Jump to content
  • 0
spark2212

Definition of a tag

Question

Assuming you have the ball, how much of your arm can be used to apply a tag? Does the wrist count? The forearm? The elbow? All the way up to the shoulder?

 

I’m asking about the major-league level.  

 

For example, do both of these count? (Pretend they were different plays.)

61F97D1C-AE11-40AF-BD96-A2640AB6E1B4.png

BE4E404B-D778-4620-9CB1-801FA33D9132.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
19 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

I actually had to get up and walk away from my computer, after I saw this.  (To be fair, I also had to use the restroom, but still.)  It's like you went into a lab to create The Perfect Post that would make me head right into "Yelling At Clouds" mode.

I realize the professional game has bags of money to burn, but in what way would this help the game as played?  Fair/foul has eyes on it, the rule is straight-forward;  for batter being hit in/out of the box, or hitting WHILE in/out of the box, there are already interpretations and guides for that.  Don't get me wrong - my entire working career has been in IT, so it's not like I ride to games on my penny farthing and whatnot.  But FAR too often, people want to throw solutions at stuff, without first coming to grips with the rhetorical question "What problem does this solution solve?  DOES it solve anything?"  To me, it's not clear the game suffers enough to add more scenarios.

If people think the game is too damn long now, wait until we expand the reviewable stuff AND let Joe Madden be one of the managers in a game.  (I feel like Joe is either subversive enough, or a jackass enough, to push the limits of all this.)

I'm watching college and pro football turn every play into the possibility of going to the booth.  Is the game better?  I'd say no.

...... and get off my lawn, with your hair and your clothes!

I’ve seen situations where a missed call wasn’t reviewable and changed the tenor of a game. Imagine if a few runs scored on a batted ball that bounced to the left of third base but was ruled a fair ball. If it were reviewable, that would be easy to place the runners. Personally, I care more about the call being right than about how long it takes to make the call right. Isn’t that the whole point? I understand there has to be a limit, but the current limits feel rather arbitrary. Maybe only add fair/foul on the infield to the list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
37 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Hair is part of the body. Jewelry isn't.  Help?  ;) 

 

I suspected that and I would call that at the plate via a hit batsman as well.

 

Heck fall ball these kids wearing "hoodies" I tell the coaches I consider that hood to be part of the uni if it gets hit by pitch or tagged  its a base on balls or out. They all feel thats fair as I do. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, spark2212 said:

I’ve seen situations where a missed call wasn’t reviewable and changed the tenor of a game. Imagine if a few runs scored on a batted ball that bounced to the left of third base but was ruled a fair ball. If it were reviewable, that would be easy to place the runners. Personally, I care more about the call being right than about how long it takes to make the call right. Isn’t that the whole point? I understand there has to be a limit, but the current limits feel rather arbitrary. Maybe only add fair/foul on the infield to the list. 

I'm not going to offer my own thoughts, but just say:  I'm not sure The Commish would agree with you on that, in that there's all the "speed up" emphasis going on these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

I'm not going to offer my own thoughts, but just say:  I'm not sure The Commish would agree with you on that, in that there's all the "speed up" emphasis going on these days.

That’s not the only thing the commissioner and disagree on. https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/joe-torre-the-mlbs-reasoning-for-rejecting-mets-9-11-hats/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, spark2212 said:

Replays are important for the integrity of the game. In fact, I feel like the list of reviewable calls should be expanded to include things like fair/foul on the infield when the original call is fair (seems easy enough to place the runners), whether or not a batted ball hit the batter in or out of the batter’s box, whether the batter was out of the box, and other calls that would be relatively easy to review but which often get overlooked.

No, they are not.  The game doesn't have any more integrity today than it did 15 years ago, perceived or real.  Replay review can bring in as many questions of integrity as it can solve.

I am not opposed to replay review, but only how it is used.  No matter the sport, it should only be used for the most egregious misses.  If a manager doesn't know within ten seconds that the umpire missed the call then it shouldn't be reviewed, and there should be a significant penalty if the call is "confirmed"...maybe some leeway if it "stands".   I'm talking Denkinger and Joyce type misses...Jeter "home run"...Knoblauch "tag"...Rams/Saints interference...If the entire process from the end of the play to the time of the verdict takes more than 30 seconds, it wasn't egregious.

And in that spirit, then you can review anything you absolutely want to review...but you're limited to how many per game, and how long you have to decide..if you need to wait for someone to check a video before you appeal, it wasn't obvious enough to be reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 9/22/2019 at 8:15 PM, spark2212 said:

Here you go.

 

And I don’t see a tag with the glove. Just the arm.

EE73C131-805E-4799-ABC0-6441907AEA83.jpeg

So since the call was confirmed they have to have a freeze frame showing a legal tag... they don’t post that on the twitter account but it is required by policy/procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sorry @spark2212, but I’m turning on you ... and yelling at @HokieUmp‘s clouds for him.

So you are saying the game has no integrity when played below the professional level?

I would go the opposite direction and say instant replay has damaged the integrity of the game.  I am biased as an umpire, but now everybody expects every call from t-ball up to be perfect.  Worse, and much more damaging to the game, is that instant replay has bred the belief that you should be able to be disrespectful to umpires, bitch and question anything you don’t like, AND expect instant rectification.  Instant replay has generated a culture where everybody is an armchair umpire who doesn’t understand how umpires miss anything when Joe Sixpack can sit at home and watch the replay a dozen times in slow motion from six angles.  (The umpire is obviously just a biased piece of dung who is out to get my team.)

No, no.  The game had much MUCH more integrity before.  You are mistaking getting calls right on a microscopic level for integrity.

My view on instant replay ... either use or don’t use it.  But if you are going to use it, no limitations and no time for managers or team personnel to review it first.  The challenge needs to be of the manager’s volition, right away, and with NO electronic communication.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
40 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Sorry @spark2212, but I’m turning on you ... and yelling at @HokieUmp‘s clouds for him.

So you are saying the game has no integrity when played below the professional level?

I would go the opposite direction and say instant replay has damaged the integrity of the game.  I am biased as an umpire, but now everybody expects every call from t-ball up to be perfect.  Worse, and much more damaging to the game, is that instant replay has bred the belief that you should be able to be disrespectful to umpires, bitch and question anything you don’t like, AND expect instant rectification.  Instant replay has generated a culture where everybody is an armchair umpire who doesn’t understand how umpires miss anything when Joe Sixpack can sit at home and watch the replay a dozen times in slow motion from six angles.  (The umpire is obviously just a biased piece of dung who is out to get my team.)

No, no.  The game had much MUCH more integrity before.  You are mistaking getting calls right on a microscopic level for integrity.

My view on instant replay ... either use or don’t use it.  But if you are going to use it, no limitations and no time for managers or team personnel to review it first.  The challenge needs to be of the manager’s volition, right away, and with NO electronic communication.

I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And I didn’t mean integrity as in honesty, I meant integrity as in structural integrity, the same way you wouldn’t let a blown call go unchallenged while trailing 9-1 with the bases empty and two outs in the ninth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
17 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Sorry @spark2212, but I’m turning on you ... and yelling at @HokieUmp‘s clouds for him.

Hey hey hey ..... get your own set of clouds, man.  There's plenty of them for everybody.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think the worst thing that has ever been implemented in MLB broadcasts is the "strike zone" rectangle.  It gives Joe Sixpack the impression that it is the actual zone when it's not.  It's almost singlehandedly responsible for the campaign to implement the e-zone.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
20 hours ago, spark2212 said:

And I didn’t mean integrity as in honesty, I meant integrity as in structural integrity, the same way you wouldn’t let a blown call go unchallenged while trailing 9-1 with the bases empty and two outs in the ninth.

 

Giving you a hard time, spark.  :insertevillaughhere:

 

I get where you were headed ... I just don’t agree.  :cheers:

On the surface, the concept of instant replay seems to have been a success on “plays”.  Managers and players feel they have a recourse and have, for the most part, abandoned the concept of arguing on those calls.

The problem is the derivative effects which have actually made it an overarching detriment to the integrity of the game.  Now players and managers expect “instant justice” any time they feel they have been slighted, namely in the strike zone.  Without the luxury of instant replay at the plate, they foolishly believe that an automated system is the answer.  Replay introduced technology into a game which has staunchly resisted it for decades.  Baseball was a “gentleman’s game” (using “gentleman” loosely). While it can be boiled down to “strike/ball, safe/out”, it was not a binary game.  Yet, that is where we are today.  The digital cat is out of the bag.

Oxford defines “integrity” (as we are using it here) as “the state of being whole and undivided.”  Instant replay has not promoted the integrity of the game.  It has deepened the wedges between the parties of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
18 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I think the worst thing that has ever been implemented in MLB broadcasts is the "strike zone" rectangle.  It gives Joe Sixpack the impression that it is the actual zone when it's not.  It's almost singlehandedly responsible for the campaign to implement the e-zone.

I can see that point but I think it's just a variant of instant replay, and camera angles, in general.  They're not as common as they once were but the plate overhead cams were all the rage in the 90's (especially as domes got more popular),  and then people could see once and for all that Eric Gregg really was calling strikes in the other batter's box.  Those new camera angles drove a backlash from viewers who could see in black and white exactly what they suspected was happening, and then get to wonder why some of these guys still had jobs...things have just expanded on that since then.

I think the worst part of instant replay at all, without or without the strike zone box, is the fact that the TV's are either in the dugouts, or the clubhouses, and managers/players are watching those replays and then arguing based on those...and like the strike zone box, the center field camera angle is never completely accurate, as its forced perspective is always off-kilter since it's not exactly center field.

The box graphic has skewed things, but I think the advent of HD, super HD, super slo mo immediate instant replay, and the fact that you can by yourself on most cable boxes, pause and rewind a game in real time are more problematic.   People tend to forget umpires make these calls in real time, they only get one look, and they're right, even on the bangers, an obscenely high amount of the time.

Imagine if weathermen had to perform to the standard umpires do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

Hey hey hey ..... get your own set of clouds, man.  There's plenty of them for everybody.

Hey, you, get off of my cloud, or as the Scottish shepherd says...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 minutes ago, Matt said:

Hey, you, get off of my cloud, or as the Scottish shepherd says...

"Hey!  Hugh, get off of McCloud!"

 

Mick Jagger to Hugh Heffner and Dennis McWeaver at an orgy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

"Hey!  Hugh, get off of McCloud!"

 

Mick Jagger to Hugh Heffner and Dennis McWeaver at an orgy.

You're old.*

*I know this only because I am old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 9/24/2019 at 4:49 PM, grayhawk said:

I think the worst thing that has ever been implemented in MLB broadcasts is the "strike zone" rectangle.  It gives Joe Sixpack the impression that it is the actual zone when it's not.  It's almost singlehandedly responsible for the campaign to implement the e-zone.

The projected TV-screen zone is just the cow-catcher on the front of the locomotive. The real engine driving us towards an automated strike zone was tipped at by something Joe Girardi remarked a few years back, reinforced by Boone and his “band of savages” (notice: it’s the Yankees). Manfred is following the performance of the automated zone in the Atlantic League so closely because it reduces / eliminates the organic conflict (questioning, griping, complaining, confronting) between Batter and Plate Umpire. If the Batter isn’t talking to the PU, if he’s not stepping out of the box in a huff, if he’s not griping demonstratively or carrying on to the PU as he (Batter) stomps off, or... ultimately... getting tossed and prompting the manager to come out and “defend” him (and, occasionally get tossed too)... what’s being saved?

Time.

In that automated system, if a player or club wants to gripe about the strike zone, then it’s done external to the game. Manfred’s office has no problems with that, because it doesn’t slow that particular game down, nor endure (?) the ejection of a player that fans may/may not be attending / viewing-on-TV to see.

Yes, Video Replay has been implemented and expanded to “get calls right”, but notice – it's also nearly eliminated the on-field arguments between managers (and players) and umpires. While we lose the classic, colorful theatrics of Sparky Anderson, Whitey Herzog, Lou Pinella and Tommy Lasorda, we also don’t have to endure those delays to the game wherein “nothing productive” is occurring.

So too, if the strike zone is automatically defined, then there’s less time (and pitches) “wasted” in a pitcher trying to find that particular umpire’s zone. There’ll be no more nibbling. Either you got it, or you don’t.

Just watch – Run Rules will start to be bemused. The League does not enjoy 19-inning games like the one recently between the Cardinals and Diamondbacks. They had a hard enough time with the World Series marathon game last year! Do you think anyone was really sticking around until 1-2am to see that game play out in Phoenix, let alone watching via broadcast or streaming? Had to play it out, as playoff implications are on the line. So too, that World Series game had to certainly be played out. But how about those runaway trouncings that the Astros and A’s afflicted on each other (and several teams dropped upon the Orioles) this year? Rightly so, the games should be played out at the professional level, since records and performance paychecks are involved, but otherwise, does it really matter? All it’s doing is just dragging the game out beyond 3 hours...

... which is where the League office doesn’t want it to go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, MadMax said:

The projected TV-screen zone is just the cow-catcher on the front of the locomotive. The real engine driving us towards an automated strike zone was tipped at by something Joe Girardi remarked a few years back, reinforced by Boone and his “band of savages” (notice: it’s the Yankees). Manfred is following the performance of the automated zone in the Atlantic League so closely because it reduces / eliminates the organic conflict (questioning, griping, complaining, confronting) between Batter and Plate Umpire. If the Batter isn’t talking to the PU, if he’s not stepping out of the box in a huff, if he’s not griping demonstratively or carrying on to the PU as he (Batter) stomps off, or... ultimately... getting tossed and prompting the manager to come out and “defend” him (and, occasionally get tossed too)... what’s being saved?

Time.

In that automated system, if a player or club wants to gripe about the strike zone, then it’s done external to the game. Manfred’s office has no problems with that, because it doesn’t slow that particular game down, nor endure (?) the ejection of a player that fans may/may not be attending / viewing-on-TV to see.

Yes, Video Replay has been implemented and expanded to “get calls right”, but notice – it's also nearly eliminated the on-field arguments between managers (and players) and umpires. While we lose the classic, colorful theatrics of Sparky Anderson, Whitey Herzog, Lou Pinella and Tommy Lasorda, we also don’t have to endure those delays to the game wherein “nothing productive” is occurring.

So too, if the strike zone is automatically defined, then there’s less time (and pitches) “wasted” in a pitcher trying to find that particular umpire’s zone. There’ll be no more nibbling. Either you got it, or you don’t.

Just watch – Run Rules will start to be bemused. The League does not enjoy 19-inning games like the one recently between the Cardinals and Diamondbacks. They had a hard enough time with the World Series marathon game last year! Do you think anyone was really sticking around until 1-2am to see that game play out in Phoenix, let alone watching via broadcast or streaming? Had to play it out, as playoff implications are on the line. So too, that World Series game had to certainly be played out. But how about those runaway trouncings that the Astros and A’s afflicted on each other (and several teams dropped upon the Orioles) this year? Rightly so, the games should be played out at the professional level, since records and performance paychecks are involved, but otherwise, does it really matter? All it’s doing is just dragging the game out beyond 3 hours...

... which is where the League office doesn’t want it to go.

Agree 100%.

And the danger, to me, is the professional game will become inherently different from the amateur game, where inconsistent strike zones, and the ability to frame/sell strikes will continue to exist, and be an integral part of the game.

The pro game will involve a strike zone that will be "real" - that both batters and pitchers can depend on game in game out.  (and, in the be careful what you ask for department, will favor pitchers unless the rules and definitions are changed)

There will be skills that will be developed and used in the amateur game that won't be necessary in the pro game, and it will become more difficult to predict a pitcher's or hitter's ability to perform in the pro game compared to the amateur game.

The automated strike zone will indeed save time, and minimize dead time...it will also reduce offense significantly until the strike zone is redefined.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If the problem is ultimately the coaches coming out, why don't we just get robot coaches?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Agree 100%.

And the danger, to me, is the professional game will become inherently different from the amateur game, where inconsistent strike zones, and the ability to frame/sell strikes will continue to exist, and be an integral part of the game.

The pro game will involve a strike zone that will be "real" - that both batters and pitchers can depend on game in game out.  (and, in the be careful what you ask for department, will favor pitchers unless the rules and definitions are changed)

There will be skills that will be developed and used in the amateur game that won't be necessary in the pro game, and it will become more difficult to predict a pitcher's or hitter's ability to perform in the pro game compared to the amateur game.

The automated strike zone will indeed save time, and minimize dead time...it will also reduce offense significantly until the strike zone is redefined.   

I agree - it will definitely favor pitchers unless the strike zone is changed.  While there are certainly pitches outside the zone that are called strikes, those are typically very hittable pitches.  It's the unhittable pitches that barely clip the zone that are almost always called balls that will now be called strikes that will drop every offensive statistic.  At least that will be entertaining - for a while.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 9/23/2019 at 4:21 PM, Rich Ives said:

Hair is part of the body. Jewelry isn't.  Help?  ;) 

 

...and laces are part of the glove, too!

 

If they're not, what keeps the glove from falling apart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The major problem with the computer zone is that it's the same strike zone for all players.  Would be the same for Judge as for Altuve!  One size does NOT fit all!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, Lou B said:

The major problem with the computer zone is that it's the same strike zone for all players.  Would be the same for Judge as for Altuve!  One size does NOT fit all!  :)

At least on ESPN they say it’s some algorithm based on what usually gets called on them. And it’s not the same size. Taller players have noticeably larger K-zones than shorter players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, spark2212 said:

At least on ESPN they say it’s some algorithm based on what usually gets called on them. And it’s not the same size. Taller players have noticeably larger K-zones than shorter players. 

That's not what was originally said/published about trakman being used in the Atlantic League.

If it adjusts that's obviously much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...