Double play?
 

Anyone see this? If the runner went to second because of the original 'no catch' call, and would have returned to first had it initially been called correctly, shouldn't you allow him to go back to first when you correct the 'catch' call?

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | OAK@MIN: Gardenhire ejected for disputing double play - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

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.

I didn't see the game, and you're right the replay does not show what is important (the umpire's initial ruling), but some people at the game say the umpire signaled "no catch" (which was Gardenhire's argument). OTOH, what fan watches the umpires, so I suspect that is something repeated instead of something actually seen...

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."

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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