Replacematt

Nope. What they did is the opposite of what we have been trained to do--especially when we have video at our disposal.

This wouldn't have happened without illegal gambling. Legal gambling provides an avenue for reporting and reduces the influence that illegal actors can have on results.

If MLB had a history of illegally betting on games and influencing results, then that would possibly mitigate the irrelevance of this comment and simply change it into a whataboutism.

Which is likely the logic here, regardless of where the ball was.

Unfortunately your video does need a subscription. I think one of the major pieces of information needed is not apparent here...what was the ball's path in relation (both space and time) to F3 and F4?

There are only two reasonable conclusions, not mutually exclusive and perhaps actually overlapping, that can be made from not releasing that information: 1. Giamatti was trying to save Rose from further embarrassment (possible,) or 2. the information would have been devastating to MLB (more possible.) If you go with #1, then the rest of the argument about trying to be on a power trip loses support. And if #2 is true, then any grace extended to Rose is a significant favor. To me, this is strong evidence as to the nature of what was not released, and aimed at preventing retroactive statistical actions and civil actions due to the outcomes of games played. Take that as you will. It was absolutely not impossible. It was quite simple, in fact. Disavow gambling, be contrite...and this carrot had not changed. And for this argument to have any validity, we would have to assume that not one, not two, but three commissioners were on power trips regarding this.

Absolutely F*#King not. Facts: 1. Without Rule 21, MLB would not exist. It would have been abandoned in droves as people lost confidence in the validity of the contests. 2. As violations of Rule 21 have the potential to kill MLB, violations of it must be punished to the fullest extent available (in this case, rendering one ineligible to be involved with MLB.) 3. Rule 21 is known to all participants, to include Rose. 4. Rose deliberately and repeatedly violated Rule 21. 5. When confronted with the evidence, Rose agreed to be made permanently ineligible in exchange for facts to remain private. 6. Thus, not only did he bet on his own team, he did worse things that have not been made public. 7. As part of the deal, Rose could apply for reinstatement with conditions. 8. He not only did not comply with those conditions, he contradicted them. Since he did things even beyond what got him banned, and he did not feel it was worth reinstatement to comply with the conditions to which he agreed, and he repeatedly lied and showed a lack of remorse about it, where is the mitigating argument to support reinstatement?

Uhh... The OP did specify, and the resulting conversation has stayed on course. Not sure what purpose this response has.

Then you're subject to protest using that logic. It's voluntary release, not voluntary transfer. As long as the fielder intentionally released their hold on the ball in the glove, it's a catch. Take a look at the play from MLB last year with the liner to F6 that came out very quickly after getting in the glove.

I think it's going to be situation-dependent. The whole thing is that we have the god rule at our disposal for this--if R2 might have done things differently, we can pretend they did. If not, we can keep things the way they are.

Well, there's one code that allows dead-ball appeals. And that code does not allow runners to retouch if they are on or past a subsequent base at any point while the ball is dead.

Zero, since they can't legally retouch at this point.

That's perfectly okay. It should never get to that point because when the replay request is made, HC should be told that there was obstruction with the runner protected to 3B irrespective of any play there. ...which won't happen because of what I said above.

I've seen a closer and different angle (and I can't remember where, or else I'd share it) and F4 got tangled with him briefly while he was on the ground. It's about the time that the previous posters have shared in their screen caps.

Was there an initial call of the run scoring, or no determination on the field? The fact that there is a question about the timing is evidence as to why if there was an initial call of the run scoring, it wasn't overturned. The criteria we use in NCAA review for is that there has to be, at a minimum, one camera angle that is 100% conclusive on its own. If we are doing our own review (not centralized replay,) we want to note which angle(s) were conclusive in the event we need to answer that question. If we have centralized replay, we want to note which angles they say are conclusive.

Given the wording in the release, I would say the two had a meeting of the minds in which both crossed a line.

https://x.com/RefObserver17/status/1884367319708635404

I think that is the later version of that section (I was going back to the earliest version of the MLBUM that I had to see how far back we had this interpretation and haven't checked my more recent ones.)

Correct. And for nothing more than that's what the powers that be say so.

Ahh, I misinterpreted what "how" meant. I think we could stretch Wendelstedt 9.3.7 (which I had just mentioned in another thread) that considers intentional interference with a fielder attempting a throw to be the same as interfering with the throw. I think the MLBUM interpretation I mentioned there might even be a better basis, as it tends to be more broad with its application. While I hate to use examples that change the fact pattern, I'm thinking of this as a jump-off point for analysis: If we had B/R intentionally tackle F3 while they were about to receive the throw at 1B, would we have INT and by what rule?

Without knowing anything about the situation other than what was posted here, I'd bet it wasn't calls that were the problem, but a game management situation.

The Wendelstedt example (still used as of this year) is consistent with Wendelstedt interpretation from earlier years (my manual is from 2019.) The way I stated it is a summarization of what has to happen for this to be INT--something, just something that is not running or is a change in path in direct response to the ball's flight. (This concept is the impetus for my "amateur umpire" comment above--it's not intended to be derisive, but having to learn the rules from the written word is no substitute for physical examples with far better umpires than us talking through it.) I did dig up my MLBUM from 2007 and in 6.1, it says "an act unrelated to running the bases" and lists a bunch of examples of things that have nothing to do with running. The no throw-no INT is not a good take, as Wendelstedt 9.3.7 includes intentionally interfering with the fielder as the same as intentionally interfering with the throw.

The best angle is at 10:00 or so. A retired runner is absolved from interference if and only if they are continuing to advance or retreat. Once they stop doing that, they have an absolute responsibility not to interfere, so they need to know where the ball is, where it's going, and where the defense is. Sometimes there might be limited or zero options for the retired runner not to interfere, and those are the breaks. R1's only real chance to avoid INT here would have been to pick up that there was an overthrow, find where the ball was coming from, and get out of the way of it and the middle infielders.

So many things in life that look simple and easy look that way because of a lot of underlying preparation. This clip is a good example of what happens when we react to a weird situation without processing it, which is not uncommon. It's so much easier to explain to a coach what you have when you get it correct in the first place, so let's maximize our chances of making that happen. If you remember the documentary Super Troopers, there is a situation where Foster and Mac find themselves locked in the back of a semi-trailer, because they were too quick to make a decision. Upon rescuing them, Thorny gives them this piece of sage advice that also applies to umpiring: "I want you to stop, take a deep breath and pull your heads out of each other's asses." Mark Ditsworth said pretty much the same thing to me once upon a time: "Don't be in a hurry to make a call. Let the game and the call come to you." When something happens, it is usually better to be patient and think about things before making a decision rather than succumbing to increasing pressure to do something, anything. While we're doing that, we replay what we observed (visually, aurally,) identify the elements (who has what status, what is the ball's status,) and determine which rules are pertinent (and just as important for our final step, which ones seem like they are, but aren't.) Synthesizing these gives us our decision and our foundation for it simultaneously, which is what we will use in explaining it to the coach. It's also good to have a basic script for your rules-based explanations. I am not kidding when I suggest to watch clips online, use the steps I just mentioned, plug your thoughts into that script, and practice it out loud. State what you observed, a synopsis of the relevant rules and how they apply, and your conclusion. This doesn't have to be the first thing you say--often, my first act when we have a goofy situation is to ask them what they observed and listen to that. The explanation might need to focus on judgment (what you observed) instead of rules (what applies.) In the OP, the script would be something like: "I saw the batter-runner and the catcher collide before the pitcher fielded the ball. As the ball was still considered a batted ball at that point, only one fielder is entitled to field it, which was the pitcher. All other fielders must not hinder the runner. As the catcher was not entitled to field the ball, the contact between him and the batter-runner constitutes obstruction." In your example, you would likely want to plug in your observation that the batter-runner was not hindered by the catcher, but chose to create the hindrance by delaying and drawing contact. Then you point out the rule that does not apply--obstruction--because the runner was not hindered by the fielder.

While we're on the subject of Facebook reels and distressing comments, I saw one the other day and noticing your information... Is it true that for HS, NY has stated that the rocker step is legal even in the set position?