Get out those rule books

[dumbdumb]

OK, OK---Caught this off a competitors site

Get out those rule books and help the young guys out. You probably see more of this at the lower levels, but it is good to use this video from MLB as a teaching/instructional tool.

What constitutes "passes"----do both feet or just one foot have to be in front completely or just a toe ahead---could you stick out your head like a 100 yard dash at the finish line breaking the plane of the other guys space without the feet passing? Just what is passing? Is it in the OBR book in small print or does only the MLBUM, PBUC manual or J/R or Evans or NF case book give a case play. How is this handled in NCAA or NFHSA.

Does the ball remain in play and what are the mechanics on this play if the ball remains alive. Do you point at the runner and yell out, like you point and yell obstruction. Just what are the mechanics.

If passing is invoked why did runner get to go back to 2nd? What if they had tagged the runner advancing to 2nd. Would that have caused a time play at home??

If passing had not been invoked, what would have happened.

Did using the word passing rather than pushing or touching save a protest that would have been upheld or denied???

Does each MLBU crew have an appointed rules expert on the crew or do they just all collaborate? Is the crew chief the only one held responsible if any rule might be missed or is each member of the crew held responsible. In other words, who gets dinged for a possible rule misapplication regardless or whether or not a protest is lodged? Looks like Marvin Hudson was looking right at this to make the judgment on the word passes.

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=15023115

[Mr Umpire]

Umpires blew it. The entire body of BR has to pass the entire body of R1.

Ball remains live. Point at the runner. Say "That's passing. He's out."

They messed up the call. But, if it were to be done correctly and assuming BR did pass, it would have been a time play if R1 was tagged at 2B.

If passing not invoked and it shouldn't have been, R1 is out and BR stays at 1B.

I think it did save the protest.

Usually, one of the crew is pretty good about the rules. But, either the one who is didn't see the play and was told the runner passed or none of them knew it very well.

[kylejt]

No reason to overthink this one. They kicked it, Tim thought assistance was an out, and the MLB had to whitewash the call.

[yawetag]

Usually, one of the crew is pretty good about the rules.

One of the crew? What are the other three for, then?

[mstaylor]

No reason to overthink this one. They kicked it, Tim thought assistance was an out, and the MLB had to whitewash the call.

I can see Tim smoking the rule, but I don't understand MLB whitewashing the call. I don't know that have said anything either way. The call wasn't protested, it wasn't even heavily argued, so I assume MLB has said nothing.

[Mr Umpire]

Usually, one of the crew is pretty good about the rules.

One of the crew? What are the other three for, then?

Well, all I am saying is at least 1 is the rule guru. The other 3 should be doing their job and know the rules as well. But, as seen in this, whoever saw it or none of them knew the rule very well. Or, whoever should have been keeping track of this didn't pay attention very well and didn't describe the play to the others properly.

I don't know what happened but there was a break down somewhere.

[yawetag]

Well, all I am saying is at least 1 is the rule guru.

All I'm saying is that I get paid far less than they do, and I'm expected to know the rule book.

[dumbdumb]

Right at 59 it looks like Tim uses the word 'passed' right after he had started the conversation with Black by saying 'what we got here is' (no I don't lip read). Of course during the conversation McClelland uses a pushing motion with his hands also, in which passing has nothing to do with pushing, but he could have been saying that after passing him he tried to push him back. Looks in the film like they are describing the play where a coach interferes by assisting or helping a player, more so than passing a runner.

Here is Black discussing the play, although he may or may not remember the exact words used or all the words used in the discussion.

http://arizona.diamo...e=recap&c_id=sd

Here is the explanation given by McClelland later

"On the second to last play of the game, Ryan Ludwick was out for passing the runner (rule 7.08h), after which the play was not dead and the force out at second base was off, resulting in Jason Bartlett being safe at second base since he was not tagged out".

If there had been a protest, how do you uphold the protest when, in the umpires judgment (right or wrong), the umpires saw the trail runner pass the lead runner as the rule states. I thought you cannot protest umpire judgment.

On the other hand, how many other managers would have protested and how many other umpires would have been protested on? Wouldn't a protest make them look worse than no protest which is what happened in this case. In other words, weren't they living with the angels in the fact that no one protested, or would you even be allowed to protest a judgment decision (passing or not passing) just like a safe/out call.

How many good umpires have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had their records tainted on a rule interpretation, when other good umpires got off the hook with a misapplication of the rules but were never protested on.

This is not saying this call was missed, it is a judgment call as to whether the runner passed or not, but it sure looked like he did not pass IMHO (so yes, I personally think (pass no pass) it was missed). And this is not to cast any aspersions on this crew or crew members. They just happened to have this play. You could put any other name in the blanks but it just happened this day to this group. This may have happened before at the pro level or the amateur level with exactly the opposite results, no he didn't pass but a protest lodged. Just wanted to show this because I think it has a much better chance of happening more often with the lower levels all the way down to T-ball.

[Mr Umpire]

Well, they weren't going to protest b/c that would mean Bartlett is out at 2B instead. Then, they run the risk of the umpires second guessing and putting Ludwick back. This would make the ruling correct and Pardres lose the protest. There is always a risk when protesting. However, if Bartlett would have been safe at 2B, I think you would have seen a protest and then we would have gotten a ruling. B/c then Ludwick would have been declared out instead of having R1 and R2.

However, I don't think it came down to judgment if the play was described or seen correctly (It may not have been viewed the same as the video shows). A simple question of "Was his entire runner beyond the preceding runner?" will clear it up. If they say no, protest upheld. The only judgment would be if they thought he was but it is clear that he wasn't. The only judgment is did his entire body pass the other's body. If they say no, it is no longer judgment and now a matter of rule application (or misapplication in this case). If they say yes, that would be judgment and no protest upheld. It is all in how they answer that question for me.