Howards Run In Game 4

[Umpire in Chief]

McDouchebag and What the Buck are absolutely clueless. Okay you already knew that but here's why now.

Bottom of the 4th. Rollins Howard on 2nd Feliz gets a hit which Damon bobbles then guns it home for a play at the plate. Howard makes a head first dive preventing Posada from fielding it well. In his dive for the home he never touched the plate.

The all-knowing announcers seemed not to be able to get over the fact that Everitt not only didn't call him out for not touching the plate, but gave "half hearted" safe call well after the play.

Grrr :)

[Mr Umpire]

Though I could care less about them, Everitt shouldn't have signaled anything unless he thought Howard touched HP. He may have thought Howard touched and fine. His leg was close enough though I thought he didn't touch the whole time, I didn't have his viewpoint.

However, the play wasn't over. Was he indicating that he had nothing on the contact or the ball not going into OOP area or indicating the ball came loose?

My question then is: If given this same play, would you signal safe since the current mechanic is to signal nothing to indicate the play isn't over yet? I have been under the impression that no signal is to be given if it is an obvious outcome such the ball coming loose and rolling 15 feet from the catcher.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

My view...If you have no play you have no reason to signal. Since Posada was not able to make an attempt to retire the runner, by rule, there was no play.

[Mr Umpire]

My view...If you have no play you have no reason to signal. Since Posada was not able to make an attempt to retire the runner, by rule, there was no play.

I agree. No signal should have been given whether Howard touched the plate or not. The moment he signaled safe, he convinced the defense not to appeal HP or tag Howard. His actions influenced the defense when he should not have done anything no matter what happened at HP in this situation since it was obvious what happened on the play with the ball coming out.

The funny thing is not a lot of coverage is given to the crew in this series for some of their miscues. I am not saying they are doing anything terribly wrong. Only, their mistakes are not being blown out of proportion. I wonder why that is. Is it b/c they are finally concentrating on the game and players as it should be? Or, since they don't have a clue, they don't know what to complain about since the plays are not so obvious to them?

I guess MLB's gesture to use experienced umpires only has diverted the media's attention. Although, it goes to show even the supposed best make mistakes like the rest of us.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Mr Umpire

[BrianC14]

I agree. No signal should have been given whether Howard touched the plate or not. ...

If he touches the plate, the correct mechanic is to signal 'Safe'. Why wouldn't you call him safe if he touched?

[Mr Umpire]

If he touches the plate, the correct mechanic is to signal 'Safe'. Why wouldn't you call him safe if he touched?

B/c, in this situation, there was no play. The ball was 15 feet from him and obviously no tag was made. If Posada had the ball and I felt he got in there before the tag, then signal safe. But, there was no play once the ball went 15 feet from Posada on the play attempt. No need to signal anything since it was obvious to everyone what the status of the play was. If the ball were laying at Posada's feet, then I would signal safe and indicate the ball was on the ground.

[DirtyDawg]

I know that in softball we are supposed to signal safe. I think it is kind of like the missed first base call we spoke of a while back. The runner is safe after he crosses the bag unless appealed if I remember correctly. I still believe that if NY had appealed then they would have gotten the appeal call.

[BrianC14]

B/c, in this situation, there was no play. The ball was 15 feet from him and obviously no tag was made. If Posada had the ball and I felt he got in there before the tag, then signal safe. But, there was no play once the ball went 15 feet from Posada on the play attempt. No need to signal anything since it was obvious to everyone what the status of the play was. If the ball were laying at Posada's feet, then I would signal safe and indicate the ball was on the ground.

A play was being made on him - doesn't matter if the ball if 5 feet or 15 feet away - thus the correct mechanic is "Safe" - that tells everyone that no appeal is possible, and that the runner touched the plate.

The important issue is that the defense was attempting a putout at the plate. Remember that a play at the plate is different from on the bases (with the exception of first on a B/R who hasn't "acquired" the base yet).

Here's the video:

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?topic_id=7223232

Now, understand that the 'Safe' call came late - and this was a matter of NOT touching the dish... but this play is plenty close -

Edited November 2, 2009 by BrianC14

[BrianC14]

I know that in softball we are supposed to signal safe. I think it is kind of like the missed first base call we spoke of a while back. The runner is safe after he crosses the bag unless appealed if I remember correctly. I still believe that if NY had appealed then they would have gotten the appeal call.

Forget about first base - this is the plate - totally different.

[BrianC14]

McDouchebag and What the Buck are absolutely clueless. Okay you already knew that but here's why now.

Bottom of the 4th. Rollins on 2nd Feliz gets a hit which Damon bobbles then guns it home for a play at the plate. Howard makes a head first dive preventing Posada from fielding it well. In his dive for the home he never touched the plate.

The all-knowing announcers seemed not to be able to get over the fact that Everitt not only didn't call him out for not touching the plate, but gave "half hearted" safe call well after the play.

Grrr

Wasn't it Ryan Howard that scored on that play? Why does Rollins' name come into this? (title and above paragraph)... :)

[Astrosdawg07]

I make no signal no doubt about unless I'm asked if there was a tag, and even there I just verbalize no tag.

[carolinablue]

I'm pulling for the Phillies and it was pissing me off that the announcers kept talking about the play and showing it over and over. Although they were clueless, I just knew someone was watching in the clubhouse and was going to tell Girardi to appeal. They showed the play several times before the next pitch was ever thrown.

On a side note completely off the subject, I think there is a good chance we will see some fireworks in tonights game. I think with a 3 to 1 lead now that there is a good chance that the Yankees will retaliate for A-Rod being hit 3 times. They couldn't do anything last night because the Umpires nipped it in the bud immediately with a warning. They couldn't afford to loose CC. that early in the game.

[BrianC14]

I'm pulling for the Phillies and it was pissing me off that the announcers kept talking about the play and showing it over and over. Although they were clueless, I just knew someone was watching in the clubhouse and was going to tell Girardi to appeal. They showed the play several times before the next pitch was ever thrown.

On a side note completely off the subject, I think there is a good chance we will see some fireworks in tonights game. I think with a 3 to 1 lead now that there is a good chance that the Yankees will retaliate for A-Rod being hit 3 times. They couldn't do anything last night because the Umpires nipped it in the bud immediately with a warning. They couldn't afford to loose CC. that early in the game.

I missed that whole play and the appeal - was the appeal denied? :)

[Umpire in Chief]

I watched the video again and again then it popped into my head that Everett made a great call and here's why.

And believe it or not it is how the announcers called it which made this all of the sudden come to me.

At about 37 seconds in the video is where Howard collides with Posada and the ball comes out.

At about 39 seconds CC attempts to throw out Feliz at second.

Rule 7.10(d)

Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or ANY PLAY OR ATTEMPTED PLAY ...

So with CC attempting the play on Feliz negated the Yankees opportunity to make an appeal.

Then it is about at 43 seconds where Everitt made the safe call.

I can only assume that the safe is because the Yankees had lost their right to appeal at that time versus at the time of the play.

Look at it again http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7112919 and listen to the announcers then it actually starts to make sense as an umpire. Good job to these announcers who for once clarified something for me.

Announcer:

Howard's around third...

Heading for home...

Here's the throw to the plate...

He's???

No signal yet.

The throw goes to second.

Howard is NOW safe at the plate.

It just goes to prove even a broken clock is right twice a day.

When you think about it it was the absolute correct call and timing by Everitt.

[Mr Umpire]

I watched the video again and again then it popped into my head that Everett made a great call and here's why.

And believe it or not it is how the announcers called it which made this all of the sudden come to me.

At about 37 seconds in the video is where Howard collides with Posada and the ball comes out.

At about 39 seconds CC attempts to throw out Feliz at second.

Rule 7.10(d)

So with CC attempting the play on Feliz negated the Yankees opportunity to make an appeal.

Then it is about at 43 seconds where Everitt made the safe call.

I can only assume that the safe is because the Yankees had lost their right to appeal at that time versus at the time of the play.

Look at it again http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7112919 and listen to the announcers then it actually starts to make sense as an umpire. Good job to these announcers who for once clarified something for me.

Announcer:

It just goes to prove even a broken clock is right twice a day.

When you think about it it was the absolute correct call and timing by Everitt.

CC's play was part of the continuous play.

MLBUM

5.4 Appeal playes: ARs

(1) R1, 1 out. BR doubles. R1 tries for HP. R1 misses HP, F2 misses tag. F2 starts after R1 but realizes BR tries for 3B. F2 throws BR out at 3B. May defense still appeal HP miss.

Ruling: Yes. F2's play on BR at 3B was still part of continuous action created by and following the batted ball. Therefore, defense would not lose its rights to make an appeal by playing on the runner at home or BR at 3B and may still appeal HP.

So, Everett's actions are still wrong. If he saw Howard miss HP, he had no business signaling him safe at all. Announcers are still wrong.

[BrianC14]

I watched the video again and again then it popped into my head that Everett made a great call and here's why.

And believe it or not it is how the announcers called it which made this all of the sudden come to me.

At about 37 seconds in the video is where Howard collides with Posada and the ball comes out.

At about 39 seconds CC attempts to throw out Feliz at second.

Rule 7.10(d)

So with CC attempting the play on Feliz negated the Yankees opportunity to make an appeal.

Then it is about at 43 seconds where Everitt made the safe call.

I can only assume that the safe is because the Yankees had lost their right to appeal at that time versus at the time of the play.

Look at it again http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7112919 and listen to the announcers then it actually starts to make sense as an umpire. Good job to these announcers who for once clarified something for me.

Announcer:

It just goes to prove even a broken clock is right twice a day.

When you think about it it was the absolute correct call and timing by Everitt.

That's why you're the UIC!

Mr. Umpire, that's not a "continuous play" for the purposes of Rule 7.10(d).

UIC has it right.

Nice call, Warren!

Edited November 2, 2009 by BrianC14

[Mr Umpire]

I missed that whole play and the appeal - was the appeal denied?

No, appeal wasn't denied. It was never made. Everett essentially told everyone no appeal was possible b/c he signaled Howard safe. Which he had no business doing if he saw Howard miss HP.

And, this is why I say no call even if he did. Simply b/c it remains consistent and absolutely tells no one anything one way or the other. This forces the defense to watch the play and not the umpire.

Missed tag, show safe. Dropped ball which everyone can see, signal nothing and let everyone figure out what they need to. If he signals nothing on the play regardless if Howard touched, then the defense determines their own actions and not the umpire.

That is why I say no signal on one which is clear to everyone that there is not tag attempt anymore. Tag attempt is only possible when the player has the ball. Not when it is out of the glove and not possible to make any attempt. That is being consistent and not tipping anyone off as to what the play is regardless. The idea is for the player's to figure out what to do on their own, not the umpires telling them what to do.

[Mr Umpire]

That's why you're the UIC!

Mr. Umpire, that's not a "continuous play" for the purposes of Rule 7.10(d).

UIC has it right.

Nice call, Warren!

MLBUM 5.4 Appeal Plays: ARs

(2) R1, 1 out. F1 attempts pickoff but throws past 1B to RF. R1 misses 2B and goes to 3B. F9 throw to 3B to get runner is late. May defense appeal 2B?

AR: Yes. 3B attempted play on R1 at 3B was still part of continuous action created by and following the aborted pick off throw. Therefore, defense doesn't lose itrs right to appeal at 2B.

Every bit of that is continuous action for 7.10(d).

(3) R1, R3. 2 outs. F1's pitch is wild. R3 scores. R1 misses 2B. F2 attempts to get him at 3B. Wild throw and R1 tries to score. F6 attempts to throw R1 out at HP but is late. May defense appeal?

AR: Yes. Defense's attempted plays on R1 were still part of continuous action following the wild pitch.

Continuous play is anything immediately following an action and when there is no relaxed time. Such as F1 starts to go to the mound and then tries to pick off R2 who has strayed too far. That would no longer be continuous play. F1 throwing to 2B immediately following the ball coming out of F2's glove is continuous action of the play.

Everett was wrong no matter how it is looked at. He signaled safe when it is continuous action on the same play. All 3 plays I have given show the ball being thrown to a different base than was missed with 2 by different players. As long as there is no definite break in action, it is continuous action and there was no break in the action for this play.

And this part from 7.10 does not just apply to d. It applies to all of 7.10.

Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play. If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half-inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Mr Umpire

[carolinablue]

I don't see how the play at 2B would not be considered continuous action. But I do see what UIC is saying about the announcers and how the play was signaled. I didn't pick up on that while watching the game. I thought the appeal play was and should have been alive the entire time. That's why I posted what I did above.

Edited November 2, 2009 by carolinablue

[Mr Umpire]

I don't see how the play at 2B would not be considered continuous action. But I do see what UIC is saying about the announcers and how the play was signaled. I didn't pick up on that while watching the game. I thought the appeal play was and should have been alive the entire time. That's why I posted what I did above.

It was alive. Everett screwed up and made the defense think Howard touched the plate. It appeared to me either he was ruling on the play very late(though I would have signaled nothing either way if Howard touched or not since F2 dropped it for everyone to see and be consistent) or he was saying the ball did not go OOP and he had nothing on the play.

His actions deterred the defense from making an appeal. He should have signaled absolutely nothing on the play even if CC was throwing to 2B. It was continuous play which is clearly defined in the examples provided of what continuous play is. My only guess is Everett thought Howard touched HP. Otherwise, he has no excuse for his actions IMO.

[Mr Umpire]

It still goes to show even their veteran umpires make rookie mistakes. They are no better than many others not in the system. They just endured the long, grueling road to get there and umpire a higher level of ball. Sometimes, something happens and they mess up just like the rest of us. They are still human after all.

And did what many won't/can't do and that is go to one of the umpire schools(at least the newer umpires since it was started to be enforced).

[BrianC14]

That case play is a good example of continuous action. But it's not the same play as the Howard play. When CC attempted to throw out the runner (B/R heading to 2nd) that is an attempted play on another runner.

7.10(d) is the correct way to call this. No appeal is possible at home after the attempted play at 2B. Thus, Howard is indeed 'safe'.

[BrianC14]

Copied from the other forum, for clarity on how I see this play:

Well, I've looked at the video (yet again) - - I see Sabathia grabbing the loose ball and immediately going to 2B with it.... from Everitt's reactions to the ball, I believe he had to have thought that Howard touched the base, and simply made his call - in real time - maybe 1 to 2 seconds after Sabathia picked it up (and the video shows this) - - I don't that that's all that long, given where the ball ended up... so his 'Safe' call IS CORRECT based on his belief that Howard touched the plate. I think the statement that:

"Everitt gave the safe sign to indicated an appeal was not longer available" is irrelevant when considering that Everitt appears to have made the call based on Howard touching the plate.

I will say (and I'm standing corrected here) that 7.10(d) wouldn't be relevant here - it is clearly continuous action. (My earlier views of the video I wasn't bothering to watch Sabathia's actions... for whatever reason, I had it in my mind that Sabathia picked up the ball and went 'relaxed' before throwing to 2B. Obviously, that was wrong on my part.

Now: IF Everitt made the 'safe' call knowing that Howard hadn't touched the plate, (and perhaps based on 7.10(d) ) - then yes, he poked the proverbial pooch on the call.

[poppyfor3]

I realize we are watching this play on TV. How many of you had Howard missing the plate in real time?? How many of you believe the PU had Howard missing the dish??

[Mr Umpire]

I realize we are watching this play on TV. How many of you had Howard missing the plate in real time?? How many of you believe the PU had Howard missing the dish??

When the play happened, I questioned if he touched it. I realize the vantage point from the camera of which the play occurred is different than the PU's. I didn't have definitive proof until the replays. So, I can definitely see why he would go with Howard touching. And, I would too unless I could clearly see the miss from his position.

If he believes Howard touched, then call him safe. Who knows if he had Howard touching or not. If he didn't, then he should not have signaled anything.