Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

[Gwreck]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65515 time=1621990300 user_id=68]
Maybe baseball should make up a rule that Mets baserunners are allowed to walk off the base whenever they feel like it, with impunity, and the defense isnt allowed to tag them out while they're off the base.



Yeah, it's the rules' fault that Villar and deGrom were tagged out, not Villar or deGrom's fault. /rollseyes

[Ceetar]

I don't want ANY challenges. just get all the calls correct.



You want to allow a safety net around the base for pop-up type slides? change the rules. Make the bases bigger. But the way it's written, they're rightly out. They came off the safety of the base.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Being at the game was a joke, I was so upset I nearly left. The three most exciting moments in the game turned into bullshit delays, 2 obvious miscarriages of justice on tickytack reviews that made me want to punch the Rockies manager in the face, whoever that guy is. Seriously I feel as old as I ever have saying there is no way baseball survives if this is highest and best expression of play.

[bmfc1]

Replay is to show dopes like CB Bucknor that the ball was over the fence and not to call Jake out for leaving the bag for .2 of a second due to physics. Once you're on the bag the play is over but now runners hold the tag hoping for a temporary, infinitesimal, gap between body and base. Yes, they were out by the current rules but fix the damn rules. If MLB is testing rules to encourage steals then do away with this nonsense which discourages steals and slows down an already slow game. In the NFL, once you've "broken the plane" of the endzone you can hand the ball to the opponent and it's still a touchdown. In MLB, even if you're safe by "a mile" until the umpire calls time the other team can hold the ball on you hoping that you'll fall off the base like it's Twister.

The other half of FAFIF agrees: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2021/05/26/mas-tomas/http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2021/05/26/mas-tomas/

[batmagadanleadoff]

Replay is to show dopes like CB Bucknor that the ball was over the fence and not to call Jake out for leaving the bag for .2 of a second due to physics. Once you're on the bag the play is over but now runners hold the tag hoping for a temporary, infinitesimal, gap between body and base. Yes, they were out by the current rules but fix the damn rules. If MLB is testing rules to encourage steals then do away with this nonsense which discourages steals and slows down an already slow game. In the NFL, once you've "broken the plane" of the endzone you can hand the ball to the opponent and it's still a touchdown. In MLB, even if you're safe by "a mile" until the umpire calls time the other team can hold the ball on you hoping that you'll fall off the base like it's Twister. The other half of FAFIF agrees: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2021/05/26/mas-tomas/http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2021/05/26/mas-tomas/

I disagree with most of what youse are sayin'.



I don't see how banning replay review on those sliding into the base plays like last night's Villar and deGrom plays solves anything. A baserunner can, just the same, be called out for coming off the base live and in real-time instead of by replay review. And then the team at-bat would be screwed out of a replay challenge and might have to live with an incorrect call if the runner never did come off the base in ticky-tacky style.



And what about the ball popping out of the second baseman's glove immediately after he appeared to have successfully tagged out the oncoming baserunner? Should a replay review to determine whether the fielder held onto the ball long enough to constitute possession to record the out also be banned? I don't see the analogy between that tag play and the NFL rule that the play is over as soon as a player with possession of the football crosses the end zone plane. Apples and oranges. The baseball play isn't over as soon as the runner touches the base. That's just made up stuff to support your conclusions. So some of your opinions, in part, are based upon something that isn't even true.



And what about when there's another runner, a lead runner involved in that play? What if the lead runner reached third on the play but now wants to advance home because the second baseman is off balance or on the ground from the tag play at second? Is that part of the play dead, too? How would that work? Would the lead runner be deemed "live" with the right to try and advance home while the runner on second is now "dead" because he crossed the plane or something? The runner on second, according to you, can't advance to third because you'd end the play as soon as second base is touched but if he comes off the base, he shouldn't be allowed to be tagged out either. And does he have to slide into the base for the play to be called dead? What if he arrives at second standing up? And what if he reaches second on a line drive in the gap? Is that play called dead as soon as the runner hits second base even if the ball is rolling around in the outfield?



The idea that replay review shouldn't be used for ticky tacky plays is just a conclusion and it's not persuasive. Every rule in the rule book must be followed, just the same. Umps don't get to decide which rules are enforced and which are ignored, because if they did, enforcement would be an arbitrary farce and the rules and player expectations would change from game to game. A player has to stay on the base just as much as a ball has to clear the outfield wall in fair territory to be deemed a home run.



I agree with you when you say that if the base tag rules are flawed, they should be changed ... improved. That makes sense. I don't know if those rules are flawed but if I thought they were flawed, I'd hope for change, too. But I don't see how replay is creating or exacerbating a problem. It seems to me that replay is shining a light on non-compliance with some of the rules. That's what replay ought to be doing.

[Frayed Knot]

The problem, as I've stated here a number of times, is that replay is always sold on the idea that it will only be used to correct the most obvious goofs and that it will be limited and that it will be quick.

So fans, imagining a world where the Denkinger calls gets reversed, where the Galarraga kid from Detroit gets his perfect game back, and where the handful of blatant calls that go against your team

each year (only your team, the other side never gets screwed by the umps) get corrected, enthusiastically embrace the concept and believe that the baseball world becomes a better place for it.



But once "getting it right" is set as the ultimate goal there becomes no way to keep it from being used for every infraction no matter how minor. Don't want it to overturn calls where a foot comes off

the base by an inch? Then how 'bout two inches? Is two not enough but you could see flipping it if it were four? There's got to be a standard somewhere and the only logical standard is that you have

to stay in contact with the base. If you're off it while being tagged then you're out. The goal line analogy isn't remotely the same thing here.



So how to "fix" things?

1) The pre-delay is most the obvious answer. If the Rox truly believe that deVillar came off the base in real time then they're free to challenge but they don't get half a minute to study the replay

like it's the Zabruder film before deciding to decide. I'd give teams an extra challenge in exchange for eliminating this farce.

2) Stick to whatever the limit is. If you get two challenges then you get two. Not two plus begging the umps for more because it's past the 7th inning and you spent both of yours on ticky-tack calls

back in the 1st but this time you really, really think you're right. The manager is going to need to trust his players; if they call for a replay because they swear they tagged him in time and that

turns out to be not the case then that skipper is going to be reluctant to take that player's word for it in the future.

3) the umpiring crews in the replay office need to be VERY reluctant to overturn borderline calls. Again, replay is sold on the premise that only "conclusive" evidence will overturn a call but we all know

that's not true. If ten years or so of MLB evidence isn't enough to convince you of that then four decades of NFL replay follies should be. What's become the norm instead is what I like to call the 51%

rule, if the crew think it's more likely that he's out than safe then they flip the call even though the evidence isn't within a Pete Alonso HR of being conclusive. How many times over the years (again, NFL

has the bigger pot of evidence) have you on your couch, or the guy in the barstool next to you, or the announcers in the booth, seen eight different angles of replays and declared that there's "No Way"

this one is/isn't going to be overturned ... and yet it is (or is not)? Apply what was supposed to be the standard in the first place then these borderline challenges will get rejected more often which

will lead to managers being more reluctant to challenge them in the first place. And if it turns out that the dude's foot did come off the base for a split second but you didn't challenge because you were

unsure then you've got to live with it and move on.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree that the goal line analogy doesn't apply, except in the case of home plate, of course.

[bmfc1]

"If you get two challenges then you get two. Not two plus begging the umps for more because it's past the 7th inning and you spent both of yours on ticky-tack calls back in the 1st but this time you really, really think you're right." (MATTINGLY!)

How about only 2 for the 1st through 6th innings (in a 9-inning game) and then the remaining innings are up to the umps/replay umps?



"Every rule in the rule book must be followed, just the same. Umps don't get to decide which rules are enforced and which are ignored, because if they did, enforcement would be an arbitrary farce and the rules and player expectations would change from game to game."

Spoken like a lawyer because it frustrates me when you hear "he got off on a technicality". The law is the law. Change the law.



Interesting counter-points. I hope that Manfred is thinking about it today, too.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm repeating myself here too, but what I suspect is that MLB is afraid of two things if they attempt to limit replay.



1) that if they do away with the 'call from upstairs' step they fear that the home team would gain an advantage via some sort of signaling system which the road team wouldn't have access to.



2) if a bad call was allowed to stand, either because a team had run out of challenges and/or it didn't have the benefit of viewing the replay first, the sports media (which, let's face it, is already

about 80% anti-baseball) would skewer the sport for still living in the 19th century by having the technology to right the wrong but choosing not to do so, and I think they'd be very sensitive to

that kind of criticism.

[Ceetar]

Robot umps. digital bases. They turn green when a baserunner is 'touching' (which you define programmatically if you want to allow a half inch above the bag for instance)



replay and technology is exposing how flawed umpiring is. But there's no reason to stick with the flaws just because we didn't notice them or couldn't quantify them before. Fix the flaws. games are won and loss on a subjective spotty judgement by an umpire, and that's NOT sporting. A bad understanding of the rule and how to call it correctly almost cost the Mets the 2015 NLDS.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: 1) that if they do away with the 'call from upstairs' step they fear that the home team would gain an advantage via some sort of signaling system which the road team wouldn't have access to.

I weigh that fear to be of less import than the actually deleterious effect of the call from upstairs. Make the decision on the field. If somebody is standing there looking for signals from the sky, then they're going to look pretty stupid.



Beyond that, I could be wrong, but if those two baserunners who screwed up last night were Rockies baserunners, and the Mets protested, but didn't get the calls because the players were technically out but at too nitpicky a level, we'd have trouble thinking of that as a fair and just outcome.



We can re-engineer the game, again, or we can teach players to hold the bag better.

[bmfc1]

"games are won and loss on a subjective spotty judgment by an umpire, and that's NOT sporting." No, it's not and I don't like when Keith says that it's always been part of the game.

[Ceetar]

could make the bags bigger. even a few inches on either side would make stolen bases slightly easier, make staying on the bag slightly easier, would make beating out infield singles slightly easier. You'd barely notice, and MLB _probably_ could tweak it without screwing it up like the ball.



Of course, they don't actually care, so it's hard to say. Writing a corporate memo to ball manufacturers is one thing, actually resdesigning the baseball field takes work.



Or you know, dilute the pool of pitching with 6 new teams. You get the excitement of the bidding for new cities/teams, the draw of seeing a new team around the country, the naming debate. You get more playoffs without having to let half the teams in, players get more jobs, you arguably also get to bring back 2 dozen minor league teams, travel is reduced for some clubs. You could create even more scarcity of matchup that becomes a draw that interleague diluted. Mets might only play the Mariners at Citi Field once a decade! You could introduce more regional rivalries, which drives up attendance/ratings too.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction

[Benjamin Grimm]

That's a good idea, and a reasonable solution. Put it in the category of check swings and fair/foul balls that hit the ground in front of the umpire.

[Frayed Knot]

=Ceetar post_id=65573 time=1622036185 user_id=102]
could make the bags bigger. even a few inches on either side would make stolen bases slightly easier, make staying on the bag slightly easier, would make beating out infield singles slightly easier. You'd barely notice, and MLB _probably_ could tweak it without screwing it up like the ball.

[Edgy MD]

They've expanded the size of the bases as an "experimental" rule throughout the affiliated minors. It's not in the majors yet, but since it's at every level of the affiliated minors, I've got to expect that it is highly unlikely to not appear universally in 2022.

[dinosaur jesus]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction

I agree with this. I'm fine with replay being used to correct things that the umpires should be able to see, even if they miss them sometimes. I'm not comfortable with it being used to correct things no human being could possibly see. For 150 years a player who slid into third like Villar did would have been safe, no question, no controversy. And now suddenly we find out we were wrong all that time. For 150 years we also had runners called out who reached the base before the throw, balls called foul that landed fair, trapped balls called catches. But those were controversial, and I'm glad we can finally get them right. So let's make certain kinds of calls unreviewable. Sliding past the base and getting tagged has always been an out, if the umpire saw it. So review it. Momentarily losing contact with the base while sliding over it has never been an out. So don't review it.

[seawolf17]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd consider making momentary loss of contact with the bag--after arriving safely--a non-reviewable call, unless in cases where in the umpire's judgment, a slide goes beyond the bag or into the baselines. It'd be a grey area for sure but they already use interpretations in rule at plays at the bases wrt contact and obstruction I agree with this. I'm fine with replay being used to correct things that the umpires should be able to see, even if they miss them sometimes. I'm not comfortable with it being used to correct things no human being could possibly see. For 150 years a player who slid into third like Villar did would have been safe, no question, no controversy. And now suddenly we find out we were wrong all that time. For 150 years we also had runners called out who reached the base before the throw, balls called foul that landed fair, trapped balls called catches. But those were controversial, and I'm glad we can finally get them right. So let's make certain kinds of calls unreviewable. Sliding past the base and getting tagged has always been an out, if the umpire saw it. So review it. Momentarily losing contact with the base while sliding over it has never been an out. So don't review it.

This. Both of those calls last night were bullshit and everyone involved knew it.

[Ceetar]

both those calls last night were correct and we'd know. I'd be pissed if the opposition got an extra base they clearly didn't deserve and the rules prevented correcting it. If we're really just concerned with whether a player gest 90 feet before the ball gets there, not so much the tag itself, you can probably do this with Statcast.



Anything else and you're just giving in to luck. Where the umpire happens to be positioned to get a decent enough look at the runner, the tag and the base for an unimpeded constant view. Because even if you want to make a play like last night non-reviewable, it's STILL going to be called by umpires sometimes, just wrongly.

[Willets Point]

Edgy MD wrote: They've expanded the size of the bases as an "experimental" rule throughout the affiliated minors. It's not in the majors yet, but since it's at every level of the affiliated minors, I've got to expect that it is highly unlikely to not appear universally in 2022.

Are the bases going to have greater depth to them too? Because then maybe they won't separate a few microns from a sliding baserunner's belly.

[Willets Point]

Of course it might also tear off skin or break ribs, but it's really important that the baserunner be firmly touching the base at all times.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Guest

[Willets Point]

In fact, MLB should invest in electron microscope to review such plays. If the atoms of the player don't interact with the atoms of the base, can they really be said to be "touching."

[batmagadanleadoff]

Oh c'mon. An umpire shouldn't be allowed to call a baserunner safe because he was "close enough" in tagging the base. Maybe next, a first baseman wouldn't have to have his foot on the base to complete an out play at first. Or maybe the home ump should be allowed to call a strike on a pitch that he truly believes to be a ball because the pitch was "close enough" to home plate. Because it's so ticky-tacky to call a ball on a pitch that, by an eighth of an inch, barely misses home plate.



Youse want a really good football analogy instead of the crossing the end-zone plane stuff? This is like a running back who's about to lose control of the football being allowed to call a timeout just before he fumbles the ball.

[kcmets]

Willets Point wrote: In fact, MLB should invest in electron microscope to review such plays. If the atoms of the player don't interact with the atoms of the base, can they really be said to be "touching."

Well, the uniform is part of the player but I'm sure in this day and age that can be programmed in.

[Willets Point]

We should put sensors in the uniform and in the base so that we can be 100% sure.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Oh c'mon. An umpire shouldn't be allowed to call a baserunner safe because he was "close enough" in tagging the base. Maybe next, a first baseman wouldn't have to have his foot on the base to complete an out play at first. Or maybe the home ump should be allowed to call a strike on a pitch that he truly believes to be a ball because the pitch was "close enough" to home plate. Because it's so ticky-tacky to call a ball on a pitch that, by an eighth of an inch, barely misses home plate. Youse want a really good football analogy instead of the crossing the end-zone plane stuff? This is like a running back who's about to lose control of the football being allowed to call a timeout just before he fumbles the ball.

No it's not. I'm saying leave it to the umpire to determine whether an infintessimal and momentary separation of body and base ought to be reviewable when a guy clearly beats a tag/throw to 2nd or 3rd base and signals no intention to progress further than that bag in the moment. Now if some palooka tries to nick a corner of the bag with his pinky and his entire body slides into the baseline, maybe you can review. Or when a dumbass times his slide poorly and passes the base entirely, yeah review that. But this bullshit we saw last night--beat the throw, only intended to stop his motion and remain in place-- that's the kind of shit that makes every play some theoretical result and reflects poorly on everyone.

[nymr83]

If you come off the base at all and get tagged, you are out. pretty simple. I don't buy the argument that for 150 years we couldn't have seen you were out so you shouldn't be now. The same argument can be made about the strike-zone.



If we are going to allow review, then make the call whatever the review clearly showed.



If you don't like the rule, which we are now better able to enforce than we were before, change the rule. Advocate for the rule that a runner is safe if he touches any base before he is tagged and makes no effort to advance to another base, if that is the rule you want. I'm fine with the current rules and fine with the corner-cases of NFL-like review of inches.



If you are worried about frivolous challenges wasting time and just letting ALL close calls stand, I'd also be fine with putting the decision of whether or not to review in the hands of any umpire not named Angel Hernandez.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=nymr83 post_id=65628 time=1622069432 user_id=54]
If you come off the base at all and get tagged, you are out. pretty simple. I don't buy the argument that for 150 years we couldn't have seen you were out so you shouldn't be now. The same argument can be made about the strike-zone.



If we are going to allow review, then make the call whatever the review clearly showed.



If you don't like the rule, which we are now better able to enforce than we were before, change the rule. Advocate for the rule that a runner is safe if he touches any base before he is tagged and makes no effort to advance to another base, if that is the rule you want. I'm fine with the current rules and fine with the corner-cases of NFL-like review of inches.



If you are worried about frivolous challenges wasting time and just letting ALL close calls stand, I'd also be fine with putting the decision of whether or not to review in the hands of any umpire not named Angel Hernandez.

[dinosaur jesus]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68]




This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity.