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.

The confusing gesture then takes place at a time when the base runners have no business whatsoever looking at the plate umpire.

I haven't seen a video showing what the runners were doing before the forceouts- but it doesn't look like they were running,

“After review and discussion with the umpire, we have determined that the call itself of a fair ball was correct. However, while making the call, there was an incorrect mechanic, which appeared to confuse San Diego’s base runners. At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field. After reviewing the entire situation following the game, the umpire realizes his hands were in an exaggerated upward appearance similar to a call that would indicate a dead ball. While we all agree that it was a fair ball that did not hit the batter, the umpire recognizes that the proper mechanic was not executed as he tried to avoid the catcher.”

That is a horseshit statement. Better:

The MLB's statement is horseshit because it doesn't address what happened; it just lies about what occurred.

I think the official statement is pretty accurate.

"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"

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.

But it's irrelevant to whether justice was served here.

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.'"

Baseball doesn't have an "inadvertent whistle" rule. The runners might have been cheated out of a half-second or a second, but the end result seems much closer to justice than disallowing the triple play. At most, justice would have been two outs and either a runner at first or second.

The failure of the guy on first to run at all leaves me unsympathetic.

So Headley should've run when he saw Alonso standing on second?

Yes. But even if he had, he wouldn't have beaten the 2-5-6 throw. That's what my intepretation is, anyway, and why I don't agree with the "DP, guy on second" scenario. Ellis reacted too quickly, and two crisp throws beats the runner to second under normal play.

If another ump had gone with "DP, guy on second", I'd live with that decision too. It's up to them.

"There's no downside" to running around the bases after you're called out on popout.

As for the various runners "shoulda" scenarios: They don't matter. Average competence on the part of the fielders, given the reaction time of the catcher, results in a TP whether the runners were paying attention or not, distracted or not, sprinting or not. Absent a wacky scenario (like a ball hitting a runner in basepaths) it was going to be a TP.

Apart from that, as noted several times, ANY other scenario (HBP, foul, obstruction, whatever) results in no-risk running, and no one would fault them for running, and it would have been fixed if they'd run under those conditions.

The confusing gesture then takes place at a time when the base runners have no business whatsoever looking at the plate umpire.

No upside either. There was considerable upside to running in this case. YOu know, avoiding the triple play.

There's no way this is a triple play, and probably not a double play, if the runners are running on contact.

Also, in my opinion, the first gesture was the confusing one, which took place within a second of bat hitting the ball, the second one was clear.

Of course there's upside to running around the bases every at-bat. The ump could decide it's a live ball after signaling the end to the play.

For everyone blaming the runners, I think its easy to see how they viewed it.

It looked like a HBP from where they were, and the umpire nearly immediately put up his hands in a dead ball fashion. There is no reason for them to suddenly take off running as if it were a hit ball.

Probably because it's mostly irrelevant. ...

Of course there's upside to running around the bases every at-bat. The ump could decide it's a live ball after signaling the end to the play.



Stop it.

If this was Little League, people would holler at the runners for standing around looking at the umpire while a ball was in the dirt after apparent contact with the bat. But here, we have people excusing Major League Baseball players for being spectators (and then oddly assuming they could have run ~75 feet in less than 2 seconds had no call been made at all).

You're arguing that players who saw a blatant "dead ball" signal should have been running anyway, because "there's no downside."

It looked like a HBP from where they were, and the umpire nearly immediately put up his hands in a dead ball fashion. There is no reason for them to suddenly take off running as if it were a hit ball.

It wasn't a blatant dead ball signal. It was a possible dead ball signal. By the time the blatant one was issued (and immediately overturned), the players had retreated to their bases.

No, the point is that whether the Padres should've run isn't the issue. It's whether continuing the play was wrong. It was, and therefore, anything that happened once Ellis picked up the ball doesn't count, as the play was already declared dead.

In any event, it doesn't matter, as the second one should've killed the play.

Yes, yes it is. putting both hands out is the foul call by the home plate umpire. Then, he did it emphatically.

I honestly can not believe the reaction here. The ball was signaled dead. That effects everything else which happens after it. You can't just pretend the ball was never called dead.

The umpire ###### up, and the ball should have been called foul. Scully was right, Zipperholes is right, reasonable people are correct.

Whether or not the ball was truly fair is irrelevant in this conversation. What is relevant is what was called. The ball was called dead, and two baserunners proceeded in reliance thereon. For the umpires to allow a call to be reversed in this situation is a clusterbang of the highest order, and for good measure bears a striking resemblance to clownfuckery, chuckassery, and cluelessness. As baseball fans, we should not stand for abortions of our sport. JOIN ME IN OPPOSING THIS, by making angry posts on the worldwide web.

Whether or not the ball was truly fair is irrelevant in this conversation. What is relevant is what was called. The ball was called dead, and two baserunners proceeded in reliance thereon.

7.06(a) Comment: When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls “Time,” with both hands overhead. The ball is immediately dead when this signal is given.

So? That's not relevant. When the ball is dead, play does not continue. It doesn't matter what would have happened if play continues.

When the signal is given, the ball is immediately dead. Not when the call is vocalized; when the signal is given.

It wasn't?.

Oh, have we?

It is the raising of the hands that calls time, not saying the word "Time." Intentionally or not, the home plate ump called time.

but at no point did I think that Scott was calling the play dead.

When Ellis picked up the ball, the ump resurrected it by calling it fair. So by the time the ball was thrown to them, the ball had been declared live again.

You've misinterpreted the rules, and you refuse to acknowledge that when an umpire raises his hands, it means "TIME OUT". Check with any umpiring school if you don't believe this to be true.

A lot of people here seem to believe baseball has an "inadvertent whistle"-type rule that it doesn't actually have.

They way the other umpires just stood there, barely reacting to what was going on after the ball was declared "dead" shows that they thought the HP ump called it "dead".

Once the dopey HP ump reversed his call, they didn't get back into the play, much like the runners didn't.

Wait, what? Now we're analyzing the other umps' actions to determine what they thought Dale Scott's call was? This isn't constitutional interpretation. We have Dale Scott's arms right in front of us!

Bivens, you know as well as anybody that there is no real accountability for umpires, thanks to their union.

when an ump raises his arms, after a play where it's unclear (to spectators) whether a pitched ball hit a bat or a batter, what is the ump signalling?"

If an ump raises his arms in the process of avoiding a line drive coming straight at him, what is he signalling?

This the hangup, and why I've gotten frustrated here. I understand that when an umpire intentionally raises his hands above his head, he is intending to signal a dead ball (though I don't agree that such a designation can't be reversed, since the rulebook most definitely doesn't say that, and one of the linked pieces earlier from an umpire specifically said otherwise). But we have indicated that on the initial play, we're not sure he was intentionally raising his hands for that purpose or if he inadvertently raising them in the process of trying to avoid the collision. You may disagree with our interpretation of his gesture, or whether it should matter, but you can't disagree that's how I (and El Hombre, among others) saw the play. If that makes me a dick, so be it.

Most of the posters on page one seemed sure what his raising his hands meant. And the "official explanation" admits as much.

The other umpires' job is to get the call right, not to necessarily mirror what Scott was doing. It appears either they didn't interpret Scott's arm actions as being a "foul" or "time out" call or they knew it was a fair ball and deliberately didn't try to stop play.

Intent does not matter. That is the entire purpose of a signal--so that the intent of the signal-giver doesn't have to be deciphered.

So in the sitaution above where an ump raises his arms above his head to avoid a line drive, the ball would be dead?

Or, if a ball is hit down the line and the umpire points the incorrect way then immediately reverses himself, we have to be stuck with the initial signal?

You can certainly make an argument that once a ball is indicated to be foul, it shouldn't be able to be reversed. Or when an umpire makes a signal indicating one thing, that determination is final. But that's not how the rulebook is written.

Why would an ump ever call a ball foul until it's absolutely clear that it won't go fair?

Yeah, that's my argument. That's what a signal is. It's not "the arbiter's initial impression of the situation," it's "the arbiter's determination of the play" (on which the participants rely).

No one who has seen this play more than once could possibly believe the runner at second had a realistic chance of reaching third safely

I actually thought it went off the batter's leg, personally.

The Dodgers might have gotten an extra out from the confusion — maybe the runner on first makes it to second — but the idea that a huge "injustice" occurred seems absurd. Why is this one extra out so much more important than a bad-call strike three or a bad-call ball four or any number of other borderline calls that might have happened in this very same game?

Hard to see how that refutes my assertion that it looked to me like his arms were inadvertently raised while trying to avoid a collision.

Hard to see how that refutes my assertion that it looked to me like his arms were inadvertently raised while trying to avoid a collision.

With an invisible man?

Maybe he reflexively raised his arms the first time, but then he flexed and raised them again.

The injustice is not the difference between the ultimate outcome and what would've happened. The injustice is the very fact that a play was ruled dead and then arbitrarily restarted, destroying the integrity of the play.

Honestly, Joe, the sentiment expressed in those two sentences has been stated numerous times in this thread, by several people, and the fact that you continue to reply by discussing how many outs the Padres really lost makes me think you aren't arguing in good faith.

Your determination of "justice" might be how close we ultimately get to the "right" outcome, but mine is whether there is integrity in the process, regardless of the outcome. By replying as you are, you are dismissing the legitimacy of this perspective.

I will concede the Dodgers did exactly the right thing.

Watch it again (I suggested this 100+ ago), and just watch Scott the entire time, if you watch baseball, even 1/10th as much as Scully, you come to no other conclusion that he is calling either a dead ball (HBP) or a foul ball, there's no other possible conclusion I can draw.

Honestly, Joe, the sentiment expressed in those two sentences has been stated numerous times in this thread, by several people, and the fact that you continue to reply by discussing how many outs the Padres really lost makes me think you aren't arguing in good faith.

Uh oh. This is starting to sound like a political thread.