Could replay kill the neighborhood play?

[scrounge]

With replay looming, could 'neighborhood play' be a thing of the past?

Jeff Passan

By Jeff Passan 16 hours ago Yahoo Sports

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb--with-replay-looming--could--neighborhood-play--be-a-thing-of-the-past--220641926.html

 

The "neighborhood play" is one of those things that makes sense only in baseball's vacuum of illogic. The rationale behind it goes something like this: Because runners slide hard into second base and can hurt fielders trying to turn the double play, the fielders are allowed to catch a throw in the neighborhood of the second-base bag without tagging it and still draw a force out. Never mind the attempted catcher decapitations at home plate continuing unabated. Safety for middle infielders' legs is sacrosanct.

 

One of the more egregious neighborhood plays occurred in Game 4 of the ALCS on Wednesday, when Boston's Stephen Drew caught a Dustin Pedroia throw a full foot off the bag. If Drew was in the neighborhood of the base, Detroit is in the neighborhood of Los Angeles. It was that obvious, and it prompted a fair question from the masses.

 

Will instant replay fix it?

 

The answer is maybe. The officials on Major League Baseball's committee to determine replay rules have spent dozens of hours locked in a room arguing over the sort of minutiae replay advocates cannot fathom. The general sense coming out of those meetings is that while replay is in theory a great salve, there is genuine concern that it will fundamentally change baseball's pace to its detriment. Much of the caterwauling over replay comes from fans who savor long, clinical games. To add more time runs the risk of turning off those who already consider the game plodding.

 

If MLB wants to call the play correctly – it would be odd to have replay for bad calls and accept that umpires let force plays stand with a foot off the base at second while they would never do that at first, third or home – there is a solution. It would necessitate a rule change in addition to the adoption of replay, one used in almost all lower levels of baseball.

 

In college, it is called the "Force-Play-Slide Rule," and in the NCAA baseball rulebook, it reads as such:

 

The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of all players. This is a safety and an interference rule. Whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule. This rule pertains to a force-play situation at any base, regardless of the number of outs.

 

The rule draws a direct path between the baseline and the second-base bag, leaving middle infielders either side of the base on which to plant their feet. If the runner at all interferes with him, the umpire must call the runner out. Interference includes a number of possibilities, from a cross-body takeout slide to a slide with a leg high in the air to a rolling slide. Should a runner interfere, both he and the batter would be out.

 

By giving a direct mandate to runners and discretion to umpires to call interference, MLB would make it clear that it expects middle infielders to have their feet on the second-base bag when turning double plays, thus opening the window for them to be replayable.

 

Of course, this would necessitate the approval of players, which may be the toughest part were it to get the committee's stamp. The takeout slide at second base is a staple of baseball, evident in almost every game, and the force-play-slide rule, if not outlawing it, would at least endanger it.

 

As the committee meets and hammers out what Instant Replay 1.0 will look like, the neighborhood play will come up – and, if they're smart, they'll look at the force-play-slide rule. Replay's goal should be simple: Get right everything it can get right. And when a player a full foot off the bag in a vital postseason game records an out, that is something worth righting.

[maven]

The answer is maybe? What a piece of crap reporting. Let us know when something actually happens. Sheesh.

[scrounge]

The answer is maybe? What a piece of crap reporting. Let us know when something actually happens. Sheesh.

 

Yep, pretty much! Typical Yahoo of late, pure filler.

[ricka56]

Scrounge did not say the following quotes, but I couldn't figure out how to scrub his name without killing the quotes.

The "neighborhood play" is one of those things that makes sense only in baseball's vacuum of illogic.

Tell that to the guys covering 2B when Ty  Cobb was R1.
 

One of the more egregious neighborhood plays occurred in Game 4 of the ALCS on Wednesday, when Boston's Stephen Drew caught a Dustin Pedroia throw ...

What a wanker.

 there is a solution. It would necessitate a rule change in addition to the adoption of replay, one used in almost all lower levels of baseball.

 

In college, it is called the "Force-Play-Slide Rule," and in the NCAA baseball rulebook, it reads as such:

I don't know about college ball. HS is my highest level, where despite the FPSR, the neighborhood play still lives. Just because there is a rule against going after a fielder doesn't mean runners will always adhere to it. You will still have runners pushing the bounds of any slide restriction, and challenging the umpires to call interference. So how would the addition of the FPSR be any solution. I don't get it. It might look like a tidy way to justify killing the neighborhood play, but I don't think it will work.

[Texas Manny]

I would almost have to say that the neighborhood play would need to go away because the umpires are not going to want to have their calls continuously overruled by IR and made to look foolish. We as umpires know what they are doing, but the preponderant public will just scream bloody murder that the umpires have been messing up all along. They'll cry "See, they've been making mistakes worse than we thought, all along!". This to me is the danger of instituting IR into baseball. 95% or more of the game is based on umpire's judgment and if you take that away, you negate the authority of the umpires. The game will no longer have its human element. Tell me, what happens when an umpire makes a call, a player, manager, or both, says the magic words, and are ejected, and then the call is reviewed and overturned? What happens to the ejections? Do they stand? Or are they nullified because the now overturned call and error by the umpire caused the reaction that caused the ejection? Oh, I know that players and managers must be responsible for their own actions, but the preponderant public and the announcers will all scream that if the umpire didn't miss the call, there wouldn't necessarily be the ejections. That's IR for you. I see this one coming because frankly, I don't believe it will be addressed.

 

I've tried to work out accepting IR for fair/foul on home runs, and SI on home runs, but frankly, they too are judgment calls. Just leave the game alone. It's worked well enough for over 100 years without it. Tell the cry baby announcers and fans to go pound sand. I'm tired of political correctness, and when it invades baseball because someones feelings got hurt, that is not good for the game. Grow up. Suck it up, or go home.

 

Jocko is 1000% right. NO INSTANT REPLAY!

[basejester]

Tell me, what happens when an umpire makes a call, a player, manager, or both, says the magic words, and are ejected, and then the call is reviewed and overturned? What happens to the ejections? Do they stand?

Of course ejections would stand. Why are managers and players out there arguing this egregious miss with an available challenge available in the first place?

Managers aren't ejected now for being wrong. They're ejected for delaying the game or being unprofessional.

The rope should get shorter on arguing judgement calls.

[Texas Manny]

 

Tell me, what happens when an umpire makes a call, a player, manager, or both, says the magic words, and are ejected, and then the call is reviewed and overturned? What happens to the ejections? Do they stand?

Of course ejections would stand. Why are managers and players out there arguing this egregious miss with an available challenge available in the first place?

Managers aren't ejected now for being wrong. They're ejected for delaying the game or being unprofessional.

The rope should get shorter on arguing judgement calls.

 

You missed the point I was trying to make by omitting the second half of the statements. You can't separate the two, because they are apart of one another.

 

Yes, as of now, the ejections would stand, but what if the call is reversed by IR? If the umpire was proven wrong by the IR, then the manager was right. So now are you going to eject a manager for being right in the first place, even if he crossed a professional line?  Players can and will say the wrong things, or physically do the wrong thing, before a manager has time to react, and/or get out there to deal with the umpire. Managers too will say and do the wrong things as well. Remember, under present MLB rules, arguing after an IR can result in an ejection. But with the new system, what happens prior to the IR and the umpires are then proven wrong?  IR creates a conundrum that has to be dealt with by MLB and MLB has to establish procedures to deal with this.

 

The scenario I questioned, is not only plausible, but I can almost guarantee you will see it happen. A close play, ejection, then review, overturned, and now what? Believe me, if you cross a professional line you should be ejected, pre or post-IR. But that's not what is going to be accepted by fans and announcers who pay the money, and promote the game. So fans and announcers bee-otch and moan again. It's totally possible.

[basejester]

You missed the point I was trying to make by omitting the second half of the statements. You can't separate the two, because they are apart of one another.

 

Yes, as of now, the ejections would stand, but what if the call is reversed by IR?

The ejections would still stand.

 

If the umpire was proven wrong by the IR, then the manager was right. So now are you going to eject a manager for being right in the first place, even if he crossed a professional line? 

Yes.

Players can and will say the wrong things, or physically do the wrong thing, before a manager has time to react, and/or get out there to deal with the umpire. Managers too will say and do the wrong things as well. Remember, under present MLB rules, arguing after an IR can result in an ejection. But with the new system, what happens prior to the IR and the umpires are then proven wrong?  IR creates a conundrum that has to be dealt with by MLB and MLB has to establish procedures to deal with this.

NFL coaches don't get their panties in a bunch when they think an official missed a call that can be challenged. They just throw the flag.

If a manager or player gets tossed before and then afterwards the team issues a challenge, he's a moron and anyone with half a brain will realize this.

[noumpere]

 

 

Yes, as of now, the ejections would stand, but what if the call is reversed by IR? If the umpire was proven wrong by the IR, then the manager was right. So now are you going to eject a manager for being right in the first place, even if he crossed a professional line? 

No one knows for sure of course because the wonks are up all night trying to figure all this stuff out, but I sure would hope that the EJ would stand.

 

I have told more than one coach in my life that "you have the right to discuss a call, but you have to do it in the right way."

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

Yes, as of now, the ejections would stand, but what if the call is reversed by IR? If the umpire was proven wrong by the IR, then the manager was right. So now are you going to eject a manager for being right in the first place, even if he crossed a professional line? 

No one knows for sure of course because the wonks are up all night trying to figure all this stuff out, but I sure would hope that the EJ would stand.

That's my whole point. It's going to create a situation that the powers to be need to address, otherwise, it will create another firestorm.

[MidAmUmp]

I don't have a steel trap mind, but I seem to remember at least 1 situation a year or two ago where a manager came out, argued a call, said the magic word(s), was ejected, and then the crew got together and changed the call.  The ejection obviously stood.  I would assume any ejections will still stand.  The managers have to be smart enough and under enough control to simply ask for the play to be reviewed vs. calling an umpire a no good milk cow.

 

As far as replay of specific plays/judgment calls go, obviously we don't know what they are considering, but I think NFL replay would be a good example to look at.  They can review judgment calls such as catch/incomplete pass, fumbles, in bounds/out of bounds.  They can't review things like pass interference, holding, etc. which are also judgment calls.  The question would be is there a difference between an out call on a pulled foot at 1st base and an out call on a neighborhood play on the front end of a double play?  The answer should be no.  However, the "unwritten rules" say give the middle infielder the benefit of the doubt as long as they make it look good to keep said fielder from getting hurt.

 

I would guess if they say the front end of a DP can be challenged, you're going to see a lot of off the bag calls.

[basejester]

A challenge of a catch/trap on a batted ball with runners on base could get weird. Or a call on a trailing runner affecting forces.

[Richvee]

A challenge of a catch/trap on a batted ball with runners on base could get weird. Or a call on a trailing runner affecting forces.

This is the one tat bugs me the most. R1 no outs. liner to short CF. R1 goes 1/2 way. Shoestring ruled a catch, R1 doubled up. Play overturned..no catch. 1st & 2nd? Defense is going to argue they had a force play on R1 at 2nd. Tough spot for the umpires to use judgement on wether or not a runner wold have gotten back to a bag on a catch or been thrown out on a no catch. 

[mjr_2013]

I would almost have to say that the neighborhood play would need to go away because the umpires are not going to want to have their calls continuously overruled by IR and made to look foolish. We as umpires know what they are doing, but the preponderant public will just scream bloody murder that the umpires have been messing up all along. They'll cry "See, they've been making mistakes worse than we thought, all along!". This to me is the danger of instituting IR into baseball. 95% or more of the game is based on umpire's judgment and if you take that away, you negate the authority of the umpires. The game will no longer have its human element. Tell me, what happens when an umpire makes a call, a player, manager, or both, says the magic words, and are ejected, and then the call is reviewed and overturned? What happens to the ejections? Do they stand? Or are they nullified because the now overturned call and error by the umpire caused the reaction that caused the ejection? Oh, I know that players and managers must be responsible for their own actions, but the preponderant public and the announcers will all scream that if the umpire didn't miss the call, there wouldn't necessarily be the ejections. That's IR for you. I see this one coming because frankly, I don't believe it will be addressed.

 

I've tried to work out accepting IR for fair/foul on home runs, and SI on home runs, but frankly, they too are judgment calls. Just leave the game alone. It's worked well enough for over 100 years without it. Tell the cry baby announcers and fans to go pound sand. I'm tired of political correctness, and when it invades baseball because someones feelings got hurt, that is not good for the game. Grow up. Suck it up, or go home.

 

Jocko is 1000% right. NO INSTANT REPLAY!

 

I would post a gif of an applauding crowd if I knew how.

 

I like the example you put of ejection before the challenge. I don't see it happening with coaches, but a lot with players... A good example is when Zach Grienke spiked the baseball after a bang bang play at first one or two years ago. He was tossed immediately. I believe that play was actually called correctly, but let's pretend the umpire had missed it... Go to IR, overturn it, Grienke is still gone.

 

Same with batter runners who spike their helmets to the ground.

 

Interesting thought - could MLB stretch the definition of a play to include an ejection? And therefore not allow an IR after an ejection? That'd really ruffle some feathers.

[Lindsay]

Interesting thought - could MLB stretch the definition of a play to include an ejection? And therefore not allow an IR after an ejection? That'd really ruffle some feathers.

15-yard penalty for challenging a play that will be automatically challenged.

[basejester]

I wouldn't expect to hear on umpire forum that a missed call could justify a player's bad behavior.

[ricka56]

 

Interesting thought - could MLB stretch the definition of a play to include an ejection? And therefore not allow an IR after an ejection? That'd really ruffle some feathers.

15-yard penalty for challenging a play that will be automatically challenged.

 

A 15 yd penalty is only a half base penalty/award. They're gonna have to re-think that one.

[Texas Manny]

I wouldn't expect to hear on umpire forum that a missed call could justify a player's bad behavior.

Base,

 

He's not justifying the bad behavior. Try to look at the scenario I gave, not from an umpires perspective, but from the fans and announcers perspective that is driving this IR madness. They will never understand why their favorite player was ejected and remained ejected because the umpires got the call wrong and it was reversed. IR may fix one set of problems, but it has the potential, and IMHO, will create a whole new set of problems to resolve.

 

No one is saying that unprofessional behavior from the umpires perspective should be dismissed. Money is driving this IR show, and this conundrum will come up. That's all that's being said.

[basejester]

Base,

 

He's not justifying the bad behavior. Try to look at the scenario I gave, not from an umpires perspective, but from the fans and announcers perspective that is driving this IR madness. They will never understand why their favorite player was ejected and remained ejected because the umpires got the call wrong and it was reversed. IR may fix one set of problems, but it has the potential, and IMHO, will create a whole new set of problems to resolve.

 

No one is saying that unprofessional behavior from the umpires perspective should be dismissed. Money is driving this IR show, and this conundrum will come up. That's all that's being said.

 

 

I think you're conflating IR itself (which has pros and cons) with a hypothetical mishandling of it. 

 

In your scenario, we have:

1. An umpire misses a call.
2. A player misbehaves (e.g., throws equipment)
3. The umpire ejects him.
4. The manager challenges.
5. The call is reversed.

Any idiot who thinks the reversal should negate the ejection has already changed the channel to watch reality television. 

[mstaylor]

I understand your conundrum but a player spiking equipment or a manager losing it before an IR is going to have to stand. Now it would be interesting that if somebody gets ejected before an IR request then you can't review it. That would be a storm of epic proportion. I have said before that if they are going to allow IR then the manager should be allowed to go ask the umpire what he had but not argue the call. If he does then no replay. You either hear what the umpire has and ask for a review, or argue and the play would stand. 

[Texas Manny]

I don't understand why y'all are having so much difficulty understanding what I am saying. The problem with IR is that fans and announcers who have no clue about rules, or umpire judgments, and are driving the game into the ground, by destroying the foundation that the umpires judgment cannot be questioned.

 

If the fans and announcers who drive the money aspect, towards the game, can influence the creation of IR, then why is it not plausible for them to bitch and moan about their favorite players getting ejected prior to review, because of their actions, which are ejectionable, then the call is overturned, and they will see it as the umpire being the bad guy? They'll scream for their favorite players back, regardless of their actions.

 

Like I said, nothing should change. If the player, manager, or both, says the magic words or does a Picasso on the field, they're gone! But that's not how the fans will see it, and the fans drive the game because of the money. Fans only bitch about umpires, and have nothing good to say about them. This is a sticky problem that IR will create unless addressed.

 

Believe me. If they do something wrong, before, during, or after the IR process, the offending player or manager has to go.

 

I'm just pointing out the pitfall.

 

It's not happening now because IR is limited to home runs, fair/foul home runs, or spectator interferences. When you start debating umpire "safe" or "out" calls; whether this is obstruction, or that is interference, or is that a balk, or is that not a balk, (surmised because we don't yet know what will come out of the rules committee or IR committee), you're opening pandora's box, that frankly, baseball never was supposed to have.

 

Just like a player's error, an umpires mistake is part of the game. The fans need to stop looking for the perfect game because it's not going to happen. Get the sand out of their mangina's, suck it up, grow up, and enjoy the game the way it is.

[ricka56]

Y'all might want to look at the press release that MLB put out in August (though not that this is the final word).

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130815&content_id=57090474

 

Some of it addresses managers arguing reviewable/not reviewable plays.

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

A challenge of a catch/trap on a batted ball with runners on base could get weird. Or a call on a trailing runner affecting forces.

This is the one tat bugs me the most. R1 no outs. liner to short CF. R1 goes 1/2 way. Shoestring ruled a catch, R1 doubled up. Play overturned..no catch. 1st & 2nd? Defense is going to argue they had a force play on R1 at 2nd. Tough spot for the umpires to use judgement on wether or not a runner wold have gotten back to a bag on a catch or been thrown out on a no catch. 

 

An the offense could argue that he would have made it to 2nd if the catch would have been ruled a no catch right....

 

IR is not even happening yet.. there is no agreement yet, and they still cant figure out all the bugs.. so is it gonna happen this year.. not sure.

[timmybloops]

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?

[mstaylor]

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?

A good point but if I remember the situation correctly the sub was made before the call was questioned. I don't remember the way it unfolded but I think that is correct. I agree the ejection should stand if it precedes any request for a review. What would stop that little scenario is instituting a rule that arguing before requesting a review makes the play unreviewable. It would be similar to football where any reviews in the last two minutes are official reviews, but if you throw a red flag, then you can't review it.