tag with a little kid who goes "Time out! Time out! Time out!...Time in!"
As a procedural matter, if it's called dead, it should stay dead.
Not sure this quite applies but;
9.04(c) - If different decisions should be made on one play by different umpires, the umpire-in-chief shall call all the umpires into consultation, with no manager or player present. After consultation, the umpire-in-chief (unless another umpire may have been designated by the league president) shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most
likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made.
Emphasis mine. It's not two umps but one making conflicting calls. It seems that that rule would suggest that a triple play is the right result.
And I'm saying he didn't signal it dead. He raised his arms as part of getting out of the way, which is what the Padres runners reacted to (understandable, sure, but ultimately foolish). That he later raised his arms before calling it foul is problematic (and worthy of rebuke), but had no effect on how the rest of the events played out.
But to your question, as noted above, umpires can and do make inadvertent signals (like out) then change their minds and modify the call. The play doesn't automatically stop just because the umpire starts to call one thing then changes his mind.
This is certainly a logical result. As SoSH notes I think the catcher playing it out tells us that the umpire did not call out "foul" though so an argument can be made that a foul call was not in fact made despite the signal.
I don't see how someone could say he didn't signal it dead. He:
1. Raised his arms (confusing, but not meaningful)
2. He signalled it dead, clearly and intentionally
3. He signalled it fair.
Even if nobody relied on that foul signal, he still made it, and the play should be dead. Like I said above, I'm looking at this from a procedural standpoint, not a "how things ended up unfolding" standpoint.
But safe/out calls don't kill the play. Fair/foul does. Dead balls should stay dead.
You can argue that he did not signal it dead. The signal for a foul ball is verbal, not physical. That is for situations just like this. I don't blame the Padres for being pissed but the base runners HAVE to go there and let the ump signal them back to the bases.
You can't undead a ball called dead.
Please, no more zombie threads.
And I'm saying he didn't signal it dead. He raised his arms as part of getting out of the way, which is what the Padres runners reacted to (understandable, sure, but ultimately foolish).
I think this bears a lot of repeating.
Their conclusion (and mine): totally blown situation, and on the umpire's head. He cleary raises is arms after the act of raising them to get out of the way (which still might have been a half-assed foul signal, IMHO.)
Foul is foul, and you can't "unring the bell."
I'd bet you one of them BBRef sponsorships on this, but that seems unfair to one of us.
I don't think there are grounds to uphold a protest. Scott mishandled it, clearly. But I don't see how the rulebook was misinterpreted.
But the baseball rulebook allows for a "how things ended up unfolding" standpoint. It's how Miguel Tejada was ruled out when he was interfered with by Billy Mueller in the 03 playoffs. If he had kept running instead of standing around and pointing, and got tagged out on a close play, then he would have been ruled safe.
I only vaguely remember that play, so I can't really speak to that. What I can say is that I don't know of any sport that allows a play to be called dead and then be...resurrected. I would be surprised if baseball were the exception.
Now, if it turns out that what Scott did didn't rise to the level of calling the play dead, then I guess a triple play was the right result. If he did call it dead though, it should have stayed dead.
After all, Easter was LAST Sunday.
What if it's the third out?
So there's still a chance for Denkinger to change his call at first base? He just has to say the original call was inadvertent and modify the call.
No, that's a specific instance, not a general rule.
It's obstruction where a play is not being made on the runner obstructed--"Type B" in the parlance, if not called so in the rulebook--and the umpire is to allow the play to continue and award such a result as would negate the effect of the obstruction. Your last sentence is correct; he was called out because the obstruction didn't cost him the 30 feet he was out by because he lollygagged. If he'd have been out by 5 feet running hard, he probably gets awarded home.
Yeah this is what happened. The ump called the ball foul off the bat because it was foul. But it's not truly foul until someone touches it, so when it spun back into fair territory and Ellis picked it up the ump was screwed. Either he had to say "Doesn't matter that it's fair, I screwed up an called it foul already" and screw the Dodgers or do what he did and say "I screwed up and called it prematurely foul, but it really turned out to be a fair ball" and screw the Padres. The idea that he was getting out of the way or whatever is nonsense, he called the ball foul because he thought it was foul.
I didn't say it was all encompassing. Merely noting that the rulebook already allows for the consideration of what would have happened.
How is that play similar? Did the umpire initially make a gesture to signal fielder's interference or was that simply Tejada's interpretation?
EDIT:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2377
In yesterday's example, Scott threw up his hands but did not vocalize the call.
EDIT no. 2:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp
It isn't. Asmitty was saying that what would have ended up happening isn't relevant. But the baseball rulebook, on this play and others, allows the umpires to consider what would have happened when making determinations on plays. They don't take into account what would have happened if the runner hadn't acted like a dumbass, which is what Tejada did. And in that case, is similar to what happened here. (-:
As a longtime ump, I think the right outcome prevailed. It's not foul until it's touched in foul territory. Ump schools repeatedly tell you to verbalize the crap out of "OUT", "STRIKE", and "FOUL" (the offense-negative outcomes), and if runners don't hear that, they should be off to the races.
I have no problem calling this a triple play based on "what would have happened", and the rules give the ump that power.
Signal what now? Oh, you mean obstruction. You and 90% of managers I deal with make that mistake.
My recollection is that yes, he did. The proper technique for the delayed-dead-ball case is to point at the incident and verbalize "THAT'S OBSTRUCTION!"
And it's not that Tejada misinterpreted the signal, it's that he misinterpreted the award, thinking he was going to be given home as a freebie, when he wasn't.
it was a ball that landed foul, then the english on it took it fair. isn't that new information? however, if i'm reading the correct interpretation being offered elsewhere: once it is signalled foul, it is foul even if it goes fair again? and the play is dead? if that is the rule book, then yeah the ump messed up.
but it is still on the padre runners. they should have been running regardless and let the umps sort it out after the play is over.
From 2.00:
Nothing in the rule about it being foul if the ump screws up hand signals. The definition of foul is clear, and this ball wasn't.
From 9.02(c):
Granted, no consulting occurred except in Scott's head, but he can do what he wants with respect to placing runners or calling them out based on his experience and judgment.
There have been some interesting comments since last night, but I still believe this was on the Padres' runners. The runner on second has the best complaint since he was looking in at the plate and might have been affected by the "foul" call (or what looked like a "foul" call), but given that Ellis immediately threw to third, that runner would have been out by a minimum of 20 feet anyway. The runner on first, meanwhile, has no excuse, as he shouldn't have even been looking at the home-plate umpire. As soon as the ball hit the bat, he should have been on the way to second. In that situation, the second-base umpire is the traffic cop, so to speak, and the second-base umpire never made a "foul" call.
Even if Scott acted perfectly, I don't see any way that this wouldn't have been at least a 2-5-6 or 2-5-3 double play, and given that the batter bailed out of the box toward the third-base dugout, it still might have ended up a 2-5-6-3 triple play. It's not like the ball rolled four steps from home plate; Ellis was throwing to third within a half-second of the (alleged) "foul" call.
Nothing in the rule about it being foul if the ump screws up hand signals. The definition of foul is clear, and this ball wasn't.
And, less amusingly, I agree with this as well.
Well, yeah. The definition of "out" is clear too, but if the ump calls you out, you're still out, whether you should have been out or not.
Honest question: Did the umps confer after this at all? It's not like Scott awarded a triple play because that's what he thought would have occurred (though it might have), he just spontaneously resumed play and it RESULTED in a triple play.
That may be so, but that doesn't settle the issue as to whether an umpire can call a play dead and then call it live. Right result, wrong process is still an officiating mistake. If someone wants to assert that he never called it dead, fine. But I think the position that an ump can call a play dead and then make it undead is utterly ridculous.
I know that's nit-picking, but rules are a nit-picky business.
I mean, I get the idea that he wasn't yelling so the Padres shouldn't have relied on the hand signal, as a matter of gamesmanship/competition/whatever. But to argue that they lose this case, you're basically saying the hand signal is not the definitive call, that some combination of factors make up a call.
What would your feeling be if an ump yelled foul but pointed fair? Called safe but signaled out? Would the former automatically become foul (the default position) even if the ball was clearly fair? Does one (verbal or visual) trump the other?
It seems the umpires have to have some room to correct such calls at the time the call is made, which is what happened here (at least if you don't find his initial arm raise as definitive, which I don't)?
Nope, no conferring. The other umps called the play independently, for lack of a better word, assuming that the ball was fair. They were pretty easy force calls, taken in a vacuum.
Umps are explicitly prohibited from questioning or reversing each other unless specifically asked by the umpire that made the initial call. (That's also in 9.02(c) - "No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it."). So the field umps did their stuff straight up, and if Scott never asked them anything, they hush.
Good question - I don't think that's covered. To me, "call" implies verbal, but YMMV.
Fair point... paging Mr. Denkinger.
EDIT TO ADD: When I've umped, I've seen any number of cases where I or another ump has said "Out, no, safe", or "Safe, no, out". Well, not ANY number, but more than one. The overriding criteria, so says ump school, is "getting it right", even if it makes you look stupid. If you make the right call in the end, that is Good. A split-second eye-hand-brain-fart does not change the fact that the ball was fair, and given THAT, the TP was pretty much gonna happen.
That would definitely be weird, and I honestly don't know how I would handle it, though I would lean towards the default being a dead ball. But that's not what happened here, there was no conflict of verbal/visual, just the visual with no verbal.
A big thing here is that baseball is one of the only sports without a whistle. In basketball, football, hockey, etc. the whistle blows it dead, followed by the verbal/visual stuff.
I admitted upthread that I'm a football referee, so my perception may be skewed by the way football handles inadvertant whistles. In football, the whistle kills the play totally, whether it should or not.
As an example, this year in the Detroit/New Orleans playoff game, Drew Brees clearly fumbled, the whistle inexplicably blew, and a Detroit defender scooped the ball up and ran into the endzone. After conferring, the referees stated that the whistle was inadvertant, and awarded the ball to Detroit at the spot of the recovery, but disallowed the return.
Detroit fans were livid that the touchdown had been taken away, but when I was watching I noted to a friend that the refs had actually botched the call TWICE. The play should have been ruled dead at the time of the whistle, and therefore the recovery should have been disallowed as well, and New Orleans should have retained possession. The NFL later admitted that the refs were wrong to blow the whistle AND to give Detroit the ball.
Note, of course, that giving the ball back to New Orleans would have been manifestly unjust to Detroit. It is, however, the rule in football: whistles kill the play immediately, and nothing else matters.
I disagree, and I doubt the runner on first was even looking at the home plate umpire. Once the ball hit the dirt, he should have been looking at second base, where he would have seen the runner on second stopped or retreating to the bag.
I disagree, and I doubt the runner on first was even looking at the home plate umpire. Once the ball hit the dirt, he should have been looking at second base, where he would have seen the runner on second stopped or retreating to the bag.
The runner at first shouldn't base his decision on whether the runner at second is doing something dumb. If he saw the ball hit the ground off the bat, he should be running, period.
On further thought, that's why I lean toward the verbal being definitive - runners are supposed to be running, and in their spare cycles they can look at the ball and their base coach. They're not supposed to look for the ump. When the ump bellows "FOUL BALL FOUL", that's the cue to stop running, not the runner's judgment as to where a ball was touched or, say, what a fielder is doing.
Yup, but the absence of the verbal should lead to the default that the play is live, as far as I'm concerned.
Scott, if he was genuinely ruling a foul ball, had ample opportunity to yell "Foul" or "Time" or something similar. At no point did he do so.
The simple raising of the hands above the head should not, to me, automatically finish a play. If a base ump throws his hands up in the air while eluding a line drive, no one would think that automatically killed the play.
Similarly, if a base ump, on a ball down the line says, "Foul," then immediately corrects himself with "fair, fair, fair, fair," I think we would expect the play to continue even if participants from both sides hesitated momentarily.
These situations, to me, indicate that while Scott most definitely mishandled it, the ultimate call was the correct one.
And football is different. The default has to be dead ball, because people are intentionally colliding into one another at high rates of speed, and any play where half the participants has stopped and the other half continues to play is rife with danger. Baseball doesn't have that inherent danger (despite Ray's cautions to the contrary).
But that's only part of what Scott did. After throwing his hands up he made a crisp, definite "time" gesture. His hands were already up, but then he opened his palms and sharply stuck them out. I would never argue that the initial arm raising was a proper signal. I am arguing that the second motion was.
That's only one reason. The other reason is that it's unfair to count actions that take place when some players may have stopped playing.
As the kids say: LOL.
It wasn't "similar to" a call that would indicate a dead ball, it WAS the motion used to indicate a dead ball. There were three distinct gestures: the "oh ####\" arms up, the dead ball signal, and then the fair ball signal.
I agree that the ball was fair though, and would have been at least a DP if the call had been done correctly.
The last two sentences are right, but the umpires did confer after the play was over. Obviously, none of them objected or overruled. It seems noteworthy that none of the base umpires mirrored the alleged "foul" call made by the home-plate umpire. Typically, the three base umpires would mirror the "foul" call but none of them did so. It's unclear whether that was because they knew the home-plate umpire was wrong or because they didn't interpret his hand signals as being a "foul" call in the first place. (Or, perhaps they didn't interpret the initial signal as a "foul" call, and then Scott reversed himself so quickly that the other umpires didn't have time to mirror the more definitive "foul" signal Scott seemed to make.)
And that's where the other half comes in. He immediately followed the second gesture with a fair ball signal. That motion had absolutely no bearing on what the Pads' baserunners did, and no affect on how the play unfolded/would have unfolded.
That's a reasonable position to take, and it's your standard "agree to disagree" situation.
I stand by the proposition that umps can't raise plays from the dead, but if you want to argue that this play was never dead, I think reasonable minds can disagree.
That's what I see in the video as well. Eventual right call or not, it seems completely unfair to the base runners.
Must have been after the video in #5, well after the play - but it's good that they did, and it would have been an opportunity to discuss placement and such if they had been so inclined, which they clearly weren't. And agreeing with #79, there was no hesitation on any of the field umps making the "out" calls.
edit: or maybe the hand symbol for when a flyball is not caught. I'm not really sure.
Agreed.
It certainly gives them a right to complain, but I don't believe there's any real argument that the half-second or even full second cost them a legitimate chance to advance. There's no way the runner on second would have covered the ~75 feet to third in the time it took Ellis to make the throw (which he made immediately, with Scott out of sight behind him). Likewise, it's unlikely the batter would have covered the ~100 feet to first in time. The runner on first is the biggest question mark.
I happened to be watching this game live; they conferred about a third of the way up the first-base line for about 30 seconds to a minute.
Adrian Gonzales is the only person I know on the Padres, and he plays for the Red Sox.
“After review and discussion with the umpire, we have determined that the umpire called the ball dead, whether inadvertently or not. The ball was fair, but that is irrelevant, as the players apparently relied on the initial, incorrect, call. The play should have been stopped the moment the incorrect call was made. The umpire was wrong to let it continue. We're sorry.”
Unless you believe the runner on second would have run ~75 feet in less than 1.5 seconds, this seems absurd. Frankly, none of the base runners had any reason to be looking at the home plate umpire once the ball hit the bat (or once the ball was in the dirt).
That happens a lot in MLB, too.
The runner is called "out" on a bang-bang play at a base/home, but then the umpire realizes the fielder has dropped the ball (on the tag or scoop), so he quickly reverses the "out" into a "safe" call, followed by exaggerated gesturing by the umpire to explain the change (a bobble motion, or pointing enthusiastically at the ball on the ground).
But what if the next time this happens, it isn't as clear cut would would have occurred?
The MLB's statement is horseshit because it doesn't address what happened; it just lies about what occurred. Now, if the statement had said "the umpire clearly signaled the play dead, but we don't care because he didn't call out 'foul' or because the result would have been the same, etc." Then we might have actually learned something about the mechanics of umpiring. As it stands...
If they had done that, it is probably at best for the Padres a double play with a runner on second, given how the momentum took the batter.
As to what the umpire actually did, I think there are several possible interpretations -- signalling foul and changing his mind; signalling foul and then seeing the ball go fair and changing it then; reacting physically and then making the call; or just having a total brain freeze. Has he been interviewed about it?
I think the official statement is pretty accurate.
And that's where the conversation over what would have happened is relevant. The umpires have discretion on these things. The game doesn't absolutely freeze because, for an instant, an umpire signals or even says the opposite of what he intends.
If the Padres runners had taken off for second and third on the initial bunt, but slowed when Scott made the clear-cut hands above head motion (before correcting it in the next instance by pointing fair) and the trail runner was out by a half step, the umpires could have reasonable cause to allow the trail runner to assume second. None of that happened, because the Pads' baserunners, when confused, acted like little leaguers and scampered back to their original bags as if that was the only place they could be safe, when instead there was absolutely no downside to continue running toward the next base.
Actually, it does. The rules expressly say that "the right outcome" trumps all. 9.02(c) (quoted in full above) says that the umpires "have the authority to take all steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretion...including placing runners where they think those runners would have been after the play, had the ultimate call been made as the initial call". If in their discretion the runners would have all been out, then that's what they decree.
9.05 also contains this: "The first requisite is to get decisions correctly...Umpire dignity is important but never as important as 'being right.'"
EDITED TO ADD: Which isn't to say Scott didn't screw up, but it's kind of like the situation where a ball hits an ump while in play. It sucks, but the rules don't take sucking into account. One time as a sole ump I made a force call at first from just to the 3B side of the plate, then backed up directly into the path of a runner who was scoring from second on the grounder. He would have been safe by a mile, but he never got to the plate, because we both ended up moaning over by the fence. It sucked, but he was out, and there weren't really any complaints.
AND the statement is horseshit. Still at TP though.
then he does give the foul ball signal, followed immediately by the fair ball signal, my guess is he gave the foul ball signal by mistake because, simply his hands/arms were already up in that position.
I haven't seen a video showing what the runners were doing before the forceouts- but it doesn't look like they were running, it's had to tell, but this could have been a G3P even with out an umpire screw-up.
So nobody can hear an umpire, so the hand signals are all important only for the umpires, but everybody can hear coaches yell?
Mind you, I'm not saying the situation was not screwed up by the home plate ump, but the way the Padre runners handled it does not speak well for them.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main