LAist: But He Was Out - Why Baseball Needs Replay

guest

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:55:28 -0800

Who cares? THE PADRES ARE ELIMINATED FROM POSTSEASON PLAY!!!!

guest

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:25:05 -0800

The replay is inconclusive. Even if there were a full World Series television crew at the game last night they may not have seen the play. You can argue for instant replay, but last night's result was no sham. -Scott M.

guest

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:09:16 -0800

I'll try to answer my own question with a note i just found in the rules... OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

guest

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:03:55 -0800

"The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand." Well I guess the question then becomes, can one say the catcher Barrett was indeed "fielding the ball" if he did not actually succeed in fielding the ball?! The rule does not say "The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is TRYING TO FIELD a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand," it says he must be "fielding the ball," which he did not do until well after the runner had slid by.

sofubi

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:27:41 -0800

Umpires are human. He was caught up in the moment. Barrett caught, then dropped the ball so he has every right to block home plate. btw, I think if he grabs the dropped ball and tags Holiday immediately the ump calls him out -- instead Barrett looked to the ump first as if to ask, "Should I tag him out, or is he already safe?" The ump only made the (incorrect) call at that point. I think Barrett's hesitation made up the ump's mind. Great game.

Jimmy Bramlett

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:03:22 -0800

Nevermind my comment. He was in the act of fielding. But I don't know how you can tell if he touched home plate or didn't. I've looked at it over and over again, and to me it's inconclusive. Now if baseball had replay and it followed football's replay rules, there's no conclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. Anyhow, just because it ended this way doesn't mean it was a bad game. Look at the Music City Miracle game between the Bills and the Titans back in 1999. In that last kick off return by the Titans, the first lateral was clearly a forward pass. But that doesn't make the game any less spectacular, right?

Jimmy Bramlett

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:45:41 -0800

I think guest #4 is right. Since Barrett never caught the ball, he's not allowed to block the plate. It therefore becomes a moot point. According to the note in section 7.06 from the official MLB rulebook: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

guest

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:48:48 -0800

Wondering, if the catcher did not have possession of the ball, is he allowed to block home plate? And if he is not allowed to block home plate, then wouldn't this be defensive interference (and the runner given the base)?

guest

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:20:36 -0800

oh jeez. the guy went head first into the catcher, jammed his hand into the guy's cleats, smacked his face on the ground and was bleeding. he gets a Safe for effort. nevertheless, i think his hand caught the edge of the plate, it was hard to tell with the dirt. first comes replay, then comes timed games. keep in natural people!

mrmiller

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:05:13 -0800

Two bad calls in that game. A should have been a home run by a Colorado batter, and this amazing play at the plate by the outfielder and the catcher. He was clearly out. Don't they know that: Two wrongs don't make a right?

Stephen Westrich

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:02:01 -0800

I don't think it's a sham, it's just baseball. Full disclosure: I didn't see the last two innings of the game, much to my dismay. Even if Holliday was out, and it's hardly conclusive that he was, thats not really the point. However, baseball is easily the least perfect of sports, and thats how I like it. The Giants totally stole that infamous Bobby Thompson home run, players routinely steal signs, balls are doctored, and bad calls are made on every team. The St. Louis Cardinals were robbed in the 85 series with an absurdly obvious blown call, but in the end they are responsible for their loss to the Royals (The Royals?!?) Steve Bartman didn't blow the Cubs chances, it was the fact that Moises Alou and Mark Prior are 5 and 7 year old girls, respectively. How about last night when the Rockies were denied that two run homer in the 7th? Maybe that was a blown call, also inconclusive. Last night's game is of course an extreme example. That run ended the game, but ultimately it's Hoffman, it's the manager (Bochy?), it's Peavy that lost that game for the Padres. Put it this way, sometime during a 162 game marathon, the Padres certainly benefited from more than their fair share of bad calls. If not for that gift of victory the Padres received on some random night in May, they wouldn't have been tied with the Rockies in the first place.