Did they blow this?

[thinkingaboutumping]

1st and 3rd, batter thinks ball 3 is really ball 4, trots down to first, R1 goes to 2nd thinking it's a walk, defense doesn't contest.  Then time is called, umps review it, they see it's ball 3, batter is called back, but the runner is made to move back to first, manager comes to dispute it, but they don't change it, could he have played the game under protest?

 

<iframe src='http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=33446081&topic_id=6479266&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

[Dash Riprock]

Yes.

[blue23ll]

Under protest? Yes.

[maven]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v33446081

[Umpire in Chief]

Love the video. It grows my man-love for Scully. 

 

He can fill the delay not only intelligently but with an interesting an pertinent story and not once did he say anything negative about Kerwin.

[maven]

And: he called it an indicator.

[scrounge]

Simply the best. Half the reason I get the MLB package is to listen to the dulcet tones of Vin as I go to bed.

[grayhawk]

I wonder if Kerwin actually said it was ball 4 and that's the reason they brought R1 back?  Umpire put the defense at a disadvantage?

[mjr_2013]

I wonder if Kerwin actually said it was ball 4 and that's the reason they brought R1 back?  Umpire put the defense at a disadvantage?

 

Even so, it's still on the players to know the count...

 

Had the catcher been alert and thrown him "out" I bet they would have kept the out.

[grayhawk]

 

I wonder if Kerwin actually said it was ball 4 and that's the reason they brought R1 back?  Umpire put the defense at a disadvantage?

 

Even so, it's still on the players to know the count...

 

Had the catcher been alert and thrown him "out" I bet they would have kept the out.

 

 

I don't disagree, but they put R1 back anyway.  Would have been an interesting protest.

[DVA7130]

I would have protested. No judgement, put the runner back for no rule sound reason.

Similar situations happen in my games. Kid takes off for first for no reason. Call the batter back, leave any advancement.

First base occupied? Batter is out and everybody probally advanced, at their own risk.

[johnnyg08]

1st and 3rd, batter thinks ball 3 is really ball 4, trots down to first, R1 goes to 2nd thinking it's a walk, defense doesn't contest.  Then time is called, umps review it, they see it's ball 3, batter is called back, but the runner is made to move back to first, manager comes to dispute it, but they don't change it, could he have played the game under protest?

 

<iframe src='http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=33446081&topic_id=6479266&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

 

They didn't "blow" it.

[mjr_2013]

The ONLY way I could justify them sending the runner back is if they said that when the batter started going to first, the catcher or pitcher immediately questioned it ("isn't that three?"), and Kerwin immediately called time, knowing he could review it.

 

We can't speak for what or would not have happened to R1 had the ball properly remained live, so we have to send him back to 1st.

 

It's a stretch, but it's plausible

[mjr_2013]

I feel like this decision to send him back came from New York too... It'd be a weird protest... The rules interpretation of the guys on the other side of the headset.

[Lindsay]

Actually, this is not protestable - the game cannot be played under protest as a result of a decision rendered using the Replay Review procedure. Regulations require that New York place runners for this type of a review.

 

Replay Review Regulation II.K.4.: "Official Baseball Rule 4.19 shall have no applicability to these Replay Regulations. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the Replay Official. Moreover, a violation of any rule or procedure set forth herein shall not constitute a basis for protesting a game."

[DVA7130]

@Gil: Owner - UEFL

 

Wow. This is the second time I have seen umpires go to replay for "record keeping" where they basically call New York and ask what the ruling should be. The other time in Atlanta over a substitution.

 

Taking responsibility away from umpires -- No protest, doesn't matter what they decide, replay can break any rule they want.

 

What happened to resolving issues on the field the way it is supposed to be.....

 

 

As for "Review Regulations" where does it say the count is reviewable..?

[Lindsay]

II.J.6: "The Crew Chief may communicate with the Replay Official at any time during a game for purposes of: (a) record-keeping (i.e., to review the ball-strike count to a batter, the number of outs in an inning, and the score of the game)..."

(b) is to determine whether substitutions were proper (3.03, 3.04, 3.05, 3.08, 4.04);

© is batting out of turn as in 6.07;

(d) is any situation in which an umpire's decision may result in a protest. For instance, the Culbreth crew's mistake during LAA-HOU last season, this year, is reviewable so, much like Culbreth did in Atlanta a few weeks ago, he would be able to talk to New York to get the proper ruling.

 

The mechanic for a record-keeping/rules check type of review is to not point to the headset technician. If a Manager directs, requires or argues with the Crew Chief to initiate such a review, he is subject to ejection.

 

In short, judgment decisions not otherwise permitted by regulation are not reviewable; issues of rule are reviewable.

[Jocko]

@DVA7130 - the powers that be have been trying to take responsibility from us for years. Now they have a vehicle with which to do it. And I bet the guys on the field don't mind one bit.

[scrounge]

Is it really transferring power from the umpires? Or just using different umpires? I don't really have much of a problem with this. Frankly, I think replay is working pretty well given it's just the first year.

[Umpire in Chief]

Is it really transferring power from the umpires? Or just using different umpires? I don't really have much of a problem with this. Frankly, I think replay is working pretty well given it's just the first year.

The thing I like the most is that an on the field crew is working the replay booth, and all the crews rotate in. It were a dedicated replay crew it could turn into an us versus them situation. 

[SoCal Lurker]

Actually, this is not protestable - the game cannot be played under protest as a result of a decision rendered using the Replay Review procedure. Regulations require that New York place runners for this type of a review.

 

Replay Review Regulation II.K.4.: "Official Baseball Rule 4.19 shall have no applicability to these Replay Regulations. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the Replay Official. Moreover, a violation of any rule or procedure set forth herein shall not constitute a basis for protesting a game."

 

I don't think that is what it says.

 

I think the red sentence says that no jugment calls made as part of the review are protestable -- figures, since no judgment calls are protestable.

 

And I think the green sentence says that a protest of a violation of the replay rules and procedures is not protestable.  So if the umpires let someone have an extra review, or accept the review too late, or reviews more than was challenged, etc., there is no protest.

 

But I don't think anything in either sentence blocks an otherwise proper protest of a misapplication of the standard rules of baseball.  As with any other call, in this scenario, if the decision to place the runner on first was the result of poor judgment by the umpire or the crew in NY, tough twinkies.  But if the decision to place the runner on first was a result of a misapplication of OBR, then the protest should be accepted.

 

(IMHO, if the umpire says it is ball 4, correcting per grayhawk's post makes sense to me -- I get that players should know what is going on, but do we really expect players to ignore the umpire and make a play on a player being forced by a walk if the umpire said it is a walk?  And do we really expect R1 to stay on first after the umpire says its a walk?)

[millerforrest]

The reason for putting the runner back to 1st, is because if you look back on the last pitch in sequence, it was a breaking ball in the dirt. Pro ball dictates when dirt is in the seams of a live baseball, call "Time" (with runner or runners on base) and change baseballs. I'm sure that's what happened.