The Lofton Out at Second

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

being all over a tag play is coming from their supervisors. the proper positioning for this play, again, from their supervisors, is to put the bag between you and the ball, which would mean that he would have had to be in the path of the sliding runner to be in what they want for proper positioning. obviously he couldn't be in the path, so he had to choose one side or the other. take it step by step. he started in the outfield, so if he went to the 3b side on the way in he would be crossing the path of the ball. so he went the other way, keeping the developing play in front of him. as the play developed, he moved in to get all over the play, per what their supervisors want. you can like it, or you can not like it, but everybody on here that gives advice says to do whatever your supervisor wants, correct?

Bobby. bobby, bobby.......are you expecting consistency of thought from internet poster? Fie!

This summer of following MiLB umpires around the southwest and northwest was one of many revelations. The impact of umpire supervisors, previously invisible, became "in your face" obvious.

[archangel]

My 1st thoughts on watching the play live was, Lofton was out and Wow- the ump was really close when kneeling and did Lofton bump him?
After the slomo replays, I just hoped that the out(no run scored) wouldnt be a factor in who wins...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Wing nut U2 didn't hustle to get proper positioning more than likely. He either thought it was a sure double or Lofton wasn't going attempt second. Poor mechanics for a a game seven playoff umpire.

The expected call in a playoff game. Give me a break.

Lofton --> didn't say a word to the umpire
Wedge --> stayed in the dugout

Must've been a HORRIBLE call if the only complaints were by the rabble-rousing announcers.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Lofton --> didn't say a word to the umpire
Wedge --> stayed in the dugout

Must've been a HORRIBLE call if the only complaints were by the rabble-rousing announcers.

I think we have come full circle to the point of this thread.
Sort of like the brouhaha over McClelland's call in the Padres/Athletics' game.

[DG]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, the aforementioned is not a good example because that type of play would be on the list of items that are not reviewable.

Not everything in PRO football is reviewable and the same would be true in baseball.

What will probably be indoctrinated into baseball as far as IR goes is on a HR vs. book rule double and whether or not the ball was fair/ Foul concerning a dinger. Also, if a fan interfered with a ball in play.

The type of play you refer to would not be reviewable.

Pete Booth

I am NOT a proponent of instant replay in baseball, but why wouldn't it be reviewable? There are numerous football judgement plays that are: were both feet in bound when the catch was made, was he juggling the ball as he went out of bounds, was his knee down when the ball came out of his hands, did the ball cross the plane, was the QB's hand going forward when the ball came out, and so on. There has to be irrefutable evidence to reverse the call on the field, and if that were applied to the call on Lofton it would very likely be reversed.

I think you are assuming that if baseball adopted an IR they would only review fair/foul and HR or not, judgement calls which are sometimes reversed after an umpire huddle. Why would safe or out be off limits?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Lofton --> didn't say a word to the umpire
Wedge --> stayed in the dugout

Must've been a HORRIBLE call if the only complaints were by the rabble-rousing announcers.

Don'r forget the unhappy internet umpires. That's a force to be reckoned with.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by DG

I am NOT a proponent of instant replay in baseball, but why wouldn't it be reviewable? There are numerous football judgement plays that are: were both feet in bound when the catch was made, was he juggling the ball as he went out of bounds, was his knee down when the ball came out of his hands, did the ball cross the plane, was the QB's hand going forward when the ball came out, and so on. There has to be irrefutable evidence to reverse the call on the field, and if that were applied to the call on Lofton it would very likely be reversed.

I think you are assuming that if baseball adopted an IR they would only review fair/foul and HR or not, judgement calls which are sometimes reversed after an umpire huddle. Why would safe or out be off limits?

Oh good, let's make sure the second baseman or shortstop has possession of the ball and contact with second base on every double play opportunity and that every slide into a tag has clear evidence that the tag, while waiting for the runner, actually touched the runner before he touched the bag.
And on any close play at first base, let's slow down the replays to make sure. And what about balls and strikes...let's go to Questech every time the manager says "Where was that pitch?"
What a wonderful six hour game we will have,.but, damn it, every call will be correct. Even the ones no one argued about.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Don'r forget the unhappy internet umpires. That's a force to be reckoned with.

You misspelt "farce".

[PeteBooth]

Why would safe or out be off limits?

[/QUOTE]

RE: Continuous action

In baseball "moves" are predicated on what the umpire calls.

Example:

Game tied bottom 9 runners at the corners.

Ground ball to F4 who attempts a tag on R1.

Let's freeze. The call by the umpire is now crucial because it will determine F4's next move.

Let's say U2 calls R1 Out on the tag and then F4 fires to F3 to complete the inning ending DP and we head for extra innings.

Now the play goes to the replay booth. There is indistibutable evidence that shows that F4 DID NOT TAG R1.

Now what?

Score the run - Game over
Put R2 on second return R3 to third - 2 outs

Suppose in the original play R3 was a slow runner and had the umpire not ruled R1 out on the tag, F4 would have fired to F2 and R3 would have been a dead duck

There are to many "what ifs" in baseball when there is continuous action.

That's why I say that baseball will most likely adopt IR but ONLY on a HR vs. Book rule double, Fair / Foul on a HR or Fan interference.

Why!

Because on those type plays the ball is Dead and can be fixable.

Pete Booth

[jimpiano]

RE: Continuous action

In baseball "moves" are predicated on what the umpire calls.

Example:

Game tied bottom 9 runners at the corners.

Ground ball to F4 who attempts a tag on R1.

Let's freeze. The call by the umpire is now crucial because it will determine F4's next move.

Let's say U2 calls R1 Out on the tag and then F4 fires to F3 to complete the inning ending DP and we head for extra innings.

Now the play goes to the replay booth. There is indistibutable evidence that shows that F4 DID NOT TAG R1.

Now what?

Score the run - Game over
Put R2 on second return R3 to third - 2 outs

Suppose in the original play R3 was a slow runner and had the umpire not ruled R1 out on the tag, F4 would have fired to F2 and R3 would have been a dead duck

There are to many "what ifs" in baseball when there is continuous action.

That's why I say that baseball will most likely adopt IR but ONLY on a HR vs. Book rule double, Fair / Foul on a HR or Fan interference.

Why!

Because on those type plays the ball is Dead and can be fixable.

Pete Booth[/QUOTE]

Excellent point.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by David B

Watch the replay, there is no way that's where you want to be to make this call.

At least not a MLB umpire, that's a LL mistake.

I would have made the same call, but I would have made it from 12 -15 feet

thanks
David

12- 15 feet!!!!!!!!!!! That's why you're not in the show.

[TxUmp]

Among other reasons.

[cmckenna]

But if you watched the replay when they showed it again in one of the later innings, you could clearly see that yes Lofton's hand did touch the base but then he clearly came up off the bag and there was a time, while the tag was in contact where no part of Lofton was touching the bag.

Good call.

[David B]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

12- 15 feet!!!!!!!!!!! That's why you're not in the show.

I don't want to be in the show, but I do know proper positioning for this play, and I'm sure his supervisor has made certain that he knows it.

MLB pays too much money for an obvious mistake, and they are professionals paid lots of money for what they do.

I don't have a problem with the call as I stated earlier, but I was just making a point to many of our younger officials,

"the umpire was not in the best position to make the call"

Thanks
David

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by David B

I don't want to be in the show, but I do know proper positioning for this play, and I'm sure his supervisor has made certain that he knows it.

MLB pays too much money for an obvious mistake, and they are professionals paid lots of money for what they do.

I don't have a problem with the call as I stated earlier, but I was just making a point to many of our younger officials,

"the umpire was not in the best position to make the call"

Thanks
David

All you younger officials out there pay no mind to this guy. He is wrong in this case.