He was blocking. He moved due to the throw. I concur with Paul on this one. When the runner was around 1/2 way to home is when he moved from the side of the plate to blocking. That is how I always saw that rule. If he was in position before the throw was tossed, I would agree with overturn. But ball was in the air and he was adjusting to the ball which is what this rule seems to allow.
@@joelzand3594 "Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score." There was no hinderance of the runner. Bad call.
@@joelzand3594 How dim are you? I quoted from the rule book and you say it's wrong? Show me exactly where the runner was hindered or impeded in any way.
Yeah...I don't see that one. Seems to me the catcher was doing everything he could do to let the runner have access to the plate. This call effectively means that this play can only be made if the throw comes in on the fair side of the 3rd base line. That is not what the rule was intended to require.
"Go between my legs" is not a path to the plate. One side or the other, or behind. It does not require the catcher to give the runner the ENTIRE plate, just some portion of it, left or right.
@@MaydayAggro Do you know how many runs have been scored by the player sliding between the legs of a catcher? Over the history of MLB, “thousands” is the correct answer.
As a long time catcher this couldn't be more textbook, im down to prevent clear and malicious blocking but let's not turn plate blocking into another balk like rule. Let the game be play!
as a retired NCAA Div I umpire, I can see this call in a high school or college game where "SAFETY" is paramount and most are under 18, but not in an MLB game! Play looked clean to me. wonder if umps on field get any written explanation from NY replay AFTER the game to discuss logic of ruling because every overturn creates precedence (just like a Supreme Court decision)
@@darinlegore284 yeah I really wish a more detailed description of what exactly happened was given. But even in little league I was taught to get the left leg dug in and block the plate, while I understand that most likely isn't great for safety, I just think going forward a unclear rule like this will only cause more problems. I'm very happy with how they defined illegal slides to break up double plays, so hopefully we can get something like that.
thing is this did not feel particularly ambiguous like a balk can be. i can't see what the catcher did wrong. 1) he started out in fair territory and ceded the outside then 2) moved to catch the ball which is provided for in the rule.
The whole reason for the rule is to prevent contact and injury and I feel the catcher did everything he can do to avoid contact. His initial setup seemed fine and he only moved left when he saw where the throw was going and moved into that position as soon as he saw the trajectory of the ball going that way. The runner was only half way down the line when he moved. If he moves later the runner probably slides for the outside corner instead of the inside part of the plate. It’s very possible in this play if the catcher moved even a second later the runner is already sliding and the catcher isn’t set up as well to catch the ball and we end up with a collision and possibly serious injury. For awhile I have felt the rule book needs a complete overhaul. The game has changed so much since it started and they just patch the rules when they feel they need it but it creates contradictions and clarity issues especially with replay. You can find places in the rules where it says the umpires decision whether a runner is out or safe is final but then another rules says you can challenge the call.
The blocking the plate (which is an obstruction call) is a judgement call; I don't know why this is reviewable when it is a judgement call at the time of the play. So, lets say in Marvin's judgement, the catcher gave the runner plenty of leeway to score and didn't impede his progress; now you have a review room saying "our judgement when we weren't even there for the play is over-ruling your judgement). I can understand "did the player get tagged before touching the base" or "was the ball in the mitt" or "was the 1st baseman's foot on the bag" or "was it really a catch"; but obstruction/interference calls in my opinion are for the on-field officials only. I think this was a poor review conclusion, great throw and tag by the catcher here. IMO, the runner had a path to home plate the entire time.
Almost all calls in baseball are judgement calls and there is nothing that says they can't be reviewed. It is a judgement call on whether the runner or the fielder touched a base on a force play and they are reviewed all the time. Other than that, I agree with you.
Exactly, his path to the plate was never impeded regardless of how the catcher moved. The runner actually reached the plate, how can this possibly be this obstruction?
Literally, he did NOT have a path to the base. The determination is based on the fact that his right foot is in the infield, and his left foot is in foul territory. "Between the catcher's legs" is not a path to the base. The runner must have a path to the left or to the right. If you watch any training videos, they tell umpires "Determine if the runner had a direct path to one side or the other" - NOT between his legs. That's why Lindsey wondered aloud if maybe the runner had a path to the back corner. Think of the path as a door the height of the runner. If the runner does not have that door available, he is being hindered. Otherwise the catcher could literally straddle the plate all the time - because the runner has a "path" between the catcher's legs. If that doesn't hold when the catcher is not making a play, it doesn't hold when the catcher IS making a play either.
@@MaydayAggro I don't need 15 angles to see that the call is incorrectly overturned. HP umpire is ON TOP of the call, EXCELLENT view, MADE THE CORRECT CALL, and is visibly upset it was overturned. You're wrong, just deal with it.
I'm guessing that replay does not consider the 5 hole a valid path, and his setup early making it look like he was blocking the path probably made it look worse.
Replay Crew missed on this one.. but why get mad at the Ump. he called it an out... and agreed he was out.. but Replay Crew said otherwise.... not the umps fault...
I don’t even think the catcher was obstructing, fielding the throw or otherwise. Front corner of the plate was available due to the catcher standing a bit back and keeping his legs spread.
@@joelzand3594 You read the rule especially the comment that says "A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score." There is obviously something wrong with your reading comprehension.
@@joelzand3594 Nobody cares that you are a level 3 umpire, whatever that means, because you are wrong. You are blatantly ignoring the rule comment that says there is no obstruction unless the runner is actually hindered. Fail on your part.
When the catcher is waiting for the throw he’s straddling home plate- that’s obstruction. He’s not giving a clear pathway to home plate. You must posses the ball to block home plate. This particular case play is a strict interpretation of the written rule.
I clearly see the catcher purposely moving to his left to keep from the plate being blocked, he caught the ball in an awkward place, the catcher is also trying to compensate to move away from the runner. This call should have never been overturned: I feel the runner is out by the correct call, not by much but, he is out at the plate. How on earth can you overturn this call? I think some of these umps should have thier calls reviewed by MLB: have you ever wonder why less fans show up to watch a good baseball game? I do not agree on this call.
aside from them still getting calls wrong after some reviews, the biggest thing i hate about replay is there is zero accountability or explanation from "new york" or wherever/whoever these calls are personally reviewed by. it's just, 'decision made, deal with it'. i know they don't have time during the game for explanations, but even AFTER the game, or the next day, give us an explanation, send down a quote from the MLB review dept. admit fault/wrongness for the *blatantly wrong* calls and try to do it better next time. and if not going to make the right call explain why the ruling went the other way. this would be better than nothing. but there is none of that. there's just NO point to replay if it isn't to get the call right. i don't think wanting to hold them accountable for *their* system is asking too much.
Until they get rid of this rule, that you can not run the catcher over. The catcher I think should stay 3 feet for home plate until he has the ball. To many time the catcher just sit down blocking the plate and the runner can not get to the plate .
My only thought is kind of what you hinted at Lindsey, the movement being too early affecting the runners momentum or path and in doing so without the ball violates the rule. I agree that the catcher gave the runner the plate by straddling the plate and not being between plate and runner plus the little avoiding jump that the catcher did gave them both a chance to avoid a collision. Bryan Embley - it seems that the catcher needs to be completely behind or in front of. I agree with you, not the intent of the rule. Jordan Truppner - path to a bag is irrelevant in some cases, did the fielder hinder or impede the runner, causing the runner to change speed or direction without possession of the ball. Even a slight twitch, hesitation or stutter step is enough to hinder or impede.
I am not against change, and I understand the basic thinking of that rule change years ago....but holy smokes.... 1) That is a beautiful baseball play....where the LF played the ball perfectly, came up gunning, and made a near perfect throw for a bang bang out at the plate....if you are a baseball fan, that is a nice play to watch....and then after a long review, we are told that is NOT an out? Come on? 2) As the broadcasters alluded to, what is the catcher supposed to do there?
I guess the catcher needs to wait to move till the last second or start if foul territory. I would like to see the rule changed so this can't be called a violation.
That's not blocking the plate in any league. Your comment about the high school obstruction is wrong. That play by the catcher is legal in high school, NCAA and Pro.
I like what the English Premier does ... have the on-field umps go look at the video. Let the on-field umps manage and control the game, not some invisible and unengaged guy hundreds of mikes away. Also the on-field umps hear things and have different angles that are not caught by the cameras.
@@gmarolda I agree it is rare to have the onfield ref go over to look at a call. (It is seemed more common in Champions League). But that is because most reviews are for offsides that are resolved almost mechanically or for obvious errors where the ref's vision was blocked. However the NBC commentators discussed many times over the last few seasons that they are glad that the EPL is having the onfield ref take a look at calls that required more judgement or where he/she may have had an additional perspective (seen or heard).
M.L.B. rules committee reacted to a franchise player being taken out in May for the rest of the season. Buster Posey was a rookie of the year and M.V.P. catcher lost for almost an entire season when a Triple A call up player named Cousins tried to impress his home town coach and friends and family. The Giants G.M. Brian Sabean was livid. When a reactionary rule is established sometimes it is too strict. Perhaps the rule will be modified allowing more freedom for a catcher to block he plate. This call is all about how the written rule is interpreted.
Geez. Why don't we just say that if the runner gets within 20 feet of the plate before the catcher has the ball, he's automatically safe. The catcher set up in fair territory and moved to his left when the saw the throw was going to be a little up the line. That's what the rules indicate he should do, and he still got dinged.
Based on the rule and your previous explanations on it, I think they overturned because when he jumps to the left, the catcher still has time to move fully to foul territory and cede the fair corner of the plate but instead leaves his right foot there so his "setup" was "bad." But, in my opinion, spirit of the rule and call on the field should win out. The throw does take him over there and he doesn't have a lot of time to reset and think about where his foot is AND he jumps up to get out of the way of the slide AND AND, like you said, it wasn't the "block" of the plate that caused the runner to be out. The throw and the tag beat him and the catcher did just about everything he could to prevent injury to both parties.
From my point of view (what I saw & maybe what New York saw) the catcher was blocking the running lane BEFORE making a potential play on the runner. This is the only thing I can think of. I saying this just from the camera angles that we have avable to us here. What I saw could be why I'm not sure though it looked that way to me. Only thing I can think of. If you say I need glasses well I was a Little League umpire for 5 years & 3 years before that I was an umpire for 2 local youth ball fields before we switched to little league. Now we no longer are little league. Back to normal HS Rules.
Not only did C initially set up giving the runner a path to the plate, but even when he moved to receive the throw he straddled the plate giving the runner full access to slide right between his legs until after he had received the ball and went to tag. This overturn kinda blows my mind.
Does the USFL rules allow for the appeals board to negate the replay review if they think the original call was QOCY and replay overturned to QOCN? If so, I think someone should submit this for an appeal (I can't since I forgot to submit my UEFL roster in time).
That was a pretty tight call by the umpire too…..from the angle of the camera I’m not sure his foot didn’t get to the plate before the tag on his upper thigh…a lot of dirt splash though..???
I'm thinking San Diego challenged the play. Crew chief goes to the dug out, "what are you challenging?" San Diego says they believe the catcher blocked the plate. The review goes to New York , New York calls the runner safe because of a late tag. However, since the challenge was called for a potential blocking the plate violation the umpires return to the field with the explanation of why it was challenged and why it was overturned. Is this simply a failure of communication? I think that tag is closer than we think and New York is notorious for overturning home plate calls, for example Detroit Tigers Opening Day walk off/Ron Gardenhire ejection.
I don't agree with the overturn, but I think it boils down to something Lindsey has said in a previous video: "Between the fielder's legs is not a path". I think their idea was "Follow the ball. If the ball stays in fair territory stay on the fair side, and it's okay to move over to the foul side if the ball winds up in foul territory, but you can't simply straddle both sides."
There's not only a path to the plate, but Serven actually jumps as he catches the ball, which gives the runner a lane. There is no interpretation of this rule where this would be a correct call.
Blocking the plate means blocking access, the catcher who was straddling the plate when the ball was being received gave 100% access to the entire side of the plate. Completely wrong overturn
I think they missed this one in NY.....C didn't move until ball was in flight from the LF Throw came DIRECTLY to him. Had he not repositioned, in my opinion, he misses that ball ,run scores and runners at 2nd and 3rd.
Under the rules "The catcher may not block the pathway of a runner attempting to score unless he has possession of the ball. If the catcher blocks the runner before he has the ball, the umpire may call the runner safe." The catcher is responsible for providing a clear path to the plate for the runner. Between the legs is not a clear path. The unwritten rule is the catcher gets fair territory and the runner gets foul. If the catcher starts off in fair territory and the throw takes him into foul the call will stand in this case.
Can the Rockies file a protest for this ruling? This was a bad ruling so I feel playing under protest would be the right call. Maybe won’t win this game but would start the ball rolling for a rule change in the off season. Thoughts on that?
Protests are banned from MLB since 2020. Rule 7.04 Protesting a game shall never be permitted, regardless of whether such complaint is based on judgment decisions by the umpire or an allegation that an umpire misapplied these rules or otherwise rendered a decision in violation of these rules. 2014's rain delay protest was the only one that actually worked since 1986's upheld rain delay protest anyways, so protesting is pretty pointless and misunderstood.
The ball was just about over the infield when the catcher adjusted to catch it. I don't understand the call, there's no guidance in the rules about *when* the catcher can move into the runner's path to field the ball. It also feels like some far-sighted accountant with coke-bottle glasses in an air-conditioned New York City office just stuck his two cents in to nullify a beautiful defensive play. I also don't really understand why Black is arguing with the umps. He should call the NYC office and scream at them.
The quick jump from fair to foul territory immediately caught the umpires attention in NY, because it happened before the runner began his slide. That’s the only reason.
I fail to understand how these umpires and replay officials interpret the rules differently from game to game. I don’t remember the teams, but earlier this week on a play at the plate the runner ran around the catcher to avoid the collision with the catcher blocking the plate and the runner was called out for going out of the baseline. They didn’t call catcher interference for blocking, and to top it off, the catcher didn’t even have the ball in his glove, it was laying on the infield grass.
Out at the plate….. zero question… No malice, no intent, and besides the throw led the the catcher there. SLO mo reply doesn’t do this justice…. Lindsay, you are correct… players gotta play…
are the managers entitled to a one paragraph explanation after game from NY as to REASON for replay overturn? Do umpires on field get one? If not this needs to be renegotiated in next contract or changed in rules meeting off season!
Buster Posey is not at fault asshole. Buster was not blocking the plate and he did not possess the ball. Cousins is who you are mad at. It’s the Cousins rule. Posey was a victim.
Check the view from behind the catcher, and slow it down. I think the runner might have touched home plate before being tagged...but it's just a cloudbof dust in most angles.
@@sfan2767 if the runner touched home olate before being tagged...that seems relevent and decisive to me, and a reason for the overturn. Wasn't about the catcher blocking the baseline...it was about the runner being actually safe. At least that is my thinking.
@@sfan2767 Right. But if on replay they showed the runner touched home plate before being tagged, isn't that all you need? That's the way "the play should have ended," or whatever the magic umpire phrasing is.
WOW. No way he blocked the plate. The throw took him there and the plate was there (between Catchers legs) so much so that he was almost safe! I could get it if this call was made in real time but after replay? Wow!
The catcher had the plate between his legs and left an opening for runner, and then jumped as player arrived to plate, so there was nothing blocking the player from touching the plate. Really bad overturning this call.
He clearly gave him a chance to slide for the runner. Clearly open. That was bad. We have seen this before. I get want to protect the catcher and runner. This was such a bad overturn. I don't know what replay people are thinking. Someone got to talk to them.
The catcher literally jumped so the runner would have a path to the plate. He was aware of the rule and adjusted himself to avoid the violation, but gets hit with the violation anyway. This rule is dumb asf.
Admittedly I'm new to baseball but what more is the catcher supposed to do in this situation? He moved, sure, but only to catch the ball. And even with that movement the runner still had a clear path to home plate. Seems like the homeplate ump called it right and NY totally messed up.
I think the biggest problem is that it's a relatively new, unsettled rule in baseball history (Due to Buster Posey injury). MLB doesn't know exactly where they want the balance to be, between competitive fairness, and protecting their player's health and the league's image. Like how they tried out the neighborhood rule on double play balls at 2nd base for a little bit, before just deciding that runners can't take out the fielder at 2nd base. I don't think they've quite found that balance that makes sense yet for home plate blocking.
Obstruction occurred before the catcher gloved the throw. He’s suppose to stand in front of home plate and glove the throw and then do a sweep tag. Hall of fame catcher Johnny Bench did it his entire career on the way to Cooperstown
I'm going to go against the crowd here. The throw didn't immediately take the catcher where he ended up so you can't say that it took him there. To me a path that makes the runner slide thru catchers legs is what happens if the runner doesn't get down far enough, or slide to late and makes contact with the catcher, he's out and there's a possibility of an ejection. I don't see the runner given a true path to the base, good overturn.
The only thing that I could see is that New York thought that F2 could have caught the ball in the initial fair territory position and that the trajectory wasn't enough to justify him moving into the blocking position. I'm not saying I agree with that rationale, I'm trying to make any kind of sense oUT of the overturned call.
They need former catchers in the replay booth for those calls. There was no need for replay. Catcher is allowed to go catch the throw. The runner can slide pretty much in arms length either way from the plate. The catcher gave the runner the whole plate by straddling. This was textbook pitch and catch. Not sure how they can support the catcher blocking anything until he has caught the baseball.
I think on replay the call should be overturned because he reached the base first. Using the bocking rule is just absurd since at no time did he actually block the plate.
I guess MLB says that catchers can't read the trajectory of the throw, and actually have to be in the physical act of catching the ball to be in front of the plate. Either that or this is proof this is the Dad's year.
They need to just change the rule to specify it better. To me the only reason I think this is not blocking the plate is that the throw beat the runner by such a margin. But if the runner was closer I think that is blocking the plate because he had so much time to move away from blocking the plate. He could have set up on the other side of the plate when the throw went that way and given the runner the inside part. The rule is pretty ambiguous. But when they say throw I think they mean at the very last moment when hes actually in the act of catching the ball. He cant just take a setup in front of the plate when the throw is halfway there. In that case he needs to move to the another side of the plate and then if at the last moment in the act of catching takes him in front then he may. Without the rule that catcher would have gotten knocked into next week if you could still run them over, so ultimately its very good for catchers. Better to have them live to complain about the call than knocked unconscious. The rule just needs to be less ambiguous and more specific.
I’m with Close Call. That’s a bad overturn and the Umpires had it right on the field.
That’s just indefensible, there’s no way that should have been overturned.
He was blocking. He moved due to the throw. I concur with Paul on this one. When the runner was around 1/2 way to home is when he moved from the side of the plate to blocking. That is how I always saw that rule. If he was in position before the throw was tossed, I would agree with overturn. But ball was in the air and he was adjusting to the ball which is what this rule seems to allow.
@@joelzand3594
"Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score."
There was no hinderance of the runner. Bad call.
@@joelzand3594 How dim are you? I quoted from the rule book and you say it's wrong? Show me exactly where the runner was hindered or impeded in any way.
Yeah...I don't see that one. Seems to me the catcher was doing everything he could do to let the runner have access to the plate. This call effectively means that this play can only be made if the throw comes in on the fair side of the 3rd base line. That is not what the rule was intended to require.
I agree
Agreed!
I think NY saw that he caught it off the side, so yes, the throw took him into the baseline, but it should have taken him further.
"Go between my legs" is not a path to the plate. One side or the other, or behind. It does not require the catcher to give the runner the ENTIRE plate, just some portion of it, left or right.
@@MaydayAggro Do you know how many runs have been scored by the player sliding between the legs of a catcher? Over the history of MLB, “thousands” is the correct answer.
As a long time catcher this couldn't be more textbook, im down to prevent clear and malicious blocking but let's not turn plate blocking into another balk like rule. Let the game be play!
Tell that to Buster Posey.
@@binder38us ruined the sport
as a retired NCAA Div I umpire, I can see this call in a high school or college game where "SAFETY" is paramount and most are under 18, but not in an MLB game! Play looked clean to me. wonder if umps on field get any written explanation from NY replay AFTER the game to discuss logic of ruling because every overturn creates precedence (just like a Supreme Court decision)
@@darinlegore284 yeah I really wish a more detailed description of what exactly happened was given. But even in little league I was taught to get the left leg dug in and block the plate, while I understand that most likely isn't great for safety, I just think going forward a unclear rule like this will only cause more problems. I'm very happy with how they defined illegal slides to break up double plays, so hopefully we can get something like that.
thing is this did not feel particularly ambiguous like a balk can be. i can't see what the catcher did wrong. 1) he started out in fair territory and ceded the outside then 2) moved to catch the ball which is provided for in the rule.
The whole reason for the rule is to prevent contact and injury and I feel the catcher did everything he can do to avoid contact. His initial setup seemed fine and he only moved left when he saw where the throw was going and moved into that position as soon as he saw the trajectory of the ball going that way. The runner was only half way down the line when he moved. If he moves later the runner probably slides for the outside corner instead of the inside part of the plate. It’s very possible in this play if the catcher moved even a second later the runner is already sliding and the catcher isn’t set up as well to catch the ball and we end up with a collision and possibly serious injury.
For awhile I have felt the rule book needs a complete overhaul. The game has changed so much since it started and they just patch the rules when they feel they need it but it creates contradictions and clarity issues especially with replay. You can find places in the rules where it says the umpires decision whether a runner is out or safe is final but then another rules says you can challenge the call.
The blocking the plate (which is an obstruction call) is a judgement call; I don't know why this is reviewable when it is a judgement call at the time of the play. So, lets say in Marvin's judgement, the catcher gave the runner plenty of leeway to score and didn't impede his progress; now you have a review room saying "our judgement when we weren't even there for the play is over-ruling your judgement). I can understand "did the player get tagged before touching the base" or "was the ball in the mitt" or "was the 1st baseman's foot on the bag" or "was it really a catch"; but obstruction/interference calls in my opinion are for the on-field officials only.
I think this was a poor review conclusion, great throw and tag by the catcher here. IMO, the runner had a path to home plate the entire time.
Almost all calls in baseball are judgement calls and there is nothing that says they can't be reviewed. It is a judgement call on whether the runner or the fielder touched a base on a force play and they are reviewed all the time.
Other than that, I agree with you.
That's a bizarre call. On such a good play too
This is a bunk call by the replay crew. Holy smokes guys.....HE GAVE HIM A PATH TO THE BAG
Exactly, his path to the plate was never impeded regardless of how the catcher moved. The runner actually reached the plate, how can this possibly be this obstruction?
Literally, he did NOT have a path to the base. The determination is based on the fact that his right foot is in the infield, and his left foot is in foul territory. "Between the catcher's legs" is not a path to the base. The runner must have a path to the left or to the right. If you watch any training videos, they tell umpires "Determine if the runner had a direct path to one side or the other" - NOT between his legs. That's why Lindsey wondered aloud if maybe the runner had a path to the back corner. Think of the path as a door the height of the runner. If the runner does not have that door available, he is being hindered. Otherwise the catcher could literally straddle the plate all the time - because the runner has a "path" between the catcher's legs. If that doesn't hold when the catcher is not making a play, it doesn't hold when the catcher IS making a play either.
@@MaydayAggro you are LITERALLY the only person arguing this in a room full of umpires.
@@jordanissport Literally, the people who have replay and 15 different angles agreed with me. Is the catcher legal if the ball gets there late?
@@MaydayAggro I don't need 15 angles to see that the call is incorrectly overturned. HP umpire is ON TOP of the call, EXCELLENT view, MADE THE CORRECT CALL, and is visibly upset it was overturned. You're wrong, just deal with it.
Catcher even seemed to open the five hole and jump to ensure he had a path to the plate. Bad overturn!
Agreed
I'm guessing that replay does not consider the 5 hole a valid path, and his setup early making it look like he was blocking the path probably made it look worse.
That was a beautiful textbook play. Absolutely INSANE that the call was overturned.
Bud Black freaking out on the umpire is just dumb. There is nothing the Ump can do after reply makes the call. Stupid to get ejected.
Replay Crew missed on this one.. but why get mad at the Ump. he called it an out... and agreed he was out.. but Replay Crew said otherwise.... not the umps fault...
manager like to get his money worth in public .
i love watching those
boone is the best of getting ejected
It was the jump to the left.
And then a step to the riiiiiiiiiiight.
I don’t even think the catcher was obstructing, fielding the throw or otherwise. Front corner of the plate was available due to the catcher standing a bit back and keeping his legs spread.
What a terrible replay overturn! Beautiful play by the defense!
@@joelzand3594 You read the rule especially the comment that says
"A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score."
There is obviously something wrong with your reading comprehension.
@@joelzand3594 Nobody cares that you are a level 3 umpire, whatever that means, because you are wrong. You are blatantly ignoring the rule comment that says there is no obstruction unless the runner is actually hindered. Fail on your part.
looked legal to me.
WOW --- Marvin, Great call!!! Replay booth, what were you looking at???? I dont like either team, but really, where is the plate blocking violation???
When the catcher is waiting for the throw he’s straddling home plate- that’s obstruction. He’s not giving a clear pathway to home plate. You must posses the ball to block home plate. This particular case play is a strict interpretation of the written rule.
I clearly see the catcher purposely moving to his left to keep from the plate being blocked, he caught the ball in an awkward place, the catcher is also trying to compensate to move away from the runner. This call should have never been overturned: I feel the runner is out by the correct call, not by much but, he is out at the plate. How on earth can you overturn this call? I think some of these umps should have thier calls reviewed by MLB: have you ever wonder why less fans show up to watch a good baseball game? I do not agree on this call.
aside from them still getting calls wrong after some reviews, the biggest thing i hate about replay is there is zero accountability or explanation from "new york" or wherever/whoever these calls are personally reviewed by. it's just, 'decision made, deal with it'. i know they don't have time during the game for explanations, but even AFTER the game, or the next day, give us an explanation, send down a quote from the MLB review dept. admit fault/wrongness for the *blatantly wrong* calls and try to do it better next time. and if not going to make the right call explain why the ruling went the other way. this would be better than nothing. but there is none of that. there's just NO point to replay if it isn't to get the call right. i don't think wanting to hold them accountable for *their* system is asking too much.
Until they get rid of this rule, that you can not run the catcher over. The catcher I think should stay 3 feet for home plate until he has the ball. To many time the catcher just sit down blocking the plate and the runner can not get to the plate .
Baseball replay is so broken. It's almost worse because now they are overturning correct calls on the field.
My only thought is kind of what you hinted at Lindsey, the movement being too early affecting the runners momentum or path and in doing so without the ball violates the rule. I agree that the catcher gave the runner the plate by straddling the plate and not being between plate and runner plus the little avoiding jump that the catcher did gave them both a chance to avoid a collision. Bryan Embley - it seems that the catcher needs to be completely behind or in front of. I agree with you, not the intent of the rule.
Jordan Truppner - path to a bag is irrelevant in some cases, did the fielder hinder or impede the runner, causing the runner to change speed or direction without possession of the ball. Even a slight twitch, hesitation or stutter step is enough to hinder or impede.
I noticed that little jump as well. If this interpretation of the rule is deemed correct after an internal review then they should change the rule.
I don't think it was obstruction. There was room to tag home plate. As for the tag, the call should stand, I don't see enough evidence to overturn.
I think what they are saying is that when the catcher made his jump to the left he did so too soon; he may have created a time warp.
Again?
Requiring a catcher to delay his attempt to catch the ball seems to put both players in danger of getting hurt
This is the same league that called a plate blocking violation on a force play, why should anyone be surprised when the NY office crew blows a call?
I used to recognize a catch in football and an out in baseball. Now I don't understand either.
The catcher had to move to catch the ball. What should he have done, not moved and not catched the ball ?
I am not against change, and I understand the basic thinking of that rule change years ago....but holy smokes....
1) That is a beautiful baseball play....where the LF played the ball perfectly, came up gunning, and made a near perfect throw for a bang bang out at the plate....if you are a baseball fan, that is a nice play to watch....and then after a long review, we are told that is NOT an out? Come on?
2) As the broadcasters alluded to, what is the catcher supposed to do there?
I guess the catcher needs to wait to move till the last second or start if foul territory. I would like to see the rule changed so this can't be called a violation.
That's not blocking the plate in any league. Your comment about the high school obstruction is wrong. That play by the catcher is legal in high school, NCAA and Pro.
I like what the English Premier does ... have the on-field umps go look at the video. Let the on-field umps manage and control the game, not some invisible and unengaged guy hundreds of mikes away. Also the on-field umps hear things and have different angles that are not caught by the cameras.
That's not what the EPL does. They have a separate VAR official. Occasionally the match official will come over but it's rare.
@@gmarolda I agree it is rare to have the onfield ref go over to look at a call. (It is seemed more common in Champions League). But that is because most reviews are for offsides that are resolved almost mechanically or for obvious errors where the ref's vision was blocked. However the NBC commentators discussed many times over the last few seasons that they are glad that the EPL is having the onfield ref take a look at calls that required more judgement or where he/she may have had an additional perspective (seen or heard).
Padres fan here. Do not understand why the call was overturned.
I'm not seeing this one. Would love to get an MLB explantion sometime in the future.
M.L.B. rules committee reacted to a franchise player being taken out in May for the rest of the season. Buster Posey was a rookie of the year and M.V.P. catcher lost for almost an entire season when a Triple A call up player named Cousins tried to impress his home town coach and friends and family. The Giants G.M. Brian Sabean was livid. When a reactionary rule is established sometimes it is too strict. Perhaps the rule will be modified allowing more freedom for a catcher to block he plate. This call is all about how the written rule is interpreted.
Geez. Why don't we just say that if the runner gets within 20 feet of the plate before the catcher has the ball, he's automatically safe. The catcher set up in fair territory and moved to his left when the saw the throw was going to be a little up the line. That's what the rules indicate he should do, and he still got dinged.
Reference the game play of the Athletics vs Rangers, the slide rule OBR 6.01 (i)(2) applied identically to this game
If this was a rule misinterpretation the game should be put under protests for Historical purposes
They don’t allow protests anymore.
@@emc2-n7r then they don't understand they're ruining the game
Based on the rule and your previous explanations on it, I think they overturned because when he jumps to the left, the catcher still has time to move fully to foul territory and cede the fair corner of the plate but instead leaves his right foot there so his "setup" was "bad." But, in my opinion, spirit of the rule and call on the field should win out. The throw does take him over there and he doesn't have a lot of time to reset and think about where his foot is AND he jumps up to get out of the way of the slide AND AND, like you said, it wasn't the "block" of the plate that caused the runner to be out. The throw and the tag beat him and the catcher did just about everything he could to prevent injury to both parties.
From my point of view (what I saw & maybe what New York saw) the catcher was blocking the running lane BEFORE making a potential play on the runner. This is the only thing I can think of. I saying this just from the camera angles that we have avable to us here. What I saw could be why I'm not sure though it looked that way to me. Only thing I can think of. If you say I need glasses well I was a Little League umpire for 5 years & 3 years before that I was an umpire for 2 local youth ball fields before we switched to little league. Now we no longer are little league. Back to normal HS Rules.
The catcher literally straddled the plate and jumped up. The runner was not impeded with his slide at all. There is zero obstruction.
Similar to Texas-Oakland dispute early in the season.
Not only did C initially set up giving the runner a path to the plate, but even when he moved to receive the throw he straddled the plate giving the runner full access to slide right between his legs until after he had received the ball and went to tag. This overturn kinda blows my mind.
Does the USFL rules allow for the appeals board to negate the replay review if they think the original call was QOCY and replay overturned to QOCN? If so, I think someone should submit this for an appeal (I can't since I forgot to submit my UEFL roster in time).
They really need to get some consistency on these home plate calls. It seems like a coin flip every time one of these is reviewed.
Look Buster Posey has retired can we now go back to how the rules were before him ?
That was a pretty tight call by the umpire too…..from the angle of the camera I’m not sure his foot didn’t get to the plate before the tag on his upper thigh…a lot of dirt splash though..???
I'm thinking San Diego challenged the play. Crew chief goes to the dug out, "what are you challenging?" San Diego says they believe the catcher blocked the plate. The review goes to New York , New York calls the runner safe because of a late tag. However, since the challenge was called for a potential blocking the plate violation the umpires return to the field with the explanation of why it was challenged and why it was overturned.
Is this simply a failure of communication? I think that tag is closer than we think and New York is notorious for overturning home plate calls, for example Detroit Tigers Opening Day walk off/Ron Gardenhire ejection.
@@a_badali yeah, hat the revue process in all sports….umps get it wrong it’s wrong it happens. They just got lazy because it can be reviewed.
Out call should have stood! I agree with you!
Who was working replay?
Yes he needs to take the heat from his call just like the umps on the field.
Be nice to hear the conversation between Marvin Hudson and Rockies catcher. Marvin’s interpretation of the play at home was overturned after all.
This rule is shit. I blame Buster Posey and his weak ankles.
I don't agree with the overturn, but I think it boils down to something Lindsey has said in a previous video: "Between the fielder's legs is not a path". I think their idea was "Follow the ball. If the ball stays in fair territory stay on the fair side, and it's okay to move over to the foul side if the ball winds up in foul territory, but you can't simply straddle both sides."
There's not only a path to the plate, but Serven actually jumps as he catches the ball, which gives the runner a lane. There is no interpretation of this rule where this would be a correct call.
I'm sure Mike Redmond was getting flashbacks when he was manager in Miami and replay reversed the same type of play on the Marlins.
Can we rate the umpiring crew in New York?
That call should have stood. There's no interference.
Blocking the plate means blocking access, the catcher who was straddling the plate when the ball was being received gave 100% access to the entire side of the plate. Completely wrong overturn
I think they missed this one in NY.....C didn't move until ball was in flight from the LF Throw came DIRECTLY to him. Had he not repositioned, in my opinion, he misses that ball ,run scores and runners at 2nd and 3rd.
awful call by the replay booth. catcher just has to give him a lane and he gave him the whole damn dish!
Excellent analysis Lindsay.
Under the rules "The catcher may not block the pathway of a runner attempting to score unless he has possession of the ball. If the catcher blocks the runner before he has the ball, the umpire may call the runner safe." The catcher is responsible for providing a clear path to the plate for the runner. Between the legs is not a clear path. The unwritten rule is the catcher gets fair territory and the runner gets foul. If the catcher starts off in fair territory and the throw takes him into foul the call will stand in this case.
Can the Rockies file a protest for this ruling? This was a bad ruling so I feel playing under protest would be the right call. Maybe won’t win this game but would start the ball rolling for a rule change in the off season. Thoughts on that?
Protests are banned from MLB since 2020.
Rule 7.04 Protesting a game shall never be permitted, regardless of whether such complaint is based on judgment decisions by the umpire or an allegation that an umpire misapplied these rules or otherwise rendered a decision in violation of these rules.
2014's rain delay protest was the only one that actually worked since 1986's upheld rain delay protest anyways, so protesting is pretty pointless and misunderstood.
The ball was just about over the infield when the catcher adjusted to catch it. I don't understand the call, there's no guidance in the rules about *when* the catcher can move into the runner's path to field the ball. It also feels like some far-sighted accountant with coke-bottle glasses in an air-conditioned New York City office just stuck his two cents in to nullify a beautiful defensive play. I also don't really understand why Black is arguing with the umps. He should call the NYC office and scream at them.
The quick jump from fair to foul territory immediately caught the umpires attention in NY, because it happened before the runner began his slide. That’s the only reason.
Just an FYI the Padres challenged the call not the Rockies!!!
Poor call here. There was plenty of plate for the runner to slide to.
I fail to understand how these umpires and replay officials interpret the rules differently from game to game. I don’t remember the teams, but earlier this week on a play at the plate the runner ran around the catcher to avoid the collision with the catcher blocking the plate and the runner was called out for going out of the baseline. They didn’t call catcher interference for blocking, and to top it off, the catcher didn’t even have the ball in his glove, it was laying on the infield grass.
how can he be blocking the plate when he has his legs open with a straight path to the plate?
it is official i don’t understand the rule after this
Expect anything more from New York!
Out at the plate….. zero question…
No malice, no intent, and besides the throw led the the catcher there.
SLO mo reply doesn’t do this justice….
Lindsay, you are correct… players gotta play…
@CloseCallSports you said in High School this is obstruction? If that's the case when this gets called the manager will get tossed every time.
The rockies catcher actually did great here. He even avoided a potential nasty injury.
are the managers entitled to a one paragraph explanation after game from NY as to REASON for replay overturn? Do umpires on field get one? If not this needs to be renegotiated in next contract or changed in rules meeting off season!
Analysis paralysis. This is shit. He is out.
Yeah maybe he moved a little early, but the throw "confirmed" his movement by being up the line. I don't see the issue either. Weird reversal.
I think NY saw that he caught it off the side, so yes, the throw took him into the baseline, but it should have taken him further.
As the catcher you have to give the runner a lane to touch the plate and here the catcher did not give the runner a lane to touch the plate.
You have to give a runner a corner or a side of the plate with no obstruction. Between the legs is obstructive.
Thanks posey.. at this point I'm ready for the maid from the Jetsons to make the calls.
Buster Posey is not at fault asshole. Buster was not blocking the plate and he did not possess the ball. Cousins is who you are mad at. It’s the Cousins rule. Posey was a victim.
Check the view from behind the catcher, and slow it down. I think the runner might have touched home plate before being tagged...but it's just a cloudbof dust in most angles.
totally possible, but irrelevant to the ruling and also not definitive.
@@sfan2767 if the runner touched home olate before being tagged...that seems relevent and decisive to me, and a reason for the overturn. Wasn't about the catcher blocking the baseline...it was about the runner being actually safe.
At least that is my thinking.
@@simeonwildman788 the ruling was that the catcher blocked the plate.
@@sfan2767 Right. But if on replay they showed the runner touched home plate before being tagged, isn't that all you need? That's the way "the play should have ended," or whatever the magic umpire phrasing is.
@@simeonwildman788 ... but that isn't what we have here
WOW. No way he blocked the plate. The throw took him there and the plate was there (between Catchers legs) so much so that he was almost safe! I could get it if this call was made in real time but after replay? Wow!
The catcher had the plate between his legs and left an opening for runner, and then jumped as player arrived to plate, so there was nothing blocking the player from touching the plate. Really bad overturning this call.
the catcher is allowed to block the plate if 1 he has possession of the baseball, or 2. the throw leads him to block the plate.(I think)
The catcher trapped the runners leg and that's the Plate Blocking Violation.
He clearly gave him a chance to slide for the runner. Clearly open. That was bad. We have seen this before. I get want to protect the catcher and runner. This was such a bad overturn. I don't know what replay people are thinking. Someone got to talk to them.
The answer is simple: replay is now for *manipulating outcomes* - not "getting the call right."
The catcher literally jumped so the runner would have a path to the plate. He was aware of the rule and adjusted himself to avoid the violation, but gets hit with the violation anyway. This rule is dumb asf.
That was as clean as it gets, gave him a path and everything. Bs overturn
Admittedly I'm new to baseball but what more is the catcher supposed to do in this situation? He moved, sure, but only to catch the ball. And even with that movement the runner still had a clear path to home plate. Seems like the homeplate ump called it right and NY totally messed up.
I think the biggest problem is that it's a relatively new, unsettled rule in baseball history (Due to Buster Posey injury). MLB doesn't know exactly where they want the balance to be, between competitive fairness, and protecting their player's health and the league's image. Like how they tried out the neighborhood rule on double play balls at 2nd base for a little bit, before just deciding that runners can't take out the fielder at 2nd base. I don't think they've quite found that balance that makes sense yet for home plate blocking.
@@linollieum3742 it’s not that new of a rule anymore. I think replay just botched this one. It happens.
Obstruction occurred before the catcher gloved the throw. He’s suppose to stand in front of home plate and glove the throw and then do a sweep tag. Hall of fame catcher Johnny Bench did it his entire career on the way to Cooperstown
If the play stood there would've been an Argument by Padres Manager Bob Melvin.
I'm going to go against the crowd here. The throw didn't immediately take the catcher where he ended up so you can't say that it took him there. To me a path that makes the runner slide thru catchers legs is what happens if the runner doesn't get down far enough, or slide to late and makes contact with the catcher, he's out and there's a possibility of an ejection. I don't see the runner given a true path to the base, good overturn.
The only thing that I could see is that New York thought that F2 could have caught the ball in the initial fair territory position and that the trajectory wasn't enough to justify him moving into the blocking position.
I'm not saying I agree with that rationale, I'm trying to make any kind of sense oUT of the overturned call.
Jomboy lip reading (not), Bud Black yells at the ump: "Your call was right! Your call was right! You made the right call! They didn't!"
They need former catchers in the replay booth for those calls. There was no need for replay. Catcher is allowed to go catch the throw. The runner can slide pretty much in arms length either way from the plate. The catcher gave the runner the whole plate by straddling. This was textbook pitch and catch. Not sure how they can support the catcher blocking anything until he has caught the baseball.
The rule in baseball most in need of changing. When catchers have to do a plie so a runner has a path to the plate, something's wrong.
I think on replay the call should be overturned because he reached the base first. Using the bocking rule is just absurd since at no time did he actually block the plate.
It was bad over turn call
I guess MLB says that catchers can't read the trajectory of the throw, and actually have to be in the physical act of catching the ball to be in front of the plate. Either that or this is proof this is the Dad's year.
They need to just change the rule to specify it better. To me the only reason I think this is not blocking the plate is that the throw beat the runner by such a margin. But if the runner was closer I think that is blocking the plate because he had so much time to move away from blocking the plate. He could have set up on the other side of the plate when the throw went that way and given the runner the inside part. The rule is pretty ambiguous. But when they say throw I think they mean at the very last moment when hes actually in the act of catching the ball. He cant just take a setup in front of the plate when the throw is halfway there. In that case he needs to move to the another side of the plate and then if at the last moment in the act of catching takes him in front then he may.
Without the rule that catcher would have gotten knocked into next week if you could still run them over, so ultimately its very good for catchers. Better to have them live to complain about the call than knocked unconscious. The rule just needs to be less ambiguous and more specific.
Absolutely trash call.
Out