Mets / Braves - Top 5th
 

Anyone see the mess in the Top of the 5th?

What'd you think?

No...but this is why I paid for the MLB TV subscription on MLB.com...so I could watch archived games when there is a cluster...(which is what I'm assuming happened).

When the game is over (and the Final 4 is over (its halftime of game 1) ) I'll be checking it out.

Any details?

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

To Old Guard:

Don't ever tell me agian that Replay doesn't have a place in baseball.

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.

There are two things I find interesting about you Mr. Umpire. 1) Your ability to follow Deej and my posts, within moments at times...a testament to your predilection for crystal ball gazing, no doubt. 2) Your parallel ability to determine the Unknown. :D.

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.

Hi Lawrence

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

I'm not saying you're wrong, Peter, but I'd hate to have a "precendence" set on one example, when we might never know whether the crew is "admonished" over what they did or praised.

Once we see other examples, we might know.

And, the general example (catch / no-catch with runners) is listed in NCAA as something that should not be changed.

Bob just to clarify

Are you saying that if the play in the Braves / Mets game was played under NCAA rules, then the DP would have stood?

IMO, that goes against what the NCAA has been saying meaning 'get the call right"

Bottom line: Give Gerry Davis credit. Even the infamous Bobby Cox didn't argue too much. His only "beef" was that he felt there should have been 2 outs (a runner passing another)

Also, IMO, even though it's only one instance it does set some kind or precedent in PRO ball to allow umpires to "fix" things.

I guess Rob Drake shut his site down just in time as IMO, his site would have over-loading with this play.

Pete Booth

On such plays, no, it doesn't have a place in baseball. This was a rather stupid example for you to cite. A better example would have been a ball that goes around the foul pole and was incorrectly called.

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?

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".

Indeed it happened in 2006, involving Randy Marsh, the Mets, and the Phillies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/sp...ll/29mets.html

Men,

Personally I thought the cat was out of the bag with the disputed run in the Baltimore-Cleveland game last year. Now it is get it right, no matter how many innings later....

I was watching the game and never did understand the mechanics. If U3 was unsure he should have looked to U2 who had a much better view of the play.

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

How does one "vent and Cox?"

Never mind. I don't want to know.

That would be Brian Gorman, who acts that way all the time. Hustle is not in his vocabulary.

(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.)

I have your back on this lawump, one more reason that Replay is on its way in and Old Guard on their wau O-U-T

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...

[QUOTE]That seems to be the argument "taking out the human element of the game" but the game should not be decided if there is technology to fix things.

All other major sports have replay. Also, the NCAA uses replay for basketball / football

Let's take last night's NCAA Championship game between Memphis and Kansas.

Rose the Memphis point guard hit an incredible shot as time was expiring. He was originally credited with a 3 point field goal.

However, later on the play was reviewed and changed to a 2 point field goal (the proper ruling because Rose when he took the shot had one foot inside the 3 point circle)

The game eventually went into over-time. Had that call not been reversed Memphis might have won the game by that 1 point.

Personally I do not understand most people not wanting replay in baseball. The game has changed from what it was in the so called "glory days" so IMO it's time to add IR to baseball.

IMO, it will not add time because the umpires already huddle and discuss.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]Since, its been implied by a certain poster that I'm in some "new guard", I'll post my 2-cents:

I'm in favor of replay in some form for plays that don't require the umpires to have ask one another in their huddle, "now that we reversed the call...what would have happened had we called it right originally?"

For example: It is very easy to change a "fair" call to "foul" after the play is over if one is using replay. Just put all the runners on their TOP base and the batter back at-bat with a "strike" added to his count.

However, if the umpires were to change a "foul" call (hit down the line (but NOT over the outfield fence) ) to "fair" via replay...they now have to play GOD to determine "what would've happened". That, IMO, should not be allowed under a replay system.

PMFBI... As a fan of MLB, I disagree strongly that replay should be used. I also do not like the use of the QuesTec for controlling the strike zone.

One of the reasons (IMO) baseball is such a good game is due to the officiating by completely human umpires, including their skills and their approaches to the game.

If using technology to call the "perfect" game was such a good thing, why did Curt Schilling take a bat to one of the QuesTec cameras recently?

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]Pete I see your point, but you're not comparing apples to apples. In basketball the change from a 3 to a two is done often without replay.

One official signals three, the other has two and changes. Even the use of the replay didn't affect any of the playing action.

In baseball so much of the playing action hinges on the call that is made at that time - a catch, missed ball, fair/foul etc.,

Watching the game unfold the other day at Atlanta was bad, it looked bad, and all of the players were speechless.

As mentioned, even Bobby "eject" Cox had nothing to say bad about the call or the umpires.

Thanks
David

If Curt Schilling is your Poster Boi for "why no technology in baseball officiating" God Help The Old Guard.

Very seriously and IU, myself and others have chimed in with specific prposals when to and not to use it.

The human element, if meant to mean mistakes that could be undone with using technology, you can have it. I'm for calling the game so that thbest team wins and officiating mistakes are minimized.

Here's a wake up call. You're dreaming. Or your MITB has gone terminal.

Youth grows old, one day you will wake up and:

1) When a DR tells you to rest, yo will rest
2) You will listen instead of buying junk protecive gear and endangering your health
3) You will clearly recognize the Old Guard because you will see them as you or not you.

Love,
The Deej "new Guardian"

"New Guardian Rules

We don't attack or diminish the youth
We don't take anything at face value without constant (re)inspection
We do assume everything can be changed since all comes from hoomans
We do expect that there will be resistance
We don't dribble in our cups like the Old Guard. :D

This whole thread needs RIGHT GUARD (tm) because something stinks.

I clearly identified my perspective on this as a fan, not a member of the guard, old or new. My point with Schilling was simple, but apparently not simple enough for you to comprehend. Umpires don't like the "technology" solution. Neither do pitchers. Why? It removes the human element (or in the case of QuesTec, just distorts it, since the technology still requires a different human to calibrate it, and the umpires and players recognize that each ball park calibrates it differently).

And, neither does this fan like the technology-supplied solution.

Getting the technically correct call 100% of the time by using technology is not a good thing, IMO. I disagree at this fundamental level. 100% correct calls enforced by automatons is not the holy grail of the ideal baseball game.

Anyone who thinks the "technology" will end with QuesTec and video replay fails to recognize the real trend. Eventually, the technology will be there to use electronic sensors to make sure many more parts of the game are done 100% "correctly." Will this make baseball a better game? Absolutely NOT!

Excellent post, start to finish.

Interesting that people are against athletes using technology (is steroids not a form of technology?) to improve their part of the game, but all for replay to improve the umpires part of the game?

I say, if you rule out steroids, you HAVE to rule out replay.

I am sticking with that. :)