ANOTHER 7.13 Violation .......

[Thunderheads]

....another reason that the 7.13 rule will be revamped ............

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v35695421

[JaxRolo]

There is no way he was blocking he plate.

[DVA7130]

For God's sake fix baseball before the Postseason....

[zm1283]

The catcher caught the throw in the RH batter's box and the runner's foot was still on the grass. The runner then changed his path because he knew the catcher had the ball and he was avoiding the tag. What is the catcher supposed to do in this situation?

 

MLB has screwed this up so badly. Who was the idiot (Or idiots) that came up with this joke of a rule?

 

Just put the NCAA collision rule in place and be done with it.

[scrounge]

At this point, all i can figure is that whatever crew was manning replay for this game is disgruntled with the rule and is trying to sabotage it. He has the ball, this is not obstruction, this shouldn't even be reviewable.

[maven]

Two issues here: does this call correctly apply the rule, and is it a good rule?

 

1. F2 clearly blocked the runner's pathway. The quality of this call turns on when F2 blocked the runner's pathway: with the ball or "in order to field the throw," legal; otherwise, illegal. None of the replays are decisive on that. So I dunno.

 

2. The rule is written for F2's protection: notice it's not about blocking "access to the base," the way FED has it. If you prohibit the runner from going through F2, you have to enforce the corresponding prohibition on blocking the runner's path.

 

If you don't like the rule, OK. Some guys are still whinging about 6.10 ruining baseball, and targeting rules ruining football.

[scrounge]

Two issues here: does this call correctly apply the rule, and is it a good rule?

 

1. F2 clearly blocked the runner's pathway. The quality of this call turns on when F2 blocked the runner's pathway: with the ball or "in order to field the throw," legal; otherwise, illegal. None of the replays are decisive on that. So I dunno.

 

2. The rule is written for F2's protection: notice it's not about blocking "access to the base," the way FED has it. If you prohibit the runner from going through F2, you have to enforce the corresponding prohibition on blocking the runner's path.

 

If you don't like the rule, OK. Some guys are still whinging about 6.10 ruining baseball, and targeting rules ruining football.

 

I'm not convinced the runner was close enough to the base to even bring this rule into play...certainly not definitive enough to overturn on replay. I like the spirit of the rule and think it was long overdue, but in no way do I think this should be under replay jurisdiction, anymore than any other interference/obstruction call.

[maven]

You might be right, @scrounge. I'm not convinced either way, because, as I say, we can't tell from the replays provided when F2 set up in the runner's path.

 

Another general issue here is slow motion. In slow motion, as football officials know, everything looks like a foul. It could be that replay guys are slowing the video down enough where it looks as if F2 is committing a violation (being in the pathway without the ball), when in real time nobody would judge it that way.

 

When the NFL and later NCAA went to replay for football, there was a learning curve for how to use replay. A lot of incomplete passes were ruled catch/fumble because they slowed the video down, and it looked like he held the ball for 2 seconds! Maybe a similar learning curve is required here: MLB will review all of these calls in the off-season and determine whether they need to change the rule, change how they're working replay, keep everything the same, or whatever.

[Thunderheads]

You might be right, @scrounge. I'm not convinced either way, because, as I say, we can't tell from the replays provided when F2 set up in the runner's path.

 

Another general issue here is slow motion. In slow motion, as football officials know, everything looks like a foul. It could be that replay guys are slowing the video down enough where it looks as if F2 is committing a violation (being in the pathway without the ball), when in real time nobody would judge it that way.

 

When the NFL and later NCAA went to replay for football, there was a learning curve for how to use replay. A lot of incomplete passes were ruled catch/fumble because they slowed the video down, and it looked like he held the ball for 2 seconds! Maybe a similar learning curve is required here: MLB will review all of these calls in the off-season and determine whether they need to change the rule, change how they're working replay, keep everything the same, or whatever.

maven,

zm1283 suggested the NCAA rule ...... your thoughts on that, etc?

[GreyhoundAggie]

I don't see this as a violation of the rule. That is brutal for a catcher. what is he supposed to do?

[Jimurray]

I don't see this as a violation of the rule. That is brutal for a catcher. what is he supposed to do?

I think we would have to know where he was set up before he went after the throw. I think he could have short hopped the throw in front of the plate and inside the foul line.

[Lindsay]

This play was not overturned due a 7.13 violation. It was overturned because the catcher tagged the runner with his glove while the ball was in his non-gloved hand. No tag, safe.

[Thunderheads]

This play was not overturned due a 7.13 violation. It was overturned because the catcher tagged the runner with his glove while the ball was in his non-gloved hand. No tag, safe.

******runs and hides in corner********************

 

SORRY

[SoCal Lurker]

This play was not overturned due a 7.13 violation. It was overturned because the catcher tagged the runner with his glove while the ball was in his non-gloved hand. No tag, safe.

 

It's interesting, however, as the review was initiatied based on 7.13 -- and the replay team jumped to the separate issue of where the ball was.  So in MLB is everything open to review once they turn it on, regardless of what triggered it?

[Lindsay]

 

This play was not overturned due a 7.13 violation. It was overturned because the catcher tagged the runner with his glove while the ball was in his non-gloved hand. No tag, safe.

 

It's interesting, however, as the review was initiatied based on 7.13 -- and the replay team jumped to the separate issue of where the ball was.  So in MLB is everything open to review once they turn it on, regardless of what triggered it?

 

Yes, safe/out (tag) is considered during a 7.13 replay just as 7.13 would be during a safe/out challenge, which of course gives MLB managers a huge loophole in being able to effectively challenge a play at the plate without using their challenge.

[afaber12]

One of the issues I've noticed on some of these plays is that the camera angles available haven't been that brilliant, in part on one of the things we're taught as umpires: be set for the play. The moving camera makes it difficult on some of them to make a confident judgement of whether or not the plate is blocked, on top of whether tags have been made. Assuming 7.13 sticks around (hopefully with some modifications), perhaps there should be an added fixed camera on 3BLX, and maybe another somewhere near the LF foul pole for the opposite view.

 

When cricket first introduced replay reviews, they used the pre-existing camera setup that most of the TV stations used, but all with their own modified versions, and all (with the exception of stump cameras - think like the lipstick cameras they would use in the dirt looking up at the batter and catcher) were manned cameras that pivoted and zoomed. Eventually they added a number of fixed camera positions to the requirements for broadcasters for various levels of competition to counteract the issues of the ideal position either getting blocked out, or pointed the wrong way, or moving too quickly to get a good sight of the action.

[Mr Umpire]

This play was not overturned due a 7.13 violation. It was overturned because the catcher tagged the runner with his glove while the ball was in his non-gloved hand. No tag, safe.

This is what I was thinking after seeing the replay.  I noticed the ball was in his hand and not the glove. 

 

I think one thing to review is making the managers specifically name why they are challenging and if that is not the case, then no overturn.  Do they have to do this now?  My question is "Was this being challenged or the positioning of F2?"

[Lindsay]

I think one thing to review is making the managers specifically name why they are challenging and if that is not the case, then no overturn.  Do they have to do this now?  My question is "Was this being challenged or the positioning of F2?"

Managers presently do have to specify what part of the play is being challenged...but New York still considers the entire element of the specified call (e.g., if the Manger is challenging safe/out [timing] at first base, Replay can still review the issue of safe/out [pulled foot]).

[Haid D' Salaami]

The NCAA rule is really simple. I had an opportunity to hang out with some MLB guys a few months back and they told us, that the rule is so far off, that the Umpires are just calling safe and out's and making the managers come out and challenge it.

 

On a side note.. did any one notice Will Little's positioning for the play.. FANTASTIC.. and the tap on the shoulder, ( if you guys can remember to do it is AWESOME).. ok i'm done.