No re-touch out - Tigers/Royals

[Thunderheads]

I do not have a computer available to me right now, however if you go to MLB video you will see this play.<br /><br />Salvador Perez does not tag up after a line drive is caught by Ian Kinsler. <br /><br />Ausmus appeals and they get the out. My question is, what took so long?

[Replacematt]

I do not have a computer available to me right now, however if you go to MLB video you will see this play.<br /><br />Salvador Perez does not tag up after a line drive is caught by Ian Kinsler. <br /><br />Ausmus appeals and they get the out. My question is, what took so long?

 

From what ESPN is reporting, they were told it was a non-reviewable play, but then they saw the replay on the video board, and overturned the call.

[JonnyCat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they required to throw over to the base and make a proper appeal? Seems like they did not do that, yet still got the out. Am I missing something? Announcers said they did not throw over.

 

Edit: Just read Gil's article on UEFL. Apparently, the Tigers did execute a proper appeal.

Edited September 20, 2014 by JonnyCat

[stevis]

Yes, FOX eventually remembered it was a baseball game and showed the appeal execution.

[maven]

Story with video: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/95580338/umpires-reversal-removes-royals-run-in-sixth-in-clash-with-tigers

[Richvee]

Aside from the issue of the play itself...Scherzer jumping up and down like a spoiled 8 year old when Kinsler throws the ball away..Just embarrassing.   

[Jimurray]

Aside from the issue of the play itself...Scherzer jumping up and down like a spoiled 8 year old when Kinsler throws the ball away..Just embarrassing.

Also, unless I see something different, is U3 not seeing this.

[BigSimonia]

 

Aside from the issue of the play itself...Scherzer jumping up and down like a spoiled 8 year old when Kinsler throws the ball away..Just embarrassing.

Also, unless I see something different, is U3 not seeing this.

 

I'm with you - how did he miss this?   What else was he looking at? I'm assuming from the very end of the video that when they made the appeal to 3rd he indicated "safe" and it was that call that was appealed to NY. But, jeez, even in a 2 man game PU would be watching for this

[DVA7130]

Aside from the issue of the play itself...Scherzer jumping up and down like a spoiled 8 year old when Kinsler throws the ball away..Just embarrassing.

Also, unless I see something different, is U3 not seeing this.

I'm with you - how did he miss this?   What else was he looking at? I'm assuming from the very end of the video that when they made the appeal to 3rd he indicated "safe" and it was that call that was appealed to NY. But, jeez, even in a 2 man game PU would be watching for this

Completely agree. Unacceptable with a four man crew..

[timmybloops]

what is the logic for not allowing a replay review of a runner tagging up?  

[Richvee]

what is the logic for not allowing a replay review of a runner tagging up?  

I would guess it has to do with syncing up the times on 2 cameras consistently and accurately? Maybe some other reason? Bottom line here, though...I think NY screwed the pooch on not reviewing it. I think it's a missed base, and not a tag up. By reading the video review rules, it seems to me what isn't reviewable is the timing of a runner tagging up on a fly ball...This play was about a runner missing/failing to touch a base. 

[timmybloops]

 

what is the logic for not allowing a replay review of a runner tagging up?  

I would guess it has to do with syncing up the times on 2 cameras consistently and accurately? Maybe some other reason? Bottom line here, though...I think NY screwed the pooch on not reviewing it. I think it's a missed base, and not a tag up. By reading the video review rules, it seems to me what isn't reviewable is the timing of a runner tagging up on a fly ball...This play was about a runner missing/failing to touch a base. 

 

 

Probably the reason, but they do permit reviews on time plays which will often have the same concern.  And you can always just interpret that "multi-cam synching" is not sufficient evidence to overturn a call.  In this case and I'm sure others as well, the challenge would have been upheld without use of a camera synch.  

 

And true, is MLB trying to say that a "touch" is reviewable but a "retouch" is not?

[Richvee]

 

 

what is the logic for not allowing a replay review of a runner tagging up?  

I would guess it has to do with syncing up the times on 2 cameras consistently and accurately? Maybe some other reason? Bottom line here, though...I think NY screwed the pooch on not reviewing it. I think it's a missed base, and not a tag up. By reading the video review rules, it seems to me what isn't reviewable is the timing of a runner tagging up on a fly ball...This play was about a runner missing/failing to touch a base. 

 

 

Probably the reason, but they do permit reviews on time plays which will often have the same concern.  And you can always just interpret that "multi-cam synching" is not sufficient evidence to overturn a call.  In this case and I'm sure others as well, the challenge would have been upheld without use of a camera synch.  

 

And true, is MLB trying to say that a "touch" is reviewable but a "retouch" is not?

 

Yes. Touching/retouching a base is reviewable. Tagging up is not, That's why I say MLB messed this up. This wasn't a tag up..It was a missed base

[maven]

Yes. Touching/retouching a base is reviewable. Tagging up is not, That's why I say MLB messed this up. This wasn't a tag up..It was a missed base

Rich, not sure where you're going here. Retouch = tag up.

 

R3 failed to retouch after F4 caught the line drive. The defense properly appealed his error. Then they went to review, presumably because U3 didn't see it either way.

 

R2 ended the play standing on 3B, and he DID retouch, when F6 misplayed the throw from F4.

 

R3 had no base to miss except HP.

[Richvee]

 

Yes. Touching/retouching a base is reviewable. Tagging up is not, That's why I say MLB messed this up. This wasn't a tag up..It was a missed base

Rich, R3 failed to retouch after F4 caught the line drive.

 

R3 had no base to miss except HP.

 

Exactly! That's reviewable. 

From Close Call sports...

Replay Review V.F.3.: "Base Running. The following base running calls are reviewable...Upon an appropriate appeal by the defensive Club, whether a base runner touched a base (see Rule 7.10(b) and Comment)."

 

7.10

 

(b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each

base in order before . he, or a missed base, is tagged

[Dash Riprock]

Detroit properly executed a re-touch (tag-up) appeal on R3.  The appeal was denied by U3.  The denial was reviewed and reversed.  MLB rules specifically preclude reviews of tag-up plays.  They got it right, but they didn't follow their own rules.

[Richvee]

  The denial was reviewed and reversed.  MLB rules specifically preclude reviews of tag-up plays.  They got it right, but they didn't follow their own rules.

Not true. MLB replay in NY told the crew the play is not reviewable. Meanwhile, KC scoreboard operators played the video on the big screen and 40,000 people, including the crew saw the "no touch" of 3rd. MLB told the crew it's not reviewable, the crew got together after that, and changed the call themselves. 

 

MLB network did a great job showing all this last night. HP ump Angel Hernandez was miked for FOX and they played the part of the conversation during the talk with NY and he says, "So this is NOT reviewable". Then they play a clip of the crew talking afterwards and he says "I think we all saw what happened, we're gonna have to change this on our own" 

[Thunderheads]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v36430619

[Thunderheads]

here's a screen shot from the video as Perez goes back to third but doesn't re-tag.  Vanover, indeed, doesn't see it ....