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?

It's certainly outcome-based, and I guess the only argument to defend it is that the overrule happened quickly enough that it increased the odds that play won't be effected. The Dodgers were maybe able to make nice, easy throws in part because bad call was overruled so quickly. If they'd thrown the ball away because they were rushing to get the double-play, then that means the Padres were probably running and unaffected by the call, and the play is even closer to the counter-factual universe where the bad call had not occurred.

I'd say with the overrule, as long as it's done very quickly, you've got a 75% chance of the impact of the bad call being minimal (ideal), a 20% chance of things going pretty bad (ie, a difference that has material effect on how the game will be played that is conditional on umpire error), and a 5% chance of complete disaster (big game event that is the game's deciding factor). With the dead ball, I'd argue it's 100% pretty bad.

Obviously those numbers are pulled completely out of my ass, but I think the odds were good that the game wouldn't have been affected as letting the bad call stand.

So we're in agreement that the signals for "foul" and "time" are the same

Let me copy and paste what I wrote about that.

"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". "

Joe, if you can't see that my explanation is that the signals for "time" and for "foul" are two different things, then having this discussion with you is hopeless.

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

I used the terms: pro and con in order to write as clearly as possible. If you try to explain all the arguments and counter arguments you will quickly see that you would write gobbeldy gook w/o clearly explaining which side you are referring to. I was trying to write as clear as possible and so identified to competing sides in order to make clear what I was talking about.

Oftentimes internet discussion is very different from real life because we dont see added stuff, such as intonation that help better convey the sense of what people are trying to say. People often get their signals crossed, for example when someone misses a sarcastic comment when in real life, the tone or facial gesture would make it clear.

So I would just say that you are mis interpreting me to a degree and also sort of projecting your own take on my comments. We all do that to a degree, but Im just saying I'm not trying to paint people as black or white. But it really helps to clarify discussion to create solid definitions.

A sort of obvious question occurred to me:

What happens if a ball is hit and it goes into foul territory but not yet touched? Does the umpire make a signal or does he not do anything? ANd if the ball then rolls back into fair territory, does he then make a "fair ball" call? The answer might help to illuminate the arguments, or maybe not. I dont know the answer myself.

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.

this is a really bad idea on any number of levels. In terms of precedents, redos are almost never done in professional sports; I dont recall any but maybe you can think of one or two.

In terms of consistency, how on earth would one decide a re-do is called for? WHenever something odd happens? I mean what standard do you use? ANd why in this case? It is really hard to see how this was unfair to the Pads, if that is your angle.

ANd what difference does it make what you think Mattingly would react? Is that your standard for a re-do? That the other manager wont care too much, lets just re-do it.

Am not trying to provoke you or insult you or whatever. I am just trying to pt. out that the alternative: approaches, theories, or explanations that the con side is providing leave a lot to be desired once you try to form a total picture of it all.

Umps wait until the ball stops moving, or if it passes 1B or 3B, before making the fair or foul call.

This is a very basic rule. Now I understand where you're coming from.

Further, that some people here need to have an official rule that defines what "dead" means speaks volumes, and not in a good way.

You are wrong. Re-do's are done, in this sense: you let the original call stand. For the umpteenth time, when the ump raises his hands, it means "time out, ball is dead". So, whatever transpired after Scott changed his mind can be disregarded. The umps get together and agree that the play was dead, and you explain to the managers, and you move on. MLB backs umps most of the time. I can't see MLB not backing them if they made the call as I am suggesting here.

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?

We've had this issue before. It was last year in the playoffs and I made that argument myself: you cant assume a double play so how did we get to x?

SOmeone else explained it to me, that argument doesnt work. But I cant remember the circumstances other than playoffs last year. If this site was better indexed maybe I can find it. It was a fascinating discussion for sure. Sorry I know that is not much help. Perhaps someone will remember it and explain it to us.

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

I think this explanation of "time" and "dead ball" isn't limited to this situation. No, I'm sure it isn't.

Also in my rule search, I found that an ump can, in fact, "assume" a double play:

Rule 7.09 (f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes
with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious
intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner
out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his
teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a
runner.
(g) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately
interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the
obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the
batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had
advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have
been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.


However, 7.06 (a) speaks to my argument, specifically.

You are wrong. Re-do's are done, in this sense: you let the original call stand

can you give an example of this happening in a MLB game?

BTW, it took me less than 3 minutes to find these rules. If those demanding citation were doing so in good faith, they could have done the same. I knew the rule, I went to umpire school years ago. I tried to explain it in less clinical terms. I expected that people who spend a lot of time discussing baseball actually understand simple concepts like "time out" and "dead ball". My bad.

Sure. 2 strikes on a batter, a ball is hit down the line, one ump calls it fair, another calls it foul. After consulting, they decide it was foul, and the batter/runner goes back to the plate to resume his at bat.

In the instance we're discussing, I can't recall it ever happening before, so there's no precedent. Now there is, and it isn't a good one, IMO.

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

I think this explanation of "time" and "dead ball" isn't limited to this situation. No, I'm sure it isn't.

I think this an interesting argument. Are you saying the guy in the batters box is the "obstructed runner?" I guess I have two questions in that case: why is he considered obstructed and how is it a play is being "made on" him?

I expected that people who spend a lot of time discussing baseball actually understand simple concepts like "time out" and "dead ball". My bad.

You know the actual rules in baseball are incredibly arcane and crazy. It's rather disingenous to put people down like that when in fact what seems to be commonplace in baseball is not really when you get down to it.

Another example is golf. Most pro golfers dont know half the rules in the book. Maybe not even 25%. The rules of golf are that crazy.

Sure. 2 strikes on a batter, a ball is hit down the line, one ump calls it fair, another calls it foul. After consulting, they decide it was foul, and the batter/runner goes back to the plate to resume his at bat.

How is that a redo? It's a foul ball. Its not like the foul ball never happened. It seems to me anytime something happens on the field of play, and assuming the ball is live, then there has to be an outcome. A foul ball is an outcome. You dont say nothing happened.

I expected that people who spend a lot of time discussing baseball actually understand simple concepts like "time out" and "dead ball". My bad.

That certainly is your bad, I agree. This is exactly what people who spend a lot of time discussing baseball baseball discuss.

314, I'm not saying anything about the guy in the batters box. I'm citing this rule to explain what "time" and "dead ball" means. Sorry, but I don't have the time to explain any other rules for you right now. I have to get ready for work.

Yes, some of the rules of golf are crazy. Absolutely. But, regarding baseball, I'll leave you with something our instructor in umpiring school impressed upon the class: "Ballplayers don't know all the rules of the game. They think they do, but they don't. So when they argue one that's out of their depth, ignore them, and ask them to stop arguing. Explain the rule to the coach/manager, and move on."

Same here.

A redo would happen, I think in the case where a game is played under protest and the protest is successful. So the game at that pt has to be replayed.

But thats a formal process that has to happen after the game before we get to a redo. Redo's dont normally happen during the regular game time. Or I dont recall them...

OK, Lassus, read 7.06(a) and discuss.

314, I'm not saying anything about the guy in the batters box. I'm citing this rule to explain what "time" and "dead ball" means

OK, I understand you. Threaded discussions are often confusing.

Yeah, 319, that's one way a redo would occur. But what I originally said in 307 stands: "IN THIS SENSE...".

Picking and choosing from the official MLB statement on monday I see this portion:

At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field.

It seems to me that MLB is saying that there has to be a verbal call before they will acknowledge that the play was called dead. I.e. it seems that the lack of verbal signal is the crucial element in all this.

I have no idea if that makes sense or not, just trying to make the "pro" side take their position. I.e this is sort of a fixed target now so the con side now has an objective target to shoot at. If you can knock this part of the argument down, then I guess you are getting the better of it..

I know that MLB's spin. I think it's ########. 7.06(a) says an ump calls "time" with both hands overhead. It doesn't say it's accompanied with a verbal call. That's where Scott made his first mistake. Then, he compounded it by reversing the call, resurrecting the dead ball. Was it Easter Sunday, Sunday? Is this ball beatified?

(Alright, I know little about beatification.)

It seems to me that MLB is saying that there has to be a verbal call before they will acknowledge that the play was called dead.

That's why I've been saying all along that this could have all been a lot less of an issue had Scott and MLB told the truth, ever.

If this is truly the process, that only a verbal calls kills the ball, why is there a hand signal?

This was a very civil discussion until you and a couple others arrived.

Yeah, posting actual rules rather than talking out my posterior really dragged this down.

308-310 - The old rule of thumb about not assuming a double play applies to the official scorer. He can't give an error for not getting 2 outs. (Of course, if you make an overthrow that allows secondary advances, that's still an error. But, for example, it's not an error if a mildly bad throw allows the pivot man to get an out but not get off a throw. The scorer doesn't have the discretion to say "Should have been a double play" and award an error.) Interference calls at second for sliding too high/late/wide routinely assume (and award) double plays.

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?

From Rule 9.02 (c) - "If the umpires consult after a play and change a call that had been made, then they have the authority to take all steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretion, to eliminate the results and consequences of the earlier call that they are reversing, including placing runners where they think those runners would have been after the play, had the ultimate call been made as the initial call, disregarding interference or obstruction that may have occurred on the play; failures of runners to tag up based upon the initial call on the field; runners passing other runners or missing bases; etc., all in the discretion of the umpires."

I find it curious that they don't mention calling people out, but even the particularly obstinate might admit that "take all steps that they may deem necessary" is pretty strong language to say they weren't trapped into lying about the whole thing.

If this is truly the process, that only a verbal calls kills the ball, why is there a hand signal?

From my reading, I guess in the old days the strike/ball signals were done as a courtesy to Dummy Hoy who was deaf. But this was from one of those fan boy books, so I dont know if it was true or not.

Whether this is official policy or not I have no idea. But if it is a courtesy then it's not like an initial hand signal has to be an automatic irrevocable call.

I doubt that's the concept anyhow. I think the assumption in the rules is that the verbal and hand signal will be consistent. And that an ump can override himself if he does it quick enuf; whether the call is by hand signal or verbal is not the deciding factor. He just needs to be decisive which means unambiguous as well as doing it soon enuf to be reasonable.

That's one way to look at it, that I think is consistent with the rules, and understandings that we have seen so far in the debate.

The fact that umpires can re-set base runners would seem to tie into this concept and make the overall concept more or less workable.

The fact that very few appeals succeed, umpire teams rarely huddle up, umps rarely admit a blown call, etc. shouldnt enter into how we view this particular play. I think the ump did a real good job of quickly reversing himself in order to get the right call. Blaming this ump for the fact that calls are rarely reversed and umps are jerks is not fair to him.


another question: Is the second hand signal the most problematical part in all this?

I know that MLB's spin. I think it's ########. 7.06(a) says an ump calls "time" with both hands overhead. It doesn't say it's accompanied with a verbal call. That's where Scott made his first mistake

OK it's clear that Scott made a mistake. I would admit that. So does that mean he cannot correct it? I mean you would argue that the call of dead ball and/or "time" is more or less an absolute end to a play. But why cant he quickly overrule himself? OBviously there are time limits to such, but why cant he overrule himself?

IF it's true he can change his call then:

a) did Scott ultimately make the correct call?
b) were the Padres unfairly victimized by the initial hand gesture (also possibly the second hand gesture)

if you answer: yes, yes, and no; then do you stil have an argument?

I guess the counter argument would be that you cant overrule a dead ball call because people will stop playing and so compromise the outcome of the play. That once you stop it's not easy to re start despite what the ump says.

But the idea that certain call is irreversibel and others are not is sort of at odds with a couple of things. Is there really a difference if ump calls "out no safe" from call of dead ball? WOuldnt runners stop in both cases? Also the umps can reset runners as well.

What if say this situation occurs: there are two outs and two runners on. Batter hits a ball, and there is a tag play at a base. Ump says "out- No! no safe." The other runner hesistates a moment and is cut down as he dives for the bag.

Would you insist:

Play ended with call of "out?"
Runner could be re-set on the bag w/ still two outs on the basis that the ump messed him up?
Would your answer change if the initial call was by hand signal only?

But what I originally said in 307 stands: "IN THIS SENSE...".

IN what sense exactly? In the sense that a foul ball is a re do of an AB? In a certain way it is but I would think it's a totally misplaced analogy.

I mean that's like saying, you steal second and the pitch is hit foul so you go back to base. You calling that a do over? That's an insane person's view of a do over. That's just another foul ball, there's no need to create a concept of do over.

Can you think of any other examples in MLB where they did a do over as if the play never happened? Not counting appeals and not using the foul ball situation?

***

Clearly MLB is NOT the NFL where an inadvertant whistle has to end the play. There is no attempt to figure out where 22 men crashing into each other would have ended up had play not stopped.

Q: Do you believe that baseball can be an eminently fair game without a "inadvertant whistle" NFL type rule? Or do you believe it is absolutely necessary for fairness to end the play in the event of an initial "dead ball/foul ball?"

"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". "

Joe, if you can't see that my explanation is that the signals for "time" and for "foul" are two different things, then having this discussion with you is hopeless.

If Scott was signaling "time" there because of a dead ball and not because of a foul ball, then the only thing he could have seen was an HBP (i.e., dead ball). If so, why didn't he immediately point to first base to indicate the HBP? Or are you claiming that Scott first saw and called an HBP, then immediately changed his mind and decided the pitch hit the bat instead of the batter?

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

I think this explanation of "time" and "dead ball" isn't limited to this situation. No, I'm sure it isn't.

Really? You believe the official, universal language regarding a dead ball and the "time" signal is buried in a comment in the section of the rules dealing with the runner?

BTW, it took me less than 3 minutes to find these rules. If those demanding citation were doing so in good faith, they could have done the same. I knew the rule, I went to umpire school years ago.

Here we go with the "good faith" nonsense again. Why you're so absolutely sure the comment to rule 7.06(a) is baseball's universal "dead ball" rule is beyond me.

I know that MLB's spin. I think it's ########. 7.06(a) says an ump calls "time" with both hands overhead. It doesn't say it's accompanied with a verbal call.

Wow. Are you denying that two hands overhead is also a standard "foul" call?

***

If this is truly the process, that only a verbal calls kills the ball, why is there a hand signal?

As with balls and strikes, the home plate umpire's most urgent obligation is to the catcher and batter, who are in front of him and can't see his hand signals. This is why a verbal "ball" or "strike" call often precedes the hand signal. Likewise, in this particular play, the batter and catcher were in front of Scott, out of sight of any hand signals.

308-310 - The old rule of thumb about not assuming a double play applies to the official scorer. He can't give an error for not getting 2 outs.

For a self-appointed rules expert, you're having a bad day. An official scorer can't assume a throw on a double play, but he can assume a catch (e.g., force out at second and good, on-time relay throw to first is dropped).

If the rule cited about "dead ball" and "time" doesn't satisfy you, find a rule that contradicts what I'm claiming.

IN what sense exactly?

Please read the words I wrote after "in this sense". That should answer your question.

another question: Is the second hand signal the most problematical part in all this?

It's really the only problematic part of this.

What if say this situation occurs: there are two outs and two runners on. Batter hits a ball, and there is a tag play at a base. Ump says "out- No! no safe." The other runner hesistates a moment and is cut down as he dives for the bag.

The umpire would then have the option (some would say obligation) to put that runner back and say that he was affected by the umpire's error.

If the rule cited about "dead ball" and "time" doesn't satisfy you, find a rule that contradicts what I'm claiming.

He won't. In his mind, he's right until we offer a rule that mention Dale Scott and Bud Black by name.