IGT 05-01-2024 Cubs at Mets Back in the Black

[Gwreck]

Carlos sticking to his opinion in the press conference and not saying "oh well, it's one play" raises my opinion of him.

1000% agree.

[Gwreck]

MLB absolutely needs to have an in-stadium explanation. It's a total disservice to the fans.



1. The catcher was set up on the plate without the ball. Everybody saw it. So explain why you “confirmed” that call notwithstanding the video.



2. You have to explain what you saw. “The video shows the runner's hand was over the plate but did not actually confirm whether he physically touched the plate before being tagged, therefore we are letting the call stand.”

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: =Centerfield post_id=153974 time=1714614783 user_id=65] I'm guessing the bench was empty?

It was.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I have to wonder if the outcome would have been different if Pete had slid feet first.

[metirish]

[Frayed Knot]

Statement from the league office:



“After viewing all relevant angles, the Replay Official definitively determined that no violation of the Home Plate Collision Rule occurred,” MLB's replay center said in its statement. “The catcher's initial setup was legal and he moved into the lane in reaction to the trajectory of the incoming throw. The call is confirmed, as it is not a violation.

Additionally, the Replay Official could not definitively determine that the runner contacted home plate prior to catcher applying the tag. The call stands, and the runner is out.”





This was after Mendoza's post-game comments:



“They send out a memo in spring training what's legal and what's illegal and it's clearly on that email — that memo — that we got that catchers are not allowed to have their foot in front of the plate,” ... On top of the plate, they cannot straddle without possession of the baseball. He was very clear that the guy had his left on top of the plate without the baseball. I think they got the wrong call.”







Ways to avoid this in the future:

- don't get shut out for the first 8 innings have have to depend on a run via a short FO w/a slow runner on 3rd

- slide feet first in order to get your 240 lbs behind those size 14 feet and knock the catcher off his pins if he's on the plate

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ways to avoid this in the future: - don't get shut out for the first 8 innings have have to depend on a run via a short FO w/a slow runner on 3rd

That's all fine, well, and good but not at all a practical assessment. Of course the solution to everything is “score more runs” but even teams that have the very best offensive production sometimes have 1-0 games too.



When I got back from the game and reviewed the broadcast more, I was struck by how clear it was that Alonso “beat the throw” and was over the plate well before a tag was applied. It took quite the zooming in and slo-mo to confirm that his hand came up and that wasn't an angle the umpire was positioned to see.



In short, the umpire made a dubious out call to begin with, and that too is a problem. As Darling aptly pointed out on the broadcast, had the original call been safe, that too would have stood.



As for the description the replay office gave: (1) there's no reason they can't give that in the moment - and in fact, should be required to do so; and (2) that is directly contradicted by the memo Mendoza referenced (and which circulated last night on social media) - a catcher's initial setup cannot be with a foot on the plate sans ball.

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/images/schaefer39.jpg>



http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/index.phpCast your vote!

[bmfc1]

I keep thinking about the C standing on the plate waiting for the ball which is contrary to the rule. MLB said that the "trajectory" put him there but that's wrong. The fielder threw the ball to where the C was standing, not the opposite. There is supposed to be a "lane" for the runner (and the C patted himself on the back for providing one) but it wasn't a lane it was a sliver.

The Mets got screwed (you can argue that they put themselves in a position where one call could decide the game but the call was still wrong).

[Frayed Knot]

1) obviously I was being a wise ass with the scoring earlier comment. But when you don't get the overturned call you're hoping for it matters more when you're trying to use it to pry your first run of the game w/2 outs in the 9th



2) yes, the HP Ump essentially made the right call for the wrong reason. But would a safe call stood up under review? Probably but not necessarily. We've all seen enough games (in multiple sports) where you, me, the guy sitting on the barstool next to you, and the TV announcers are all positive that the call under review is going to be reversed ... and then it's not (or vice versa).



3) these blocking rules are never as cut and dried as those implementing them like to believe. The cameras aren't on the catcher as the throw is coming in which is particularly problematic when inches and half-seconds can mean the difference between a legal block or not. Pete got his hand in (just not ON the plate) but the C also had the ball by then. Was he completely legal prior to that? I couldn't tell.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

It's all silly micro-analysis.



Standing in the way is legal if you have the ball. It always has been true, and it still is. Writing new rules saying you can't "set up" in the baseline if you don't have the ball, or "you have to give the runner a lane" is overthinking it to the nth degree.



If there's contact in the basepath and you don't yet have the ball, you've interfered. If there's contact in the basepath and you do have the ball, then we're looking at a baseball play that needs to be allowed to play itself out.



I'm sorry about Buster Posey, but both the fielder and the runner have any number of chances to make choices to protect themselves or not.



The popularization of the head-first slide is just one more way Pete Rose farted up baseball.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Sliding_Into_Home.jpg/800px-Sliding_Into_Home.jpg>