The new face of 'voluntary release'?

[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"