Detroit @ Boston foul tip that wasn't call...

[jwwashburn]

Ok, but if i am the 1BU...there is no way I am calling anything other than the out that the HPU already called unless I am SURE of something else. The guy at 1B guessed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Ok, but if i am the 1BU...there is no way I am calling anything other than the out that the HPU already called unless I am SURE of something else. The guy at 1B guessed.

The HPU called something? It looked like he was totally confused. Not sure why the 1BU could not see this or just make a call. Then again maybe he was sleeping like a lot of us do when nothing is going on at the plate. But this is why you have to concentrate and be engaged in the game.

Peace

[jwwashburn]

The HPU put up his fist.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

The HPU put up his fist.

It looked more like he was going to call and out and realized that the play was tighter than he anticipated. In other words, his actions were more routine and realized he might want to get another opinion to get it right. Well his partners did him no favors and I would not care what he "kind of" signaled, I would have called what I clearly saw after he comes from behind home plate and looking confused.

Peace

[jwwashburn]

But the 1BU did NOT clearly see the ball hit the ground. He obviously had no call that he could make without guessing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

But the 1BU did NOT clearly see the ball hit the ground. He obviously had no call that he could make without guessing.

That is probably true. But that still does not make me wonder why he could not see this. Maybe there were other things obstructing his view. I honestly do not know or hold him so responsible. I just know that this should have been seen by someone and find it a curious miss. That being said we miss things and are never totally perfect. I also think Leyland overreacted as usual to a situation that is not always easy to see. And it is easy to see in slow motion with a close up view. But this is why you have to pay attention and stay alert because these plays become bigger not seen.

Peace

[Publius]

IMO, MLB got replay wrong from the start. In any sport, it should be like the NFL: you get a limited number of challenges, and there's something at stake if your challenge is incorrect.
In baseball, I like 3 challenges per game, with a fourth one granted if two are upheld. A strike is added to the count if the challenge is not upheld.

Hell, catch/no catch and fair/foul could be remedied by new book-rule awards. It wouldn't always be "what would've happened" but it would eliminate the lame arguments that nothing can be done.

[D Ray]

Pablius – What you out line is only a start. You propose to add a strike to the count if the challenge is not upheld. What is the penalty if the DEFENSE challenges, a ball added?

You propose three a game with the possibility of a fourth?? That is a possibility of eight reviews. How many “mistakes” do you think occur each MLB game?

If you want to follow the NFL, make it more strict. One challenge per game with one added if the first is correct. If any challenge is not upheld, the manager is ejected, and an out is either added (on offense) or subtracted (on defense). In exchange, you allow ANYTHING to be challenged, except for ball and strike calls on pitches and checked swings. Only one aspect of a play would be able to be reviewed.

The whole replay issue, especially in baseball, is a fool’s errand. Look at college football. They are still “tweaking” their system. For each problem to seek to solve with replay, you create at least one more.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by D Ray

The whole replay issue, especially in baseball, is a fool’s errand. Look at college football. They are still “tweaking” their system. For each problem to seek to solve with replay, you create at least one more.

The biggest problem with potential replay, the league will not spend the money to put the same camera angles at all games. So a play at certain bases will be missed or be inconclusive like football. But football has a clock and the game is going to eventually end. Baseball you have no idea when that takes place and play can continue after a close play. And if someone is called out by replay and then runners advance, then what will you do with those runners? I think this is why MLB has not gone to replay because it will open up an entire can of worms. In college basketball they were able to review things like elbow contact and if a player should be called for a Flagrant foul. All I heard was commentators complain about how long those things took or that they took place at all for review. I can see where if they get the call right on replay that the delays will be a constant conversation. It is not like baseball is going to enforce any other speed up rules that take place at other levels so that these delays will not affect how long a game will really take.

Peace

[Publius]

Originally Posted by D Ray

You propose three a game with the possibility of a fourth?? That is a possibility of eight reviews. How many “mistakes” do you think occur each MLB game?

Doesn't matter what I think; only what the manager thinks. I've seen three potentially reviewable plays in a game go against one team in MLB many times. The number can be whatever--the point is that there should be some risk for making a challenge.

I like the idea of two incorrect challenges resulting in an ejection and a fine for the manager.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

The HPU put up his fist.

PU did not make a call. In that situation, if he had a catch, he would have emphatically and repeatedly signalled and called "That's a catch! That's a catch!"

In the post-game interview, Welke said he thought he saw dust come up from the ball hitting the ground, but admitted that he was wrong. The fact that F2 had to reglove the ball probably added to his perception -- he thought he saw what normally happens in that circumstance: that the ball hit the ground.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Again, the problem is not when to use replay, it's how to fix errors, especially placing runners. It's simply not possible to operationalize that in any clear and direct way. And that's a deal breaker for rules committees.

How is it handled now? Say a runner is going in this case and everything happens as it did, except 1BU said it was a catch? Aren't there provisions on how to place runners if a call gets overturned on the field?

Not being argumentative. Just want some education on this. Thanks.

[DG]

Finally saw the replay. Announcers should join Leyland, just horrible announcing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

How is it handled now? Say a runner is going in this case and everything happens as it did, except 1BU said it was a catch? Aren't there provisions on how to place runners if a call gets overturned on the field?

Not being argumentative. Just want some education on this. Thanks.

In FED, yes, the umpires get to make up something they think is fair.

In your example, if 1BU said it was a catch, why would they overturn it: it WAS a catch.

AFAIK the only relevant provisions for placing runners appear in existing replay rules, which don't apply to the OP. And placing runners for a HR or foul ball is not difficult.

[jchamp]

Replay proponents have some merit to the arguments. There are some situations that could always be reviewed without disturbing the action of the game (the "flow" or "pace" of the game is another story).

-When a safe or no-catch is ruled which, corrected, would result in a third out.
-Safe or out call with ball in fielder possession near the relevant base and only one runner on base. (Including stolen base attempts.)
-Fair/foul/foul-tip/catch/no-catch with no runners on. (Assuming players proceed as if it is fair and no catch is made.)
-Game winning run safe or out with ball in fielder possession at the plate.

If these are implemented as reviewable plays, the evolution that is similar to that in football is likely. That is, players and officials both "automatically select" the option that allows action to continue, knowing that it can be corrected with the official review. It would eventually be up to the whole community how much they are willing to endure before some amount of regression occurs.

Umpires should not default to "safe" on close third outs or other correctable situations just because they know they can correct it later. It opens the door to horrendous blunders if anyone involved is mistaken about the game situation. It would also result in two vastly different forms of game play, depending on whether the level has replay or not. A huge shift in playing style between the minor leagues and major leagues would create an intangible transition cost between the levels and hurt both of them. Between the measurable monetary outlay, and the immeasurable impact on the quality of the game, the cost to implement replay is simply too high.