The new face of 'voluntary release'?
 

Since a wet field left me at home for the ninth time in ten scheduled dates, I decided to see how the replays are working out. This one surprised me (along with everybody else who isn't a MLB umpire):

Ausmus loses challenge

<iframe src='http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=31814225&topic_id=63817564&w idth=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Followed up by:

Ausmus consults with Torre

This turns on its head a longstanding interpretation of what constitutes an out when transferring the ball to the throwing hand during a pivot. If that's the new direction, they'd be better off just eliminating the concept of voluntary release as part of the proof of control during the catch of a batted ball or gloving of a thrown ball.

Wow. As Richie Ashburn used to say, "Hard to believe, Harry." Unless the call was predicated on (1) F6 not having control (although I think he did) and (2) no clear, convincing evidence to overturn. Maybe I missed it, but was the call upheld or (merely) "stands"?

What makes me nervous is that these overturns are going to lead to arguments in our amateur games. This call always was an out on the transfer. This ruling seems to completely disregard the player reaching into the glove, and the ball coming up and changing direction. Ball falls straight down we don't have an out. That's not the case here.

The post-game story said the ruling on the field was confirmed. Whether that is an accurate portrayal of what really transpired in New York, I don't know.

Oh, my.

JJ

Well, I guess the time has come that MLB can now have the ultimate fan involved game. For just an extra $20 per game you get a remote button to vote for the correct call. At the end of each call the scoreboard will register the tally in 30 sec. The league will supply (1) umpire behind the plate for balls and strikes until they can come up with a electronic strike zone.

Sounds far fetched right?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well it can't be any worse then the mess they have created this year. How about the Yankee game today with the play at the plate. The interpretation of the rule was only half the story.

So Ozzy, tell us again how you feel about this new game they now call Baseball....:(:(:(:(

They know now that this is a free challenge. Girardi is 0-2 on the "blocking the plate w/o the ball" challenge and it won't stop there.

Does that even come into play under the MLB system?

Regardless, it had to have been a situation where the evidence wasn't compelling enough to oveturn. Heck, if the umpire had ruled an out here, a challenge might have resulted in an out.

Yes. The words vary some from the NFL / NCAA words, but the concepts of "confirmed" "stands" "overturned" are the same

Confirmed: Replay confirms call on field
Stands: Not enough evidence to overturn call on the field
Overruled: Enough video evidence to overturn call.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Umpire: "Your games aren't on TV or reviewed in New York"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They want to take judgment out of a Catch/No Catch call??

Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!!

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."

So they're going to start not officiating the game?

Well I certainly hope they go back and change the definition part of a Catch in 2.00 "A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it... to and.

I'll say it's exclusive. I've never heard of "attempted voluntary release" until now.

Not me. This "interpretation" is in direct conflict with the letter of the rule. MLB is just making sh!t up now because they can.

Any fielder who closes his glove around the ball before he releases it without contacting the ground, another player, or a wall has caught it in my games.

Exactly. And when you get to the show you'll call it the way MLB says call it!

I got your back!
 

Or not and let the guys in NY change it for you.

So you will lack the nards to make the call right of wrong? Lazy!

First they say the release must be voluntary, then they say a transfer must be made to the throwing hand. And a flip is not a voluntary release? YGBSM. I have seen many "flips" that demonstrate complete control of the baseball including a voluntary and intentional release. They are making a mess of this.

And a catch has no momentum, the ball has momentum.

Upon further review!
 

I was just saying, than in the show, if you don't call it the way in which they have instructed, it will be overturned as we have repeatedly seen in the challenges thus far.

In my opinion replay is really starting to do as much harm as good.

I would rather see a rule requiring all disputes to be settled by the umpires on the field in one minute or less. Anyone not ready to resume the game after a minute is automatically ejected.

The other day I watched a replay of game 7 of the 1978 world series - Catfish Hunter vs. Don Sutton. 9 runs scored on 18 hits (21 baserunners). Time of game: 2:34.

Wow. After seeing the video replays, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a backlash by MLB managers or players on the rule change. Were they even part of the decision process for the change? Or was this done unilaterally without their input?

BTW, I'm also surprised that Scioscia stayed in the game after Hamilton's play was reviewed and ruled a No Catch. Once a play is reviewed and a final ruling is made, managers should stay in their dugouts and not come out to get any clarification, IMO. They can ask between innings if they want, but not waste more game time.

Hate quoting myself, but after posting this yesterday, I saw this today on the web. Maybe managers and players ARE getting a little frustrated with the change.

Rangers manager ejected for replay dispute | FOX Sports on MSN

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266...arguing-review

MLB inserted IR into the game and created another sceniaro to use it, with this new definition of "catch".

Amazing, just freaking amazing!!!!!!!

MLB clarifies rule on transfer of ball from glove to hand | MLB.com: News

<iframe src='http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=32366159&topic_id=6479266&wi dth=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Sometimes change for the sake of change, just doesn't work. Glad to see common sense prevail.

While I'm glad for the reversion to the letter of the law regarding a catch, I'm not inclined to fawn over MLB officials the way the media are doing. MLB brass didn't do anything particularly smart; they just decided to stop being stupid.