Interesting review situation

Jays base runner is initially called safe resulting in a force situation at home. The Jays request a review which results in the base runner being called out, nullifying the force and allowing a different runner to score. (sorry, I don't know the terminology for different runners)

MLB.com -- Blue Jays vs. Athletics | 7.3.2014

[bwburke94]

CloseCallSports post:

MLB Instant Replay Review 649: Vic Carapazza (07) | Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League

[jicecone]

I am not so sure what seems to be the problem here. Everyone screamed for replay for years and now that the correct call is made with the use of replay ?????

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I am not so sure what seems to be the problem here. Everyone screamed for replay for years and now that the correct call is made with the use of replay ?????

I agree. Without IR, the play stands (unless after the umpires get together, U2 informs U1 he saw a tag, and the call gets reversed), and the pundits scream and cry how Toronto got jobbed and we need IR. With IR, the call was eventually made right, which is the whole purpose of IR.

I suppose one could argue that Oakland got jobbed by U1's initial call of Safe. And you really can't counter that the catcher should have tagged R3 coming home, because he had no reason to with the way things initially played out. No player is taught to tag a runner on a force play, just in case. And if the A's had lost by a run and the protest had gone through, I seriously doubt the MLB suits would have overturned the scoring of the run.

Sorry, but dems da breaks. Heads up call by the Jays manager on this one.

[JRutledge]

And this is the overall problem with replay in baseball. You make a ruling in one aspect of the game, it is nearly impossible to do something else with how the play results unless players anticipate a possible review. This is what they wanted, not live with the result.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And this is the overall problem with replay in baseball. You make a ruling in one aspect of the game, it is nearly impossible to do something else with how the play results unless players anticipate a possible review. This is what they wanted, not live with the result.

Does this mean players need to change what they would do because of possible replay? Like P2 tagging the running instead of just applying the force? Or is it just a consequence that they will live with cuz it happens so rarely?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Does this mean players need to change what they would do because of possible replay? Like P2 tagging the running instead of just applying the force? Or is it just a consequence that they will live with cuz it happens so rarely?

This is what happens when you take an imperfect game, with imperfect players, coaches and officials, and try and make it perfect!

Sh*t happens:

My advice to the players and coaches is:

Show up, keep up, shut up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Does this mean players need to change what they would do because of possible replay? Like P2 tagging the running instead of just applying the force? Or is it just a consequence that they will live with cuz it happens so rarely?

I do not know what they need to do, but it certainly changes the way the game could be played out. A run scored partly based on thinking the result is going to be one way but it was another. Maybe now players will play it out anticipating a situation.

Peace

[nopachunts]

Joe Maddon talked about playing for an advantageous out because of a possible reversal through replay before the season began.

[ozzy6900]

At first, I thought that U1 was signaling no interference, not no tag. But obviously, he made and incorrect call.

As far as the meeting, it is also obvious that U2 had the tag on the BR. The entire question now is R3 scoring because F2 reacted to the safe call of U1. Sorry, son, that's baseball. Yeah, F2 reacted to the call and F2 could have swung around and popped a tag but he didn't. Do I agree with the protest? No, it was a judgement call by U1 and should not be protestable (in my opinion).

All I can say is IR didn't help this situation at all.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Does this mean players need to change what they would do because of possible replay? Like P2 tagging the running instead of just applying the force?

I doubt it will turn into that.

But imagine if F2 had caught the ball for the force at home, then try to apply a tag, and the runner knocks the ball out from his mitt, allowing other runners to advance and score. And on replay, the force is upheld because the tag of the runner at first was missed. So F2 made a tag that was unnecessary. Could something like that happen, thanks to replay? You're darn tooting. It is growing into something more than just getting the calls right.

[Paul L]

MLB review regs, section IV, allow the replay officials to place runners and negate runs, considering whether the incorrect call affected subsequent action, etc.

"[T]he Replay Official, to the extent feasible, shall exercise his discretion to place both Clubs in the same position they would have been in had the call on the field been correct."

I thought that the catcher had plenty of time to tag R3 for a double play, and that the replay officials should have done just that. Apparently New York disagreed.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Paul L

MLB review regs, section IV, allow the replay officials to place runners and negate runs, considering whether the incorrect call affected subsequent action, etc.

"[T]he Replay Official, to the extent feasible, shall exercise his discretion to place both Clubs in the same position they would have been in had the call on the field been correct."

I thought that the catcher had plenty of time to tag R3 for a double play, and that the replay officials should have done just that. Apparently New York disagreed.

From the catcher's view he could probably clearly see the safe call but not the tag, so his reaction was it was a force. The only way to negate the umpire's error would be to put the runner back on 3b, bases loaded, 2 outs due to the tag.

It is not feasible to place runners at same position as if the call was correct, because catcher would have tagged the runner for 3rd out. So if that is what they meant they should call two outs on the play.

Would have been a lot less controversy had F3 just ran the ball over to 1b after making the tag instead of throwing home. By throwing home he gave indication that he missed the tag and thus was going after lead runner in a force instead of going to bag. Perhaps he "heard" the no tag call from behind him?

[Publius]

I think a more likely outcome is that they will rule an offensive team cannot request a review of a play where a runner is ruled safe and seek to have him called out, and a defensive team may not request review of a play when a runner is ruled out and seek to have him called safe.

[MD Longhorn]

But the rule is already in place for them to have done this correctly.

They just ... didn't.

Should be 2 outs on this play.