I think Jerry Layne made the wrong call last night, but then again this means I feel he should have enforced the spirit of the unwritten rule that isn't actually in the rulebook.
It's not true that the "neighborhood play" exists to protect fielders from takeout slides. The "neighborhood play" does not in fact exist, at least not in the one place it needs to be found, which is the MLB Rulebook. It seems to exist in some nebulous sense that sometimes umpires, in DP situations, don't seem to require the fielder to have the ball, and have contact with the base, at the same time. But when you get down to questions like, "What if he is on the base one moment, and has the ball another?" vs. "What if he's really near the base the whole time but never actually touches it?" there is no rule to refer to.
The "neighborhood play" is an unwritten rule, which is a bit awkward in a game that has an official rulebook for umpires to follow. Would it be so difficult to create a written rule, with guidelines, for what fielders may or may not do to record an out at 2B while attempting to turn a DP? There are rules for touching a live ball with a catcher's mask, for batting out of order, and for a baseball literally coming apart while in play, but no rule for the everyday occurance of the "neighborhood play."
So Jerry Layne was asked to interpret the details of a rule that doesn't actually exist. Hard to get that one right.
0 recs | 218 comments
I don’t think the Yankees wanted to win like that. Especially after the Mauer call in the ALDS, when it came out that the ump was from Jersey and a life time Yankees fan. I kind of feel it was the right call. It was such a tailor made double play, Aybar was not going to be taken out. He had all the time in the world. Why the hell didn’t he touch the bag. He is blowin it in the ALCS. First that pop up in game one that he watched fall then this.
skalordes - October 18, 2009
every other team wants to win like that or any way
The twins had bases loaded nobody out and did not score.
And waht about the HBP on Inge? Did the twins say “no, no we don’t want to win that way.”?
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
This was not the neighborhood play
this was Izturis may as well threw the ball to figgins, then to first. At not time did Aybar touch the base. In the neighborhood play the SS does touch the base.
Further, I would guess “neighborhood plays” are very rare, that the SS usually does have the ball and is touching the base at the same time. But because the action goes so fast and theses guys cover so much ground it looks to our lying eyes that the fielder never touched the base. We just remember the few times it is proven throgh multiple viewings.
It is the dumbest way I have ever seen to turn a double play. Maybe Aybar delveloped it because he cannot [redict where either Izturis or Kendrick will throw the ball, but taking a throw from a know spot when you will have to throw it to another known spot from a flat footed position adds time to the transfer and reduces strength on your throw. it it a dumb way to do things.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
First of all, fielders use the "neighborhood" concept all the time,
leaving the bag a full step before touching the ball. But the way I look at it, the “rule” is best interpreted the same way as the rule for runners coming in to break up DPs.
The rule for a runner coming in isn’t that he has to touch 2B or it’s interference (automatic DP); the rule is that he has to be able to touch 2B (whether he actually does or not) or it’s interference (and an automatic DP).
Seems to me that the same standard applied to the runner should be applied to the fielder.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Whereas I think the rule should be that runners should have to touch 2B
and in fact, should be required to slide directly at the base. This is the rule in college baseball, and it works fine. The only things takeout slides are good for are a. sadism, and b. injuries.
Get rid of takeout slides and there’s no longer any excuse for “neighborhood plays.”
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
I agree completely
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
I don't believe that there's any place in any sport for "unwritten rules" of any kind
This is serious business and a lot of people care about it. If it’s important, write it down. If not, it is not a rule. Period. Bright line.
As the rule book is actually worded, the runner was safe— and that’s just unarguably the case. It’s not even a judgment call. If MLB wants to change the rules, fine. Until then any and all applications of any “neighborhood play” theory are simply blown calls.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
And the thing is, if he didn't make the call
People would still be bitching at him. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t,
walk off bunt - October 18, 2009
I agree, PT -- that's the premise of this post
Layne’s call matches the rulebook. It’s the rules that are flawed, creating an “unwritten understanding” that not everyone understands the same way.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Why say the rules are flawed?
The rules are the rules. What’s flawed—at least under the status quo—is the enforcement of them. Not Layne’s call, but the countless times that people are called out in “neighborhood” situations.
Baseball is full of crap like this. The most egregious example is the strike zone. Especially in the ’80s and ’90s, the strike zone that was called in MLB had little to do with the strike zone in the rulebook.
Sometimes such divergences between practice and rules suggest that the rules ought to be changed. At other times, I think, the rules just need to be enforced. And that’s a decision that needs to be taken in the course of consideration of rules changes, not on the field. In the short run, absent rules changes, baseball should insist that the rulebook be enforced. (Incidentally, I’m not entirely convinced that we need a neighborhood rule.)
Every sport has a certain tension between practice and written rules (think traveling in pro basketball). But in MLB, that disparity is magnified by the structure of umpiring. The NYT today had an interesting op-ed on this by Fay Vincent. I don’t agree entirely with Vincent, but he raises important issues.
GreenNGoldSooner - October 18, 2009
I agree that the rule needs to be changed, or in this case added and outlined,
or every “neighborhood play” should be called safe. Or they should outlaw “takeout slides,” which would actually be my vote.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Switch that last "or" to an "and" and you have my vote.
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
Well if you got rid of "takeout slides"
the “neighborhood play” rule would be fine as is, i.e., there is no such thing, you need to tag the bag while in possession of the ball or the runner is safe.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Its worth noting that Takeout Slides are only legal in pro ball
Any other league (including College) and you’re out, if not doubling off the batter as well.
Rebuilding Season - October 18, 2009
The only thing that has any real need to added
is a rule (assuming it doesn’t already exist) stating all baselines, regardless of where they’re formed, converge directly at the base, on the ground. Therefore a runner can not perform a slide that isn’t directed at the base itself or else they’re outside of the baseline. Then, just enforce the written rules. You still get the “3 feet” range away from the bag, but that three feet narrows around the bases. A runner deliberately sliding away from the bag is outside the baseline, committing interference. A runner sliding directly at the bag is adhering to the baseline. And any contact that is made between runner and fielder is okay assuming the runner’s legs aren’t pointed away from the bag (i.e. not up in the air at the fielder instead of down on the ground at the base/baseline.)
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Isn't the official rule that the runner must be able to touch the base?
I.e., they can point their cleats at the SS, but their hand must be able to reach out and touch the bag?
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
Yes -- even if they don't touch the base
They just have to be able to. The analogous requirement with Aybar, on defense, would be that he would have to be able to touch 2B — which he satisfied.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Which is why that rule is the one that should be redefined.
It would allow for all the other real rules to be followed without excuses.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
I don't think the neighborhood play
actually exists. People just think it does because they want to believe. the few times it does occur, its just a mistake.
But people still want to believe things they heard as a kid like tie goes to the runner and ghosts.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
That's false, though
Umpires allow the neighborhood play all the time, where the fielder is clearly not on the bag when he actually has the ball in his glove.
Nico - October 18, 2009
The real times it actually happens
it could just very well be a blown call that was difficult to make because of the speed at which it happens. Too often, people’s reaction is to try to explain it. The explanation is often done by referring to a non-existent “neighborhood” play. As for the rules about runners, they absolutely should have to touch the base in any slide taking out a runner. Anything else is not in the spirit of the rules nor is particularly in any way acceptable.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
I don't think that's it.
Usually it’s pretty obvious to the naked eye that the neighborhood play has been employed. I think it’s just a “convention” that caught up to MLB last night.
Nico - October 18, 2009
I agree with this
There’s a lot of loose umpiring around second base (both takeout slides and neighborhood plays). It’s especially odd since first base is very strictly umpired.
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
Well, agree to disagree on this point
It would be nice to have film and actually study this. I think less neighborhood and more good plays.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
In these (rare) cases I'd say the ump blew the call. Not that he was calling the neighborhood play
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
I agree
i think its a lot like the “clutch” discussions. We remember the outliers, and they have been happening for years, therefore it happens a lot. I don’t think it does.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
That's just not true, but not worth arguing.
I’ve seen plenty of outs called where clearly the umpire could see that the fielder was off the bag when he caught the ball — you couldn’t miss it — but was on the bag earlier and was “clearing himself” from the incoming runner by taking a full step from the bag before he caught the ball.
Nico - October 18, 2009
we are in total agreement
its not worth arguing.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Isn't the real question
In other DPs in the game or in the series, would he care whether Aybar was in the neighborhood or just called the runner out? That’s where players’ and managers’ concerns seem to lie — call strikes a few inches off the plate if you want, but make sure EVERYONE gets the same call, for better or for worse, during the same game. Call the neighborhood play safe if you want, but don’t just call it when the game is possibly on the line
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
My micro point is that this play was not even close to the neighborhood play
Aybar never made, nor attempted contact with the bag
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
I always thought the neighborhood play was
well, you were “in the neighborhood” of 2nd. As long you were close, it was an out. His feet were so close to the bag, it would be hard to say he didn’t attempt contact with it.
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
That's the whole point --
what IS the neighborhood play? Nobody knows, because it’s not actually a written rule.
Nico - October 18, 2009
I've seen infielders stand over the base with both feet to either side...
…and get the double play even though they never touched the base. At least that’s closer than Aybar’s, where he was actually behind the base.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
And i've seen people farther away - too
I just never paid any attention to whether there was EVER a touch on the bag – before the ball was in the glove. I’m gonna be watching a bit closer now!!
BERRYJO - October 18, 2009
I remeber umpiring a little league game a long time ago
One of the coachs complained to my boss that I got all the calls wrong, to which my boss replied, “at least he is consistantly shitty, that’s all we ask.”
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Yes!
Consistency! :-)
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
Heh
just like an umpire who was 10 feet away couldn’t inadvertently call a ball foul that was clearly at least 6 feet fair? Because something like that just couldn’t happen? I think that sort of thing happens much more often than we’re likely to realize, it’s just a low percentage of all calls an ump makes in a given game, in a given season. But it most definitely happens.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
TO be fair
in the fair foul situation, Melky Cabrerra (I sense a pattern) touched the ball in fair territory first, so it confued the umpire.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Ah, so something that makes it even more clearly a fair ball
happened before the thing that also made it clearly a fair ball! Cuzzi just flat out blew that one; it happens, but it doesn’t represent the level of most umpiring most of the time.
Nico - October 18, 2009
No, because plays at 1B that umpires get right routinely,
where the runner is out by 1/2 a step, or where the 1Bman keeps contact with the bag while stretching, are a lot harder to see than the 2Bman leaving the bag a full step before receiving the ball.
I’ve seen plenty of “neighborhood play” calls where it would very difficult to believe that the umpire mistakenly thought he saw the ball in the fielder’s glove while the fielder was on the base.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Disagree
At first, the ump watches the bag and listens for the ball hitting the glove. Their visual focus is in one place. At second, they can’t necessarily do that, most middle infielders receive the ball with smooth hands (throwing out the sound), the base runner isn’t racing towards the bag, but typically sliding in such a way that they have to follow their path to see if it’s inference. Too frequently there’s a lot more going on at second to look out for plus you’re not going to get in the best position to see it all.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
But you don't HAVE to look that carefully
when there’s a full step of daylight in between the base and the fielder’s foot. It’s sometimes that obvious.
Nico - October 18, 2009
I think DMOAS and I
would agree that it does happen. Its the frequency that we are debating.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
TWSS.
Nico - October 18, 2009
When that's the case
it’s just as obvious the call has been blown.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
+1
Umpires are generally pretty effective. When it comes to enforcing double-play rules, they are incredibly ineffective. That cannot possibly be a coincidence.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
It absolutely exists
And has been talked about many times in the past.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
Unlike dinosaurs.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Maybe we can call the new interpretation the "Carl Everett rule"
Nick - October 18, 2009
I don't think its as bad as its made out.
I don’t watch as much baseball because of my cable package, but I would be surprised if its that bad.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Disagree
They’ve been calling it that way for probably 50 years. It is not fair to the fielding team to call the guy safe on that play when 90% of the time it would be an out. Same goes with the strike zone. A ball at the letters has never been a strike, and it is not fair to the hitter to call one once in awhile.
If they want to start enforcing the rule at this point, they need to publicly announce it and have umpire training or something, which they clearly should do in the case of the neighborhood play. As it stands, it is a judgment call, and that particular call was bad. It’s fine if you think there shouldn’t be unwritten rules, but there are.
mikeA - October 18, 2009
I'd love for them to start calling the real, full strike zone
There’s really no reason to put the pitcher at such a disadvantage.
DMOAS - October 19, 2009
Arguing an estoppel defense, eh
Plausible, but the problem with that is that I HAVE seen runners called safe on that play before. The “unwritten” rule is NOT consistently enforced. (And of course I’ve seen high strikes called, too, though maybe there it was more of an accident.)
PaulThomas - October 19, 2009
Christ, what an estoppel
monkeyball - October 19, 2009
I brought up a possibly similar "rule" in the game thread last night
The question has to do with a play at the plate when a catcher holds the ball with his bare hand, places his bare hand (holding the ball) inside the catcher’s mitt to shield it from the runner (so he doesn’t drop the ball), and tags the runner with the catcher’s mitt.
This is always called an out, and is never controversial, but it’s technically not a legitimate tag.
Here’s the discussion (with pictures!) from last night.
Nick - October 18, 2009
Wouldn't part of the issue there be that the umpire
has no way of knowing which hand the ball is in? The catcher could let the ball go from the bare hand into the glove, but it would look the same to the ump. So I guess if two hands are in the glove, along with the ball, the ball is presumed to be tagging the runner (with some hand or piece of equipment).
Nico - October 18, 2009
Maybe, although I've seen plays where the ump waits to see if the catcher held onto the ball
and when the catcher holds the ball up in his bare hand, the ump calls the out.
Nick - October 18, 2009
Right, because that shows the ball was with the glove,
not bouncing away or on the ground underneath the catcher. I think all that’s being shown there is that yes, the ball was part of the hand/glove sandwich.
Nico - October 18, 2009
The rule is very specific
If you’re holding the ball with your bare hand, you need to tag the runner with your bare hand. Putting your bare hand in the catcher’s mitt and tagging the runner with the catcher’s mitt isn’t a tag — the ball is “firmly and securely” in the hand, not the mitt. The fact that the mitt is shielding the hand (which is securely and firmly holding the ball) does not give the catcher the ability to tag a runner out with the mitt.
I’m not saying umps should start calling these plays as “no tag” plays — I’m just saying that this is another situation in which umps call outs that technically shouldn’t be outs, at least as I read the rules.
The biggest problem I have with all this is that MLB hasn’t announced a crackdown on the neighborhood play. There have been times when MLB has said, “We’re going to enforce the time limit between pitches from now on,” or, “We’re going to be sticklers on the balk rule — no pause in the stretch means a balk,” but no one said anything about the neighborhood play, AFAIK.
Nick - October 18, 2009
Actually, if you want to get technical with the language,
all it says is that you have to do one of three things (touch runner with ball, hand, or glove) while also satisfying one of two conditions (ball securely and firmly in glove or ball securely and firmly in bare hand).
It would appear that matching one of any three actions under one of either two conditions constitutes a tag.
Nico - October 18, 2009
More to the point
“or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove” is exactly what’s happening here. The ball is held securely and firmly in his hand or glove. That “or” does NOT specify whether it should be considered an “and/or” situation and often times that’s exactly what a logical “or” actually means.
If A OR B then C
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Ah, the old "exclusive 'or' problem" rears its ugly head in a particularly odd place...
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
Yes.
As a programmer, I always assume “or” is inclusive unless otherwise stated. It must be explicitly stated for the case where “both” results in a different result.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
I agree
It would NOT be a tag if the ball is in a bare hand outside of a glove, and a glove tag is applied. It is a tag if everything is in one place.
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
What basically happens is no matter whether the ball is in the bare hand or the glove...
…it’s accepted that they’re extensions of each other as long as contact is kept together.
Like I said last night, that’s easier to justify when you brace yourself to keep the ball secure when someone is sliding into the tag than it is on a lunging tag where you’re the one diving toward the runner and you might momentarily lose clear contact with the glove while holding the ball in your bare hand.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
Rodney looks like he doesn't care what happened
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
-1 on the "gamer face" metric
Not even facing the camera, much less mugging appropriately. Disgraceful.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
Here's another good example of a 'brace in place' tag
“Out” was the call.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
The ball ends up in the glove in that sequence -- the bare hand is empty after the tag
There’s definitely a gray area there — I personally think it would be stupid for umps to have to start calling the game differently on this basis. But I think the rule, as written, says that you need to tag the runner with the hand/glove that’s holding the ball firmly and securely. So I think they should change the wording of the rule to reflect what everyone accepts as fair in reality.
Nick - October 18, 2009
Sounds suspiciously like Nico's original point
149 - October 18, 2009
What was tough about that one...
…was that it looks like the ball’s cradled in there pretty well during the tag but you can see as it’s finished Recker’s coming up with it and his hand is off it to the point the ball is just resting in the mitt. There was no real way at the time to tell how secure it was when the tag was actually made but it looks good enough.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
great shots BTW
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Thanks
Mmmm D3…
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
The thing about the neighborhood play is that you don't want to call it if you're unsure
Even when you’re just the 2B umpire, there is a lot to watch for. You have to watch for interference by the runner, obstruction by the fielder, possession by the fielder turning the play, footwork of the turner, whether or not a sharp hit was a catch or a trap, make sure you’re not in the way of a turn, etc. A play like the neighborhood play should only get called on the chance that you’re absolutely sure of all of the above, and I think that’s the main reason it doesn’t get called often—if you’re not absolutely sure, you’re going to get stuff like this where people question you with video/picture footage.
Rebuilding Season - October 18, 2009
considering the extent that video is involved already
Why not apply the NHL model? Have one guy up in the booth who “pages” the crew chief to say “hey let’s review this.” There would have to be some limit, obviously, but it would help with egregiously bad calls.
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
One argument against (and personally mine) is that
blown calls are ok. They’re part of the game. I mean, Fuentes should have paged someone in the press box to double-check his pitch selection to A-Rod, and Izturis definitely should have polled at least a couple bat boys before concluding which base to throw to, but the human element, in all its occasional incompetence, is part of this great pasttime.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Amen
149 - October 18, 2009
I remember you!
You haven’t aged a bit. (I think you were still 149 last time you commented.)
Nico - October 18, 2009
Nico!
I found you said everything worth saying, and said it better than I could. So I gave up. Having this same debate on my facebook page, so decided to check in with the Voice of Reason to see if I was off-base. Ha… stupid puns!
149 - October 18, 2009
Ha ha -- say it with a different voice!
We can’t have too many people on here making terrible puns and overanalyzing DPs between two teams we don’t care about other than to generally dislike.
Nico - October 18, 2009
dammit
Again.. Agreed and said better than I could.
149 - October 18, 2009
I like the human element too
are we going to call Jorge orta out now? Cuz he was?
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
I think they should, actually.
Just for the sheet humor of watching the teams take the field again nearly 25 years later for Game 7, and seeing what Joaquin Andujar does.
Nico - October 18, 2009
The funny thing is Vince Coleman was hurt then and he'd probably still be hurt now
I just talked to a friend who was at the old time “base ball” game yesterday between ex-ballplayers and a local team playing under the old vintage rules who interviewed him, Gaylord Perry and Rollie Fingers and Coleman said he hoped he didn’t hurt himself in the game only to pull up lame running to first in the 7th inning.
Oops.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
oh sure
I’m not trying to advocate for a computerized sport, but there ought to be an expanded mechanism for replays than simply home runs. There ARE some shitty calls that players are gonna have to live with if for no other reason than reviewing them all would impact the enjoyment of the sport. BUT, there needs to be a happy medium between call accuracy and umpire’s discretion, and we don’t have it now
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
To me, the happy medium is to get rid of replays for HRs
Judges aren’t always right; they just always rule best they can.
Nico - October 18, 2009
there are "replays" in law too
hello, appeals courts! I’m just saying that the technology exists to do better. And indeed, sometimes its still going to be inconclusive; but in that case, like in the NHL too, the call made on the ice/field counts.
I would personally like HRs and fair/foul computerized. The technology to do it is already in place for other things, and could be easily adapted for baseball
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
I'm all for a legal-style appeals system with regard to baseball calls.
Scioscia should be made to file paperwork, alleging that “on or around second base…” and then the ruling can come back in 4-6 weeks. Scioscia should make sure to name “Does 1-12” just to be thorough.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Can't decide
Whether to give you another hearty “Amen” or just drop to my knees and….
declare my undying devotion.
149 - October 18, 2009
Wow... another horrible argument Nico
Judges in a court of law damn well better be right. Or do you think you should just accept it when you wind up imprisoned for a crime you didn’t commit simply because “the judge did the best he could”?
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Umpires are more frequently right than judges
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
You're right, DMOAS
Thank God in the real world, judges don’t make wrong decisions that send the wrong people to the wrong places.
I’m all for electronic jury selection, you know. “Questec says…the lady in the orange blouse.”
Nico - October 18, 2009
Nico snark aside
One thing they certainly do NOT do is shrug and say “false positives are part of the system.”
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
Wait, are you referring to courts here?
They definitely do that. Eg in rules limiting the ability to raise issues on appeal.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
I can't comment without hearing which rule you take issue with
But the whole point of criminal law (in non-corrupt areas) is to let some guilty go to make sure as few innocent as humanly possible are convicted.
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
innocent and not guilty people are convicted at an alarming rate. Most appeals only revesre for limited reasons, guilt or innocence is rarely at issue.
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Right, but prople certainly do NOT shrug and say "false positives are part of the system."
They do everything they can to fix that problem.
nevermoor - October 19, 2009
Your belief in the integrity of American criminal justice
is touching, but frankly a bit naive.
Look up the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act if you want an example of people doing exactly the opposite of what you’re suggesting (intentionally raising the number of false positives in order to reduce the number of false negatives).
PaulThomas - October 19, 2009
Naive, says the law school student
AEDPA is not news to me, it was the subject of my wife’s journal comment. It limits the number of frivolous (i.e. 99%+ reject rate) writ applications by requiring all claims to be consolidated into one appeal, rather than 20 years of the same boilerplate, meritless writ filings. Also, note that habeas writs are not designed to challenge convictions, but rather conditions of incarceration. They only come after the full appellate process of the conviction itself.
It does NOT remove the right to appeal generally, only the right to second or successive habeas appeals which do not meet a fairly tough showing requirement.
In other words, it results in no false positives, has nothing to do with false negatives, and only limits a waste of resources caused by repetitive filings.
Do your research before you call someone else naive.
nevermoor - October 19, 2009
Whereas I'd be in favor of more replay in baseball
I don’t care about the human element so much as I care about getting the call right in the end.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
Well... there's a difference between a bad call and a wrong call
If you need instant replay at the slowest, freeze frame to see that the call was wrong, it’s a not a bad call, shouldn’t be reviewed. If it’s so blatantly obvious that the call was wrong at speed in a review from better angles, it’s not just the wrong call, it’s a bad call.
Do NOT measure umpiring to the decision making of players and managers. That’s an absolutely atrocious analogy. To even begin to make that argument is just asinine. The umpires should never be part of the game. The players ARE the game. When a BAD call is made, a guy in the booth would theoretically be able to see it very quickly and stop play. If this person “has to squint at it in freeze frame” they do nothing and let the play (regardless of right or wrong) stand. Not saying they SHOULD do this mind you, but the players screwing up royally just has absolutely nothing to do with replay and whether it should be included in the game.
Ultimately they need to get those idiots out of the announcing booth out of there so we’re less likely to have a reason to talk about it. Just show the damn game as if we were there.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
"To begin to make that argument is just asinine"
Care to retract?
Nico - October 18, 2009
"extremely or utterly foolish"
No… I think that sums up what I think about that analogy. Comparing the focus of the game against something that shouldn’t be the focus of the game and using that as a logical construct for making an argument seems quite foolish to me.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
You're missing the point
Regardless of what you think, you can’t insult people or their opinions here.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Oh, I saw exactly what you were getting at
I just didn’t see it as insulting you or your opinion. I’m simply vehemently disagreeing with the argument you’ve made and took the time to explain, rather specifically, why I felt it was wrong. “Asinine” sounds “insulting” I suppose because it has the “ass” sound and because of an alternative use of the word. To me, it’s no different than me simply saying “I think you’re really, really, REALLY, super duper wrong” only a lot more succinct.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Fair enough. Look, my point is that
not everyone agrees that the #1 goal is to get as many calls right as possible or for the umps to be “non-factors.”
Let me offer this (potentially asinine) analogy. When I go to see a theatre production, I would prefer that with the one shot I have to see the play the first time the lighting be done perfectly, rather than there be a mistake, or mistakes, that mess things up for the actors a bit.
That being said, I absolutely want humans running the lights just as I want humans acting on the stage, not “an electronically perfect version of David Ogden Stiers” (how the HELL did his name pop into my mind???).
It’s part of the production, part of the experience. I like live TV, with its gaffes, far more than canned sit-coms with their slick “perfection.” Umps blowing calls provide threads like this. It’s real, it’s interesting, it’s part of the overall risk of putting people out there with their varied personalities and ways of interpreting reality. And I just don’t believe blown calls are inherently such a “bad thing.”
Nico - October 18, 2009
See, that is an entirely fair argument
One that, for the most part, I would agree with. Put it this way. I get really annoyed when blatantly bad calls are made. Even more so in the post season. I’m personally at odds with reviews. I think if they’re there, it should be independent of all players/umps involved and minimal at best. Something that, if at all, should be done in the post season only when the decisions are more important. I think the problem looks worse simply because the announcers go to super slo-mo to show it’s wrong and that isn’t fair at all. I think most of the problems I have with umps in general isn’t that they make bad calls (or in your analogy light the stage well enough) so much as too often they’re making decisions and interpretations on rules they shouldn’t (or choosing to use red when the director and playwrite called for blue).
And you’re thinking of David Ogden Stiers because he’s one hell of an actor.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
You know, reading that it occurs to me
that not only would we both, and all, favor better training —> better umpiring (maybe the training’s as good as it can be, but I always figure it can be better), but also that the real culprit is slow mo.
We see something 2-3 times from all different angles until we are in a frenzy over a blown call, yet maybe live we weren’t as sure. If TV showed replays from all angles, but always only in real time, it would be more fair to the umps.
If it’s clearly blown in real time, fine. But slo mo makes for SUCH a non-level playing field.
Nico - October 18, 2009
It's not
As good as it can be.
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
Re: the Slo-mo
Absolutely. TV is definitely the culprit there. I don’t mind all the slo-mo, but what I can’t stand is the judgmental mis-interpretation on the parts of the broadcasters, which, conveniently happens much more often by the “impartial” post-season crews. If they were more open to admitting how difficult the call was to make because you can’t see it in real time instead of trying to add more drama, we’d all be better off. Or they could show the game without them and we could actually enjoy the game played.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
They DO often act like "ZOMG HOW COULD HE EVER MISS THAT CALL...
…BECAUSE THE REPLAY SHOWS IT’S THE MOST OBVIOUS CALL IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL" when in real-time it’s anything but that.
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
Always infuriates me when they do, too.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Depends.
Even a close play at first should be an easy call because of the noises, which broadcasts don’t pick up.
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
-1
Point can still be made without the ad hominem. What one thinks of an argument is not necessarily the same as how one argues against it.
paris7 - October 18, 2009
But I don't think the argument is wrong because the person himself is wrong
There are plenty of reasons for allowing for blown calls by umps. Nico makes another argument below about the umps being a third party to the game and an important one. While I don’t agree necessarily, I still think it’s a fair argument to make in favor of his stance. Comparing umps decisions and believing that it’s okay because the players and managers make bad decisions is entirely without merit. The decisions made by players and managers are entirely relevant to the ones made my umps. It’s the difference between officiating the game and playing the game. The officials aren’t there to actually make decisions. For them to do so is to give them power which they shouldn’t have. The officials are there to enforce the rules written (which is part of the premise of the original post) and nothing more.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
The umps aren't generally making "decisions,"
they’re acting on what they see. And oftentimes, like any human being, their sight, in real time, is faulty. Players and managers make bad decisions, while umpires make bad “seeing recall.” So there are fundamental differences.
All I’m comparing is that where a slow replay computer might be able to see better than the human eye, just as I’m prepared to accept “flawed human decision making” as a natural and ok part of the game, I’m also happy to accept flawed “human eye seeing” as a natural and ok part of the game. I’m not extending the analogy any further than that.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Fair enough
I didn’t get that from your original argument. All I was seeing was “if we’re letting players make bad decisions why can’t we allow umps to make bad decisions”. Allowing umps to be human and feeling that’s an important part of the game since the players are human is a completely different (fair) argument.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Yeah, your last sentence is the only argument I'm trying to make
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Yes, you can call an argument "without merit" without risking abuse...
… so long as you show just what, in the stated premises, is false, or else whatever flaw/fallacy in the logical apparatus prevents the overall soundness of the argument. No argument is without merit until it is shown to be so.
On the other hand, no argument can ever be asinine, and there is no logical difference between an argument that is wrong/fallacious and one that is really, really, really, wrong/fallacious. They are exactly the same. They are both wrong, and equally so. 2+2 = 5 is not “less wrong” than 2+2 = 367.
So, it would be correct for you to continue to argue against the merits of the argument (so long as you find such argument fruitful), and also correct to retract any imputation of asininity to the analogy, excepting in the case where said analogy has reference to bodily cavities, which this one clearly does not.
paris7 - October 18, 2009
I dunno.
I wasn’t a Math major, but 2+2 = 5 seems at least a heck of a lot closer to me.
Nico - October 18, 2009
It doesn't change your grade, though. The math teacher knows the law of excluded middle.
paris7 - October 18, 2009
2 + 2 DOES EQUAL 5 though
2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 when all the numbers have been rounded when shown.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
We never said we talking about base 10
2 years plus 2 days = 367 days.
For the win!!!!!!!!!
Nico - October 18, 2009
LOL!! +111
That’s beautiful. And now, seeing that the two of you are buds again (which is nice), I’m off to wash my dogs and turn on the game. On the radio, as always, where I have no idea if a call was made or blown except so far as the announcers tell me it was.
paris7 - October 18, 2009
Except 2 years = 730 days.
So 2 years plus 2 days = 732 days.
Math phail.
speckops - October 18, 2009
Math is harrrrd. :-(
Nico - October 18, 2009
It's actually 732.5 days
Every year = 365.25 days to account for the leap day.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Actually 732.48 days
because the leap adjusted days-per-year value is actually 365.24 (assuming we’re only going to 2 decimal places).
< / pedantry >
oblique - October 19, 2009
Well..
A) I felt I did back my claim where the logic was flawed
B) I disagree that if an argument is made and shown to be logically inapplicable to the situation from the very foundation, that the argument can’t be considered foolish. It’s an expression of an opinion on the argument though not necessarily one that’s argumentatively constructive per se.
C) There are cases in which an argument can be more wrong than others. The more one needs to alter their argument to remove the flaws in it, the worse the argument is. If you’re talking strict logic, sure, you’re right. If you’re talking about a back and forth set of claims while trying to understand one another, you’re wrong. I’m not necessarily adhering the philosophical/debate rules. They’re much to confining when trying to understand someone else’s opinion.
D) WIth “C” in consideration, admittedly there’s room for what set this discussion off to have fallen under “B”, but ultimately I feel that even still it helped us better understand one another and returns to “C” again.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
That's BS
When baseball was designed, the rules weren’t made so any call should have a possibility for human error. The rules are designed to make a fair game. We have the technology to enforce the rules better. Use it.
The best ump is one you don’t notice. If there was a way to make all the calls perfect, no one would notice the ump. The only reason umpires are part of any discussion is because they make blown calls.
So you don’t want to make the game longer? Make pitchers take less time between pitches (I’m looking at you, R. Betancourt). Have shorter commercial breaks.
vignette17 - October 18, 2009
The whole delay of game issue is a non issue to me
That’s not my objection to replays. Heck, you could easily have monitors at field level at every park, recording that game, which umps could look at quickly.
My objection is that I don’t believe the goal is to make a perfectly adjudicated game or that bad calls are a terrible thing. I think the goal is to put human beings on three sides, one of the sides being “neutral,” and for all to do the best they can.
Nico - October 18, 2009
there should be a delay of game penalty
levied against FOX
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Causing Tim McCarver's ejection.
Nico - October 18, 2009
from his chair onto the field
Future Ed - October 18, 2009
Monitors?
We don’t need no stinkin monitors. Officials could have little HD, zoomable, screens on their wrists. Cheaper, faster… and more stupider.
149 - October 18, 2009
Complete with a stopwatch to time Rafael Betancourt.
And a tiny MRI scanner to do quickie breast exams on Breast Cancer Awareness Day.
Nico - October 18, 2009
LMAO
Done and done!
149 - October 18, 2009
P.S.
Why only on Breast Cancer Awareness Day? Support the boob! Wrist-MRI’s EVERY day!
149 - October 18, 2009
Support the boob? What am I, a bra?
{With any luck, maybe in my next life…}
Nico - October 18, 2009
I've always wondered if the outside and inside plays could be called electronically and the height left to the umps...
BERRYJO - October 18, 2009
I meant pitches not plays
BERRYJO - October 18, 2009
I've always felt that the umpire should move laterally with the pitch
so they’re their head is directly inline with how the ball approaches the plate. If it stops and they’re looking down and see the plate 6 inches outside, ball. If they stop and and they’re looking down and see the plate dead center and it wasn’t too high/low, strike. Sitting on one corner when the pitch is so clearly heading to the opposite corner seems kind of off to me.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
I'm a total rebel on this front --
I think the home plate ump should be positioned right behind the pitcher, not the catcher.
The ump has blind spots the way he’s positioned, created by the catcher. The ump sometimes literally can’t see the ball at the end of its journey.
I find I can match “Pitch Trax” with more accuracy watching on TV (the CF camera angle) than the ump can. If you know how to watch and what to look for, you can guage the ball as it crosses the plate with near perfect accuracy from the CF camera angle.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Right behind the pitcher would probably be too much of a distraction for the hitter
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
Possibly, but have you asked catchers how they like
being fondlegroped by the umpire? I think having an ump on the grass in front of 2B wouldn’t be too bad; you sometimes have it anyway. They could wear green to match the hitting background!
Nico - October 18, 2009
They'd have to be pretty fast to get there on a wild pitch when there's a play at the plate
Flashfire - October 18, 2009
They'd really just be at the opposite side of the plate
From the front instead of the back, maybe 20 feet away by the time the play occurred.
But sure, there are drawbacks to not having umps positioned equidistantly and symmetrically. If the result were improved ball/strike calls, though, I think it would be well worth it.
Nico - October 18, 2009
beautiful
149 - October 18, 2009
I don't understand this argument at all
Should we get rid of computerized accounting programs because human error is part of accounting? Suggest that to an accountant and he’ll die laughing.
Technology exists. People ought to use it.
And analogizing to decisions like what pitch to throw is no analogy at all. Unless you’re suggesting that umpires should be deciding whether to make the right call or just randomly screw someone.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
Baseball is a form of spectator-focused entertainment
If the price you pay for greater accuracy involves significantly reducing the entertainment value, it’s legitimate to say, “We can live with a little less accuracy.”
Accounting, AFAIK, is not a spectator sport.
Nick - October 18, 2009
entertainment that a lot of people take seriously
If you can’t trust the people doing the adjudicating, then you should be able to do better. Baseball CAN do better, technology is available to do better. I’m not sure why it shouldn’t be used.
Balls and strikes be damned, I don’t want questec there. But I do want to know that the best decision was made taking into account the need to keep the game moving.
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
You obviously didn't watch
the weightlifting “number crunch” in the 2004 Olympics.
Nico - October 18, 2009
While I can't point to a specific study proving that blown calls reduce entertainment value
I would be utterly, I mean utterly, stunned to learn that that was the case. There’s a strong trend toward replay and redundancy in every sport I’m aware of. Even soccer, which is like the most lackadaisical sport ever when it comes to enforcing rules carefully, is experimenting with adding two additional officials to the pitch (right now, in fact, in this year’s Europa League).
Anyone’s welcome to try to show me that these rules are somehow being imposed on fans despite dislike from said fans and in violation of some fairly basic tenets of capitalist economics, but I’ll believe it when I see it. As far as I can tell, the anti-replay types are a noisy but substantially outnumbered minority.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
blown calls
increase entertainment value, provided they are rare. See this entire blog and it’s value as entertainment while waiting for the NLCS to start.
149 - October 18, 2009
By that logic, the death penalty is a fantastic public policy
because it DEFINITELY increases entertainment value.
World War II— man, what an awesome event. Entertained the whole world for six years. In fact, you could even say that it entertained a lot of people to death.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
uh... joke man... joke.
Easy cobra.
149 - October 18, 2009
Also... sick.
Real death and dying NOT entertaining. Not.
Learning entirely too much about you PT.
149 - October 18, 2009
easy man
he’s just making an analogy of what “entertainment” means
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
Did you know
that I’m also in favor of cannibalizing Irish babies to solve food shortages?
It’s satire, dude. Angering and irritating millions of people is not “entertainment.”
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
Neither is making the game last so long
that fans need to choose between seeing the dramatic bottom of the ninth, or catching the last BART train home.
Nick - October 18, 2009
OK
Well, guess that rules out appealing close plays to the crowd and conducting a one-by-one roll call vote as to what the correct call was.
I fail to see how it’s of any relevance to any replay proposals that have actually been advanced by sane people, however.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
Sadly
there are actually people out there who would be entertained by all of that. Definitely see that you’re “joking”, making a point, etc. But I think that since there probably is a minority sick enough to enjoy it adds to your argument.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
ya think?
thank you for clarifying… cuz I’d hardly be capable of satire myself let alone identifying it with a little of my own.
149 - October 18, 2009
I don't know
There seems to be only few people here discussing it. But they are quite vocal.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
I'm not saying that the cost always outweighs the benefits
but that there is a CBA there, and that one of the factors is, in fact, the impact on entertainment value. That’s the reason, for instance, to limit the number of challenges in the NFL — there’s no question that bad calls go unchallenged because a team has run out of time outs and the 2-minute warning hasn’t happened yet. But the NFL decided that allowing unlimited challenges would slow the game down too much, even if it would reverse a few bad calls.
Nick - October 18, 2009
yeah, and no one is saying we ought to let replays run the game amok
Just that they ought to increase the accuracy of the calls made in a game, while also keeping in mind that there is a real interest in keeping the game moving. If the rate of bad calls is say 10% and we can get it down to less than 5% with replays, I think that’s a success
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
And yet:
College institutes replay 10 years or so after the NFL, with no limitations on challenges. System works fine.
I mean, I agree in theory that there are some reductio ad absurdum extremes at which there could be too much replay, but no one is or ever will be suggesting those.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
College football replay
According to this wikipedia description the replay official can review only certain types of plays, and can decide to stop the game to review whenever he wants, but the coaches can make a challenge only once per game, and can’t do it at all if his team is out of time outs.
Nick - October 18, 2009
Remove the coach reviews
and allow almost any calls to be reviewed and I think you have a system that has potential in MLB.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
In practice all close plays are reviewed unless they fall into one of the defined exceptions,
and coaches’ challenges almost never have to be employed, because all the reviewable close plays get reviewed.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
Someone should do a study
on how often in a MLB game a “close play” occurs, how long it took to come to a conclusion about what the call should have been, and how often the call on the field was correct. It would be an interesting study that MLB should probably invest the time in making. Having real numbers about how much time it would add to a given game vs. the percentage of calls overturned would be pretty helpful for this sort of discussion.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Well, we don't necessarily know what would happen to coaches' challenges
since they are not unlimited, but in fact limited very, very strictly. Maybe coaches are just incredibly reluctant to use that one challenge, and if you gave them 2 or 3 or 5 or made it unlimited, they’d challenge a lot more.
Look, I’m not trying to get into a detailed analysis of replay review rules. I’m just pointing out that accuracy of all calls is not treated as a priority that trumps all other values in the game. Either explicitly or implicitly, all sports say, at some point, “Yeah, doing that might catch a few more bad calls, but it’s not worth it.”
Nick - October 18, 2009
Look
I’ve watched a lot of college football games since they instituted this rule. Probably 50 or so. I have never— I mean, ever, not once— encountered a situation in which I felt the team should challenge a call and they didn’t or couldn’t do it. (Unlike the NFL, where that happens once a season or so.)
The coaches’ challenge is simply a last-ditch fallback for when the replay officials are totally asleep at the switch.
I know that total accuracy does not trump all other values, but the examples that anti-replay advocates inevitably offer are either wildly exaggerated or trivial. In situations where replay doesn’t make sense, it just doesn’t come up as an issue, because the default is no-replay and no one really cares about changing it.
PaulThomas - October 18, 2009
Happened to the Niners last week
But only b/c they used all their timeouts too quickly.
nevermoor - October 18, 2009
Over-inclusive much?
Baseball is not accounting. Different history. Different purpose. Different rules. Different… uh… everything. So technology’s relevance in one context does not render it relevant or necessary in every context. The existence of a technology does not demand it’s use… see also Betamax, 8-track…
149 - October 18, 2009
Proof of how different baseball and accounting are:
I can imagine Bobby Crosby being a competent accountant.
Nico - October 18, 2009
As long as he doesn't need to learn how to use a sliderule
Nick - October 18, 2009
Yeah, if it starts with "slider" it doesn't usually end well.
Nico - October 18, 2009
What will we do without Hottie Crosby to kick around?
149 - October 18, 2009
Kick around Blake and Ed?
Nico - October 18, 2009
I wish
Crosby went home and repeated aloud to himself in a Nixon voice:
“You won’t have Bobby to kick around anymore”
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
Was thinkin the same!
149 - October 18, 2009
I'm not a crook
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
beggin the question...
149 - October 18, 2009
...Has he stolen money from the A's organization?
Nico - October 18, 2009
Was supposed to be an image of Jerry Lane.
user fail
149 - October 18, 2009
stolen money = sucking?
Then maybe…lol
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
Provided eye-candy
for those so inclined.
149 - October 18, 2009
Another argument against...
… is that if you give the managers any sway in whether a call goes up to booth for review, it can be used as a way to “cool down” a pitcher (or on the opposing side, to keep a pitcher sitting on his half-inning a bit longer), which makes even more of a difference during these ridiculous unbaseballish weather days in which people are expected to play in weather better suited for hockey or football. Oops, my comment got diffracted into a new point, sorry.
paris7 - October 18, 2009
Any decision for reply should never be in the hands of the players or managers.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Or a blogger.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Or the drunk in the 3rd deck of an entirely different stadium from the one the game's played in.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
The real joke I was making was probably too subtle there --
You accidentally said “reply” instead of “replay.”
Nico - October 18, 2009
LMAO
Then well played sir, well played.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Agreed...
… but the manager also has to know when it is worth arguing, and an ump might feel a need to send a play up for review only in the case that he expects the manager to argue it, etc. All I mean is that the managers, while not being able to “order it up,” still can influence the way it falls out. IMHO.
paris7 - October 18, 2009
I'd agree with that
It would make sense to have someone watching from the booth make that sort of decision independent of the umps and the players/managers. If they think it’s worth reviewing without resorting to over analyzing the call and resorting to freeze frame, they can send it down to the umps on the field to review. The umps on the field wouldn’t be involved in the decision at all.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Hmmm, it could work, of course...
… But I still like the idea that the Home Plate Ump is the Boss. I don’t like the idea of undercutting him with a Big Brother in the Tower. Not an argument, just a sensibility.
paris7 - October 18, 2009
Well, the Home Plate Ump
would always have final say. He ,with the original ump who made the decision, would get to make any final decision on over turning calls.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Except not "home plate ump," "crew chief."
The crew chief is always the “lead ump” regardless of where he’s positioned that game.
Nico - October 18, 2009
Thanks, I assumed Crew Chief was always at Home!
And given an actual assumption, which has its classic signficance (ass-u-me), I am now open, as you were not above, to imputations of being asinine. Any takers?
paris7 - October 18, 2009
You have a nice enough ass, but I still don't think I want nine.
Nico - October 18, 2009
puns!
149 - October 18, 2009
Didn't Vonnegut write a book about ass-nine?
paris7 - October 18, 2009
Sounds like a real page-turner
I doubt I’d get past the opening.
Nico - October 18, 2009
I found the prose too bloated
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
Thanks,
my brain shut off and I kept trying to remember it.
DMOAS - October 18, 2009
there are already strategies for delaying the game
to your advantage/opponents’ disadvantage. Nonetheless, I do agree — I don’t want the managers running out every other play and them dictating when the replay should be used
cuppingmaster - October 18, 2009
IF they EVER went to such a thing it would have to be extremely limited like 1 per game
and you better choose your moment well!
BERRYJO - October 18, 2009
And then maybe the umps agree to limit their
number of ridiculously blown calls each game to, say, 2.
Nico - October 18, 2009
I remember when Omar Vizquel was really flaunting the "rule"
in like the 97 playoffs or so, he was literal FEET away from the bag and the commentators were wondering if he’d get called on it.
that was the last time i thought about it, until last night.
PL78 - October 18, 2009
Another rule that does not get enforced
is catcher’s balk, as in “Molina, Posada , Napoli and Matthis commited about 20 of them in Game 2”
In this picture, although one can not see the catcher’s box itself, it is obvious that Posada is outside of it (the catcher’s box only stretches 13 inches to either side of the edge of the plate) and the ball is still in the pitcher’s hand.
elcroata - October 19, 2009
You would think...
That with the season over, most people would take their inane arguments and complete non-points and head over the Warriors/Niners message boards, or go outside and enjoy themselves. That there are people here spending hours debating how holding the ball in two hands isn’t an out per the rules has to be one of the single dumbest things I’ve read on this site.
ChrisCEIT - October 19, 2009
Thank you for your input
Flashfire - October 19, 2009
Actually, now it only ranks second.
Nico - October 19, 2009
Your welcome.
ChrisCEIT - October 19, 2009
Thank you for using the reply button.
mikev - October 19, 2009
Thank you for thanking him
nevermoor - October 19, 2009
His welcome.
oblique - October 19, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.