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

Not here to rag on the umpire, but rather wondering about the replay implications.

Should this / could this kind of call be overturned by a "reasonable" replay system for MLB?

The replay video was clear enough. I just wonder whether this kind of play is in the discussion for an eventual expansion of the replay system.

No.

MLB currently has a reasonable replay system. No reasonable replay system for baseball would allow fixing this.

MLB.com Must C | Must C Curious: Tigers believe Aviles strikes out - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Agreed, replay of this play and others like it is not "reasonable" IMHO. Replay in MLB really feels like a slippery slope, there is no end to what COULD be replayed and subsequently overturned. Not a fan of replay in MLB (or any baseball) period.

I agree, D Ray. In other sports it is fairly easy to draw a clear line where replay should and should not be used. With baseball I just don't see that beyond what they have now.

I would like to think that baseball wouldn't need to go the route of instant replay, but am becoming convinced that is highly unlikely. There are too many blatently blown calls and at some point this will become unacceptable to those in the game (players, managers, team owners, fans). If these guys are supposed to be the best in the business, than I guess I really suck !!!:D:D:D

It is reasonable if you want to review every single close call. But that would add a lot of unnecessary time to games and would become a big problem. People already complain about what is reviewed in football and even basketball recently and you think baseball with no timing to their game not be criticized for such a system that added 30 more minutes to games? I just hope they implement this so everyone can see how tedious this would be and get rid of it for ruining the game. But we all can wish can't we?

Peace

Or maybe you've blown more than you think but don't have ESPN replaying it 50 times in an evening.

Many of them are blatant only because of the extensive camera coverage already in place. The foul tip / foul ball call in question would have remained a dispute between Laird and Welke were it not for the multiple camera angles resulting in just the right view of the play. Leyland's ejection and post game rant would not have happened had he not had access to the replay.

I'm not a huge proponent of replay ... but this seems like one of the calls that would not disrupt the game if it were an allowable correctable error.

I'm vastly against the whole... "let's take the crew into the back room" replay nonsense. But if there was a replay official SOMEwhere that could simply call down to the umpire on a call like this, it would be non-disruptive and would fix egregious errors like this one.

I am very much opposed to using replay in MLB, even what they have now. But, then, I'm a curmudgeonly old traditionalist. I also recognize that in today's game with all of the cameras showing replays to the fans, my position is untenable. Expanded replay will be here, if not next year, soon.

It could be greatly expanded to include any call that the current umpiring crew would conference over if it was done with a replay umpire ("RU") that was treated like another member of the crew, who would merely give information to the crew chief through an earpiece.

No one in the on-field crew would actually view the video; the crew chief could decide to use the information provided by RU, or ignore it. If he uses it, it would be done the same as any other umpire conference. The crew would get together and discuss RU's information. As with current umpire conferences, there would be no viewing of replays; only discussing the additional information. The call would be either upheld or overturned based on the conference, the same as it is done now.

Not to pick a nit, but which errors are the egregious ones? Seems like the team that gets the smelly end of the stick would have an argument using egregious as the standard.

Video used as an instructional tool is a wonderful teaching aid. Video used to "correct an error" is a slippery slope. Where does it end? I am not suggesting that the clock get turned back to the days of one umpire for the whole field (unless he is equipped with a monitor :D), but we need to let these guys umpire. They should be working hard because this is their chosen profession and they have a passion for the craft, not because they are trying to be as good as the eye in the sky.

Mike, you're thinking only of how bad the call is, and how much it merits reversing. You're not thinking about how impossible it would be to fix the vast majority of these situations.

This one was called foul with no runners moving. But what if R1 had been running? When you fix it, it will be a foul tip and a live ball. Are you going to send R1 back to 1B and screw the offense or send him to 2B and screw the defense?

The umpires might miss one now and again, but IMO fixing most of them would be impossible without introducing more controversy than the original error.

Did I miss someone asking why the heck the 1B umpire called a foul ball here?

I would rather the HPU look at the ball and see no dirt than have this happen. (not that that is a good policy, either)

I do not want replay on this...it already happens too often. Why can't they just modify some of the ridiculous outfield fences? That makes more sense than three umpires going to have a soda...errr looking at the replay.

To me, this is the problem with replay in baseball. So much hinges on what has happened immediately before that I am fine with living with the bad calls. Once umpires start placing runners it begins to resemble a board game.

You might say, Well, reserve replay for the boundary calls or for when there are no runners on base. Why should baseball fix some umpiring errors but not others? I say, live with them all.

I concur - its' just not possible without disrupting the game. In baseball more than any other sport, calls made on the field dictate what the offense or defense does or does not do.

This play is just one of many, many examples where it just don't work in baseball.

Thanks
David

I see your points.

From how I understand a Foul Tip, not calling it really doesn't matter. It acts like a regular swinging strike. the ball remains live, runners can advance. Its just if its not caught that it matters and becomes a regular Foul Ball. So how does not calling a foul tip mean something?

Because when it is called FOUL, everyone stops. If the umpire caused everyone to stop, and it turns out the play was actually live... how do you fix it?

It can also mean the difference between a win and a loss. Just imagine, bottom of 9th, R3 and R2, visitor ahead by one, 2 outs and something and 2 on the batter. The pitch is a foul tip that was not called a foul tip but a foul ball. The next pitch the batter hits a single. Either one or two score. You go from what should have been a win for the visitor to a possible loss. Most everything in baseball means something.

It could work if it is treated like additional information from another umpire. In situations that can't be fixed, you live with the call, and in situations as in the Detroit / Boston game, you reverse the call, batter out, inning over. In my thoughts, stated earlier, this would be the crew chief's decision whether or not to use the additional information from the replay umpire.

+1

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then everyday would be Christmas. It is what it is...we live in an age of technology, and calls that would never be questioned 50 years ago are now brought into the light of day like never before. The fact is that we have these multiple camera angles, and managers have access to the replay immediately after the play happens. That's why they pay the MLB umpires the big bucks. While it may be unfair for the umpires to be subject to such scrutiny, that's the way it's going to be, so they have to be ready for it every time they make a call, unfortunately.

As a broadcaster and a fan, I wouldn't have a problem with replay like it is now and for whether it is a catch or no catch (though I agree about making the outfield fences simpler to discern). I can see replay used in this particular instance. But limit replays to one challenge per manager. If a call is overturned, a manager gets one more, period. Also if the umpires decide ON THEIR OWN to go to replay, they should do so. If the umpires don't want to use replay and the managers don't/can't challenge, the managers should just live with it.

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.

I am not for replay beyond what exists now, however, it is possible and certain calls could be replayed without delay of game.

I can think of several bad calls that I expect the umpire who made it would like to have reviewed.

Regardless, the BS that umpires are worse now than they were X years ago is simply that: BS.

Agreed, but the additional scrutiny is what leads to the call for replay, and that, as much as I don't like it, is an irresistible force that will result in expansion of replay eventually.

Following the NFL model, where the crew chief goes "under the hood" to review the play and make a decision is where it all goes off the rails with respect to baseball, IMO. All of the issues raised about the difficulty of reversing a call in baseball are legitimate.

It just seems to me that if the replay umpire is treated like any other member of the crew (with the exception that he has no primary call responsibility, but is just another pair of eyes on the play), who then provides the crew chief with his additional information and allows the on-field crew to decide what, if anything, to do with this information, fits baseball to a "T". It adds no additional delay, has no one going "under the hood", creates no new conundrum over placing runners over what already exists, and would allow many calls to be "fixed".

Would it satisfy all fans, managers, players? Would it fix all "bad" calls? Of course not. But it would be workable, IMO.

ITA. The umpires of the past kicked more than their fair share of calls.

In viewing the replay, you can see PU immediately look to U1 for help before making any call. PU got screened.

Don't most umpires get screened on plays like this? You almost always have to get some help or some kind of confirmation from the base umpires in these situations. Or you hope the players act appropriately to help you make the call.

Peace

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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. ;)

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.

jchamp +1
yes, what you said.

Not a bad idea. Doug Eddings needs all the help he can get.