Jump to content

Ron Washington gets run in the 1st inning arguing a replay.

KLAH316

By KLAH316
in Ejections

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3609 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

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

grayhawk
grayhawk

1.01 Baseball is a game...   Damn, I guess it just took them 169 years to finally get it right.  

JaxRolo
JaxRolo

Good Rule, Bad application of said rule!

Magic
Magic

People say this, but Scioscia is a Manager. He is not a catcher anymore. He is going to question within the rules. I see nothing wrong fundamentally with him questioning the call. And it worked as he

GreyhoundAggie

GreyhoundAggie

Posted
Posted

I hate this rule so much.There is access to the plate. and you should be allowed to block in the act of making a play.

 

I was watching it live. I think the rule goes too far to "protect" and rewards the offense for a good play by the defense. Makes me wonder if the umps don't like the rule either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

I like the rule. I've always thought that crashing the catcher was barbaric: if you want to hit someone, play football. (Football was once played without helmets, and when helmets were introduced you should have heard the howler monkeys decrying the change....)

 

Once they figure out how to interpret and enforce 7.13, the game will be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GreyhoundAggie

GreyhoundAggie

Posted
Posted

I like the rule. I've always thought that crashing the catcher was barbaric: if you want to hit someone, play football. (Football was once played without helmets, and when helmets were introduced you should have heard the howler monkeys decrying the change....)

 

Once they figure out how to interpret and enforce 7.13, the game will be better.

That is why i hate the rule maven. It's not that I want the trucking the catcher back. I'm all for not having guys laid out. It's more about the interpretation and implementation of the rule and making it more clear and fair.

 

Darvish and Gimenez made a great play, and were punished for it. He didn't block access to the plate, and the guy was awarded home for it.

 

I would say this of any team, although I am a Rangers homer. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillKen

BillKen

Posted
Posted

Terrible rule...Wash knows that to get the rule changed, he has to make it an issue.  MLB pays attention when skips get run.  I think Wash getting run on two different transfer plays is what helped to initiate the new interp.  Maybe he will be the martyr for this change too.  It sure needs to be changed!  Of course, it could just be that he hates sitting and watching his team suck for 3 hours!!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

Has any on-field umpire called F2 obstruction yet ? I don't think so. I think NYC umpires have been the only ones.

 

I also like the rule. F2 got away with "really" blocking the plate and collisions were the result. If they don't want collisions, then F2 has to make the plate available. The pendulum has over-swung reasonable. It's not the last swing.  

 

I find it interesting that these crews in NYC are over-turning their collegues calls on over-officious interp of 7.13. We don't know who the replay umpires are, but I'll bet the on-field guys do. It may be a case of since we're miserable, lets make everyone miserable with this IR system.

 

And you can't blame Ron Washington for wanting to get ejected...the Rangers stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoodOldGus

GoodOldGus

Posted
Posted

I guess what I don't understand is, especially with this specific play, MLB is getting exactly what they want.  The runner could have easily crashed into the catcher, but he slid instead.  Why doesn't MLB just take the OUT and move on!??!   The rule, at least in this case, seems to be working perfectly.  The MLB is getting in their own way when the reverse calls like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BaltimoreUmpire

BaltimoreUmpire

Posted
Posted

For those asking who the PU was, it doesn't matter all that much as Miller made the correct call (out) on the field. Scoscia initiated a replay and the guys in NYC took it from there.

I just asked out of interest it looked like Miller I wasn't judging him for this call I was just curious
Link to comment
Share on other sites
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

I think part of the learning curve here is how to use replay — and I mean the equipment. When the NFL first started using replay (decades ago now), they saw all kinds of stuff that you can't see at normal speed, and they had to learn what to count and what to ignore. Catch/fumble, for example, always looks like a catch in slow motion; they instituted a rule change requiring a "football move" after the catch to prevent so many easy fumbles. So football replay cannot (generally) create a foul from video, but they can slow it down to see catch/no catch, OOB, and the like.

 

For enforcing 7.13, I think the replay guys are looking at slow motion, which makes every F2 look as if he's blocking the plate for a year before the ball gets there.

 

They need 2 improvements to make this judgment call more consistently: (1) use real-time video, and (2) take more seriously the idea that the runner is entitled to access, not his preferred access. The latter might actually require a rule revision, since the rule prohibits F2 from setting up between the runner and HP; given where they've all been setting up, just have your runner come at HP from just inside 3BL, and you should earn a 7.13 call.

 

Come to think of it, get a good HS umpire who's used to calling OBS on F2 with the FED rule, and he can help. I keed, I keed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JP_blue

JP_blue

Posted
Posted

I believe the announcers mentioned this, but there is just something fundamentally wrong when Mike Scioscia appeals that a catcher was guilty of obstruction. The NY war room had to have been laughing as they made their ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Magic

Magic

Posted
Posted

I believe the announcers mentioned this, but there is just something fundamentally wrong when Mike Scioscia appeals that a catcher was guilty of obstruction. The NY war room had to have been laughing as they made their ruling.

People say this, but Scioscia is a Manager. He is not a catcher anymore. He is going to question within the rules. I see nothing wrong fundamentally with him questioning the call. And it worked as he got the run to count. 

 

And in Fed, or as we are told to enforce the rule, If a Catcher is camped in front of Home Plate, without the ball, It is Obstruction. It doesn't matter if there is a lane between the legs or not. They consider that to be blocking the lane. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...