It was a double fucking play

[Frayed Knot]

That's not true (addressing FK Post). They had the discretion. It's in my earlier post. Here's the rule: Correcting an Incorrect Call Consistent with Official Baseball Rule 8.02(c) (formerly Rule 9.02(c)), if Replay Review results in a change to a call that had been made on the field, the Replay Official, to the extent feasible, shall exercise his discretion to place both Clubs in the same position they would have been in had the call on the field been correct. This shall include placing runners where he thinks those runners would have been at the conclusion of the reviewed play if the reviewed call had been correctly made in the first instance, disregarding interference or obstruction that may have occurred on the play, failures of runners to tag up based upon the initial call on the field, runners passing other runners, missing bases, etc. The replay official could have ruled that the toe did not hit the base, but that since Utley had gone that far past the base, that he would not have gotten back in time.

But the flaw in all that is that they ruled Utley left the field because he was called out and therefore shouldn't be penalized.
The only way to negate this whole 'put them back where they belong' nonsense if for ALL players to pretend that ALL calls went against them and start running around re-tagging runners, re-stepping on bases, and diving back to bases after they've already been called out, etc., and then the whole game becomes a farce. It creates the stupid scenario where if Utley was the one hurt (say woozy from the knee to the head) and Tejada not then maybe they rule the other way because they figure that Ruben was more likely to tag him out then he was to get back to the bag. It's fucking guesswork which creates a result which is much worse than the toe 1/2 inch off the base in the first place - but the umps didn't create the system, they just have to manage and enforce it.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: But the flaw in all that is that they ruled Utley left the field because he was called out and therefore shouldn't be penalized.

But Utley did not slide past the bag because he was called out. Utley slid past the bag because he assumed he would be out and wanted to go out breaking up the double play.

And sliding past the bag, he ultimately placed the fielder between him and the bag. Decry the presence of "guesswork" if you must, but given all the opportunity in the world, their guess was wrong. I don't call it guesswork though. I call it judgment.

[Centerfield]

Whether it's guesswork or judgment, that replay official had the choice to award the bag or not. His hands were not tied.

And with the benefit of all that time (it took forever to cart Tejada off the field) and multiple angles of that vicious slide, he made the conscious decision to award Utley the bag. His hands were in no way tied, as Torre suggested.

So, I want that fuckhead to come out, identify himself, and sit behind a mic and defend his decision.

[Frayed Knot]

Utley didn't slide past the base because he was called out, but he ran off the field because of it and I know I've heard that the replay umps were instructed not to penalize players for doing so.
And we can call it 'judgement' all we want, but Utley had no reason to return to the bag nor did Tejada have any reason to re-tag either the base or Utley because both assumed it was pointless to do so. But that's exactly what this system forces the replay umps to do: c/would Utley have returned to the base before Ruben c/would have tagged him trying to do so. Whatever answer they come up with at that point is stupid and, yeah, it's pretty much guesswork.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Utley didn't slide past the base because he was called out, but he ran off the field because of it and I know I've heard that the replay umps were instructed not to penalize players for doing so.

Yes, you said that. And I pointed out that him placing himself off the bag with the defensive player holding the ball in between the bag should lead to the sound judgment that he would have been out. You're ignoring information that doesn't support your case.

Frayed Knot wrote: And we can call it 'judgement' all we want...

OK, I will!

Frayed Knot wrote: ...., but Utley had no reason to return to the bag nor did Tejada have any reason to re-tag either the base or Utley because both assumed it was pointless to do so.

Sounds like a moment that calls for judgment.

Frayed Knot wrote: But that's exactly what this system forces the replay umps to do...

Yes. Judge.

Frayed Knot wrote: ... c/would Utley have returned to the base before Ruben c/would have tagged him trying to do so. Whatever answer they come up with at that point is stupid and, yeah, it's pretty much guesswork.

You know the difference. One is drawing a conclusion with facts and information. The other is drawing a conclusion without them. The latter is not the situation here.

[dinosaur jesus]

I'm not conceding that Tejada didn't touch the base. Overturning that call is the screwup that sets up all the other screwups, as far as I'm concerned.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: ... c/would Utley have returned to the base before Ruben c/would have tagged him trying to do so. Whatever answer they come up with at that point is stupid and, yeah, it's pretty much guesswork. You know the difference. One is drawing a conclusion with facts and information. The other is drawing a conclusion without them. The latter is not the situation here.

Forcing the to draw conclusions based on two events neither one of which would logically occur in the given situation is much closer to guesswork than it is to judgement.

And I don't know why we're even arguing these definitions anyway,. My larger point is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'. Well both have happened, and do happen regularly, and there's no way to have the system they have and have these things NOT happen. The human mistakes in that play were made on the field. The replay umps were much more restricted as to what they could do and there the system is more at fault.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Forcing the to draw conclusions based on two events neither one of which would logically occur in the given situation is much closer to guesswork than it is to judgement. And I don't know why we're even arguing these definitions anyway,. My larger point is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'. Well both have happened, and do happen regularly, and there's no way to have the system they have and have these things NOT happen. The human mistakes in that play were made on the field. The replay umps were much more restricted as to what they could do and there the system is more at fault.

That's probably part of the rational for interference being technically unreviewable, as they must have figured there would be too many moving parts and judgement calls on runners.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: ... c/would Utley have returned to the base before Ruben c/would have tagged him trying to do so. Whatever answer they come up with at that point is stupid and, yeah, it's pretty much guesswork. You know the difference. One is drawing a conclusion with facts and information. The other is drawing a conclusion without them. The latter is not the situation here. Forcing the to draw conclusions based on two events neither one of which would logically occur in the given situation is much closer to guesswork than it is to judgement.

Forcing the whom? to draw conclusions?

And no, it's not. As noted above.

Frayed Knot wrote: And I don't know why we're even arguing these definitions anyway,.

Because it's true. Because words mean things. And the words you choose support the argument, even if they don't accurately describe the facts. So that should be clarified to get at the truth.

Frayed Knot wrote: My larger point...

Which is always how someone shifts an argument in which their smaller-point-which-supports-the-larger point is shown to be insupportable.

Frayed Knot wrote: ... is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'.

And then you switch to a strawman argument.

[Zvon]

dinosaur jesus wrote: I'm not conceding that Tejada didn't touch the base. Overturning that call is the screwup that sets up all the other screwups, as far as I'm concerned.

Most certainly this imo^

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: My larger point... Which is always how someone shifts an argument in which their smaller-point-which-supports-the-larger-point is shown to be insupportable. Frayed Knot wrote: ... is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'. And then you switch to a strawman argument.

Fuck off with your semantics. I'm done here.

[Edgy MD]

I answered your argument, as you answered that of another poster.

Neither of those responses is semantics.

[Edgy MD]

Just stumbled across this.



Apart from the Bizarro World reality of Chipper Jones defending the Mets and Edgardo Alfonzo seemingly trolling him for his trouble, how weird is it that after a career as elite baseball players, these dudes end up seemingly wanting to spend their time doing what the rest of us mortals do: being dicks on the internet?

[Centerfield]

I am embarrassed to admit how much I am liking Chipper Jones these days.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Centerfield wrote: I am embarrassed to admit how much I am liking Chipper Jones these days.

You and whoever his waitress at BigBoobs Bar and Grill is tonight both, buddy.

[seawolf17]

Just stumbled across this. Apart from the Bizarro World reality of Chipper Jones defending the Mets and Edgardo Alfonzo seemingly trolling him for his trouble, how weird is it that after a career as elite baseball players, these dudes end up seemingly wanting to spend their time doing what the rest of us mortals do: being dicks on the internet?

That's awesome.

And yes, I'm all in on Chipper now too. Go figure.

[Frayed Knot]

Chipper's been pulling for the Mets because he and deGrom are from the same hometown -- Deland, Florida (should be retitled as deLand in honor of deGrom) -- and I think Larry said that his mom & pop both went to and met at Stetson U

[Edgy MD]

deGrom comes from deLand and went to college at Stetson... in deLand.

Ties Daniel Murphy (Jacksonville-born and Jacksonville State-educated) with being the Floridian Mets who traveled the least ways to get to college.

True story: Stetson was founded by a rich-assed New Yorker Henry DeLand as "DeLand Academy" in 1883 but was changed to Stetson University by 1889 when DeLand's fortunes started failing and the hat guy took over as the main benefactor. The team's actual name: The Stetson Hatters.

[Ceetar]

last week tonight

[MFS62]

Edgy MD wrote: deGrom comes from deLand and went to college at Stetson... in deLand. Ties Daniel Murphy (Jacksonville-born and Jacksonville State-educated) with being the Floridian Mets who traveled the least ways to get to college. True story: Stetson was founded by a rich-assed New Yorker Henry DeLand as "DeLand Academy" in 1883 but was changed to Stetson University by 1889 when DeLand's fortunes started failing and the hat guy took over as the main benefactor. The team's actual name: The Stetson Hatters.

And for many years, the Stetson hats were manufactured in Danbury, Ct. (The Hat Capitol of the World)

http://www.danburymuseum.org/danburymuseum/Hatting.html

Tell THAT to the next cowboy you meet.

Later