Jump to content

F2 .... on the transfer & EJ!

Thunderheads

By Thunderheads
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4580 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

Here's an "on the transfer" call we haven't seen yet ...until last night ....

 

Arencebia (sp?) almost gets the ball in his hand, but not quite.

 

I understand why MLB modified the 'catch' definition for replay purposes because they needed something concrete when discerning these types of calls for review.  Notice how the announcers, who spoke to Steve Palermo, mentioned the new 'catch' definition as told by Steve.  This one was really close because F2 actually gets his fingers on the ball ....

 

At first we discussed the fact that something had changed re: these plays at the MLB level, and, we were subsequently awarded the info from Hunter Wendelstedt.  Once we knew this info, ... we understood why the calls were the way they were and it made sense

 

Do you think the new definition is too restrictive, or do you think this was the only way to do it so there was a uniform call in situations like this?  If so, ..I think it's going to take everyone a while to get used to it!  As we understand it, ...everyone was told (teams, managers, etc) about how this would happen ....but it appears it's still being met with some resistance?

 

Thoughts?

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=32082861&topic_id=vtp_review&query=mariners challenge force play

  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thunderheads
Thunderheads

Then GA is wrong, because this interpretation is only at the MLB level.  OBR has not redefined this as of this point.

BillKen
BillKen

Wash came out because this is the 2nd time he has had this go against his team and he firmly believes it is an out.  He came out so that NYC would notice and a discussion can occur.  I watched his pos

JHSump
JHSump

I think there will be adjustments.   Meanwhile, I'm looking forward (not) to when a manager/head coach tries to argue this sort of call with me, based on what he sees happening at the MLB level.  

BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

OUT, OUT, OUT!

Once the glove closes it is in the books.

The brain trust in the main office is making it too complicated!

 

 

Why the hell did Wasington come out?

The guys on the field DID not make the call, the guys in NY did!

Toss, TAKE 10k$ AND SUSPEND THESE WHINERS!

 

If you are going to give the call to NY then don't involve the on field guys.

Just let the manager lodge his protest to a guy on the phone in NY and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Changes coming in 2-3 weeks OR after the all star break.

  • Like 1
JHSump

JHSump

Posted
Posted

I think there will be adjustments.

 

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward (not) to when a manager/head coach tries to argue this sort of call with me, based on what he sees happening at the MLB level.

 

I would have said "out" for this play,  Certainly, at my level.

  • Like 2
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think there will be adjustments.

 

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward (not) to when a manager/head coach tries to argue this sort of call with me, based on what he sees happening at the MLB level.

 

I would have said "out" for this play,  Certainly, at my level.

correct ....

because it IS AN OUT at our level :hi5:

  • Like 1
BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

 

I think there will be adjustments.

 

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward (not) to when a manager/head coach tries to argue this sort of call with me, based on what he sees happening at the MLB level.

 

I would have said "out" for this play,  Certainly, at my level.

correct ....

because it IS AN OUT at our level :hi5:

 

Not true.

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

I think there will be adjustments.

 

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward (not) to when a manager/head coach tries to argue this sort of call with me, based on what he sees happening at the MLB level.

 

I would have said "out" for this play,  Certainly, at my level.

correct ....

because it IS AN OUT at our level :hi5:

 

Not true.

 

are you saying that at the HS varsity level, this play (force at the plate) is NOT an out?

BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

 

Nope.

Some of are not calling HS ball.

Any rule set that defers to OBR, USSSA for one, has issues right now.

 

And what issues would that be?

 

What is a catch.

Mike Prince

Mike Prince

Posted
Posted

 

 

Nope.

Some of are not calling HS ball.

Any rule set that defers to OBR, USSSA for one, has issues right now.

 

And what issues would that be?

 

What is a catch.

 

 

OK so I guess we draw this out one post at a time.  Please explain why this is an issue.  The definition of a catch has not changed in the OBR rulebook.

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

This is an out all day, every day for the last 100 years. I'll stand with my opinion that there's no logical way to come up with this interpretation of a catch by reading the definition of a catch.  You have to rewrite the rule to come up with this conclusion. 

 

1. Secure possession in is hand OR glove. check

2. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch,

the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught....The release of the ball was intentional to throw out a runner at 1st. Furthermore, he never DROPPED the ball in this case. 

 

They have to revisit this interp. It's just plain bad. 

  • Like 1
BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

Nope.

Some of are not calling HS ball.

Any rule set that defers to OBR, USSSA for one, has issues right now.

 

And what issues would that be?

 

What is a catch.

 

 

OK so I guess we draw this out one post at a time.  Please explain why this is an issue.  The definition of a catch has not changed in the OBR rulebook.

 

Already been challenged and ruled PER the new interp here in 2 tournaments in Ga.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

 

 

Nope.

Some of are not calling HS ball.

Any rule set that defers to OBR, USSSA for one, has issues right now.

 

And what issues would that be?

 

What is a catch.

 

 

OK so I guess we draw this out one post at a time.  Please explain why this is an issue.  The definition of a catch has not changed in the OBR rulebook.

 

Already been challenged and ruled PER the new interp here in 2 tournaments in Ga.

 

Then GA is wrong, because this interpretation is only at the MLB level.  OBR has not redefined this as of this point.

  • Like 3
BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

Nope.

Some of are not calling HS ball.

Any rule set that defers to OBR, USSSA for one, has issues right now.

 

And what issues would that be?

 

What is a catch.

 

 

OK so I guess we draw this out one post at a time.  Please explain why this is an issue.  The definition of a catch has not changed in the OBR rulebook.

 

Already been challenged and ruled PER the new interp here in 2 tournaments in Ga.

 

Then GA is wrong, because this interpretation is only at the MLB level.  OBR has not redefined this as of this point.

 

All depends on who is interpreting it.

This is USSSA Georgia we are talking about.

Not the sharpest knifes in the drawer!

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope.

Some of are not calling HS ball.

Any rule set that defers to OBR, USSSA for one, has issues right now.

 

And what issues would that be?

 

What is a catch.

 

 

OK so I guess we draw this out one post at a time.  Please explain why this is an issue.  The definition of a catch has not changed in the OBR rulebook.

 

Already been challenged and ruled PER the new interp here in 2 tournaments in Ga.

 

Then GA is wrong, because this interpretation is only at the MLB level.  OBR has not redefined this as of this point.

 

All depends on who is interpreting it.

This is USSSA Georgia we are talking about.

Not the sharpest knifes in the drawer!

 

Fair enough Jack! Fair enough! :hi5:

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

Washington coming out is further proof that coaches don't care one bit about "getting it right." They just want all calls, right or wrong, to go their way. It was reviewed on replay Wash! Shut up!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Mike Prince

Mike Prince

Posted
Posted

Washington coming out is further proof that coaches don't care one bit about "getting it right." They just want all calls, right or wrong, to go their way. It was reviewed on replay Wash! Shut up!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Managers will not care if they are EJ'd, a $10K fine is not a deterrent with the money these guys now make - this is about their only public avenue to show their displeasure with what they feel is a flawed process.  Plus the manager goes to the clubhouse, watches the game on TV, and still relays instructions to his bench coach (and acting manager), so it's not like he is totally disconnected from the game.

 

Looking at this impartially, my sense is that MLB wanted to expand replay to correct calls which were perceived in the past to be obvious misses (because there was really no recourse in the past and the perception is that the umpires were missing a lot), and to me the current process is showing that the umpires are (and were) a lot better than the perception.  The problem now is that replay is being used predominantly on bangers and calls which in hindsight, are measured by distances which are impossible to call in real time.

 

They likely will adjust and refine the system, but like most things it will probably get a bit worse before it gets better.

BillKen

BillKen

Posted
Posted

Washington coming out is further proof that coaches don't care one bit about "getting it right." They just want all calls, right or wrong, to go their way. It was reviewed on replay Wash! Shut up!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wash came out because this is the 2nd time he has had this go against his team and he firmly believes it is an out.  He came out so that NYC would notice and a discussion can occur.  I watched his post game presser and he said, "WE have to change this.  The guy coming down the line is out."  He is trying to get the conversation started and knows that MLB will pay attention if there are ejections.

  • Like 3
zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

This is an out all day, every day for the last 100 years. I'll stand with my opinion that there's no logical way to come up with this interpretation of a catch by reading the definition of a catch.  You have to rewrite the rule to come up with this conclusion. 

 

1. Secure possession in is hand OR glove. check

2. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch,

the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught....The release of the ball was intentional to throw out a runner at 1st. Furthermore, he never DROPPED the ball in this case. 

 

They have to revisit this interp. It's just plain bad. 

 

Yep. There was absolutely no reason to change this interpretation, but they felt the need to meddle just for the fun of it apparently.

 

This play has been an out for decades and should still be an out. 

Larry in TN

Larry in TN

Posted
Posted

Why the hell did Wasington come out?

The guys on the field DID not make the call, the guys in NY did!

 

While watching this I'm wondering what he's saying to the umpire in such an animated fashion?

 

Washington:  "You are right!  Your call was RIGHT!  You got the call exactly right!"

Umpire:  "Yes, you're right; I was right, but you're ejected for saying so!"

 

Who would have thunk it?

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

This is an out all day, every day for the last 100 years. I'll stand with my opinion that there's no logical way to come up with this interpretation of a catch by reading the definition of a catch.  You have to rewrite the rule to come up with this conclusion. 

 

1. Secure possession in is hand OR glove. check

2. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch,

the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught....The release of the ball was intentional to throw out a runner at 1st. Furthermore, he never DROPPED the ball in this case. 

 

They have to revisit this interp. It's just plain bad. 

 

Yep. There was absolutely no reason to change this interpretation, but they felt the need to meddle just for the fun of it apparently.

 

This play has been an out for decades and should still be an out. 

 

Exaclty why I posted this today and thought a discussion re: the new 'catch' interpretation was warranted ...regardless of it's place for clarifying this definition for replay purposes, ....it may not be working with everyone?

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...