Strange(False)Ending in MInnesota 3A semi-final
 

A strange(apparent) ending to a semi-final game in the Minnesaota 3A tournament. Video comes from the ABC station in MInneapolis.

VIDEO: Strange Ending In Eden Prairie vs Bemidji Baseball State Semifinal | KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul

The team that had this happen too did get 2 runs in the top of the 8th and did win the game.

Thoughts on the whole situation?

"...During the celebration, Eden Prairie coach Mike Halloran motioned to first base, seeming to indicate a desire for the called strike to be appealed to the first-base umpire.

The umpires conferred and after a lengthy discussion, the call was reversed...

Two thoughts:

(1) Called strikes cannot be appealed. Wasn't that a called Strike?

(2) Wasn't that a "Safe" signal for the uncaught 3rd strike? It it were, then the signal "Out" should have been made immediately upon F2 tagging the BR. Because it wasn't, a sh$$tstorm developed.

<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/embed/iframe?aspect_ratio=16x9&auto_next=0&auto_start=0& page_count=4&pf_id=8302&pl_id=16468&rel=3&show_tit le=0&va_id=3559782&volume=8&windows=1" width="425" height="330"></iframe>

My thoughts:

1. The PU's mechanics, as far as we can see them, are textbook. Points with the slot hand to indicate the swing and signals no catch. The only thing we can't see in the video is the out call.

2. Given the PU's mechanics to that point, I would be surprised if he neglected to signal the out, but it's possible. But the tag was so obvious, perhaps he simply thought it was an obvious out.

3. The conference was completely unnecessary: there was nothing to discuss. No call to reverse, nothing controversial in what actually happened at the plate, and nothing confusing from the PU. Somebody on that crew stuck his nose where it didn't belong.

4. You can't reverse a call of a swinging strike. There's probably an exception that proves the rule, but even Doug Eddings says he didn't rule a swing.

5. As soon as somebody in that conference said something like "Well Joe, you signaled safe, so they must have thought you said it was a base on balls," I'm replying that it was a strike, the game is over, and that's the end of it. During the game, I don't care if (shocker!) a coach fails to understand my mechanics (mechanics are supposed to communicate, so I do care overall whether there's a systematic issue).

Very puzzling. We have some MN guys on here, maybe they'll have some inside poop.

Methinks that the BU with the sunglasses was not happy for not being assigned the Plate for this game because I am blind in one and and can't see out of the other eye and I knew that the PU signaled that the Batter swung and that the PU signaled an out (ripping the batter out) when F2 tagged the Batter/Runner out.

MTD, Sr.

Agree with MB. Everything looks pretty cut and dry. Mechanics were solid and there isn't any hesitation. I'd be curious to know how/why the PU even stood around long enough for this to become an issue. Game over, let's go home.

The safe signal appeared a bit after tag, although I couldn't say it that was to signal the D3K or not. I have to wonder if the signal was for the barehanded tag and the plate ump thought the ball was in F2's mitt.

Whether the batter offered (I don't think he did) is irrelevant if the plate guy says he did. Nightmare scenario, really. Guessing we'll never know what really happened.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. PU clearly points, and I am assuming he is verbalizing...'yes he went'...he signals with the safe sign, meaning the ball was dropped. My assumption that closely after that, out of view, he is signalling out.

Then the OC asked PU to get help on the check swing. If he asked the U1, then a mistake was made if U1 offered his opinion absent a request from the PU. If he asked PU to confer, I suppose PU could ask U1 what he saw. PU's original call and mechanics were correct, (clearly this was an offer at the pitch), so to change the call at this point was a gross miss. Poorly done by all involved.

Olden times?
 

Normally, I would agree. But those days are long gone. We now live in a get the call right, poorly if it happens, but get the call right.

The play was close, the call was vague, the request to get help was made. At that point, pretty is no longer the criteria, getting the call right was gonna look bad either way. No sympathy for either team.

Overturning the call was the tougher choice, they made it, and then stuck with it. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no turning back. Looks like the teamwork on this crew was strong enough to move on with the game.

The first part of the plate umpires mechanics are solid. Point, you went. I agree with a previous poster that he was "ripping" the strike three call (which shouldn't have been done). I think the base coach confused this signal with a safe mechanic and instructed his player to run. Why the plate umpire signaled "safe" after the tag, I have no clue. The only thing I am thinking is that he thought the ball is in the catchers glove and not in his bare hand. I am assuming he thought there was no tag, even though it appeared obvious. You can't "chain" a strike three on a dropped third strike. He's not out until tagged or the ball goes to first base. Error by the plate umpire. Not sure how one of his partners couldn't have determined there wasn't a tag and corrected the error.

But the bottom line issue was after all this discussion, they got the call wrong!

I know one of the umpires in this video...when the storm calms a bit, I'll reach out to him and figure out what went down.

From the news article:

You don't often get to storm the field and celebrate twice in a single game, but the Bemidji Lumberjacks did.

A strange turn of events in Bemidji's Class AAA State Baseball Semifinal game against Eden Prairie ultimately ended with the Lumberjacks advancing to their first state title appearance since 1986 with an 8-6 extra-inning win.

After building a 6-0 lead after an inning and a half, Bemidji saw Eden Prairie stage a furious comeback.

The Eagles managed to draw within one run at 6-5, and were down to their final out.

With the game on the line, Bemidji pitcher Mitch Hendricks and Eden Prairie batter Danny Halloran were locked in a tension-filled at-bat.

With the count full, Hendricks' pitch passed the plate low and away from right-handed hitting Halloran. Halloran checked his swing as the ball bounced in the dirt. Bemidji catcher Collin Leif scooped the pitch out of the dirt and tagged Halloran just as the home plate umpire appeared to call Halloran out.

Bemidji players tossed their gloves in the air and stormed the field to celebrate their victory.

...Or so they thought.

During the celebration, Eden Prairie coach Mike Halloran motioned to first base, seeming to indicate a desire for the called strike to be appealed to the first-base umpire.

The umpires conferred and after a lengthy discussion, the call was reversed.

Halloran was awarded first base on a walk, leaving Bemidji players visibly and audibly upset.

With the bases loaded, Brett Guba - the next batter for Eden Prairie - earned a 5-pitch walk. That brought Michael Blauert in from third base, tying the game at 6.

Bemidji avoided what would have been an unthinkable collapse by forcing Halloran at second on the batter later to end the inning, sending the game to extra innings.

In the eighth, Bemidji scored a pair of unearned runs on two Eden Prairie errors to regain the lead at 8-6.

After Miles Nablo singled to open the bottom of the eighth, Hendricks retired three straight Eagles hitters to end the game.

After their false celebration after the seventh inning, Bemidji was able to officially celebrate after the eighth - although it was much more subdued than their initial, spontaneous jubilation an inning earlier.

Bemidji will play in Eastview or Grand Rapids on Monday at 6 p.m. in the Class AAA State Championship game at Target Field.

I'd hold off a long while. This is a sore subject right now.

Hope they feel better
 

After watching this MLB video,

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | KC@STL: Matheny tossed as umps overturn triple play - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

A long while...unless I can get the same info through another party...I'm not doing it to disparage anybody, but these guys are solid umpires (I know two of the three) it just doesn't make any sense that something like this would happened in one of their games. No sense at all.

We'll see.

I don't know why he thought he had to give the "no catch" signal. It was very obvious the ball was in the dirt. Overkill, IMO.

I agree, and it might have helped lead to the confusion that ensued. I only use the "no catch" when it's a trapped ball and not obvious to everyone that the ball is down.

Disagree: it is not always obvious to EVERYONE that the catcher failed to catch the pitch legally. Often the BATTER does not know, which is crucial.

The standard mechanic, to signal and verbalize "no catch," is proper, even if it's obvious to everyone else. And even where the batter turns and looks, communicating your ruling clearly and decisively cannot hurt where players must make quick decisions.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a tag. I see the catcher touch the batter with his bare hand, but it appears the ball is in the glove. Perhaps that is what was appealed.

I agree.

This play is just...unfortunate.

Mike, watch it full screen, HD if you can. He tagged him with the ball.

Exactly. This was supposed to be the big 'takeaway' from La Affaire Eddings.

OK, will do when I get home to a better resolution monitor. Can't see the ball on that video here at work.

Just out of curiosity, is it possible, per rule, to appeal a swinging third strike call?

It is possible, but not permissible.

To borrow a phrase from Mr. Hochuli...

"By Rule..." No, this is not appealable.

This situation happened to me during a game, while working solo, and the batter failed to check his swing and I was asked to get help from my 'partner'. I, completely in jest, pointed toward first and asked (to no one in particular), "Did he NOT go?"...

Why was the batter taking his eyes away from the ball? He missed the pitch, so why wasn't he tracking the pitch to the mitt/ground? Whenever I would strike out swinging, I checked to see if the catcher hung on to the ball.

I have watched it numerous times on 24" monitor and I never can pick out the ball in his hand at the time of the tag. Later on in the video he does have the ball in his right hand when he is yelling at the umps and it is clearly visible then, but not when he tags the batter.

You can't always see that. Swinging takes your head around away from the catch. By the time you look back, having it in the glove doesn't guarantee anything. If it's rolling around, of course you know, but not when it's in the glove.

And it doesn't matter whether F2 makes the catch, it matters whether PU rules that he did!

I just watched it on a 24" monitor and you can see the ball when the catcher wheels around toward the PU right after he tags the batter. I would screen shot it but that video downsizes as soon as you pause it, so I'm not sure how to do it.

Here is a screen capture of just that portion of the video. Cant do it on youtube, but on one of my video programs I was able to move it frame by frame. I still cannont make out the ball in the hand at the time of the tag, but as you said when catcher wheels around there is a very brief moment where it does look like there may be a ball in the hand.

Recording_2012618182329.wmv - YouTube

Sorry but if I'm PU there is no appeal. Simple - tell the coach "he swung", F2 tagged him. Game over.

Don't know why all the conference was going on, obviously the PU didn't stay with his call - not good umpiring.

Thanks
David

OK, I did so. I see no ball in the catcher's hand.

Verbalizing "no catch" after the point & "he went" is the accepted mechanic in these parts. The batter should be able to hear that.

I'd really like to know why this was overturned. If I were the defensive coach, I'd been on my way to the bus after that.

The issue that caused the drama dealt with whether or not there was a tag.

With the benefit of the video, there's no question that there WAS a tag BUT the umpires didn't have the luxury of the video.

After the conference the umpires determined that no umpire called the batter/runner out on a tag, the batter runner reached 1b, so they placed him at 1b.

That's the scoop folks.

Once you determine the pitch was not caught, which he knew it wasn't, all you have to worry about is tag/no tag. I don't see how you could not have a tag here, especially since after the catcher tagged him he took off running to his teammates. Also, what did the PU signal after the catcher turned around and looked at him? After the tag, the catcher started to point at first base, then starts celebrating. It looks like the PU may have given an out mechanic.

The ball was in the catcher's hand. If you pause it at about the 8 second mark you can see white inside his hand. Also, you can tell he is pulling the ball out of his mitt after he blocks the pitch.

Edit: How did neither BU see the catcher tag the batter? U1 has nothing else going on here. When they got together, he should have stepped up and told the PU there was a tag.

Not sure but that's what went down. Those are the facts of the situation.

With the benefit of the video, it is obvious that there was a tag. But according to my sources there was never an official "out" mechanic. As for what the base umpires were doing or watching...I can't speak for that, but I can tell you that they didn't see a tag for 100% or they would've called him out.

Once again we get ourselves into hot water because of poor mechanics.

When F2 attempted a tag, if PU didn't see a tag he should have signalled and verbalized "No tag!" This would have let everyone know what the status of the BR was.

No matter how you spin this, it was a cluster. These are clearly some good umpires that got into a very unpleasant situation, one that I am sure we wouldn't wish on anyone. Given that there were no ejections, protests, riots or civil unrest, I would say everyone got out alive.

For one, I am convinced that our mechanics will make or break us, as I believe the judgment was sound on this play. The way the judgement was delivered caused the problems we all have seen.

I think your post is a great way to sum this up.

Like I said earlier, the "no catch" mechanic wasn't necessary. The PU got too mechanic happy.

One time on a close play at the plate, I gave a, "Safe, balls on the ground!" mechanic when the catcher didn't quite control the throw. The defensive coach asked me, "Would he have been out if he held on to the ball?" I thought for a second, said, "Probably not, I was just letting everyone know there wasn't a controlled ball."

It made me ponder, why give something if it's not really necessary. That's why I will never use a "that's nothing" signal (?) if I have nothing to call.

Like I said earlier, overkill on the mechanics.

For the sake of discussion is it possible that you simply incorrectly used a good mechanic?

THAT, my friend, is the million dollar question!

Good points, but sometimes especially in a "big game" situation, you just have to umpire.

The reaction of F2 on the plays tells you as PU that he made the tag. He would have known if he did NOT tag him and reacted accordingly. He also is seen looking at the PU for confirmation. The BR reacts the same way then runs to 1st thinking it was ball 4.

I'm sure that the other umpires had no clue as to whether a tag was made or not and probably were not even looking at that play.

Thanks
David

The baseball gods reserved that for the other site of this tournament.

I didn't say it was a bad mechanic, it just not have been proper in the situation. Perhaps he wanted to know so he could discuss it with his catcher.

Just currious, what happened over at Dunning Field(or during the title game at Target Field) I'm just curious.

There were some shenanigans...

I was at Target Field for AA and AAA...I did see much out of the ordinary.