The new face of 'voluntary release'?

[soundedlikeastrike]

If that wasn't a transfer and an out?
What's next, an errant off line throw won't count either?
How about one of those, slips out the back drops, not counting that either?
Holy smokes, IMHO that is horrible, not the initial call so much, but they couldn't overturn that on the replay, what am I missing?

[dash_riprock]

The replay ump is horrible. Didn't they make a similar ruling on a routine fly ball to F8 (I don't remember the teams)? The replay showed F8 reaching into the glove when the ball dropped out. He was standing still for the can of corn. I thought that one was obvious but it's a lot closer to borderline than this one.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The replay ump is horrible.

If I recall correctly what I read, aren't there eight officials in the NY review studio?

[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.

[dash_riprock]

I'm not going to let this cost me outs.

[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.

[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.

[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!!

[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.