The new face of 'voluntary release'?

[UMP45]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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!"

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

[Eastshire]

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.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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"

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Publius

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.

[UMP45]

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.

[BretMan]

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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UMP45

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by UMP45

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!!

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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."

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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?