HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 02:58 PM
Here's what appears to be the rule: 7.08(e)
"Any runner is out when-- (e) He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:06 PM
Holy shit, look what shows up if you have a bad link and get a 404 error on MLB's website!
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:08 PM
Holy shit, look what shows up if you have a bad link and get a 404 error on MLB's website!
Refresh the page. They have a bunch.
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:15 PM
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:18 PM
By the way, took this at the Hall of Fame.
Can't say MLB doesn't have a sense of humor.
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:18 PM
Now im confused. If ties aren't in the rulebook then they never happen in baseball? Yeah. Like "Code Reds" in "A Few Good Men" They aren't in the Marine Corps manual so they dont exist.
So this is a case where at least one umpire, McClellan, has the rules wrong. He says the runner has to beat the ball, the book says the ball has to beat the runner. Both statements tell you, without "telling you", what to do in the event of a tie, and both statements contradict the one another. Its like the transfer argument all over again, ruling a guy automatically safe if a dropped ball in the transfer goes to replay. Umpires not having an understanding of the rules as they are written. Thats a problem, no? A bigger problem then what to do to make replay more streamline. The point is to get the calls right. You have to know the rules to make the right calls.
To be fair, though...it IS Tim McClellan...
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:19 PM
MLB umpires have a very good understanding of the rules. They are incredibly well-trained.
I also think you are wrong that umpires are calling all transfer calls as safe if they go to replay. I know you said you heard a report from someone that they were doing that, but I think that report must be absolute nonsense. I think they've gotten a few of these reviews wrong, but I don't think there is some agenda to call all of the runners safe in this specific case.
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:27 PM
MLB umpires have a very good understanding of the rules. They are incredibly well-trained.
I also think you are wrong that umpires are calling all transfer calls as safe if they go to replay. I know you said you heard a report from someone that they were doing that, but I think that report must be absolute nonsense. I think they've gotten a few of these reviews wrong, but I don't think there is some agenda to call all of the runners safe in this specific case.
HOF
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:37 PM
My only two real issues are what Pedro said... the team leaving the field after the 3rd out, but then having to come back... but not really sure how to avoid that necessarily.
The other is the managers who are slowly turtling out of the dugout as slooooow as possible to "argue" with the umpire, while glancing back in the dugout the whole time waiting for the thumbs up or thumbs down. It's just so obvious what they're doing, why not call a spade a spade. Ideally, they'd review plays centrally (the ump would get a buzz from the control room in New York, and the play would go to review.
I Miss McNulty
Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:00 PM
That's the way to do it IMO -- have a neutral party buzz when a play is reviewable. The problem there is, you see an increase in reviews -- some of these college games are ridiculous. I remember a Maryland game late in the 4th where 3-4 straight plays were reviewed.
There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note
"Now OPS sucks. Got it."
"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."
"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty
@bopper33
HOF
Posted 20 October 2015 - 09:10 PM
Posnanski: Upon Further Review--There are unintended consequences to review that take away from the game
Let’s just say that during the Royals-Blue Jays game on Tuesday, it again occurred to me clearly why I think instant replay review hurts baseball … and football … and every other sport. And it directly has to do with the seemingly inarguable idea that you want to “get the calls right.”
So, yes, I imagine most of you should probably stop reading now.
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 21 October 2015 - 07:00 AM
Posnanski: Upon Further Review--There are unintended consequences to review that take away from the game
There is truth in what he's saying... what gets people PO'd at umps and refs is when they blow an obvious one... nobody complains about a runner whose foot comes of the bag for 0.07 seconds... his idea ain't bad...
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
HOF
Posted 21 October 2015 - 07:24 AM
There is truth in what he's saying... what gets people PO'd at umps and refs is when they blow an obvious one... nobody complains about a runner whose foot comes of the bag for 0.07 seconds... his idea ain't bad...
His idea is bad.
MVP
Posted 21 October 2015 - 08:04 AM
Posnanski: Upon Further Review--There are unintended consequences to review that take away from the game
Holy cow the first paragraph of the article makes me want to jump off a bridge. "We would never believe that baseballs and footballs follow the basic laws of physics and motion that we have come to expect to be true for literally every item in the universe had we not invented cameras that show video in fractions of seconds to prove it!"
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 21 October 2015 - 09:46 AM
Holy cow the first paragraph of the article makes me want to jump off a bridge. "We would never believe that baseballs and footballs follow the basic laws of physics and motion that we have come to expect to be true for literally every item in the universe had we not invented cameras that show video in fractions of seconds to prove it!"
He just phrased it wrong... what he meant was you wouldn't believe what super-slo-mo shows about objects seriously deforming... it wasn't about the laws of physics, it was about the micro-momentary consequences of them which aren't otherwise visible to us, that's all....
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
Fair-weather ex-diehard
Posted 21 October 2015 - 09:48 AM
His idea is bad.
Do you want micro-second exactitude on NFL delay-of-game penalties too?
"The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige
HOF
Posted 21 October 2015 - 10:14 AM
Do you want micro-second exactitude on NFL delay-of-game penalties too?
HOF
Posted 21 October 2015 - 12:41 PM
Do you want micro-second exactitude on NFL delay-of-game penalties too?
Yes. And sensors in the edge of the ball and field so you know exactly how far a ball reached if that can be implemented. All of that would be improvements over the best guesses that we have now.
Baseball has always used technology and visual aides to help make things more accurate. That's why they put lines on the field and a foul pole sticking up in the air. Eyes weren't accurate enough to consistently get those calls right, so they added technology to help get them right more often. I don't think I've ever heard somebody complain that a ball that hits the foul pole could have been called foul 100 years ago before they added the technology to make it more obvious. Nobody will complain in a few years that a guy who overslid 2B and got called out would have been called safe if we hadn't slowed it down to take a look.
The reasonable critiques of replay are that it can interrupt the flow of a game and can add time to the length of the game. That's absolutely true, and it's up to everybody to decide for themselves how much time and feel you're willing to sacrifice to get a call right. If he was arguing he doesn't wanna trade any time or momentum to be more accurate than umpires can be trained to be on the field, that's a reasonable argument. I think it's totally unreasonable to complain because he doesn't really wanna know what actually happened, just what looked like it happened at first glance.
I Miss McNulty
Posted 21 October 2015 - 12:45 PM
I'm against the robotic strike zone.
There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note
"Now OPS sucks. Got it."
"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."
"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty
@bopper33
HOF
Posted 21 October 2015 - 12:53 PM
I think it's an impractical request at this point and for the near future. I don't want Questec or PitchFX announcing whether a pitch is a ball or strike at this point over the opinion of an ump behind the plate, I don't think they are good enough (a big part of why I don't like catcher pitch-framing stats, I don't buy that the things tracking that know that a pitch called a strike should have been a ball or vice versa). I think it's still to difficult to define what the strike zone should be for each batter to be an effective measure at this point. If it's not gonna be any more accurate, then stick with the status quo.
But, if that problem is solved, I'd much rather have a visual or technological way of determining if any part of the ball was within the strike zone over any part of the plate than having an umpire decide.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
