Toronto Loses Replay Review Due to Lack of Appeal After Boston Batter Alex Verdugo Misses First Base
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Replay Review confirmed 1B Umpire Doug Eddings' on-field ruling that Red Sox batter-runner Alex Verdugo was safe at first base in Toronto despite the runner missing the base his first time by. Was this the correct call? Article: www.closecalls...
The video indicates that as Blue Jays first baseman Lourdes Gurriel stretched to field a throw from middle infielder Marcus Semien, he not only broke contact with first base before catching the ball, but batter-runner Verdugo also missed his touch of first base by leaping over the sprawled Gurriel.
Essentially, neither player touched first base that "first time by."
After the initial action, Gurriel spun around to keep an eye on Red Sox baserunner R2 Bobby Dalbec, inadvertently placing his foot on first base with the ball on his glove..... so how was Verdugo not out for missing a base?
The answer can be split into three parts.
First, the "real-time" play at first base itself. Official Baseball Rule 5.05(b)(3) Comment states, "If the batter-runner misses first base, or a runner misses their next base, they shall be considered as having reached the base." Thus, Verdugo was considered to have reached the base as soon as he past it, whether or not he actually touched it. Because Verdugo passed first base before it was tagged, he is considered SAFE for the purposes of out/safe timing (e.g., "force play" timing).
You'll notice we talked about "for the purposes of out/safe TIMING"-so the next rule talks about the purposes of out/safe TAGGING. OBR 5.09(c)(2) governs missed bases: "Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when-With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, they fail to touch each base in order before they, or a missed base, are tagged." Although Gurriel placed his foot on first base, he failed to specifically appeal that Verdugo missed first base. Without a valid appeal very clearly specifying the infraction-to-be-appealed, the umpire by rule shall NOT declare the runner out. An umpire can't "assume" an appeal nor credit a team with an appeal if said team has not clearly conveyed their intent to appeal.
Finally, we see that Verdugo after overrunning first base returned to first base and stood on top of it (e.g., touched it). This is known in the MLB Umpire Manual as "last time by" and Verdugo's action in returning to and touching first base his "last time by" is said to correct any previous baserunning infractions that may have been committed at that same base. in this case, "last time by" cures Verdugo's initial missed base and effectively closes the window on Toronto's opportunity to appeal (not that the Blue Jays ever actually appealed anyway).
Thus Charlie Montoyo's challenge properly resulted in the original safe call being CONFIRMED even though the runner failed to touch the base his first time by....because the runner DID pass first base before the fielder's tag of the base, Toronto failed to appeal the runner's failure to touch the base, and the runner cured his earlier infraction by returning to touch first base his "last time by."
I was really looking forward to this video when I saw the play live
I am so conflicted about this channel. We get absolutely fantastic videos like this that explain the rules and why things were called as they were. But then there are other videos that defend or make excuses for blatant bad umpiring. It's frustrating because I really want to like this channel, especially with great informative videos such as this one.
I agree 100%
I think part of what you need to take away from it is both A: there are non-intuitive rules in the book, and on a lot of controversial calls, the umpire is technically correct even if we think it should be different and B: the guys who make these videos are, themselves, umpires, and are only going to criticize the professional umpires who excel at their craft when they make truly egregious errors, and not around judgment calls that can go either way.
There's no better example of this than how far out of their way they go when they do teachable moment videos about plays at much lower levels of baseball, when umpires are much more clearly wrong, and they are still very judicious and careful in the way they criticize and critique the performance of those umpires.
You are simply not going to get a fire-blasted critique from the umpires who produce this content, because they have enormous respect for how hard it is to be correct all the time as an umpire.
I love the 1st base coach cringing watching Verdugo miss first base at 5:00
You using rule 5.03(b)(3) in wrong context.
During the play when neither player touches the bag it should still be considered a live play. The runner has a chance to get back to first but must do so before the bag is touched by a fielder with the ball for the force out or the runner is tug with the ball.
If a player slides past home plate and misses the plate he still has to go back and touch the plate before being tug with the ball.
You are correct about obstruction. If that is called then runner would be safe.
Kr eb, you are totally wrong. The fielder touching the base after the runner passes it would not be an out. This is nothing more than a runner missing a base. The runner would be out if a valid appeal is made before the runner returns and touches the base. Since there was no appeal, the runner is safe.
Verdugo is the most Irish looking Spaniard, lol. His surname means butcher/ executioner in English.
There’s a lotta stuff goes on.
With the microphone thing, it would be funny if Ed Hochuli came out of retirement and became an MLB ump so he could explain the reviews.
This whole play makes my head hurt.
So if the fielder doesn’t touch the base you can just legally not touch the base as the runner. Ya that rule makes a ton of sense
@Mike Heathman Gurriel Jr had his foot on the bag. So they then have to appeal because the umpire at first is to incompetent to watch the entire play at first.
@Mike Heathman So Gurriel Jr has to tell the umpire at first to do his job and make the out call? I’m not mad at Doug Eddings or any of the umpires on the field or in the replay centre. I’m mad at the rule because it doesn’t make sense, and you need to relax there buddy. Just because you umpire 9U and watch CCS doesn’t mean you are the rules guy pal. Take it easy pal.
@Mike Heathman you’re not that guy pal, trust me you’re not that guy
@@justinmoffatt2700 Did you watch the video at all? The rulebook has certain forced assumptions that are designed to handle these situations. One of those assumptions is that if a runner reaches and passes a base without being put out, he is assumed to have touched it (even if he did not) unless an appeal is made. Gurriel clearly got possession and touched the base, but Verdugo had already passed it and was by rule already assumed to have touched it - so an appeal was required. And via the 'last time by' rule, once Verdugo returned to 1st and touched it properly, all previous errors at that base were corrected.
These rules are very clearly intended for baserunning at the other bases and not as much at first base, but Eddings is spot on correct about this part of the rules. The only judgment call you can potentially criticize him for is the obstruction/not call on Gurriel's foot.
Like a lot of videos on this channel, there's a gap between what we think the rules should say or how we think a play should play out and what the rulebook says. Doug Eddings is technically correct, but the rules at 1st base don't work the way we'd expect in this kind of scenario, and so you get a very unintuitive result.
Why did Eddings take this play from foul territory?
I have a better question. Why did he indicate he's safe if he didn't touch the base
@@1NobleGiant The correct umpiring mechanic is to indicate safe if the runner touches or passes first base and the runner is not out. It’s not like any other base or home plate because the runner can legally overrun first as long as the runner comes back directly and does not make any attempt to advance. It is for the defense to make a timely appeal, which did not happen in this case.
@@1NobleGiant -- That move is to indicate that the ball didn't arrive in time. Ultimately, Verdugo cured it by standing on first.
@@1NobleGiant , first base is different because you can over run it. So the runner does not have to touch the bag to avoid a collision ! This runner definitely avoids a collisions so he doesn't need to touch the base. Just imagine the bAse as three feet wide,. So even if he was tagged walking back to the base he is still safe. I don't understand how there are so many rules people are throwing around on this!!
Christian Moffett, Why not? In a four man system there is no reason to come inside.
The umps in this series where god awful. It’s a blown call and you can’t defend it. Very poor job on the umps.
Kyle Duffield, You can't be taken seriously since you don't know the umpires made the correct call on this play.
Gurriel touches first base after the miss though. Should the umpire not have seen that he missed first and call him out? Seems silly that the rule is "timing" based when you're supposed to touch the base. Maybe that's just a dumb baseball rule but my goodness is it ever stupid.
You weren't paying attention .
I believe those questions are answered in the video.
An appeal must be unmistakable as an appeal. A throw from a pitcher from the mound is obviously an appeal. If the tagging fielder tells the umpire "missed base [, 1st runner [etc.]]", that's clearly an appeal. Here the first baseman reached backward with his foot after going to the ground to field the ball. He could have done that out of instinct, or for any number of reasons. It was not clearly an appeal, so it was not treated as an appeal.
(This applies to appeal plays; see my main comment on why the groundout should still be possible)
@@TroyVan6654
"A throw from a pitcher from the mound is obviously an appeal."
WTF!!!???
"In baseball, an appeal play occurs when a member of the defensive team calls the attention of an umpire to an infraction which he would otherwise ignore."
Plus, what the position of the fielder's foot has to do with an appeal is beyond me.
@@davej3781
That's not even an appeal because I bothered to look it up and correct it - you, OTOH seem to have a language problem in addition to your ignorance of the rules.
it boils down to this, the "accidental" touch of the base by the fielder, b4 Verdugo came back to 1B, does not count as an appeal, the first baseman would have to let the ump know unmistakably that he is appealing the missed touch.
I don’t know if Gurriel speaks that much English…
What people are having trouble with is by avoiding a collision he didn't have to touch the bag. Just make that base three ft wide and it's easier to understand this call. You can run the proper appeal, but he will still be safe . Obstruction is not called because he beat the throw so basically no obstruction!!
@@stevehamman4465 a softball style base? MLB will never, ever do that
@@stevehamman4465 If there was obstruction it should have been called immediately when it happened. Umpires do not wait to see the outcome of a play before making the obstruction call. Since obstruction was not called, the runner is required to touch the base. He didn't and the umpire called him safe because he beat the throw. The only way to retire the runner is to appeal by tagging him or the base before he returns and making it clear and unmistakable.
A while back, Nelson Cruz missed first and Hanley Ramirez tracked Cruz to tag him, and then told the umpire that he believed Cruz missed first. That is an actual proper live ball appeal. Cruz was then called out on the appeal play. The initial call was that Cruz beat the ball to first. To challenge that he didn’t, an appeal is required before a challenge.
We should be able to hear the umps. Like the NFL.
This is nuts.
And the NBA & NHL.
Naw... you don't want that. It would be embarrassing. SIC
Umpires have refused to wear mics
@@codyrussell770 I wonder why? HaHaHa!
I agree See my comments regarding this
Thank you for this. I've been confused since watching the broadcast live.
Excellent explanation.
You got a new subscriber.
Does anyone know if the “reaching base rule” is mlb specific or applies to all levels of play?
@Dave J most missed touch appeals don't have a verbal component. The most common form of appeal is the pitcher have the ball on the rubber and stepping of and throwing to the missed base where there fielder or catcher will then step on the base. This is how 95% of appeals are done without any verbal indication to the umpire.
@@davej3781 - A similar case happened not too long ago. Nelson Cruz beat a throw to first, but Hanley Ramirez noticed he missed first and jogged up the line, tagged Cruz, and told the umpire that he believed Cruz missed first. Only then was Cruz ruled out.
So… 2 questions:
1. Is he or is he not automatically safe for crossing the bag (though he didnt step on it) before the fielder had the ball and touched the base. In other words does the runner not have to step on first, but just has to cross the bag before the tag of the base?
2. The discussion of the “appeal”. The runner missed stepping on the base. Why couldnt they then appeal? Once they realized that gurriel did tag the bag before the runner came back to touch it why didnt they appeal, and if they did appeal immediately or before the next pitch was thrown … would he be out??
Is there any reason why these teams, in all sports, don’t pay a guy to be a rules expert? You could pay me 100k a year to read the rule book and watch every clip Gil puts on here to know what to do and when to challenge. Maybe hire a triple A umpire with MLB experience and have him do it. I’d guess it wouldn’t take much money to pay him more than he would be currently making. All you see is coaches screaming about rules and they are wrong 99 percent of the time.
Thats the entertainment of it all
The umpires union would probably heavily lobby against it. The last thing they want is for teams to have a guy whose job it is to "help" them with the rules. The other side of it is that a team generally will farm out many of its legal functions because the specialties are so segmented - ie. labor counsel, land use counsel, finance/tax, etc. You'd need someone who has requisite legal education, a stellar understanding of baseball and an ultra-intricate knowledge of the rules. So in other words, an attorney-umpire-memorization expert. That person MAY well exist, but I don't know how many of them there are.
Illinois High School Association requires a representative from each school at the rules meeting
@@VisibilityFoggy All you need is a bench coach who used to be a MiLB umpire.
@@geoffroi-le-Hook HS coaches still don't know what is in the rules book.
Terry Francona for years has advocated eliminating the current replay system. Francona wants a fifth umpire in the broadcast booth whose sole job is to buzz down to the crew chief to look at replays of any questionable calls and for the crew chief to announce to everyone what the call was and why that call was made
one solution i heard to the replay review that i liked was when new york starts reviewing a play, they aren’t told what the ruling on the field was. this fixes the ‘conclusive evidence’ problem needed to overturn calls. they see what they see and they make the best call they can with slow motion replay
@@smuthered would probably end making the replay process longer because you have to spend time editing out any shots where the Umpire makes the call before sending it to the reviewing umpire in New York
@@michaellhoover94 yes. i mean, i don’t hate the idea of just leaving that in, and if they see the call, they see the call. but umpires are also making the call AFTER the play is happening. just trim that part of the clips. should only take 30 seconds for the whole thing
Did Gurriel obstruct that batter
unner tho? Looks like Gurriel's foot was across the baseline on the inside (toward home plate) of the bag.
Aaannnddd...you did address this. nevermind. :)
Of course he did which is why the runner was called safe. Not for obstruction but because he beat him to the bag while he was blocking it.
I ran into a video from CCS which they said the microphones were supposed to be in place for the 2020 season. Then COVID-19 happened, so hopefully the playoff ballparks will have them in place for the postseason, or maybe tell the Anaheim Ducks they'll need a substitute organist. (I happen to know one personally.)
A microphone here would have been useful for an explanation, because it’s confusing for a casual fan who may not know that a formal appeal play must be launched before a replay challenge on missing a base can be made.
The first baseman blocked the plate. Can’t do that. A catcher can’t so why could a first man ?
@Mike Heathman The exemptions to obstruction for players who are in the act of fielding the ball or who already have the ball includes no requirement that they -need- to obstruct in order to do that. For example, the catcher may block the path to the plate if he is moving to field the ball - even if he could field the ball without obstructing the path by stepping forward a step, he is not required to do so - the act of fielding the throw entitles him to be in the baseline, even if he doesnt HAVE to be in the baseline to do so.
Similarly, Gurriel can commit what is otherwise obstruction while fielding the throw to first even if he isn't required to do that in order to field the throw.
Obstruction alone should be enough to call Verdugo safe. He clearly was trying to avoid the leg of the first baseman which had no business being where it was without possession of the ball. His foot should have only been on the inside of the base itself. Otherwise, Verdugo, like a million previous plays at first base, attempts to touch the base.
Watch the umpire,,,, he sees the obstruction so does the runner. The runner AVOIDS a collision, beating the throw and Not touching FIRST. Avoiding the collision means he doesn't have to touch!!! Beating the throw means there was no obstruction!! He was safe when he got 90 ft down the line. Just picture the base as five ft. wide.You can ask and run an appeal but he's still safe!!!
Good explanation but I don’t think you need the lecture to toronto about not knowing the rules at the end, unless you’re talking about the announcers (but it seems like you’re talking about ‘the team’). Managers are always going to try to get a slick argument and emotional show in to the umps if they can. In this case it happened after the replay review because their chance for an appeal play was already gone.
Just saw similar play in World Series game 6. I guess Max Fried never saw this video, since if he had he would have known to appeal right away for the runner missing the base. I guess he also had other things to worry about since he just had his ankle stepped on, but after the play he held his glove up to show he caught the ball so his mind was still focused wanting the out. He had the ball before the runner was there so it would be hard for the other team to claim obstruction on the play.
Amateur hour, but I love the position U1 was in. In Federation, they teach you to come into the field of play to make that call, but I like this position better.
Is there a rhyme or reason U1 is set up there when the throw is coming from 2nd base?
Insane explanation of the rules, obviously if ur degenerately gambling for the bluejays u hate this rule but CloseCall is exactly right here. Great video man keep it up!
I’d be really curious to know EXACTLY when a runner is considered to have reached first base if he doesn’t actually touch the base. Imagine that the play in this video was much closer. How should the umpire judge when the runner reaches the base vs the throw beating him to the base if the runner never actually touches the base.
He is considered to have passed a base when he has two feet on the ground past the bag. There is an illustration in the umpire manual that makes it clear what "past the bag" means. On this play, it's pretty easy to surmise that it means beyond the outfield edge of first base.
So, if the first baseman had been touching the bag when he caught the ball, Verdugo would have been out, because only one foot had touched the ground beyond the bag when the ball was caught, even though his torso was beyond the bag.
Conveniently this has been discussed on the channel multiple times. Draw a line that goes through the 2 opposite corners of the base (in this instance, the corner pointing towards 3rd base and the one opposite it). Then include the entirety of the base itself in the section that is 'before' the base - this gets you a straight line with a tiny triangle in the middle
When a player crosses that line he has passed the base, and all the related rules apply - if he reverses himself, he must touch the base again, he has passed the base for the purposes of this rule, etc.
@@mikejunt yep I remember seeing that before. I guess for the purposes of a bang bang play at first when the runner doesn’t touch the base the umpire has to decide which instant the runner has crossed that line. Is it when any part of his body crosses the line? Is it when the very last part of his body crosses that line? I realize I am splitting hairs and that most likely this would never happen. But I was just curious how an umpire would make that judgement. On a normal play it’s easier because you have the foot touching the base and the ball hitting the glove and you just have to decide which happened first. But in this case you would have the ball hitting the glove and the runner passing some imaginary line with all or part of his body. Much more difficult. Thanks for the reminder on that definition of passing the base. 👍
@@theburnetts I don't remember the details because in practice it's always pretty clearly evident, since in almost all cases where only part of the runner has passed the bag, the runner is still in contact with the base and so they are clearly still 'at it' and not 'beyond it'.
I'm now imagining some crazy play at 2nd base on a force out where the runner goes to make a takeout slide where he can still reach the bag (to the side of it), takes the fielder's knee to the face (and so doesn't touch it) and then some decision has to be made about whether he had fully passed the base and has to be tagged out :p
@@theburnetts I need to do some digging in the rules, but I believe my explanation above is correct, being that it is when he has both feet in the ground past the base. So, you could have every part of your body past the bag, but not have taken the second step, and not be considered to have passed the bag yet
i think its more to do with them not knowing how to do proper ruling on an appeal as even if there was obsucrtion the runner batter still would have to touch first base o appeal could still happen
Are you even allowed to block the base path as the fielder clearly did?
Is the guy a former catcher? I've seen thousands of games and never seen a guy block the plate while awaiting the ball like that. Player is safe IMO with the interference.
Railroad, the defence can only get in the way of a runner when fielding a BATTED ball. So in this play no he cant!! It's called obstruction when the defence does it and interference by the offense! This play has a few things going on! To avoid a collision the runner couldn't touch first, he didn't have to, he did beat the throw so the obstruction that you see basically didn't happen. This is not your normal missing a base call. It's different at first because you can run through! Hope this helps. And some of these comments say to appeal , even if they did do a proper appeal , he would still be safe!!
@@stevehamman4465 Yeah I thought so. Thank you so much! I truly do appreciate this explanation. It was very informative!
If there was contact between the players, would RLI factor into the decision? Starting at 0:34 you can see the the batter-runner took four steps outside of the running lane before reaching the base.
Runners line goes out the window when it comes to actually touching the bag, and RLI is about impacting the throw.
@@davej3781 I think that Toronto could made the argument that the fielder's foot only came off of the bag because of the contact. It was almost a very nice scoop, and without the contact I think that the fielder's foot would stay on the bag.
@@davidlocke3477 has nothing to do with RLI though, as the runner still needs to be able to reach the bag, and could not based on how Guriel was positioned on the play. If anything, that would go against the Jays.
@@KWally The truth is the running lane comes into play when the runner interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base. There is no mention in the rule of interfering with the throw.
@@KWally To be completely clear, RLI is about impacting the fielder's ability to FIELD the throw, not impacting the throw itself.
EDIT: the video just popped up on my feed. Just realized it is 2 yrs old.
The Red Sox announcers stated that they received word (the following inning) that the call was ruled interference against the first baseman. (He didn't say obstruction). He stated that was the official ruling. When will the umpires union allow microphones? And why haven't they yet?
That's not even the official ruling for it
Umpires aren't comfortable using a mic yet from what I heard
For plays that are underway, there's no such thing as defensive interference in baseball (the only variety is catcher's interference on swing). All such plays are called obstruction, and all plays where an offensive player in some way ..intervenes .. in a play illegally are called interference. I believe the reason for this is to make it clear when you hear a given term which team it applies to (instead of having confusion if you here an umpire yell 'interference' but not know whether it was your team or their team).
There is no such thing as fielders "interference" at first base. It would be obstruction, and while it is a viable call at lower levels and you could argue it is within the rules at the MLB level, we typically do not see that sort of play called MLB obstruction, due to the 'act of fielding the ball' language in the MLB obstruction rules.
@@sethsay354 My guess is the bigger concern is the Tom Hallion / ass in the jackpot stuff, which is that while having umpires mic'd to explain certain stuff to the crowd is good, they need a lot of confirmation that the mics are inactive and not recording during a lot of other communication between the umpires and with players and coaches, and if I were the umpires union I would want to make sure I was negotiating that collectively and not having it imposed on my members unilaterally due to those concerns.
Obviously the NHL and NFL manage this pretty well so the technology exists, and it should have happened by now, but I can understand their reluctance. I suspect there is a great deal of communication between umpires and participants in a baseball game that they would not like to see made into viral videos.
Nice Review, I didn't know that aspect.
Could you still appeal after the replay?
not after the runner already came back and retouched first base
@Mike Heathman As this video literally describes, it is a retouch - a runner who has passed a base in a force situation is assumed to have touched it unless a valid appeal is filed, even if they missed the bag, and if they touch the bag correctly on their last time by (ie on returning to the bag), it rectifies all prior errors at that base.
This just sounds like we need a rule change. That is all I hear
I realize there almost has to be a lot of intricacies to the baseball rule book, but holy crap?? You don’t have to touch 1st base to be safe???
Jesus, the rule book for plays around the 3 bases and home plate alone must be bigger than the rule books of other major sport’s entire games???
Rc24, the official rule book is actually quite small. There is however a book called baseball's knotty problems. It's the size of an encyclopedia. Good luck!!
bro your %100 wrong
the ump called interference to the bag, the first basemens leg was in the runners way. this video is crap find a new job
I think (from the one angle anyway) that Gurriels foot was on the bag when he caught the ball.
From the front angle, from the top angle it shows blatantly nothing touched the base when he received the ball
If Toronto appealed after Verdugo came back and stood on first base, would it be upheld? You said Verdugo cured missing the bag via the last-time-by rule, so it sounds like it wouldn't be. So when exactly could Toronto get him out? Stepping on the base with the ball doesn't do it, and if they don't get the words "appeal" or their equivalent out before he comes back and stands on it, then they're out of luck?
One would think the obstruction alone would be enough to void any other exploration of rules. Runner should be safe by that alone.
If they stepped on the base with the ball and pointed to the runner, or said he missed the base, the umpire would have called the runner out.
If he tagged the runner before he touched 1st, he would have been out
I would only even think of calling this obstruction in High School. Even at that level I feel your digging. NCAA and MLB have exceptions for act of feild a throw...
@Mike Heathman here we go again...
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 6.01(a )(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called Olly in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.
Rule 6.01(i)(1) specifically talks about catcher being allowed to block base path if in progress of fielding a throw.
In general, only NFHS requires fielders to have procession. NCAA and MLB allow exceptions when feilding a throw.
Furthermore, I would probably not call it on this specific play in high school as there still seem to be a path way and runner I think more thought throw was going to beat him and thus did not alter path because of fielding actions.
I just see obstruction here as digging for burgers
@Mike Heathman Its really as simple as that in professional ball, the additional 'act of fielding the ball' is present, and no obligation exists on the fielder to allow an open path to the base or to avoid a collision if at all possible (even at home plate, where the Posey rule exists but is still different than the rules in HS/NCAA baseball).
MLB's rules don't preclude collisions between players, and never place an absolute requirement to avoid them on players. Only 2nd base (Utley Rule) and home plate (Posey Rule) have any additional requirements, and even then their requirements are mostly placed on the baserunner and not on the fielder (the only real exception is that catchers at home plate must provide a pathway to the plate *until they begin to field the throw*, IE they cannot set up blocking the plate in advance of the ball.
It's just different rules than you're accustomed to. Professional ball does not have a rules goal of eliminating potentially dangerous contact - they just add some extra requirements on the plays that, historically, were *likely* to cause dangerous contact, but the rules are unchanged on plays where dangerous contact has always been possible but very unlikely. MLB rules allow for an offensive and defensive player in many situations to have equal, full entitlement to occupy the same space and to initiate a violent collision to maintain that space if they're entitled to it, without any violation.
The rules philosophy is simply different, with different goals. Amateur baseball has rules objectives of eliminating the possibility of violent contact and will inconvenience players in order to do so (see: the 2nd base running lane rules in NCAA). MLB's primary rules goal was to change the game as little as possible while disincentivizing the most violent and common collisions. There are still circumstances in which violent contact can happen legally. The 2nd base rules are a great example, and I urge you to compare the MLB rule with the NCAA rule and see how much they diverge in practice. MLB players can still take-out slide guys at 2nd base if they satisfy a host of requirements. NCAA rules establish absolute protected areas a fielder can occupy where any contact by the baserunner constitutes baserunner's interference and an automatic double play.
Was the only way they could have "appealed" was if the 1st Baseman had immediately turned to the Ump and said he missed it? Or, could they have done the "normal procedure" of an "appeal", where the pitcher throws the ball to the (in this case) 1st Baseman to step on the base? That's the one part I'm not sure on, when the appeal had to be done.
An appeal must be unmistakable as an appeal. A throw from a pitcher from the mound is obviously an appeal. If the tagging fielder tells the umpire "missed base [, 1st runner [etc.]]", that's clearly an appeal. Here the first baseman reached backward with his foot after going to the ground to field the ball. He could have done that out of instinct, or for any number of reasons. It was not clearly an appeal, so it was not treated as an appeal.
Because of the 'last time by' rule, the window for this appeal was really very short. But most appeals, as mentioned in the other replies, don't involve an intervening dead ball.
Bad rule. That's all I'll say. Also, the umpire shouldn't call safe if Verdugo never touched the bag. Although, if I was in charge of the rulebook, I still would have awarded Verdugo SAFE due to obstruction.
The obstruction didn't matter , he beat the throw. He avoids the collision so he doesn't have to touch first. He also cannot be tagged out on his way back to first. These overrun rules don't apply on this play because of the collision rule!
@@stevehamman4465 I must say that rule goes against the spirit of the game. If you don't touch first base, then you should be out, assuming the 1st baseman steps on the bag or tags you out before you get back.
@@EvanEscher but this runner was avoiding a collision and possible injury to both players. If more players new this rule this would happen more. Not so many collision at first.
@@stevehamman4465 okay I understand that. But if he's not avoiding a collision and he just misses first base, do the same rules apply?
@@EvanEscher , No. If he ran through first the defence can get the umpires att and tag him for the out. If he mist it rounding for secound defence should run an appeal play. Again leting the umpire no why. Hope this helps. And theres all kinds of rules on how to do a proper appeal . Must be done before a pitch is deliverd and not during a time out. So pitcher gets on rubber to start play then steps off and throws to base.
Thanks for the info. Never knew.
There is no way in hell I could explain this to someone.
It requires one to know the rule about a live ball appeal. But also consider that Verdugo cured his missing first by emphatically standing on the bag before any appeal could be made. To challenge touching a base, an appeal must be made before the challenge. But standing on first means too late for the appeal, as curing the mistake is a time play.
Fascinating , Captain
"It's in the rulebook... available to teams." You make it sound so easy, as if the teams have a searchable PDF of the entire 200(ish) page rulebook sitting right there that can find them the answer in the 20 seconds they have to challenge a ruling. Do you honestly think that the umpire on the field knew that exact rule to quote it, or was someone in New York chirping it to him on the headset?
Rules as written: correct call. Obstruction? I could make an argument either way with that (the fielder's foot shifted as he attempted to make a play on the ball vs. the runner had to move to avoid the collision). Did it make sense? No. Why should a player not have to touch first base to have it awarded to them?
Exactly, if you don't touch first base and the ball gets there after you missed the bag, you should be out. Not sure why there needs to be so much confusion
Completely agree. I'm sure they have searched and read the rules too, now that it's hours after the game. Such a bogus comment.
MLB actually does publish the searchable PDF of the rulebook. It's at the bottom of their website, under "Official Information". Although, if your job is playing or coaching professional baseball, you should know the rules.
If we change the rules here Verdugo is gonna stomp on this guys foot next time and take him out for the season, does that make sense?
@@oor_james1299 I don't know what is typical for other teams, but I know with the Dodgers that's part of the role of the bench coach. Makes sense.
his foot looked on base at second of catch than rolls off
Runner had already passed the base at that point - which was explained as technically reaching the base. No force play would apply and the first baseman would have had to tag the runner.
@@jasoncox9050 The first baseman could also tag the base and making it clear to the umpire he was appealing the runner missing the base.
I agree with the call with the rules as written. As I was writing this, I was thinking that they need to change the rule to say they have to touch the base, but after thinking about it for a moment, it's there for safety reasons. In this case, the runner was likely avoiding stepping on the 1st baseman's foot. Perhaps they should tweek the rule to say that the runner has to touch, unless the process of touching the bag could result in a collision with another player, umpire, or discarded equipment.
No you can’t put that in because than it makes it to much of a judgement call! I like the rule as is tho.
I think its pretty clear that rule is primarily aimed at the other bases and to have a default, uniform assumption state about plays where the umpire cannot watch every baserunner's foot because there's more important stuff going on elsewhere and they don't have 360 degree vision. It's just a weird instance where those rules combine to apply at first base in a way we don't normally anticipate.
Can we agree that this is too complicated. Guy missed first fielder touched first before runner went back to touch it. It should be that simple
Also HOW did the 1st base ump call him safe in the first place.
@Mike Heathman no like I understand it but I just have to ask why. If he appeals and ump still says safe we have the same thing going to replay. We want the play to be called correctly at end of day
@@austindrover851 If he appeals and the ump says safe they can then challenge - *the appeal* and have it reversed if they were correct
Eddings applied the rules correctly, what we have here is a corner case of the rules not working the way we'd expect them to work.
The thing is that while we want to get the call right at the end of the day, we also don't want to have calls that only exist due to replay. This call would have been noncontroversial without replay because no one would have noticed. Similarly, we have a lot of problems on tag plays because of fielders being taught to hold the tag looking for the fraction of a second that a runner loses contact with the bag after sliding in safely. We'd be better off if there was a new rules assumption designed to get rid of those challenges.
The umpire called him safe in the first place because the runner beat the throw. That is the correct mechanic. If the defense appeals the missed base before the runner returns to touch it, the runner would be out. No appeal, no out.
Many of these head-scratching reviews come from appeal rules not having been updated to account for replay available. The 1B umpire displaying the safe signal tells the defense there's no point in appealing, and then they're getting the review turned down for not having appealed. Review is supposed to restore equity, not to pull a gotcha on a team for being misinformed on the game situation.
And if anyone starts telling me that's the proper mechanic for him to use in that situation, then that's a failure by the league to adapt its mechanics to replay. (Think the way offsides in soccer is a delayed call when VAR is available.)
In an ideal world, obstruction would've been the reason to turn down the review rather than the bureaucratic appeal thing.
Man, all this blaming of the umps and MLB...how about blaming the defense? For not knowing how appeals work?
Baseball does NOT need microphones for the umpires to explain anything to the fans!!! Give the fans and announcers a rule book!!! Problem Solved!!!
You’d be surprised how many people are happy being ignorant...