Ground rule double?

[Thunderheads]

Turn OFF your sound unless you want to commit hari kari   ......but that said ...... what does he see here???

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=27171247&topic_id=9780550&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_27171247&v=3

 

[JaxRolo]

oops

[Umpire in Chief]

In real time on the first view I can see how he might have thought it was interfered with, but unfortunately that was not the case.

[tldavis19]

That was ugly....

[UmpJeff]

The bright side is...

 

He got the Fair/Foul call correct.

[Dannytheman]

Didn't it hot the ball boys helmet?  (Reaching here, I know.)

[HeadHunterLA]

Yikes

[noumpere]

Didn't it hot the ball boys helmet?  (Reaching here, I know.)

If your reaching for the hot ball boys "helmet" then your on the wrong site (or else I am).

[Haid D' Salaami]

Real quick in your title it says  Ground rule double.. can you explain this, cause i cant find it in the rule book... I see 2 bases awards....

[noumpere]

Real quick in your title it says  Ground rule double.. can you explain this, cause i cant find it in the rule book... I see 2 bases awards....

Great point and maybe the ground rules in the park are that the green padding at the top is out of play.

[Rich Ives]

 

Real quick in your title it says  Ground rule double.. can you explain this, cause i cant find it in the rule book... I see 2 bases awards....

Great point and maybe the ground rules in the park are that the green padding at the top is out of play.

 

 

If it hit the top it would have continued into the stands - HS Physics.

 

The universal ground rules from MLB cover this - it's in play. Park rules cannot override the universal rules.

 

Fan interference is a "god" rule - the umpires award whatever they think necessary.

[scrounge]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WEGNER?!???

 

 

Sorry, had to channel my inner Hawk. Also, this is a situation that I would have no problem using replay.

[noumpere]

 

 

Real quick in your title it says  Ground rule double.. can you explain this, cause i cant find it in the rule book... I see 2 bases awards....

Great point and maybe the ground rules in the park are that the green padding at the top is out of play.

 

 

If it hit the top it would have continued into the stands - HS Physics.

 

The universal ground rules from MLB cover this - it's in play. Park rules cannot override the universal rules.

 

Fan interference is a "god" rule - the umpires award whatever they think necessary.

 

I meant the green padding on the facing above the red part -- iow just where the ball hit.  JUst like a park might have a ground rule that "above the yellow line is a homerun"

 

And it was a joke.

[BigUmpire]

Darn, all those red chairs in the background, fans in red shirts and that guy with the red sleeves and the Red State Farm Sign. Why all that Red????????

Because it’s in the greatest ballpark and in the greatest baseball town in America.

 

[Richvee]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WEGNER?!???

 

 

Sorry, had to channel my inner Hawk. Also, this is a situation that I would have no problem using replay.

Let's say Ankiel sees U2 hold his hands up signaling time. He eases up and trots into 2nd as the F4 tags him. Umpires award 2nd. Now the replay shows it didn't hit in the stands. Do you call Ankiel out? Offense will argue he clearly held up after seeing the "time" call. Replay = a can of worms. 

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

Real quick in your title it says  Ground rule double.. can you explain this, cause i cant find it in the rule book... I see 2 bases awards....

Great point and maybe the ground rules in the park are that the green padding at the top is out of play.

 

 

If it hit the top it would have continued into the stands - HS Physics.

 

The universal ground rules from MLB cover this - it's in play. Park rules cannot override the universal rules.

 

Fan interference is a "god" rule - the umpires award whatever they think necessary.

 

I meant the green padding on the facing above the red part -- iow just where the ball hit.  JUst like a park might have a ground rule that "above the yellow line is a homerun"

 

And it was a joke.

 

  Why bother?

[scrounge]

 

WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WEGNER?!???

 

 

Sorry, had to channel my inner Hawk. Also, this is a situation that I would have no problem using replay.

Let's say Ankiel sees U2 hold his hands up signaling time. He eases up and trots into 2nd as the F4 tags him. Umpires award 2nd. Now the replay shows it didn't hit in the stands. Do you call Ankiel out? Offense will argue he clearly held up after seeing the "time" call. Replay = a can of worms. 

 

 

That wasn't this situation. There was no calling or indication of time, there was no interruption to live action till after the play was over. The play was changed by an after-the-fact call. Yes, it's a judgment call but one based on a video-friendly point of fact. There is a clear, binary outcome with no complications like following runners, etc.

 

There are many situations where replay is a can of worms, but the original situation isn't one of them. I'm just not reflexively, innately opposed to replay, I'm sorry.

[Richvee]

 

 

WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WEGNER?!???

 

 

Sorry, had to channel my inner Hawk. Also, this is a situation that I would have no problem using replay.

Let's say Ankiel sees U2 hold his hands up signaling time. He eases up and trots into 2nd as the F4 tags him. Umpires award 2nd. Now the replay shows it didn't hit in the stands. Do you call Ankiel out? Offense will argue he clearly held up after seeing the "time" call. Replay = a can of worms. 

 

 

That wasn't this situation. There was no calling or indication of time, there was no interruption to live action till after the play was over. The play was changed by an after-the-fact call. Yes, it's a judgment call but one based on a video-friendly point of fact. There is a clear, binary outcome with no complications like following runners, etc.

 

There are many situations where replay is a can of worms, but the original situation isn't one of them. I'm just not reflexively, innately opposed to replay, I'm sorry.

 

If you watch the video, U2 does have his hands up as BR slides in.  I understand this play was continuous action. My point is how do you legislate when to use replay or not? 

 

My take is I think I;m OK with replay for plays on the bases as long as the play in question was the last play and no more plays/advancement of runners took place after the call in question. Otherwise,I just don't like the idea of umpires having the extra burden of judging where runners should be placed if the original call was incorrect as to what happened during live play. (If that makes sense.) 

[scrounge]

 

 

 

WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WEGNER?!???

 

 

Sorry, had to channel my inner Hawk. Also, this is a situation that I would have no problem using replay.

Let's say Ankiel sees U2 hold his hands up signaling time. He eases up and trots into 2nd as the F4 tags him. Umpires award 2nd. Now the replay shows it didn't hit in the stands. Do you call Ankiel out? Offense will argue he clearly held up after seeing the "time" call. Replay = a can of worms. 

 

 

That wasn't this situation. There was no calling or indication of time, there was no interruption to live action till after the play was over. The play was changed by an after-the-fact call. Yes, it's a judgment call but one based on a video-friendly point of fact. There is a clear, binary outcome with no complications like following runners, etc.

 

There are many situations where replay is a can of worms, but the original situation isn't one of them. I'm just not reflexively, innately opposed to replay, I'm sorry.

 

If you watch the video, U2 does have his hands up as BR slides in.  I understand this play was continuous action. My point is how do you legislate when to use replay or not? 

 

My take is I think I;m OK with replay for plays on the bases as long as the play in question was the last play and no more plays/advancement of runners took place after the call in question. Otherwise,I just don't like the idea of umpires having the extra burden of judging where runners should be placed if the original call was incorrect as to what happened during live play. (If that makes sense.) 

 

 

I pretty much agree with you. I would expand it to plays where there is a clear, definable, reversible result. Fair calls that are played out could be reviewed to see if they're foul, but not the other way around. Plays at first (or any base I guess) with no one else on. A no-catch for the 3rd out reviewed to see if it was a catch.The already existing HR/no HR call. Maybe plays on the infield where no runners are moving (force at 2nd or play at first with no runners advancing beyond one base) but admittedly the line gets awfully blurry after that. But I think the first few situations I listed are good enough and wouldn't slow the game down much, if at all. If it was a 1 challenge per game (if you win, you get it back) kind of thing and done centrally a la NHL, it might actually cut down the arguing time. Who's a manager going to stand there and yell at for 5 mins, some replay guy in NY?