The other umpires' job is to get the call right, not to necessarily mirror what Scott was doing.

More BS. It was the HP ump's call. No 1B, 2B, or 3B ump is gonna overturn a HP ump's call without the HP ump asking for help.

edit, in case you're dense: And the HP ump would ask for help after the play ended.

More BS. It was the HP ump's call. No 1B, 2B, or 3B ump is gonna overturn a HP ump's call without the HP ump asking for help.

edit, in case you're dense: And the HP ump would ask for help after the play ended.

The umpires did huddle up after the play occurred. I would assume that was the home plate umpire asking for help. Unfortunately, there wasn't much that could be done at that point.

I agree, but my point was to Joe's point about the job of the other umps being to get the call right. Of course it is, but no ump will overturn another ump's call without being asked for their opinion. In this case, it was so badly bungled, no matter what they decided would be unsatisfactory. That call needed to be made correctly on the spot.

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.

***
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 really cannot politely express how utterly WRONG I think you are on this, but I think Joe did a good job in 194, so I will simply say that I agree

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.

???? I take back my earlier comment that you were arguing in good faith.

???? I take back my earlier comment that you were arguing in good faith.

Telling someone that they are distorting my argument, when I in fact believe that, is arguing in bad faith???

Whether you believe that the "justice" of this play hinges on how much the Padres were actually screwed, or that Scott's actions destroyed the integrity of the play, you must be willing to acknowledge the other side's vision of justice. You don't have to agree with it, but choosing to ignore it and distorting their argument to fit your framework is arguing in bad faith.

Bill Clem famously said "It ain't nothin' til I call it;" Dale Scott called it dead, so dead it was.

But does this actually exist in the rules anywhere? If "hands over head" automatically and unequivocally means "foul ball" or "dead ball," wouldn't the other three umpires have been obligated to overrule Scott and reverse the triple play? Also, why did none of the base umpires mirror this alleged "dead ball" signal, if such a signal is absolute and irreversible?

Scott obviously erred with the emphatic "foul" call he seemed to give about a second or two into the play, but how or why is this any different than any number of other times an umpire makes a quick reversal? We've all seen umpires call "out" but then change to "safe" after he notices the ball was bobbled or kicked free. Likewise, first-base and third-base umpires occasionally signal the wrong way on a fair/foul call and then immediately reverse themselves. But here, we're supposed to pretend that the slight delay cheated the base runners out of an opportunity to advance 75 feet in two seconds or less, which is ludicrous.

Scott brought the criticism and complaints on himself, but the more times I see the replay, the more I'm convinced it would have been a triple play even if Scott's hands were in his pockets the whole time.

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 [...] I came back in later to a commercial and couldn't figure out what had happened.

So I'm the uninformed idiot, but you're bragging about being wrong and making an incorrect assumption. Got it.

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.

This might be applicable if this was actually an HBP rather than an inside pitch that hit the bat while the batter was backing away.

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.

Just as it didn't affect much here, unless you believe the two base runners could have run ~75 feet, from a dead stop, in two seconds or less (or that the batter could have run ~100 feet in under four seconds, despite his momentum carrying him away from first base).

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.

As almost everyone here seems to agree, Scott's first motion was more of a defensive reaction when it appeared the catcher might knock into him. The more emphatic "foul" call wasn't until a full second or two later, at which point the two runners were still stationery, and by which time Ellis was throwing to third.

As almost everyone here seems to agree, Scott's first motion was more of a defensive reaction when it appeared the catcher might knock into him.

No, not almost everyone. Some of you.

If "hands over head" automatically and unequivocally means "foul ball" or "dead ball," wouldn't the other three umpires have been obligated to overrule Scott and reverse the triple play?

No, they wouldn't. Ask an umpire.

As has been pointed out before, umpires change "out" calls to "safe" when the ball is juggled or dropped in the process of making the putout, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish from what happened here. In those cases, the out call does not stop play; other runners may continue running and are liable to be put out. The dropped ball is new information which must be taken into account. But in this case there was no new info, because the umpire had called the play dead.

Analogy: runners on 1st and 2nd, pitcher comes to a long set. As he starts his movement home, the umpire raises his arms to call time. Pitcher continues to the plate and fires the ball over everyone, all the way to the backstop. Does the pitch count? Can the runners advance? Of course not; once time has been called, nothing any of the players do on the field can count. The runners can't advance, nor can they be put out if they step off their bases.

And having watched the replay a couple of times I pretty much agree that if Scott had played pocket pool this would have been a triple play. But it's a fun argument.

No, they wouldn't. Ask an umpire.

Nonsense. You're cherry-picking the facts you want to be relevant. If "hands over head" automatically and irreversibly means "foul ball" or "dead ball," then the other three umpires (1) would have instinctively mirrored Scott's signal immediately, and/or (2) would have overruled him when the umpires huddled mere seconds after the play unfolded. Neither of these things happened, and I've seen nothing to suggest they should have happened (e.g., citations from the rule book). Maybe the three base umpires were asleep and got lucky by doing nothing, but it appears they knew what was going on.

First of all, any "overruling" is done after a consultation by whoever the crew chief was, so get back to me on that. If Scott was the crew chief, he can ask for help, but he decides.

Next, no they wouldn't necessarily have mirrored Scott's "hands up". They may have, and may have put them down after Ellis threw to third. We don't see the other umps until the ball is in their area.

And things happened rather quickly, so to say what they would have done isn't fair. They could have done as you say, and maybe they did. Or didn't. It isn't relevant. Scott deked the runners into stopping. Then they were ruled out after he decided the ball wasn't dead, after he called it dead. You can't have that. I will guarantee you that Scott was spoken to, and probably admitted he screwed up, but we'll never know unless he tells. That's unlikely, in the near future, anyway.

First of all, any "overruling" is done after a consultation by whoever the crew chief was, so get back to me on that. If Scott was the crew chief, he can ask for help, but he decides.

Get back to you with what? The video plainly showed the umpires huddling for 30 to 60 seconds immediately after the play. (But FWIW, Scott is listed as the crew chief for that crew.)

Next, no they wouldn't necessarily have mirrored Scott's "hands up". They may have, and may have put them down after Ellis threw to third. We don't see the other umps until the ball is in their area.

With two runners on base, a "time out" or "foul ball" call would immediately be mirrored by the entire crew. Also, the CF feed from the San Diego broadcast showed the third-base and second-base umpires and they didn't signal "foul" or "time." (The first-base umpire was out of view until the relay to first, but he immediately signaled "out" when the throw arrived.)

I will guarantee you that Scott was spoken to, and probably admitted he screwed up, but we'll never know unless he tells.

The MLB statement says that an "incorrect mechanic" was used. That sounds like an admission that Scott made a mistake with his hand signals, which no one here has denied.

OK, so Scott was the crew chief. So, by definition, he decides. The others can't overrule him. He is the decider.

OK, so Scott was the crew chief. So, by definition, he decides. The others can't overrule him. He is the decider.

If that's true, then there was no reason for the umpires to huddle in the first place.

The MLB statement says that an "incorrect mechanic" was used. That sounds like an admission that Scott made a mistake with his hand signals, which no one here has denied.

BS. People here have said that particular hand signal doesn't mean what it means.

See? I can use italics, too.

If that's true, then there was no reason for the umpires to huddle in the first place.

Of course there was. The place was going nuts. They had to huddle. They didn't persuade Scott to make the much tougher call, the right call. He stuck to his guns. That's all.

BS. People here have said that particular hand signal doesn't mean what it means.

Without re-reading 215 comments, I don't recall anyone here claiming that Scott's arm signals about a second into the play didn't look like a "foul" or "time out" signal. The debate has been whether such a signal irreversibly ends a play, like a whistle in football.

Of course there was. The place was going nuts. They had to huddle. They didn't persuade Scott to make the much tougher call, the right call. He stuck to his guns. That's all.

The place was "going nuts" because Dodger fans, in Dodger Stadium, were happy about the triple play, not because they were demanding a review.

As for the umpires declining to make "the much tougher call, the right call," please show us in the rule book where it says a "foul" signal, once made, is strictly irreversible.

It wasn't a "foul" call. It was a "dead ball" call. I thought no one was disputing this?

You and SoSH dispute that the ump called the play dead. And maybe others.

It wasn't a "foul" call. It was a "dead ball" call. I thought no one was disputing this?

Are there different signals for the two? If not, what's the difference between this particular "foul" or "dead ball" play/signal and a third-base umpire who momentarily lifts the wrong arm on a line drive down the line and then immediately corrects himself?

Again, where in the rule book does it say that once a "foul ball" or "dead ball" signal is made, it's absolute and irreversible? That seems to be the rule in the NFL and NBA, but I don't believe MLB has any such rule.

You're nuts. Good night.

I guess that rule-book citation isn't forthcoming. Oh, well.

As has been pointed out before, umpires change "out" calls to "safe" when the ball is juggled or dropped in the process of making the putout, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish from what happened here. In those cases, the out call does not stop play; other runners may continue running and are liable to be put out. The dropped ball is new information which must be taken into account. But in this case there was no new info, because the umpire had called the play dead.

Hysterical & Useless gets it exactly right.

If that's true, then there was no reason for the umpires to huddle in the first place.

Bivens is right. The only reason why umps huddle is for them to "overrule" Scott? No, umps huddle at the request of the crew chief when he wants to discuss the matter. In no way does that negate the fact that the others do not have the authority to "overrule" the call.

Again, where in the rule book does it say that once a "foul ball" or "dead ball" signal is made, it's absolute and irreversible? That seems to be the rule in the NFL and NBA, but I don't believe MLB has any such rule.

I have no idea if this is a rule, but it should be, at least for plays where the call directly affects the decisions of runners and fielders. How can a "dead ball" signal NOT mean the end of a play? How would you ever know when a play is dead if it can always be resurrected? The concept of a dead ball signal would be completely useless.

Hysterical & Useless gets it exactly right.

He got it right on that particular play. What about the line drives down the line that are occasionally reversed, sometimes with runners on base?

Bivens is right. The only reason why umps huddle is for them to "overrule" Scott? No, umps huddle at the request of the crew chief when he wants to discuss the matter. In no way does that negate the fact that the others do not have the authority to "overrule" the call.

Bivens apparently wants us to believe that if the other three umpires all told Scott he was wrong that Scott would have ignored them just to save face. I'm not buying it.

I have no idea if this is a rule, but it should be, at least for plays where the call directly affects the decisions of runners and fielders.

Ah, so you're not even sure if your preferred rule is actually a rule, but you're sure the rest of us are wrong about what happened.

How can a "dead ball" signal NOT mean the end of a play? How would you ever know when a play is dead if it can always be resurrected?

"Always" seems like a major exaggeration. It seems like "immediately" or "within a second or two" would be much more accurate.

As I've said before, if the runners stopped running because of the erroneous arm signal, a lot of us here probably would feel differently about the triple play. But from the videos I've seen, neither runner moved a muscle toward the next base, as if they saw it as an HBP from the get-go. At worst, Scott's error(s) might have cost them a half-second or a second when their trip to the next base would have required three or four seconds of running. I'd prefer not to assume anything at all, but I'd rather assume that three 90-foot throws would have been made than assume the two base runners would have run ~75 feet at superhuman speeds.

Ah, so you're not even sure if your preferred rule is actually a rule, but you're sure the rest of us are wrong about what happened.

I don't give a #### what the rule is. I haven't said one thing about it. If it's not the rule, then a "dead ball" signal ceases to have any meaning whatsoever.

At worst, Scott's error(s) might have cost them a half-second or a second when their trip to the next base would have required three or four seconds of running. I'd prefer not to assume at all, but I'd rather assume that three 90-foot throws would have been made than assume the two base runners would have run ~75 feet at superhuman speeds.

Wonderful, because for the 32nd time, that's not what this is about.

Is the dead ball call absolute? Say a hitter lines one down the line, called foul, but the ball shows chalk marks proving it was fair. Can the ump reverse the ruling and place the runners? Has this ever happened? Can't think of any. Can't even think of any instances where an ump inadvertantly made a dead ball call and reversed it immediately. Like if he makes that call, he kind of knows it's absolute.

It seems by definition the dead ball call ends the play absolutely. Doesn't matter whether a player is supposed to be looking at the ump. The mere act of the ump killing the play leaves open the possibility that the competition is turned into a farce with a portion of it going 0 speed versus whatever didn't see the call going full speed.

Maybe in baseball getting the call right supercedes this compromise (destruction?) of the integrity of the competetion. Where the ump is supposed to first get the call right and then place runners in weighing the damage as described above did to the competition. Ie, the dead ball call is not absolute.

Getting the call right is important too. Think, the cleanup hitter lays one down for a multi-many-out play when by all rights his carcass should be sitting on first loading the bases with no outs. That's called hitting the jackpot. The event happened. Erasing it destroys the integrity of the competion too.

No answers..don't even know what the question was...except to get better umps.

What is the inadvertent whistle rule?

Play is dead as soon as the umpire blows his whistle even if he didn't intend to blow the whistle and even if there's no actual reason for a stoppage of play.

Is the dead ball call absolute? Say a hitter lines one down the line, called foul, but the ball shows chalk marks proving it was fair. Can the ump reverse the ruling and place the runners? Has this ever happened? Can't think of any. Can't even think of any instances where an ump inadvertantly made a dead ball call and reversed it immediately. Like if he makes that call, he kind of knows it's absolute.

I've never seen a play where the ball was called "foul" and then, after an inspection of the ball, runners were awarded bases. I have, however, seen umpires inadvertently call fair balls foul and vice versa* and then immediately and emphatically change/correct their call.


(* Typically when the umpire was forced to spin around quickly to make a call on a ball hit right at him or right down the foul line he's covering.)

Is the dead ball call absolute? Say a hitter lines one down the line, called foul, but the ball shows chalk marks proving it was fair. Can the ump reverse the ruling and place the runners? Has this ever happened? Can't think of any. Can't even think of any instances where an ump inadvertantly made a dead ball call and reversed it immediately. Like if he makes that call, he kind of knows it's absolute.

Say instead of going down the line, it goes over the fence. In that case, we know for certain the rule is reversible.

And say, instead of the situation we had, there's another game where Dale Scott makes the exact same movements with his hands (whether inadvertent or because he's a boob), but just after the batter launches a monster home run to straightaway center. Should the fact the umpire made some foolish gesture automatically and unequivocally negate what happened on the field, even if those actions had no bearing on the play?

Watch the replays again, particularly the behind home plate shot. The runner on second doesn't start moving when the ball hits the bat, then stop when Scott makes his first gesture. He thought it was a HBP (or maybe a foul ball), not because of Scott's movements that followed, but because of an incorrect interpretation of what he saw (and I can understand that, it looked like an HBP or foul ball). Now, we can't see the runner on first, but considering he was standing on the base when the throw made it back there, it's probably safe to assume he also didn't make any movement toward second at any time either.

This was a triple play. It would have been a triple play if Dale Scott had stood absolutely dead still. His actions, from the first possibly inadvertent gesture to the more inexplicable second one, had little to absolutely no bearing on the behavior of the three Padres involved in the play, and the end result was undeniably what it would have been had he done nothing. The idea all of that should be wiped out because he momentarily made a mistaken gesture with his hands seems like a road none of us would truly want to travel, particularly when you consider the total ramifications of such an absolute determination.

. Hard to believe it was the first 2-5-6-3 triple play in MLB history

Far as I can tell, there have been at least three other bunted-triple plays in history:

This game: 1-5-6-4
This game: 2-5-4-5 (batter made it to first, tagged out trying to take second, while the runner from first made it to second, and was tagged out trying to take third.)
This game: 1-6-4 I'll let SABR explain:

Sandy Martinez (TOR) is the batter. He hits a first pitch bunt that popped up to the left side of the infield. Chad Kreuter (C) yelled at the P (Jeff Nelson) to let

the ball drop. P picked up the ball and threw to the SS (Luis Sojo), covering second.

SS tagged the runner at second, Shawn Green [OUT 1] and touched the bag, retiring the runner from first (Alex Gonzalez) [OUT 2]. SS throws to the 2B (Joey

Cora) who is covering first who toes the sack and tags the batter (OUT 3)

2B charges towards second and tags the runner from first, Alex Gonzalez, then tags Shawn Green for good measure.

NOTE: Relief Pitcher Nelson had a 1-pitch inning for END OF GAME TP (Note: infield fly rule does not apply to a bunt)

Fun stuff; I didn't know the IF rule didn't apply to bunts.

Edit: Noteworthy that RetroSheet has this last play coded as a bunt groundout but according to the description it was a pop-out.

Edit: Noteworthy that RetroSheet has this last play coded as a bunt groundout but according to the description it was a pop-out.

Well it would have been a pop-out, but they elected to let it drop instead of catching it, making it a groundout...

Bivens apparently wants us to believe that if the other three umpires all told Scott he was wrong that Scott would have ignored them just to save face. I'm not buying it.

I'll speak for myself.

I don't know what they said. I'd like to. Whatever it was, Scott decided not to change the call. I think that was a mistake, but MLB doesn't dwell on bad calls, so there probably won't be any further discussion, except here, where it gets very silly very quickly. Dead balls being reanimated. ZOMBIE BASEBALLS!!!!

Onward.

The runner on second doesn't start moving when the ball hits the bat,

Because, watching from second, you wouldn't think it hit the bat, you'd think it hit the body. Then you'd see arms going up.

All the argument for "runners should have been running" works very well if this was a pitch over the plate. But it was a pitch at the chest. Thought process goes: hit batter, arms up, dead ball. Walk to next base.

As I said up above, as soon as Scott raised his arms, he'd screwed the call irreversibly.

As I said up above, as soon as Scott raised his arms, he'd screwed the call irreversibly.

Except, if he hadn't done that, the play would have unfolded exactly like it actually did.

I really don't see the argument why SD should get a gift just b/c Scott made a error that lasted all of 0.5 seconds? The runners had no chance. The umpiring mistake affected nothing.

Except, if he hadn't done that, the play would have unfolded exactly like it actually did.

You know this how?

You know this how?

Because the catcher was on top of the ball immediately. The batter bailed 10 feet towards the dugout, he had no chance. And the other runners were dead.

Watch the play again. Even if the baserunners are going on the pitch, you have no chance when the catcher gets the ball 2 feet away from him.

The only runner who had any chance was the hitter, and he took himself out of the play immediately.

The runner may well have beaten the 3Bman to the bag and the relay from third to second was a lob. I think both runners had a chance if they don't stop because the play is called dead. The batter, as you say, had no chance.

My point is that there is a lot of assuming going on here once those hands go up. It seems unfair, to me, to either call no play or end the inning.

The runner may well have beaten the 3Bman to the bag and the relay from third to second was a lob. I think both runners had a chance if they don't stop because the play is called dead. The batter, as you say, had no chance.

But there's no reason to believe they didn't run because of Scott's actions. They failed to run because they thought it hit him (or, less likely, thought it was foul). And if you believe there isn't enough time between the time the ball hit the bat and the time Scott first raised his arms to make any kind of distinction on the runner's thought process, then how is there enough time between the time Scott raised his arms and the time the ball was actually picked up to make a difference either?

The way it looks to me, the only way you can make any kind of argument for another outcome is to believe a no-tolerance policy should exist when it comes to umpire dead ball/foul gestures (if the umpire raises arms or points foul, the play is immediately over). And I doubt anyone really wants that.

can someone actually cite a rule that says a play is dead immediately and irrevocably if an ump signals foul? even if the signal is inadvertent? because it seems to me that's the crux of the argument. is the ump not allowed to signal foul ball then reverse himself immediately if the ball suddenly spins fair?

imho, in this case the fact that scott signalled one way then another happened so quickly that i don't think it affected anything. that has a bearing on whether this call can be protested. if he had stood there stroking his chin for a minute or two then changed his call, yeah, that's a travesty. but he didn't. it was less than a second. it was the time it takes to open your hands palms out then close them and point. the speed at which scott reversed himself has to be taken into account.

i'll agree all that doesn't matter if the RULE, the actual written rule, is that the play is dead immediately if scott signalled foul, even if he makes another signal immediately after.

i'll agree all that doesn't matter if the RULE, the actual written rule, is that the play is dead immediately if scott signalled foul, even if he makes another signal immediately after.

There is no such rule.

First of all, he didn't signal "foul ball". He signaled "dead ball". The same signal is often accompanied by calls of "time", "balk", and when batters get hit. In all cases it means "Something has happened that I have determined ends play. No need to run. No need to throw. The play is over and if you need to go somewhere, we will tell you."

In this case, the Padres did not get screwed if all you care about is that the result was likely what it would have been had he not called time and then lied about it.

However, I find it hard to believe that there are people arguing that "dead ball" means "Wink, wink. Keep playing because we might not really mean it." If "dead ball" doesn't mean "stop playing" why does the signal or the concept itself exist?

5.02 After the umpire calls “Play” the ball is alive and in play and remains alive and in
play until for legal cause, or at the umpire’s call of “Time” suspending play, the ball
becomes dead. While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no
runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts
which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow,
interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field).

5.11 After the ball is dead, play shall be resumed when the pitcher takes his place on the
pitcher’s plate with a new ball or the same ball in his possession and the plate umpire calls
“Play.” The plate umpire shall call “Play” as soon as the pitcher takes his place on his plate
with the ball in his possession.

5.02 certainly happened. 5.11 certainly didn't. Dead ball.

First of all, he didn't signal "foul ball". He signaled "dead ball". The same signal is often accompanied by calls of "time", "balk", and when batters get hit. In all cases it means "Something has happened that I have determined ends play. No need to run. No need to throw. The play is over and if you need to go somewhere, we will tell you."

In this case, the Padres did not get screwed if all you care about is that the result was likely what it would have been had he not called time and then lied about it.

However, I find it hard to believe that there are people arguing that "dead ball" means "Wink, wink. Keep playing because we might not really mean it." If "dead ball" doesn't mean "stop playing" why does the signal or the concept itself exist?

First, there's really no practical difference between a foul ball and a dead ball. All foul balls are dead balls (though, obviously, not all dead balls are foul balls). If the signal of foul can be reversed, I don't see why the same can't be true of a signal for a dead ball.

Second, there's nothing specifically in the rule book that says a dead ball signal can't be reversed.

You may think that any signal of dead ball (or foul ball) should irrevocably end play, but that's a different matter (though one I disagree with, due to my general disdain for no-tolerance policies).

All foul balls are dead balls (though, obviously, not all dead balls are foul balls).

Absolutely not true. A foul ball that is caught is live.

Second, there's nothing specifically in the rule book that says a dead ball signal can't be reversed.

The entire rule is listed above. No exceptions listed. Once that call is made, the ball is dead until a new play is started.

It actually indirectly supports the idea that dead means dead by saying play can be stopped for legal cause OR by the umpire's call. This would at least support the notion that even if he calls time and is wrong, he still called time.

EDITED FOR CLARITY.

Absolutely not true. A foul ball that is caught is live.

That's not a foul ball. That's a ball caught in foul territory. And it's not signalled fair or foul, unless it's dropped (in which case, it's dead if it's in foul territory).

This is a foul ball:

A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.
A foul fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the infielder is on foul or fair territory at the time he touches the ball.
Rule 2.00 (Foul Ball) Comment: A batted ball not touched by a fielder, which hits the pitcher?s rubber and rebounds into foul territory, between home and first, or between home and third base is a foul ball.

or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player

If he catches it without touching it, you are spot-on.

Rule 6.02 also mentions where a player's feet may or may not be "in order to make a catch a foul ball".

The entire rule is listed above. No exceptions listed. Once that call is made, the ball is dead until a new play is started.

Well, 9.02(c) could mean otherwise. But thanks for the cite.

Rule 6.02 also mentions where a player's feet may or may not be "in order to make a catch a foul ball".

But these aren't siganlled, are they? A foul ball isn't signalled until it settles foul, not it's position while it remains live (though I suppose a juggling catch in foul territory would technically be foul in between the initial touch and the catch).

Either way, umpires don't signal foul until the ball has settled foul, at which point the ball is also dead.

Well, 9.02(c) could mean otherwise. But thanks for the cite.

Doesn't negate the dead ball. We called that the "God rule". A dead ball is still a dead ball. The umpires could rule that a triple play was the likely outcome if not for the umpire's error and decree that outcome. This is true without regard to the fact that the Dodgers kept playing and the Padres didn't and a triple play, in fact, seemed to have occurred while play was suspended. (A not unreasonable judgment.) They could also make this ruling if Ellis throws the dead ball into LF and 2 runs seem to score. They would have to go back to what was likely to happen at the time of the error, without regard to what happened after, because it didn't legally happen.

Doesn't negate the dead ball. We called that the "God rule". A dead ball is still a dead ball. The umpires could rule that a triple play was the likely outcome if not for the umpire's error and decreed that outcome. This is true without regard to the fact that the Dodgers kept playing and the Padres didn't and a triple play, in fact, seemed to have occurred while play was suspended. (A not unreasonable judgment.) They could also make this ruling if Ellis throws the dead ball into LF and 2 runs seem to score. They would have to go back to what was likely to happen at the time of the error, without regard to what happened after, because it didn't legally happen.

Interesting. Not sure if I agree with the interpretation, in part because I'm not convinced time was called as a result of what happened here, but it's definitely worth chewing on.

First of all, he didn't signal "foul ball". He signaled "dead ball".

You know this how? Scott never pointed at the batter to signify an HBP, and it's apparently not in dispute that Scott verbalized nothing during that one- or two-second period, when he would have been expected to holler loudly (given that both the catcher and the batter were in front of him and couldn't see any hand signals).

Fun stuff; I didn't know the IF rule didn't apply to bunts.

It also doesn't apply to line drives, except in the case of a fielder intentionally dropping it in order to force a DP. In fact, there doesn't have to be two men on base. It could be first base only.

You know this how?

Arms raised in the air means "time out". Again, if you don't believe me, ask an umpire. When "time" is called, the ball is dead. Whether Scott verbally called time or not, as MLB has admitted, his "mechanics" were clumsy and confusing, leading the baserunners to understandably stop running.

Once time is called, verbally or otherwise, it stays as "time out". There is no "oopsie, time in" once time out is called.


Sheesh. This is ponderous.

and it's apparently not in dispute that Scott verbalized nothing during that one- or two-second period

And you know this how?

This article is good. It contains gifs of Scott's call in question and another dead ball call from the same game. They are exactly the same.

Excellent work, Zipperholes.

Whether Scott verbally called time or not, as MLB has admitted, his "mechanics" were clumsy and confusing, leading the baserunners to understandably stop running.

To stop running, one must start running. The Padres baserunners didn't stop running because of Scott's mechanics. They stayed put because they thought the batter was hit by the pitch.

Watch the video. There's a gap between when the ball hits the bat and Scott makes his first upward motion (a gap as large as the time between the first and second clear-cut motion). At no time does the runner on second advance toward third. The initial upward motion (whether intentional) may make him retreat, but at no point did the runner on second make any effort to advance.

Ok, fine. Whatever.

edit...you don't know what they were thinking.

The runner on 2nd is advancing until the point where the ump raises his hands. You see him re-entering the frame after the hands go up.

The runner on 2nd is advancing until the point where the ump raises his hands. You see him re-entering the frame after the hands go up.

Look at the camera angle from behind. He doesn't move forward when the ball hits the bat, which happens a bit before Scott's arms raise the first time.

You want to argue that any raising of the arm constitutes a dead ball, fine. That's one argument, though one I don't happen to share.

But at no point was the lead runner moving forward when the ball makes contact, only to stop because of any motion by Scott, so there was no stopping to be done.

edit...you don't know what they were thinking.

I assume they thought it was because it hit him. Maybe because they thought it was a foul ball. The why is really immaterial.

No, it isn't immaterial. Look at Zipperholes' GIFs. Dead ball.

Look at the camera angle from behind. He doesn't move forward when the ball hits the bat, which happens a bit before Scott's arms raise the first time.

Which gif are you looking at? There are three from behind.

Which gif are you looking at? There are three from behind.

The video, not the gifs.

No, it isn't immaterial. Look at Zipperholes' GIFs. Dead ball.

If you think that any raising of the hands automatically and irrevocably stops play, that's one argument. It's not a POV I share, for reasons I've outlined, but obviously many support that position.

But if that's your argument, then whether the Padres stopped running when Scott raised his arms, as you claimed, is irrelevant. And it also happens to be untrue. They never started running when the ball struck the bat. (Or, at least the lead runner didn't, though the position of the trail runner by the time the ball got to first suggests he didn't move either).

The arguments that Scott didn't make the dead ball call are moronic, but the players should have taken off once they heard bat hit ball. Then there's no triple play. It's hard to say, though, not standing on the field. Instinct told 'em dead ball.

Dead issue. Dodgers win.

If you're not sure that's a bear you hear in the woods... run, rabbit, run.

If you think that any raising of the hands automatically and irrevocably stops play, that's one argument.

Correction: that what Dale Scott did stops play (or should). But, yeah.

But if that's your argument, then whether the Padres stopped running when Scott raised his arms, as you claimed, is irrelevant.

Right.

Watching the replays again, the runner at second's best option was to go back. Because of Ellis's sharp reaction, he would have been nailed regardless. But what some seem to be missing is all this happens in a second or two. When Uribe caught the throw from Ellis, he hadn't moved back to the bag, either. The ball died right in front of the plate. Guzman was bailing out the opposite way after feeling death come flying at his head.

All in all, Chase Headley's comments make more sense than anything written here:

“I mean, is it written in a manual somewhere how you’re supposed to handle when a guy throws a ball that would’ve hit the guy right in the neck?” Headley said. “(Scott) can’t see anything. It was such a crazy thing. You could see how it happened.”

Look at the camera angle from behind. He doesn't move forward when the ball hits the bat, which happens a bit before Scott's arms raise the first time.

That's the angle I was watching. He starts toward third when the ball hits the bat, and he returns to the frame after the first arm raising.

Watching the replays again, the runner at second's best option was to go back.

Though I agree that the runners essentially had no chance (other than if they had broken on the pitch), what good would going back ever serve in that situation (unless Ellis tagged Guzman)? If it's a HBP, they move up. If it's foul, they go back, but in neither of those cases is there a risk involved in running forward.

Going back would make sense if you believe the pitch hit nothing, but that seems to be the one thing you could be certain didn't happen.

But I agree that Headley's comments do sum it up pretty well from the POV of the baserunner.

For some reason, the song 'three blind mice' is looping in my brain.

I blame the Farrellys.

Just think what would have happened if Zapruder had been online in '63.

He starts toward third when the ball hits the bat, and he returns to the frame after the first arm raising.

That's not the angle. The angle from behind home plate. He's in mid-hop when the ball is approaching Guzman. When it hits the bat and before Scott can raise his arms, he doesn't move, then he starts to retreat sometime after Scott's arms go up. At no point did he make any move toward third.

That's not the angle. The angle from behind home plate. He's in mid-hop when the ball is approaching Guzman. When it hits the bat and before Scott can raise his arms, he doesn't move, then he starts to retreat sometime after Scott's arms go up. At no point did he make any move toward third.

He thought the ball drilled Guzman; hit right between his hands at neck level. Ball dropped almost dead at the plate. Scott then signals foul. I dunno, these guys have played a lifetime of baseball and all pretty much reacted the same way. In much less time than it took you to read my description.

The Padres didn't protest the game, and don't seem particularly upset, probably because the right call was made.

Baseball is super freaky.

He thought the ball drilled Guzman; hit right between his hands at neck level.

I totally agree that's what happened, and I don't fault him for thinking as much. I'm sure I would have reacted similarly. The point is, I think his reaction was based on what he thought he saw happen (Guzman get drilled), not based on Scott's backing away arm gesture moments later.

The Padres didn't protest the game, and don't seem particularly upset, probably because the right call was made.

Yeah, we've spent a hell of a lot more time thinking about it then they seem to have.

...

I have no opinion to add to this but I want to thank SOSH and others for patiently explaining this whole thing and how its supposed to work, and also explaining which part is his opinion (e.g. about whether a hand signal should end a play automatically) and which part is not.

Gawd knows I would not have the patience to continue to explain to people, for example, the end result would not have changed, when this had been explained any number of times. ANd also to continue in the face of people saying he is ignorant or not arguing in good faith or whatever.

Thanks for explaining all that as best you could SOSH (and others) I would not have any idea of how all this works.

If you disagree with him, please read carefully what he is saying. He is clearly good enuf to handle the insults and patiently re explain things.

Meanwhile, tonight, the Brewers win on a SAC fly (Braun flying out to Kemp in a 2 man outfield), when Nyjer is called safe at home and the Brewers win it. Bad fly, bad approach by Kemp, not a great throw, a crap tag, a lousy slide after running through a stop sign and it looked like Morgan was out. Dodgers lose.

Thanks for the patronizing bull ####, Sunday Silence.

You know this how?

You mean, besides having eyes? Jesus, what are you getting at? Hands up, palms forward or out is the signal for a deal ball. You really don't see that in the second, more emphatic motion after the one that looks like he is just trying to get out of the way?

Scott never pointed at the batter to signify an HBP, and it's apparently not in dispute that Scott verbalized nothing during that one- or two-second period,

You're aware that signalling and verbalizing are different, right? He signalled time, then behaved as if he hadn't, and that's a problem. The fact that the appearance is that the team who ignored his directive to stop playing ends up rewarded is a bigger problem. Situations across all sports where one team stops playing and the other doesn't are often dangerous and the last thing anyone needs is a precedent that says you should ignore an officials command to stop play because he might be an ass and change his mind.

The Padres didn't get screwed. Dale Scott and the league look like asses for not being forthcoming that there was an umpire error, but the correct outcome was achieved, apparently by accident.

Arms raised in the air means "time out". Again, if you don't believe me, ask an umpire.

You mean, besides having eyes? Jesus, what are you getting at? Hands up, palms forward or out is the signal for a deal ball. You really don't see that in the second, more emphatic motion after the one that looks like he is just trying to get out of the way?

This is getting comical. Would you or Bivens mind explaining the difference between the "foul ball" signal and the "dead ball" signal, or the difference between the "foul ball" signal and the "time out" signal?

I tend to agree that the runners were toasts regardless of what happened. Runner from second obviously had no chance, and Guzman bailed. That leaves only the runner from first, who might have maybe made it if he had a good jump and was fast, but otherwise I don't think so. Scott's confusing hand signals didn't help, but it was the perfect situation for that play, and I think was going to be a triple play even if Scott immediately screams "FAIR BALL!" at the top of his lungs.

This is getting comical. Would you or Bivens mind explaining the difference between the "foul ball" signal and the "dead ball" signal, or the difference between the "foul ball" signal and the "time out" signal?

"Foul" is the same signal as "time." There is nothing called "dead ball" in baseball; it's pretty damn clear they're using the term interchangeably with "time", to indicate that that's when they thought the play was no longer live.

Shock, I'm sure you know that umps don't verbalize a fair ball call. They point. They verbalize "foul!". They raise their hands and call "time" when a ball is "dead". In umpire school, we were taught to yell "time", and then "ball is dead" in situations where the ball is dead.

It's very possible that the runners wouldn't have heard Scott call "time". That's why the call is accompanied by raised hands.

As Zippeholes' gifs showed, that was how Scott called "time". With raised hands. Is anyone here really saying that the first example, where the call was in fact "time" any different than the one being discussed?

This article is good. It contains gifs of Scott's call in question and another dead ball call from the same game. They are exactly the same.

quote]Dale Scott screwed up when he indicated a dead ball, but as soon as he indicated a dead ball, it should've been a dead ball. It wasn't, the Dodgers benefited, and if Scott's being disciplined, we haven't heard anything about it. We just got a statement that didn't state the right thing. I feel bad for the Padres. For this reason and so many other reasons, I feel bad for the Padres.

I don't feel bad for the Padres
That ball was either a double play or a triple play

Let's say the ball was "dead" and all runners go back to base and play resumes- the injustice resulting from that scenario to the Dodgers would be many times worse than the hypothetical harm that the Padres may have suffered by being misled into thinking the play was dead.

Let's say the ball was "dead" and all runners go back to base and play resumes- the injustice resulting from that scenario to the Dodgers would be many times worse than the hypothetical harm that the Padres may have suffered..

This seems to be the heart of the matter at least for those supporting the outcome (call them the "pro" side). Do the critics have any logical response to this?

I think most would agree that Scott's initial arm/hand motion is problematical. As we go beyond that, one issue is did this problematical behavior create some advantage to the Dodgers and/or some injustice?

Some have responded that this sort of theoretical approach is not really pt. however the pro side would pt. out that umpires can and do replace/reset runners on the base paths in unusual situations. Again, I think the "con" side should respond to that argument. WHy reset runners if theoretical outcomes cannnot be contemplated? I would also point out that baseball recognizes other theoretical outcomes, such as the "fourth out" of an innning that has do with failing to tag up.

A second issue, based on the arm/hand motion is: does such motion automatically end the play and/or create a time out? I dont think any person on the con side has found any rule that does that. I think someone cited a rule mentioning "calls" but it is unclear to me whether this means audible or both audible and visual, or some other. I think Joe and SOSH have been perfectly frank in admitting the situation (does visual signal auto end play) is somewhat ambiguous; but then the other arguments kick in.

I think Joe did a good job in 206 re: pre eminenince of visual. To which in 208 the other guy says "ask an umpire." I mean the hell kind of response is that? It's not objective. It cant be looked up in a book, you cant take a survey to figure out what the right call should be right NOW.

Other arguments about whether umpires do or dont huddle or do or dont overrule one another seem unfair. You cant blame all the problems and evils associated with umpiring on one ambiguous motion made by Dale Scott. That doesnt seem fair.

Gratuitous remarks also seem rather pointless and just drag down the other side. Can you not respond logicall to what the "pro" people are saying?

Can you find a rule that says anything like the initial arm signal is the final pre eminent outcome? If that were ever the case, wouldnt there be a whole lot of situations in baseball that wouldnt make sense? Such as the out/no he's safe call?

Is it fair to say that baseball rules are somewhat ambiguous in this regard in order that an inadvertant gesture can be overrruled by vocal call?

ANd what of the proviso that umps can and do reset runners? Isnt this part of the same concept, that the umps should try to get right even if they have to change a mistake quickly on the fly? I mean that seems about the only way to conceptualize the total package of rules that we see:

a) umps can quickly change a call on the fly, if they need to;

b) it is acknowledged that this may be unfair, therefore umps are given the ability to reset runners or otherwise play theoretical baseball;

c) baseball has no strict "first call is pre eminent" nor does it have a "visual call is pre eminent because stadiums are loud," therefore a and b are needed.

Why dont the critics answer these issues blow by blow? See if you can enunciate a total understanding of the situation that would be able to keep all these concepts alive? Or make your own conception of what is supposed to happen. I dont think you can.

Would you or Bivens mind explaining the difference between the "foul ball" signal and the "dead ball" signal, or the difference between the "foul ball" signal and the "time out" signal?

How about you bring something to the conversation other than ignorant belligerence?

286 - When did we start choosing sides? Jesus, we're not little kids trying to "win". Can't we just discuss?

In this silly binomial world, I suppose I'm wearing a "con" jersey, so...

Let's say the ball was "dead" and all runners go back to base and play resumes- the injustice resulting from that scenario to the Dodgers would be many times worse than the hypothetical harm that the Padres may have suffered..


This seems to be the heart of the matter at least for those supporting the outcome (call them the "pro" side). Do the critics have any logical response to this?

Many have stated that though Scott botched this monumentally, the Pads were not "screwed".

I think most would agree that Scott's initial arm/hand motion is problematical. As we go beyond that, one issue is did this problematical behavior create some advantage to the Dodgers and/or some injustice?

Some have responded that this sort of theoretical approach is not really pt. however the pro side would pt. out that umpires can and do replace/reset runners on the base paths in unusual situations. Again, I think the "con" side should respond to that argument. WHy reset runners if theoretical outcomes cannnot be contemplated? I would also point out that baseball recognizes other theoretical outcomes, such as the "fourth out" of an innning that has do with failing to tag up.

This is exactly what I stated would have been the correct call. Scott should have grown a pair and admitted that he signaled time. The umpires then huddle and decide what was most likely to happen at the moment he did so. Triple play is one of very few reasonable guesses.

A second issue, based on the arm/hand motion is: does such motion automatically end the play and/or create a time out? I dont think any person on the con side has found any rule that does that. I think someone cited a rule mentioning "calls" but it is unclear to me whether this means audible or both audible and visual, or some other. I think Joe and SOSH have been perfectly frank in admitting the situation (does visual signal auto end play) is somewhat ambiguous; but then the other arguments kick in.

I'm not sure why this is still an issue. I posted the rule that says once the ump calls time/dead ball, play is resumed with the pitcher in possession of the ball. He can't say "Stop. No, wait - Go!" I'd love to hear how signaling time is different than verbally calling time. If the signal for time doesn't mean the same as saying it, why does the signal exist? There is no rule that says "When Dale Scott has his head up his ass and signals time while saying nothing, then signals fair ball while still saying nothing, play shall be suspended, but only for a moment." Short of that, I don't know what you want.

Can you find a rule that says anything like the initial arm signal is the final pre eminent outcome? If that were ever the case, wouldnt there be a whole lot of situations in baseball that wouldnt make sense? Such as the out/no he's safe call?

When that call is "The play is over - Stop", how the hell can he reverse that? Out - No, safe does occur in cases where the ump sees a loose ball, but doesn't usually cause secondary confusion. Sometimes a catch/trap does, but you'll also see conferences where the umpires entertain the "what if we hadn't misled everyone" question.

Is it fair to say that baseball rules are somewhat ambiguous in this regard in order that an inadvertant gesture can be overrruled by vocal call?

How can you possibly watch that video and then use the word "inadvertent"?

ANd what of the proviso that umps can and do reset runners? Isnt this part of the same concept, that the umps should try to get right even if they have to change a mistake quickly on the fly? I mean that seems about the only way to conceptualize the total package of rules that we see:

a) umps can quickly change a call on the fly, if they need to;

b) it is acknowledged that this may be unfair, therefore umps are given the ability to reset runners or otherwise play theoretical baseball;

c) baseball has no strict "first call is pre eminent" nor does it have a "visual call is pre eminent because stadiums are loud," therefore a and b are needed.

Why dont the critics answer these issues blow by blow? See if you can enunciate a total understanding of the situation that would be able to keep all these concepts alive? Or make your own conception of what is supposed to happen. I dont think you can.

As mentioned above, most of this was agreed to and mentioned earlier. The ability to go back and fix their error is the out they have for flubs like this. But admitting their error is the first step. Nobody has said (or at least I haven't) that the first call always stands. But when the call is "Stop playing", it HAS to stand. They can remedy the error, but they can't stand there with stupid looks, denying that they did anything and then reward the team that disregarded the signal to stop. The Dodgers were entitled to the three outs, but not because they threw the ball around the horn after Scott signaled the play dead. They are entitled to them because that was the logical outcome at the time Scott told everyone to stop playing baseball.

Well, what would an irreversible dead ball call rule look like?

a. The ball (play) is dead when the ump ...etc.

b. Dead means dead.

Sort of think b is already there. Probably why mlb is going along with the ump's lame excuses. Dead ball versus live ball defines the game. Dead ball relaxation time. Live ball have to be totally focused. If a player can't rely on the ump's informing him of those intervals, then chaos ensues. MLB can't very well say that the ump actually killed the play although that's exactly what he did, emphasizing the fact he didn't vocalize it and just kind of "approximated" the dead ball signal. Otherwise, mlb is admitting to an untenable precedent, the hand signaling doesn't count for squat.

I haven't been involved in this debate, but to me it seems like the issue should be: at the moment after Scott throws up his hands in error, what choice minimizes the effect of the first missed call on play?

1) Dead ball. Since it was actually fair ball (right?) the Dodgers are hurt by the miss-call, and lose the opportunity for probably at least a likely double-play, if not the triple play.

2) Immediately over-rule the dead ball call. The ump at least switches to getting the call right, but has frozen/confused the Padres runners, which makes it more likely they'll be thrown out.

Once Scott screws up by putting his hands up, he can either cut his losses and pretend that he didn't just call a fair ball foul as it's sitting there on the ground, still being all fair, everybody looking at each other and wondering how a ball that is clearly fair can be foul, or he can try to fix things by reversing the call. Calls do get reversed - sometimes an umpire will call a runner out only to have a ball pop out of a glove and then he's safe again - but these are usually done incredibly quickly and there are rarely implications for other runners. Also, play isn't stopped, which is the huge issue. I don't think I've ever seen a play "resurrected" the way this one was.

Reversing the call at least gets the first thing right (the ball is actually fair), but then you wade in to the sticky issue we have now. I think the ump does switch back to "play ball" (that's the pointing, right?) which is crappy and unfair, but it was going to be unfair for someone the moment Scott made the incorrect "foul/dead ball" call. Sticking with "dead ball" in a sense increases the impact of the umpire error on the likely events of the game, which I would argue is the least desirable outcome. At least the "overruled" version of unfairness is probably closer to what would have happened had the error not occurred.

I can totally see it the other way, though. I don't know how this turned into some entrenched argument.

EDIT: Whether the "dead ball" signal was inadvertant or not I don't think really matters. It happened. It's what happens after that where stuff gets crazy.

I don't agree that once the ump decides he screwed up on a dead ball call, they can decide what the outcome would have been. There is some sort of rule that says you can't assume a double play when a runner interferes with a fielder, so how could they assume a triple play? The right call there would have been to take his medicine and call "no play", or "no pitch", and re-do, and then explain it to Mattingly, who I would bet would have been ok with it.

I don't agree that once the ump decides he screwed up on a dead ball call, they can decide what the outcome would have been. There is some sort of rule that says you can't assume a double play when a runner interferes with a fielder, so how could they assume a triple play? The right call there would have been to take his medicine and call "no play", or "no pitch", and re-do, and then explain it to Mattingly, who I would bet would have been ok with it.

I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but I don't even think the ump was thinking about how the play would eventually unfold, since it happened so fast. I think he had a brain fart or something and signaled "foul", and then thought "crap! that's a fair ball!" and ruled fair without really thinking about the consequences - he just wanted to get that first call right.

I don't know if Mattingly would have necessarily been ok with it, particularly if the Padres had scored in that inning, but what could he really have done, anyway? The way baseball is played, they aren't big on the do-over.

No, it wasn't directed at you. Just a coincidence that we posted 2 sides of the same idea at the same time.

You may be right about Scott's thought process, but obviously my opinion is that even if it was what he was thinking it doesn't mean he did the right thing.

You may be right about Scott's thought process, but obviously my opinion is that even if it was what he was thinking it doesn't mean he did the right thing.

Sure. I think you're right in terms of the rules. By the rules, it probably should have been dead once he made the signal, but I think the way it unfolded is actually a better outcome since it was closer (IMHO) to what would have happened without the screw-up. By the rules, you're not supposed to make incorrect calls in the first place, either.

I just can't see that Scott knew the "true, just outcome" of the play would have occurred by his ignoring his original call. I think he just froze. It was a tough call for him, and I think he just completely missed it.

ellsbury's 290 is the best interpretation in this thread so far. i mean it. the umpire overruling himself is what's generated all this heat.

I just can't see that Scott knew the "true, just outcome" of the play would have occurred by his ignoring his original call.

Oh, I don't think he knew either, or maybe he guessed that it was fast enough that it would have a smaller impact on play than letting the original call stand would. I think there was some "luck" for the integrity of the game that it turned out the way it did. It could have been much worse if the fielders were confused and threw the ball away and runners advanced or something, however it did happen very quickly.

I think he just froze. It was a tough call for him, and I think he just completely missed it.

Yeah, I think he got flustered and had to make a quick decision. Ruling the ball dead might be the safer decision, but given that it happened so quickly I think it's ok.

It could have been much worse if the fielders were confused and threw the ball away and runners advanced or something, however it did happen very quickly.

Well, that brings up one of the problems with the "outcome-based" approach to justice (which I don't agree with under any circumstances anyway): the Dodgers were able to make nice, easy throws. What if Headley is running from first? How do you know the third baseman doesn't rush the throw trying to get the double play and chuck it into right field?

Putting humpty dumpty back together again doesn't work.

How about you bring something to the conversation other than ignorant belligerence?

Physician, heal thyself. This was a very civil discussion until you and a couple others arrived.

I'm not sure why this is still an issue. I posted the rule that says once the ump calls time/dead ball, play is resumed with the pitcher in possession of the ball.

Where in the rule book does it say the "foul" signal is absolute and irreversible? If this was true, why weren't the other three umpires obligated to overrule Scott? Why didn't MLB clear up this simple issue of fact in the statement on Monday? You guys talk like this was the first time in baseball history that an umpire made the wrong hand signal and then immediately corrected himself.

***

They point. They verbalize "foul!". They raise their hands and call "time" when a ball is "dead". In umpire school, we were taught to yell "time", and then "ball is dead" in situations where the ball is dead.

It's very possible that the runners wouldn't have heard Scott call "time". That's why the call is accompanied by raised hands.

As Zippeholes' gifs showed, that was how Scott called "time". With raised hands. Is anyone here really saying that the first example, where the call was in fact "time" any different than the one being discussed?

So we're in agreement that the signals for "foul" and "time" are the same, but you're still sure Scott was signaling "time," despite the apparent fact he verbalized nothing — even though the batter and catcher were in front of him and couldn't see his arm signals — and despite the fact he never pointed at the batter or pointed to first to signify an HBP. Interesting.

The right call there would have been to take his medicine and call "no play", or "no pitch", and re-do, and then explain it to Mattingly, who I would bet would have been ok with it.

Sure, managers love it when a bad call results in a triple play being overturned, with the opponent getting runners at first and second with no outs in the 9th inning of a tie game.

I've never been to umpire school, but I've heard over and over that getting it right is supposed to trump all else when it comes to umpiring a game. Despite Scott's apparent momentary brain cramp, it seems like getting it right was accomplished here.

Where in the rule book does it say the "foul" signal is absolute and irreversible? If this was true, why weren't the other three umpires obligated to overrule Scott?

yes, i've asked once already if there is a rule that addresses this.