The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 04:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
I'm not going to let this cost me outs.
If you're not working in the show don't worry about it. Until you are told other wise call it the way WE'VE been taught. MLB wants it called one way and at every other level it will be called the other way.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 07:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
If I recall correctly what I read, aren't there eight officials in the NY review studio?
Only one is assigned to any particular game (each has multiple games to watch). If a second challenge comes in while the "assigned" official is busy, then the challenge gets sent to a different official.

And, I agree that someone has apparently changed the definition of control / voluntary release -- I read that Torre told the manager that the call at second was correct.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 07:56am
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
And, I agree that someone has apparently changed the definition of control / voluntary release -- I read that Torre told the manager that the call at second was correct.
I read that, too (I think you mean that Torre said that the reversal was the correct call). Problem is: if that call was correct, what is the standard now?

Umpire: "Out! On the transfer!"
Coach: "That's not how they called it in New York the other night!"
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 08:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
I read that, too (I think you mean that Torre said that the reversal was the correct call). Problem is: if that call was correct, what is the standard now?

Umpire: "Out! On the transfer!"
Coach: "That's not how they called it in New York the other night!"
The review crew is attaching no relevance to the voluntary release. It used to be conclusive proof of a catch. Now it doesn't mean anything.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 08:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
It seems like a large enough change in interpretation that the teams would have been made aware of it, but it seems clear they haven't been.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 08:45am
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
It seems like a large enough change in interpretation that the teams would have been made aware of it, but it seems clear they haven't been.
Nor have the umpires on the field, apparently.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 08:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ View Post
I read that, too (I think you mean that Torre said that the reversal was the correct call). Problem is: if that call was correct, what is the standard now?

Umpire: "Out! On the transfer!"
Coach: "That's not how they called it in New York the other night!"
Umpire: "Your games aren't on TV or reviewed in New York"
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 09:53am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius View Post
After seeing Ron Washington lose his challenge tonight in the first inning, it appears (just speculating) to me that MLB has issued an instruction to its umpires revising how "complete control" is to be judged.

Andrus gloved the ball and had it in his throwing hand when he dropped it, and the ruling went against him.

I can understand how the calling umpires made the calls they did--I thought Andrus dropped it in real time--but after seeing the replays not upholding the challenges, I believe something has changed in the MLB interpretation of this play.
To me, I can easily see how Andrus's call was "confirmed", while Kinsler's "stands". The ball fell straight down on Andrus, and it even appeared to start coming out of his glove before he could grip it with the bare hand. In Kinsler's play, he caught the ball when his hands were well separated, and then the ball went up as he tried to withdraw the ball with his bare hand.

I wouldn't be surprised if MLB umpires have been instructed to call Safe on all of these plays, and let replay fix things afterward.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 08, 2014, 08:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 61
I read where MLB HAS changed the interpretation. They wanted to take judgement out of the call. One umpire would rule one way and one would rule the other way. I just don't understand why so many posting on here are getting their drawers in a wad because of it. It doesn't affect how WE call it. Until NFHS or PONY says otherwise I will call it the "old"way.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 09, 2014, 05:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Well, they're at it again...

In last night's Angels/Mariners game, a long fly ball was hit to Hamilton. He was parked under it, gloved the ball over his head, brought the glove down to his throwing hand, reached into the glove, then the ball dropped out.

The umpire ruled it a catch and lost on the transfer. The call was challenged and subsequently overturned- no catch.

This one created another argument of sorts. A runner on second base had gone halfway waiting for the catch, then scampered back to second when the catch was initially called. The Seattle manager argued that his runner should have been placed on third, which he most likely would have had easily if no catch had been ruled in the first place. The runner was kept at second base.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 09, 2014, 06:45am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
The Seattle manager argued that his runner should have been placed on third, which he most likely would have had easily if no catch had been ruled in the first place. The runner was kept at second base.
Placement of runners…the thorn in baseball's replay system. We all called this before it was implemented.

The umpires will start officiating the game like the NFL where they will rule "no catch" so everything can play out, then if reversed, simply put them back.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 09, 2014, 07:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP45 View Post
I read where MLB HAS changed the interpretation. They wanted to take judgement out of the call. One umpire would rule one way and one would rule the other way. I just don't understand why so many posting on here are getting their drawers in a wad because of it. It doesn't affect how WE call it. Until NFHS or PONY says otherwise I will call it the "old"way.
Source, please (not that I'm doubting you -- I'd just like to add it to my library.

And, if it's in any way "official" -- then I will change how I call it in many of my games.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 09, 2014, 10:51am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP45 View Post
I read where MLB HAS changed the interpretation. They wanted to take judgement out of the call.
They want to take judgment out of a Catch/No Catch call??

Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!!
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 09, 2014, 11:16am
LRZ LRZ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SE PA
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Source, please (not that I'm doubting you -- I'd just like to add it to my library.

And, if it's in any way "official" -- then I will change how I call it in many of my games.
I don't know how "official" this is, but on Umpire-Empire, there's a post from Wendelstedt Umpire School. I don't know how to link to it, but here is the text:

"In determining whether a fielder drops the ball 'while in the act of making a throw following the catch' in accordance with Rule 2.00, the umpires will determine whether the fielder obtained possession of a ball in flight but dropped the ball while in the act of making a throw during the momentum of the catch. For example, if the shortstop, in an effort to turn a double play, throws to the second baseman, who drops the ball while in the act of drawing back his arm to make a throw to first base, the second baseman shall be adjudged to have had secure control of the ball and thus the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught by the second baseman. However, it shall not be adjudged to be a catch if, while in the act of making a throw during the momentum of the catch, the fielder loses possession of the ball in the transfer (e.g., flip from the glove) before he secures the ball with his throwing hand.

"Our emphasis: The 'flip' itself is not deemed a voluntary release, even though it may be a voluntary action. This is an update you will find in the 2014 Rules and Interpretations Manual. We have removed the exclusive interpretation offered for a number of year providing that it only be an attempted voluntary release. This is no longer the case. The release must be voluntary. Additionally, this interpretation has been merged with a tag of a base as well on the front end of a double play attempt. He must secure the ball in his throwing hand before it will be deemed secure possession was made."

Last edited by LRZ; Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 04:09pm.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 09, 2014, 02:13pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
Placement of runners…the thorn in baseball's replay system. We all called this before it was implemented.

The umpires will start officiating the game like the NFL where they will rule "no catch" so everything can play out, then if reversed, simply put them back.
So they're going to start not officiating the game?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thoughts on this release. bigjohn Football 27 Tue Sep 24, 2013 06:28am
Voluntary Release johnnyg08 Baseball 6 Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51pm
voluntary release noleump Baseball 16 Mon Jan 28, 2008 09:11am
Voluntary Release Play... TussAgee11 Baseball 49 Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:37am
wing face off mid checking face off mid jdicqitdi Lacrosse 1 Fri Jun 08, 2001 05:38pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1