timmybloops

the key is to stop thinking about this play as a play at the plate. You state you knew it was a time play because they had no shot at R3. therefore, get into position for the play - 3BLX where you can see home an third in the same eyeshot. Should have plenty of time to get there after recognizing the throw to third, and if not, at least take a few steps back to get more of the field in your view. The coach will see you getting into position and looking at the right places and won't have an argument (unless he just thinks it was a blown judgment). Also the mechanic should be to wash out the run emphatically. Pointing at the plate is the mechanic to score the run.

I would guess it has to do with syncing up the times on 2 cameras consistently and accurately? Maybe some other reason? Bottom line here, though...I think NY screwed the pooch on not reviewing it. I think it's a missed base, and not a tag up. By reading the video review rules, it seems to me what isn't reviewable is the timing of a runner tagging up on a fly ball...This play was about a runner missing/failing to touch a base. Probably the reason, but they do permit reviews on time plays which will often have the same concern. And you can always just interpret that "multi-cam synching" is not sufficient evidence to overturn a call. In this case and I'm sure others as well, the challenge would have been upheld without use of a camera synch. And true, is MLB trying to say that a "touch" is reviewable but a "retouch" is not?

what is the logic for not allowing a replay review of a runner tagging up?

I actually think Middlebrooks thought he was getting out of the way by lifting his legs away from the foul line where he expected the runner to be. Just another reason intent doesn't matter because his intent may have been opposite the result.

I can't see any good reason why an ejection would not stand after a replay reversal. Because some people won't like it? Makes no sense, ejections are not based on the accuracy of the call whatsoever, only the actions and words of the offending party. Wasn't there a play a couple years ago when a batter hit a double and then a pinch runner was put in for him. The umps then went to review and determined his double was actually a home run. But the substitution still stood, the pinch runner could not be undone. If such a reasonable thing to correct could not be corrected after a replay reversal, why in the world would an ejection be undone?

Looked to me like the runner changed his path (thinking the fielder would remain in the baseline), and then crashed into the fielder towards the home plate side of his baseline. If he just runs in his line, there is no collision. Maybe the rule book supports obstruction here but it seems the most sensible call is nothing, IMO.

But it was still BS from Guillen. Weaver was wrong but at least until then he just kept it verbal. Guillen made a clown of himself, was openly showing up Weaver in a way that no one could miss, and obviously escalated the animosity.

Do you not trust your partner to give the right call? Just ask. If you know he didn't go, do you really expect your partner to overturn that anyway? As UIC, said, the worst that can happen is you get another strike. If you did this to me, I'd bang a close one that you were "sure" about. Guess it must be a geographical thing. Very common in my area for partners to work together. When I am calling with a guy with the same skill set and experience, it is NEVER a problem. Go out with a guy that is just starting and you are mentoring you may get a surprise. I am curious about the comment "If you did this to me?" I would bang one you were sure about. Did what? Have you cover my back with a sqwacking coach?Goodumps never "do anything" to make there partners look bad. I know a few through the years that have and they end up living a pretty lonely life because no one will call with them. I was in a horrible situation this year when we had a collision at third base with a kid coming in. Runner did nothing wrong but the 3b ended up with his bone sticking out of his leg. Stadium went nuts as did the coach, fans and everyone who supported the kid and the school. My partner makes the decision not to toss the kid (runner) and it got real Texas mean real New York quick. What I thought or felt did not matter. My partner made the decision not to toss him and I BACKED HIM 100% In our chapter if you do anything to show another umpire up, it is cianora and it should be. But you backed him 100% on a call you say was correct to begin with ("runner did nothing wrong"). If in your opinion it was MC by the runner, would you at least have wanted to have a conversation with your partner? Getting back to the check swing, I have never understood why some at times don't want whatever call their partner gives. Even if their partner is in a tough position to get a good look, and it will be tougher for them to call a swing, what is the harm in asking? You have to trust that he knows he is in the C position (for example) and he will make his call accordingly.

This situation in the OP happened to me last year (my third year umping) in a junior level game. I was BU and trotted in as both managers were in a discussion with the PU. Confirmed the run does not score, no big deal. Anyway there was a somewhat more senior ump observing and after the game my partner tells me this other ump came to him between innings and said the run should have scored. I'm left thinking great now I have a senior guy who can rate me thinking less of me for no good reason!

I think he anticipated or thought there was an overthrow, then realized the first baseman did indeed catch it and a call was needed. Had to be an awful feeling.