|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 10:54am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Lofton Out at Second
Seems to me that the play at second where Kenny Lofton was out on a nice throw from Manny Ramirez is a perfect example of why instant replay is a bad idea in MLB.
Lofton went in hand first, the umpire was in perfect position and the ball beat Lofton, but slow mo replays showed Lofton's hand beat the tag which first grazed the bag as it swept toward him. Lofton never argued the call and went back to the dugout. It is a play that is called the same way hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the regular season. The players know that a slide into the tag when the ball is there the result is most likely an out, even if the foot or hand gets in. Agonizing on each of those calls over slo-mo replays would serve no useful purpose and delay the game to the point of boredom. 
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 12:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
lofton out
yes, but don't you want to make the correct call? A nice slide that clearly beats the tag even though the ball was there and you want to call him out!
So if a runner beats the ball, but the defensive player clearly finds a way to tag the runer out, do we now call him safe? Be careful!
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 01:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A nice slide that avoids the tag is much different than coming straight in to the tag. Kenny Lofton knew the situation and the result, even though he knows he got his hand on the bag first. That is the way the game is played. And everyone accepts plays like that as the "right" call, even though instant replay does not.
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 02:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know if this would ever make the list of calls eligible for an IR review but, I believe the right call was made for the given situation though.
Why, the umpire was right on top of the play and the ball beat the runner to the bag. The fielder made a swipe tag that could or could not have got the tip of the runners fingers. The runner had a slight hesitation getting to second. The umpire did not have the benefit of reviewing the call 3 times at 3different angle's either. It is impossible to have perfection in an unperfect game. Batters only hit around 30%. Pitchers are probably less that 60% effective. Fielders make errors. Humans play the game. The ONLY thing we have not taken into consideration here is the media. They make there living and thrive on the controversy. Right or Wrong
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 03:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
He was way too close to the play for some reason and might have been a problem on the call. He probably could have seen it from a better distance, it looked on TV like he was only about five feet from the call. Don't know how that happened ... Thansk David
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 03:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 I also don't believe that the umpire was "too close" to the play. He just made the "expected call," which was the correct call for that situation. Still not a reason to institute instant replay. Yes, it was that one darn call on Kenny Lofton that lost the game for the Indians.  Oh well, back to burning up.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 03:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Lofton tried to catch Ramirez napping, and failed. I didn't notice the umpire too close to the play.
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 04:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you see the replay from the camera angle behind first base (looking up the a$$ end of the play), you will see Lofton's right foot make contact with the umpire's front foot. That is way too close. I am not saying that his being too close played any part in his making the call (either the "expected" call or the wrong one, whichever side of the debate you are on), but he was definitely too close.
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 04:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 04:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The expected call in a playoff game. Give me a break.
__________________
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me? Last edited by Steven Tyler; Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:45pm.
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 05:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 05:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 06:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Fair or foul is not that hard, since the foul line in baseball is fair and the foul pole has a large screen in fair territory. In football the ball must be entirely inside the extended upright, but in baseball it does not. Glad to see you would not burden the game with any other replays.
|
|
Mon Oct 22, 2007, 06:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
