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.