Double play?

[StLouBlue]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The video doesn't show any call. U3 went out on it but that's all you can see. My guess is U3 called a catch (I thought it was a voluntary release) and the runner only saw the ball on the ground and took off for 2nd (oops).

Had the initial call been no-catch and subsequently changed, I am certain R1 would have been returned to 1st.

If U3 ruled it a catch, it raises a few questions:

1. First and foremost, why did U2 signal the runner safe at second? This fact alone leads me to conclude U3 ruled it a no-catch.


2. Why did Gardenhire keep making a "safe" motion, as if to indicate that's what U3 did? (Circumstantial to be sure, but persuasive when combined with the other observations.)

3. Why did the MLB Ejections site say both runners were originally called safe?

4. And not that the announcers are geniuses, but their initial call of the action was that it was dropped. Even the dopey announcers will usually notice if the umpire calls the batter out on a catch.

5. And now we hear some people at the game said it was ruled no-catch.

That's enough for me to conclude U3 ruled "no catch."

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by StLouBlue

1. First and foremost, why did U2 signal the runner safe at second?

My guess is that he wasn't responsible for seeing if he tagged up.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by yawetag

My guess is that he wasn't responsible for seeing if he tagged up.

your Guess is right, that is U1's job. U2 did his and ruled the runner safe as he beat the throw and tag to the base.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by StLouBlue

If U3 ruled it a catch, it raises a few questions:


3. Why did the MLB Ejections site say both runners were originally called safe?

The captions at MLB ejections are often erroneous and/or ridiculous. I've been told that they are sometimes just taken from statements made by the announcers.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by StLouBlue

If U3 ruled it a catch, it raises a few questions:

1. First and foremost, why did U2 signal the runner safe at second? This fact alone leads me to conclude U3 ruled it a no-catch.

Possibly it was because the defense had not made an unmistakeble appeal yet. So, he was just ruling on the attempt to retire a baserunner.

[johnnyg08]

search obstruction on MLB.com videos once...then search interference. nothing further your honor

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Possibly it was because the defense had not made an unmistakeble appeal yet. So, he was just ruling on the attempt to retire a baserunner.

Looked pretty unmistakeable to me. He was standing on the bag for a few seconds and the tag was applied with the fielder looking at the umpire. Can't tell what was said, though.

[JeremyGrey]

Well, now I've read that U3 may have called catch immediately followed by the transfer mechanic which must have been misinterpreted by R1 (and apparently U2 and everyone else) as a safe/no catch mechanic. That appears to be what Gardenhire is arguing in the video, giving both mechanics together illustrating how similar they are and the confusion. So, I guess the right call might have been made initially, but it doesn't appear to have been clear to anyone besides the guy who made it.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JeremyGrey

Well, now I've read that U3 may have called catch immediately followed by the transfer mechanic which must have been misinterpreted by R1 (and apparently U2 and everyone else) as a safe/no catch mechanic.

At a recent clinic, the instructors made a point to instruct us to do the "on the transfer" mechanic with your arm going upward, not outward.

As they explained it, especially with their back turned, it does look like a half-assed safe mechanic. Doing it upward, it looks like what it is, whether their back is turned or not.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Matt

Looked pretty unmistakeable to me. He was standing on the bag for a few seconds and the tag was applied with the fielder looking at the umpire. Can't tell what was said, though.

Could be. I only saw the play once on some highlight. I was just speculating as to possibilities.

[GoodwillRef]

Wow...you can argue that the ball fell out before the fielder reached in his glove...make the fielder complete the play fully.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Wow...you can argue that the ball fell out before the fielder reached in his glove...make the fielder complete the play fully.

The glove was closed on the ball. He opened the glove to make it possible to reach in to get the ball.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The glove was closed on the ball. He opened the glove to make it possible to reach in to get the ball.

I agree but I can see where the Twins manager had an argument.