|
|
|
|
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: OT: NBA Finals and June thread (954 - 11:41am, Jun 19)Last: stanmvp48Newsblog: [OTP-June] Economic Times: Hope politics, sports don’t get mixed up: Manmohan Singh (2164 - 11:40am, Jun 19)Last: bunyonNewsblog: ‘Old man’ Arroyo pitching better than ever (10 - 11:39am, Jun 19)Last: Tom NawrockiNewsblog: Kevin Youkilis needs back surgery, out 10-12 weeks (30 - 11:39am, Jun 19)Last: Nasty NateNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread June, 2013 (607 - 11:39am, Jun 19)Last: ursus arctosNewsblog: ESPN.com: Yankees Acquire Fartinez (1 - 11:35am, Jun 19)Last: Ivan Grushenko of Hong KongNewsblog: Neyer: Computing Manny Machado's shot at the record (13 - 11:35am, Jun 19)Last: Nasty NateNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-19-2013 (2 - 11:32am, Jun 19)Last: Rennie's TenetNewsblog: Let's Go Tribe: Tom Hamilton interview (2 - 11:30am, Jun 19)Last: JE (Jason Epstein)Newsblog: Perry: Josh Hamilton and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad night (18 - 11:24am, Jun 19)Last: Rennie's TenetNewsblog: Deford: Tick Tock: Make The Serve, Pitch, Putt Or Shot (4 - 11:24am, Jun 19)Last: ShredderNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (219 - 11:16am, Jun 19)Last: Liver of blaspheming 'zopNewsblog: Stan "The Fan" Charles: After Biogenesis, Should MLB Players Still Have The Right To Arbitration? (35 - 11:12am, Jun 19)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag AirlinesNewsblog: Murphy: Ruben Amaro Jr. doesn't "do" five-year plans, but the Phillies need a good one (27 - 11:07am, Jun 19)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag AirlinesNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for JUNE 19, 2013 (1 - 10:43am, Jun 19)Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
|
|
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.
Oddly, a lot of people just don't seem impressed with this point.
In the CF feed from the San Diego broadcast, it doesn't look like either runner moved an inch toward the next base. The runner at second was standing still as Ellis threw to third. Granted, the runner at second could see Scott while the catcher Ellis couldn't, but the whole thing unfolded in less than 2 seconds. With no call at all, the runner at second was likely out by 20 to 30 feet or more, simply because the ball was essentially on a silver platter for Ellis.
I think the statement is accurate EXCEPT for a pretty big omission- the umpire had his hands up twice- the first I think can be fairly accurately described as "an exaggerated upward appearance similar to a call that would indicate a dead ball." The second time I think it's pretty clear that he was giving the dead ball signal- and the ump realized it too as he hurriedly switched to calling it fair.
double play?
I ave to think that the most likely outcome would have been a DP, depending upon how far from 1st the batter's initial reactions took him- plus how fast is he
no outs, runners on 2nd and third, infielder gets batted ball immediately- that's an ideal triple play scenario
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 might have been two outs and either a runner at first or second.
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.
You are saying the process was wrong, but the outcome was right, so justice was served (at least w/r/t the two guys who would've been out anyway).
That is insane to me. It's like if a criminal gets acquitted on one charge because the judge got it wrong, but gets convicted of a separate charge with fabricated evidence. The guy may "deserve" to be in jail, but that doesn't make it not an abomination of justice.
He should've run when he saw the ump signal dead ball.
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 both runners had been sprinting at contact, they STILL would have been out. That is, of course, conjecture, we'll never know, but "our" collective experience leads to that conclusion. Of course, the 3B could have turned an ankle on the pivot, or a seagull might have intercepted the relay, but in the best judgment of the crew it would have been a TP, and that's what I would have said too.
If another ump had gone with "DP, guy on second", I'd live with that decision too. It's up to them.
EDIT: 2-5-4
I don't see how it should be "up to them." The play was called dead. It's over. This isn't like a hit in the outfield that is later called a ground-rule double, and the umps have to place the runners.
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.
In *this* case, that 2-5-6 throw would have beaten a running Headley. The fielders were already in modified wheel mode. It's not a "usual" play.
No upside either. There was considerable upside to running in this case. YOu know, avoiding the triple play.
No it wouldn't, because Scott shouldn't have let the play continue.
Oddly, a lot of people just don't seem impressed with this point.
Probably because it's mostly irrelevant. The umpire gets to change the outcome based on the ultimate call having been made as the original after conferring with the other umpires (which I feel is an important absence here), but that would also include the umpire not having signaled the play dead, confusing the runners. I agree that they could piece the inning together as a double or even triple play still, as even if the players had sprinted from the get-go they would be out, but where the runners were looking should play no part in the decision.
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. I think it's fairly reasonable for the runners to be waiting long enough to ensure the bunt isn't popped up before the turn their attention away from home plate to see the umpire's arms go up in the air.
If you were the ump and called it that way, that's fine too. Whether I agree or not.
I think they all would have been out.
And this is why I think the right call was ulimately made. The first one was confusing - we don't know for certain whether Scott was signaling a foul ball or flailing his arms as the batter-catcher were getting pushed back. Under such confusion, it behooves the runners to procede with what they see, contact, ball on ground. Unless they were under the assumption that the ball hit nothing, which was a physical impossibility, there's no reason to stay on the base they occupied. The only risk was in retreating to the bag.
The second gesture by Scott was obvious, but was immediately followed by a fair signal (which would be similar to a base ump saying "foul, fair, fair, fair, fair," on a ground ball up the middle. The quick change of call had no bearing on the play - the runners had already mistakenly retreated to first and second base. They didn't stop because of the obvious second call - they stopped and backtracked because of the ambiguous first one. Sorry, but that's on them.
Unless one thinks that any raising of the arms constitutes a dead ball call (which seems silly) or that an umpire can't possibly reverse a foul ball call, even immediately after, (which seems sillier), then it seems to me that the determination, while unfortunate for the Pads, was correct.
Stop it.
Sweet Jesus, yes. Finally somebody in this thread with some sense. This is exactly how Scully reacted at first, thus anyone calling the runners dumb is calling Scully dumb ERGO your argument is invalid.
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).
I like to argue as much as the next guy, but ...
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.
Well yeah, but in that case they would normally start at least jogging to the next base, right?
In any event, it doesn't matter, as the second one should've killed the play.
So you believe the Padres should get two or three outs wiped off the board because the home-plate umpire suffered a one-second brain cramp that almost assuredly had no bearing on the runner being forced at third or the batter being put out at first? That doesn't seem like "justice" to me.
As others have said, the original hand motion might have been confusing, but it certainly wasn't a standard "foul" call. That didn't happen until a full second or two later, by which time the runners should have been running.
Despite the fact the runners (at least the one on first) had no good reason to even see the second one?
Yes, yes it is. putting both hands out is the foul call by the home plate umpire. He did that first, 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. Are we to expect the baserunner to question EVERY foul ball? When is it safe for a baserunner to accept an umpire's call? should they wait until they have specific instruction from the umpire that it is dead? Should they wait for a public address announcer to announce it. At what point can the umpire change the call? one second? five seconds? When is an umpires call official? Calling the ball foul with runners on base has a fundamental effect on EVERYTHING which occurs after it.
The umpire ###### up, and the ball should have been called foul. Scully was right, Zipperholes is right, reasonable people are correct.
good day to you.
Putting two hands up when one or two large men are about to possibly knock into you does not constitute a clear "foul" call. The "emphatic" call came a full one or two seconds later, by which time none of the runners should have even been looking at home plate.
... Just like you shouldn't pretend the runner on second could have run ~75 feet in less than 2 seconds from a dead stop. That's a worse brand of "pretending" than any of the debate over Scott's arm motions.
1. Yes, the umpire screwed up.
2. No, the ball was clearly fair, and under ANY interpretation of the rules, the ball should therefore be called fair.
which only leaves a #3:
3. The Umpires COULD have ruled something other than triple play, but did not feel there was enough evidence the umpire screwup DEFINITELY impacted the result of the play.
Hums star spangled banner, walks out of room.
I just watched it again, for about the 20th time, and the runners didn't proceed anywhere. With no call whatsoever, the runner on second looks like he would have been out by 50 feet. (Earlier, I said 20 or 30 feet, but Ellis got the ball to third in a hurry.)
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.
More importantly, if the verbal is the overriding one, then any idiot in the stands could yell over the ump and foul things. The gesture is the only part of the umpire's call that is unmistakeable, and therefore should take precedence. If it doesn't...well, then I'll just consider it yet another failing of the rulebook.
When the signal is given, the ball is immediately dead. Not when the call is vocalized; when the signal is given.
The ball was dead. Incorrectly, possibly unintentionally. But dead it was. You don't get to resurrect a dead ball. You are not Babe Ruth.
The ball was not ruled dead. The umpire made a gesture with his hands that may have indicated the ball was dead, but IT WAS NOT CLEAR. Moreover, if Scott truly intended to rule it dead then, he could have said "Foul" or "Time" or any of those things. He did not do so. Under such ambiguity, the Padres baserunners should have advanced to the next base in the event the ball was ruled fair.
Look at it this way:
If the same play happens but Scott doesn't raise his arms (meaning there was only uncertainty whether the ball hit the body or the bat), everyone would conclude that the runners would be foolish to simply stop and retreat.
Likewise, if a similar play happens and Scott makes the same ambiguous arm gesture while backing up, but the ball unmistakably hits the bat and then the ground, one would conclude that the runners should be trying to advance to the next base.
The fact that both of those things happened makes it understandable why the baserunners would think the ball was dead, but it doesn't actually excuse that determination.
I saw that at Tango's and Fangraphs, and I don't think that's the proper conclusion. The signal indicates this particular play is dead (to distinguish it from the other version of obstruction where the play continues even after the offending conduct - basically on-tag obstruction vs. off-tag).
If such a signal automatically and universally stopped play, you'd think it would be listed under the sections governing foul balls or other umpire signals. It isn't.
It wasn't?
I can't speak for you, but to me, no it wasn't clear the initial time Scott raised his hands was to indicate a dead ball. But, we've covered all this.
Then what does it mean? Touchdown?
Oh, have we?
I don't agree with that reading at all. The call in the obstruction case is likened to calling time: the "umpire shall signal [...] in the same manner that he calls “Time,” with both hands overhead." It is the raising of the hands that calls time, not saying the word "Time." Intentionally or not, the home plate ump called time.
For those of us participating in the thread, yes. Conversation doesn't simply start when you loungers grace us with your presence.
* same teams from the surreptitious video taping thread, just reverse who's at home.
I watched the game at a bar with the volume off, and my immediate reaction was, "OMG! TRIPLE PLAY!" and watched the replays over and over. I didn't get any of the explanations without the volume, but at no point did I think that Scott was calling the play dead.
Back to the Lounge, now.
Ellis didn't even see the ump, did he?
Why did each of the Dodgers at 3rd, 2nd, and 1st base if it were so obvious that the play was 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.
I'm not saying it's the utterance of the word. I'm saying that it is listed in the obstruction section to note that type of obstruction being called produces two very different ways the play unfolds. When on-tag obstruction occurs, the play immediately ends (and therefore requires a different signal than when off-tag obstruction occurs, and the play is allowed to continue).
But the raising of the hands does not automatically stop play - as this very play (as well as Rule 9.02c) demonstrates.
There is simply nothing in the rulebook that states that raising the arms conclusively and irreversibly kills play. You're welcome to think that should be the case, but it isn't in there, and the only section that remotely addresses that (9.02c) says otherwise.
I believe that it does, and this play was adjudicated incorrectly. I see nothing in 9.02c that bears any relevance to the meaning of the raising of the hands. All that rule speaks to is consultation with other umpires.
There is simply nothing in the rulebook that states that raising the arms conclusively and irreversibly kills play. You're welcome to think that should be the case, but it isn't in there.
The only time the phrase "hands overhead" appears in the rulebook, it is explicitly stated that the ball is dead when the signal is made.
According to Bivens, no you didn't.
It looked to me like the ball was on the way to third before Scott started pointing "fair."
There can't be a time-out in the middle of a live play. The other three umpires apparently either knew it was a fair ball or didn't recognize Scott's actions as either a "foul" signal or a "time out" signal, as none of the three base umpires mirrored Scott's arm signals as they normally would have done.
A lot of people here seem to believe baseball has an "inadvertent whistle"-type rule that it doesn't actually have.
He starts his moving his arm to the "fair" "mechanic" as Ellis cocks his arm to throw to third. He doesn't complete the actual point until the ball is thrown, true. Also, fwiw, the 3B was not standing on the bad when he received the throw, so he didn't move immediately to bag upon the bunt hitting the ground.
Of course, my idea of a fair mechanic is Kaylee from Firefly.
The reason you throw up your hands to call time is in case your partner umpires don't hear you. They see you, and they also are supposed to call time. 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.
An awful episode.
If this was true, at least one of them would have had his arms in the air, especially with two runners on base.
What do you mean? As far as I can tell from the video, they were right where they were supposed to be, and immediately signaled "out" at each base as the ball was thrown around the horn.
What Scott was thinking, who knows. He should have to explain himself.
Bivens, you know as well as anybody that there is no real accountability for umpires, thanks to their union.
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. Even if Scott was trying to call "time out," if the other umpires recognized the ball as being fair, Scott didn't have the authority to do so yet. There can't be a time-out in the middle of a live play.
Their union? Its MLB that protects them.
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.
Their union? Its MLB that protects them.
That was a joke for Bivens, nothing more.
If a referee accidentally blows a whistle because he had an asthma attack, and I walk up to you and take the ball out of your hands and run in the end zone, we don't analyze the ref's intent and decide he didn't mean to blow the whistle, and therefore I'm awarded a touchdown. No. The whistle was blown. The play is over. And we certainly don't use some kind of post hoc rationalization that you didn't try to tackle me, or couldn't have tackled me, as to why I should be awarded a TD despite the ref's mistake.
I don't see that it does. It says he made an incorrect mechanic. "The umpire recognizes that the proper mechanic was not executed as he tried to avoid the catcher.”
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.
There is nothing to be inferred from the other umps' continuing with the play as if it were a live ball.
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? If an ump can always call the play as he sees it at that moment but reserves the right to change it and continue the play, how would anyone ever know when the play is over?
He shouldn't. And I've stated all along that Scott mishandled it. But umpires can and do have the discretion to reverse their rulings, as 9.02c clearly states.
I just don't think absolutes are necessary. The situations I mentioned above should be a live ball and a fair ball, respectively. And, according to the rulebook, they are.
I don't understand the desire for such absolute rigidity. Every once in a while, an umpire will say the wrong thing or lift the wrong arm on a bang-bang play and then immediately correct himself. Why should a half-second of error preempt the ability to get a call right?
Yesterday's play was a fluke play where an inside pitch glanced off the bat and the ball rolled a few inches into fair territory. With two runners on base and a catcher who was paying attention, a more tailor-made (non-line-drive) triple-play scenario is tough to imagine, and Ellis & Co. executed it perfectly. 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, and the same is likely true with regards to the batter reaching first.
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?
I actually thought it went off the batter's leg, personally.
I used to umpire youth baseball. I once called a foul ball on a line drive that looked like it was going to be a couple of feet wide of the first base line. It hit the lip of the first base line grass in foul territory, about 6 feet in front of first base, and took a crazy bounce into fair territory, right into the glove of the 1B who stepped on the bag. I reversed my call and called him out. Luckily, there was no way he could have beaten the ball there and the bases were empty.
I haven't been able to tell from online videos re: the chest and/or leg possibilities, but that's a different issue than whether the runner on second could or would have reached third if not for Scott's arm motions. That was a (minimum) 3-second run, and Scott cost him maybe 1 second at most.
Reading through this I assumed zipper was a troll but then givens chimed in they are completely wrong on what happens in baseball after an ump screws up... wrong but sincere and honestly arguing...
So not trolls
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.
With an invisible man?
Vin Scully has seen more games than all of us combined, and he immediTely called, 'No play, no play', and that was the reaction of every single Padre to the play. I will concede the Dodgers did exactly the right thing.
Guzman's lucky that pitch didn't Burnett a tattoo on his chest.
Again, what collision? Maybe he reflexively raised his arms the first time, but then he flexed and raised them again.
Regardless, the play stands. Game over. Dodgers win.
Perhaps not a collision. But it looked to me as if the umpire was responding to the batter backing away from the ball zeroing in on him, not knowing where the catcher nor the batter would wind up. As a result he raised his arms inadvertently. My view may very well be completely wrong, and Scott was raising them to call a dead ball (and he obviously raised them more conclusively moments later before pointing fair), but that's how it looked to me. And while I understand why the Padres baserunners thought it was dead, I think the uncertainty (as well as Scott's failure to vocalize anything) should have alerted them that play may not be dead.
Watching it again, the runner on second never took off on the play at all, even between the ball hitting the bat and Scott's initial actions. I think he just assumed it was a HBP.
Oh, absolutely. But that second time clearly no bearing on how things played out. The Pads had already retreated to the bases.
So the "integrity of the play" is now more important than the integrity of the outcome, even when the error likely didn't affect the outcome?
If this was the pre-replay era and a batter hit a 360-foot shot off the foul pole and the umpire momentarily put his hands over his head by mistake rather than signaling a home run, should the erroneous call override what was obviously a home run?
Obviously, Sunday's triple play is different because it involved base runners who might have been adversely affected by Scott's ambiguous and then incorrect arm signals, but why no concern for the "injustice" to the Dodgers that would have resulted from your desired outcome?
Uh oh. This is starting to sound like a political thread.
I believe your perspective involves too much absolute rigidity. I also believe you're assigning too much blame to the umpire while granting too much deference to two MLB base runners who shouldn't even have been looking at the umpire at the time he made his most serious gaffe.
after 190+ posts, we have a consensus!
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. It is instinctive, as a fan of the game for sure and the likely conclusion drawn by the base runners, for which I have a little sympathy. Scott simply kicked the #### out of the call. The statement is a sanitized version of that basically.
Watching the game live, I thought Scott's initial reaction was more defensive than any type of umpiring signal, and then he raised his arms into a traditional "foul"-type call. But as the replays have shown, by the time Scott did the latter, Ellis already had the ball on the way to third, and the two runners were still stationery, with the batter some ~100 feet from first. I don't have any problem saying Scott erred, but I'm not convinced at all that the outcome would have been any different even if his hands had been in his pockets the whole time. (If the runners were underway but stopped running because of an erroneous call, that might be different.)
The greatest tragedy in this whole sordid affair.
If you are constantly getting the same reaction, maybe it is time for some self-introspection.
RE: which has precedence, verbal or visual? Old joke, close play at third, runner slides in, tag goes down, umpire's thumb shoots skyward as he shouts "Safe!" Runner goes "Which is it?!?!?" Umpire replies, "Well, kid, you heard me call you safe, but 50,000 people saw me call you out, so you're out."
Not a fan of either team, so I am obviously totally objective here. I'm a process-oriented guy [not sure if that's because I'm just a typical rule-bound male, or because my job forces me to focus on getting people to follow rules] so my feeling is that badly as the San Diego runners effed up here (as was pointed out much earlier, there was no reading of this situation where running increased their jeopardy), the umpire messed up badly and should probably have his children taken away (or returned to him if they are adults). Bill Clem famously said "It ain't nothin' til I call it;" Dale Scott called it dead, so dead it was. Even though everybody could see it wasn't.
Which is why people are wondering how much baseball you watch. Like someone else above, I saw the play the first time with no sound on and assumed it was a HBP (the other thing here, in regard to "should the runners have been running", is that the pitch was headed for the batter's chest. It wasn't as if they guy tried to bunt a pitch over the plate.) I came back in later to a commercial and couldn't figure out what had happened. From second base, watching the play develop, that is a HBP. Pitch headed straight at your guy, it hits something and the ump raises his hands. Dead ball. You really are a rigid absolutist if you think that runner should be running. There was no reason to run - watch a game when a HBP with forced runners occur. They don't immediately take off, they pause, get confirmation of the dead ball and then proceed.
As soon as Scott raised those hands, why ever he did it, this call was ######. No "right" call could be made. If he lets the foul call stand, the Dodgers are cheated out of at least one out and maybe two. If he reverses and makes it fair, then the Pads are screwed out of an out or two. The closest to fair they could have gotten, in my opinion, is two outs, runner on second, in scoring position. It's a hash of a guess but better than ending the inning.
As to the inadvertant whistle rule, maybe they should have it on these things but, in most of the cases Kehoskie notes, the "immediate reversal" doesn't affect much. But it can and it's interesting - I've seen liners down the line initially ruled foul then quickly reversed causing a runner on first to lose enough that he can't score but only advances to third. You could imagine that resulting in the guy getting thrown out at the plate. I think in that situation the runner and his team have a huge and legitimate gripe. Runners stop when the ball is ruled foul. Perhaps in your Little League fantasy they should keep going a few seconds to give the ump time to change his mind but they don't.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main