|
|
|
Sat Apr 05, 2008, 07:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bases loaded, 1 one out. Jose Reyes hits a diving line drive to Kotsay in CF. Kotsay traps the ball (it was pretty obvious to me on live TV) and Bruce Dreckman rules it a catch. Mets are fuming. Willie Randolph comes out to argue and the crew huddles. Note: The Braves got a double play because R2 did not tag up after he saw the ball hit the turf. Gerry Davis and his crew decided to credit each runner including the B-R with one base and allow one run to score. The kicker was that on the play the R2 passed R3 who stood on third thinking there had been a catch. Bobby Cox argued that the reversal of the call was OK but R2 should be called out because he passed R3. The umpires did not call R3 out.
All I can figure is that the crew realized that they had made a mistake and the only way to salvage it was to give each runner including the B-R one base. Lawrence 
|
|
Sat Apr 05, 2008, 09:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Don't ever tell me agian that Replay doesn't have a place in baseball.
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day." 
|
|
Sat Apr 05, 2008, 09:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now: The umpires got together, got the call right, put the runners where they believed they should be. With instant replay: UIC would view the instant replay, the umpires would get together, get the call right and put the runners where they believed they should be. Wow. What a difference IR would have made.
|
|
Sun Apr 06, 2008, 01:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 .Both are exampled by your post above. By "interesting" I do mean as in watching a a cat with a hobbled leg fall in a lake.
__________________
"The size of the mind is proportionate to the ability to challenge the norm. "
|
|
Sun Apr 06, 2008, 05:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sun Apr 06, 2008, 05:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
A question on mechanics with reference to this play:
Did the U3 (Dreckman) ask for help and therefore, there was a conference that ultimately led to a reversal of the call? OR did the crew chief (I believe Davis) on his own call for a conference, and that ultimately led to the reversal (Dreckman changing his call)? The report I read in the paper indicated that Davis called for a conference among the umpires first. If it did occur this way, is this an acceptable procedure for umpire crew (whether 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, or 6-man) to at least start a discussion?
|
|
Sun Apr 06, 2008, 06:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gentlemen,
Correct me if I'm wrong: But if I'm not mistaken precedent was set two seasons ago when a crew changed a "foul" call to "fair" (NOT on a homerun or ground rule double). Up until that point, we had had reversals of "fair" to "foul" (which are easy to do because all the umps have to do is put everyone back to their TOP base and add a "strike" on the batter's count). But I believe this play was the first time we had the opposite: A "foul" changed to "fair" (when the ball did not leave the playing field), all pursuant to the "get it right" mantra. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves me correct, this was a big to-do two seasons ago. If my memory IS correct...then I believe that game truly serves as the precedent in which MLB umpires told the world that, "we're gonna get it right...no matter what".
|
|
Sun Apr 06, 2008, 08:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Indeed it happened in 2006, involving Randy Marsh, the Mets, and the Phillies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/sp...ll/29mets.html
__________________
Throwing people out of a game is like riding a bike- once you get the hang of it, it can be a lot of fun.- Ron Luciano
|
|
Mon Apr 07, 2008, 10:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
|
|
Mon Apr 07, 2008, 11:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But upon watching the replay U2 was acting like he did not see anything. The other thing from what I saw is that U3 was surprised by the catch attempt and did not go out hardly at all which put him in a straighline since the F8 was coming right at him. But once U3 asked for help I'm sure that U2 and U1 both had seen the no catch. I can understand the award of one base, but since the passing of runner is a live ball play, (ball is not dead) then he could have been called out. Shortly after this PU missed a close pitch and allowed Hudson to vent and Cox. I thought that was unusual but I'm sure they all felt like they had enough egg on their faces. thanks David
|
|
Mon Apr 07, 2008, 11:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Never mind. I don't want to know.
__________________
GB
|
|
Mon Apr 07, 2008, 11:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
(Note: In a 4-man crew it's not the second base umpire's call on such a fly ball when U2 is in the infield. My lack of hustle comment refers to the many times I've seen Gorman look totally lazy out there.)
|
|
Tue Apr 08, 2008, 02:22am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sounds like MLB has instructed to get it right no matter what rules/conventional logic you need to use. They basically guessed the end of the play!
Granted, it is what probably should have happened. But suddenly baseball is the only sport that can go back and guess like this. Player is ruled out of bounds in football and then gets tackled 15 yards down field, tough luck. Can't guess the end of the play. Same with basketball, call him OOB, he's out, end of story. I just don't like it one bit... after they ruled no catch, shouldn't have R1 been out on force when F8 threw to 2B to double up R2. Maybe I'm just not thinking outside the box enough...
|
|
Sun Apr 06, 2008, 10:07am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It appears that MLB has adopted FED rule 10-2-3(l) Rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage. Therefore, in the future there is precendent that in a game played under OBR rules we as umpires can "fix" it. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
