Good call ?

[carolinablue]

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=11294915&c_id=mlb

Does anyone else besides the Phillies have an out on this one ?

[dumbdumb]

Since Bourn is already running in the middle of the lane (rather than right on the line or in the grass like a right hander would probably be ) his legal 3 feet to either side of his direct running path would probably legally put him into the grass in this particular case. Of course, Howard isn't exactly starting his dive from right at or near the line himself like other plays similar to this one this year. A step and reach when you are in the path of the runner cannot be applied for this one either. Once again, in all these plays it is judgment as to whether the runner violated. IMHO, on other plays this year I would have applied the out of the baseline rule, but on this particular one, I am inclined to agree with Gibson. This does not mean I am correct on any of them.

On another note, if you look at the base coaches face, I believe that smile is because he thinks the runner went out of the 3 foot between a direct line. He is not smiling at the missed tag by Howard IMHO. If Gibson had ruled out of the baseline in his judgment, the footprint would be good evidence for him to argue with the opposing manager just like Utley is trying to argue.

Gibson would have probably had to toss the other manager had he ruled the other way. This is an excellent play for either manager to get tossed on, regardless of whether the umpire can be shown to be correct on instant replay, to show they are standing up for their team.

Edited August 24, 2010 by dumbdumb

[kcfan102]

I'm just glad Gibson wasn't wearing a cream undershirt.

[Thunderheads]

Well, based on the replay, he's running in the lane, and his initial step to avoid Howard is just inside the grass .......

....at full speed, I can see where Gibson says safe .......good call......

[Umpire in Chief]

I just read an ump-bashing article on this play. Grrr.

First I think he was corrsct. It appeared the runner was on the outter half of the lane to begin with and the divot left is about 18" - 24" outside. I have no problem with the call.

Second watch Gibson handled Manuel. Manuel starts pointing to the divot. It appears Gibson directs him somehow not to point or demonstrate. Then Gibson starts Walking Manuel away from the scene.

The ump bashing article says Gibson should have gone to Barry to confirm. Sorry but IMO running lane violations are the base guys only. Now if your talking about obstruction for being out of the lane that's the PU's turf.

[BrianC14]

I'm just glad Gibson wasn't wearing a cream undershirt.

ROFLMAO.... :fuel:

[BrianC14]

I just read an ump-bashing article on this play. Grrr.

First I think he was corrsct. It appeared the runner was on the outter half of the lane to begin with and the divot left is about 18" - 24" outside. I have no problem with the call.

Second watch Gibson handled Manuel. Manuel starts pointing to the divot. It appears Gibson directs him somehow not to point or demonstrate. Then Gibson starts Walking Manuel away from the scene.

The ump bashing article says Gibson should have gone to Barry to confirm. Sorry but IMO running lane violations are the base guys only. Now if your talking about obstruction for being out of the lane that's the PU's turf.

That's not what I've been taught. I think if he'd wanted to, Gibson could easily have gone for help, for a couple of reasons:

1) At the start of the play, Gibson moves himself into foul territory... ?

2) Then as the play gets closer to him, he moves across the line into fair territory... the bad part here is that he's moving on the play - yes, I agree that judgment is about where the B/R's line is, and then just 3' and/or 'step and reach' from that point is where being out of the baseline should be judged, but Gibson is MOVING while this is going on - which means that Gibson's perspective on things is changing as he moves. Not good.

He could have - and I think he should have - asked for some help. It might not have overturned the call based on what we see in the video, but perhaps a view from behind the play might have helped. Watch the actions of the plate umpire at the very beginning of the video (in real time) - I think he's got some information for Gibson, but it goes unrequested. (Watch him adjust his cap.... was that perhaps a signal to Gibson)? Hmmm... I don't know... could be...

Another thing: Last night EPSN pointed out that this same crew some games back had called Victorino, I think - out on the same type of play, where Victorino had dodged a tag just as he was getting to 1B. No doubt that Manuel remembered that call and now he's not getting the same call in his favor. It almost makes me wonder if Manuel brought that up during his argument with Gibson, and that's when Gibson pulled out the hook.

Finally - a couple thoughts on Gibson's call..... why in the world is he calling Bourn "safe" when Bourn hasn't yet touched or arrived at the base?

And Greg - get your hands out of your pockets! Sheesh!

Edited August 24, 2010 by BrianC14

[Umpire in Chief]

I think the first safe call was a "no tag" call.

As for position maybe he was possibly getting ready for the ball to be thrown to Utley covering where he wouldn' get an angle if that play developed, but who knows.

[BrianC14]

I think the first safe call was a "no tag" call.

As for position maybe he was possibly getting ready for the ball to be thrown to Utley covering where he wouldn' get an angle if that play developed, but who knows.

Agreed on his move into foul territory -and good point about the first 'safe' call ("No tag!") - I watched it again and you can read his lips as he's saying that... but man, with all that movement, there's plenty of reason, I think, to get some help.

Still at KCFan's 'cream shirt' comment.... ;)

[dumbdumb]

As I said earlier, I was inclined to agree with this one, but a couple of times I had something similar, I always called this an out, since they definitely swing wide and I do not carry a ruler to measure and have to use my judgment. For some reason, it just seems like I always saw the runner going more than 3 feet from a direct line in my judgment. Now whether he really did, by using a ruler if one were available, I do not know.

With these tag avoidance plays and the rule that says direct line from your established base path, and not from a direct line between bases, it brings much more judgment into the equation in my opinion. Maybe it doesn't, but it is still judgment as to 3 feet, and it is just like calling a check swing, what one calls a swing another does not, even though they both use the same definition.

Now as far as getting help. Again, what happens if you see the other umpire wants to offer help and you go ask and then you change the call. Now, you go in to see the replay after the game and it shows the original umpire got the play right after all, and the help umpire actually missed the call. Now what are you gonna do. If Gibson clearly saw both the no tag, and saw no out of the baseline violation, then he should not go for help. Personally, I would only go ask for help on the tag, not the out of the baseline, if I felt I might have missed a tag. Once again, what if I go for help and then the help umpire is proved to missed the call and I was right all along. That could easily happen also.

Here is the old play from this website from 6/24/2010 where Gibson (same call twice in a year against the same team and not in their favor) calls Victorino out for going out of the baseline. Guess who gets run on this call. Charlie wants it both ways. Safe when the Phillies do it and out when the opposition does it. Like I said, this is pretty much a no win situation if the manager wants to come out and argue, and once again it is a good play to get run on, even if the ump is 100% correct.

http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=9300349&c_id=phi

P.S. What I thought about more than this call, was Werth getting picked off second by the catcher on the fourth pitch of the intentional walk as the runner was going to first. Totally unbelievable. It tops Gibson's call for all those who think it was terrible by a long shot IMHO.

Found another one from last year.

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5619473

And I would not have gone for help from Barry if I saw both parts of the play clearly just like IMHO Barry should have not gone for help to Hernandez last year on 6/29/2009 on a play that he can saw more clearly than anyone, right or wrong.

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5317991

Edited August 29, 2010 by dumbdumb

[Umpire in Chief]

Good find dumbdumb.

If it is close out is probably the easier call.

[kcfan102]

Oh Greg

In all honesty, he's one of my favorites. I think he got this one right. Now, honestly we don't know exactly where 3 feet is, but I feel as he got the call right.

I would agree though that help wouldn't have been a bad idea.

[Thunderheads]

As I said earlier, I was inclined to agree with this one, but a couple of times I had something similar, I always called this an out, since they definitely swing wide and I do not carry a ruler to measure and have to use my judgment. For some reason, it just seems like I always saw the runner going more than 3 feet from a direct line in my judgment. Now whether he really did, by using a ruler if one were available, I do not know.

With these tag avoidance plays and the rule that says direct line from your established base path, and not from a direct line between bases, it brings much more judgment into the equation in my opinion. Maybe it doesn't, but it is still judgment as to 3 feet, and it is just like calling a check swing, what one calls a swing another does not, even though they both use the same definition.

Now as far as getting help. Again, what happens if you see the other umpire wants to offer help and you go ask and then you change the call. Now, you go in to see the replay after the game and it shows the original umpire got the play right after all, and the help umpire actually missed the call. Now what are you gonna do. If Gibson clearly saw both the no tag, and saw no out of the baseline violation, then he should not go for help. Personally, I would only go ask for help on the tag, not the out of the baseline, if I felt I might have missed a tag. Once again, what if I go for help and then the help umpire is proved to missed the call and I was right all along. That could easily happen also.

Here is the old play from this website from 6/24/2010 where Gibson (same call twice in a year against the same team and not in their favor) calls Victorino out for going out of the baseline. Guess who gets run on this call. Charlie wants it both ways. Safe when the Phillies do it and out when the opposition does it. Like I said, this is pretty much a no win situation if the manager wants to come out and argue, and once again it is a good play to get run on, even if the ump is 100% correct.

http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=9300349&c_id=phi

P.S. What I thought about more than this call, was Werth getting picked off second by the catcher on the fourth pitch of the intentional walk as the runner was going to first. Totally unbelievable. It tops Gibson's call for all those who think it was terrible by a long shot IMHO.

Found another one from last year.

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5619473

The Victorino play is the same as this one ............ :TD:

[Mr Umpire]

It's hard to judge what 3 feet is when the play is going on. Honestly, since it is judgment, it is tough to argue the call. What I find interesting is the fact that Gibson calls Victorino out but not Bourn. They look very similar.

However, it does appear that Victorino took 2 steps to get to his final place where Bourn took only one. I know Victorino appears to have shorter legs. But, I wonder if that led to 2 different calls. Maybe that caused the different judgment calls. I don't know. I just hate the fact that it had to happen where the same umpire ends up making 2 different calls of the same nature against the same team. I'm sure Manuel brought that up to get EJ.

[Thunderheads]

It's hard to judge what 3 feet is when the play is going on. Honestly, since it is judgment, it is tough to argue the call. What I find interesting is the fact that Gibson calls Victorino out but not Bourn. They look very similar.

However, it does appear that Victorino took 2 steps to get to his final place where Bourn took only one. I know Victorino appears to have shorter legs. But, I wonder if that led to 2 different calls. Maybe that caused the different judgment calls. I don't know. I just hate the fact that it had to happen where the same umpire ends up making 2 different calls of the same nature against the same team. I'm sure Manuel brought that up to get EJ.

+1:D

[Umpire in Chief]

Nice Video ads Dumbdumb,

On the final video. I have always been taught that right or wrong once a ball is called foul, it's fol no fixing it unless it was a HR in dispute of being F/F.

[UmpPhil]

Since Bourn is already running in the middle of the lane (rather than right on the line or in the grass like a right hander would probably be ) his legal 3 feet to either side of his direct running path would probably legally put him into the grass in this particular case. Of course, Howard isn't exactly starting his dive from right at or near the line himself like other plays similar to this one this year. A step and reach when you are in the path of the runner cannot be applied for this one either. Once again, in all these plays it is judgment as to whether the runner violated. IMHO, on other plays this year I would have applied the out of the baseline rule, but on this particular one, I am inclined to agree with Gibson. This does not mean I am correct on any of them.

On another note, if you look at the base coaches face, I believe that smile is because he thinks the runner went out of the 3 foot between a direct line. He is not smiling at the missed tag by Howard IMHO. If Gibson had ruled out of the baseline in his judgment, the footprint would be good evidence for him to argue with the opposing manager just like Utley is trying to argue.

Gibson would have probably had to toss the other manager had he ruled the other way. This is an excellent play for either manager to get tossed on, regardless of whether the umpire can be shown to be correct on instant replay, to show they are standing up for their team.

I think the biggest part of this 3 feet rule is a question of how much of the person is allowed to be 3 feet away. His upper half remains fairly close to the baseline and his initial running lane, only his lower half really makes the turn towards the dugout. That's just my thought on this one. Really tough question to ask!