E45 - Craig Counsell Ejected by Chris Guccione Over Pitch Timer Disengagement Limit Disaster in SF
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- 3B Umpire Chris Guccione ejected Brewers manager Craig Counsell for arguing a disengagement limit violation no-call in San Francisco after Giants pitcher Alex Cobb's two pickoff attempts during Rowdy Tellez's plate appearance. This rule is a disaster. Report: www.closecalls...
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Discord: / discord
The disengagement limit falls under the "pitch timer" rule, and states that a pitcher is limited to two free disengagements per plate appearance (with a runner on), unless that runner advances in which event the limit resets. HOWEVER there is a lesser-known provision of the rule that says that mound visits, injuries, and offensive timeouts do NOT count as disengagements for the purpose of ascertaining this limit.
The problem here is that Cobb first disengaged (without a pickoff throw), but Giants catcher Joey Bart went out to the mound (mound visit exception), so the disengagement "didn't count" against the limit of two freebies. 1B Umpire Jeremy Riggs, however, signaled 2 disengagements after Cobb's next pickoff throw, as opposed to HP Umpire David Rackley signaling just 1-you see the issue. When Cobb threw another subsequent pickoff, Riggs had 3, Rackley had 2, and because Riggs as the first base umpire was right there at first base, he awarded baserunner Willy Adames second base. The umpires then got together and reversed the award, ruling that Cobb had used only 2 and not 3 disengagments.
Counsell was ejected for arguing the rule about counting to 3. Ugh. - กีฬา
I missed an opportunity to reference the Count from Sesame Street :(
Do you need a hug?
That bites, I’m sorry…
Linds, I agree with you on the sentiment that New York and MLB need to clarify these rules. I like the increased pace of play but there are definitely unintended consequences
Ah ah ahhh.
I've only been watching the channel for a year so it's possible I've missed it, but I can't remember Lindsey ever being this annoyed before. She's getting her money's worth!
I might be forgetting, but I want to say you are correct (I've been watching since 2020)
I think a lot of people are annoyed about the lack of clarity in the rule. In my opinion, a good rule clear where everybody knows what to expect in a given situation. When there is ambiguity in a rule, this often times is the result.
She also sounded pretty annoyed with the 42nd ejection too, when the home plate umpire stared down a batter before ejecting him.
*Mario coin sound*
In my opinion, I think the disengagement and the mound visit was just two separate acts as there was a pause by the catcher to go out and visit. But I think it should’ve been communicated a lot better by the umpires who knew the mound visit negated that disengagement instead of using hand motion and whatnot right away.
Completely agreed. There should've been a distinction that the mound visit was separate from disengagement. It feels like common sense in the spirit of the game.
The onus is on the visitor, not the pitcher, to initiate a mound visit--the pitcher cannot visit himself, hahaha. So in this case it is the catcher. To me, it is easy: Catcher can specify when he wants a mound visit: "Time, mound visit," and as long as it's on time before the clock or pitch motion/disengagement, sure, have your mound visit.
Completely agree with both of y'all. There was like a pause between the disengagement and mound visit. I'm assuming that they were in disagreement about what pitch to throw, which is understandable. That's going to happen, but then the catcher needs to handle that before the pitcher steps off.
But the umpires also need to communicate better as well,
If you rewatch, the "pause" is the time it takes the catcher to look over his shoulder to tell the umpire this is to be a mound visit, as he's rising from his crouch.
@Thomas Ellis maybe so, but it was still 2 different acts.
Step off, then mound visit.
To me, catcher calls time 1st and goes to the mound, that's 1 act and then it's only a mound visit in my opinion,
@Thomas Ellis i just rewatched it. He disengages, then there's a pause, catcher turns his head, prolly to verbally call time and then goes out.
To me, that's 2 acts,
What’s the point of each umpire showing what they believe is the situation if they aren’t going to look at each other and make sure they get it figured out?
Indeed, the umps appeared to get a bit complacent there.
Remember when explaining the infield fly was an umpire's toughest job.
Infield fly is brain-dead simple. Anytime there is a force at 3B, and fewer than two outs, a fair fly ball that can be caught with ordinary effort by any infielder results in the batter being out.
To me if the umpire called the disengagement already, then it’s similar to an ejection and is irreversible, especially considering the catcher gets up after the umpire has completed his indication motions
This rule is infuriating. This needs to be addressed now and made much more clear because there's too much miscommunication about the rule. Manfred and epstein are single handedly running the game.
Cool you also noticed that about Statler and Waldorf, bka Manfred and Epstein
I dont think this is a rules issue tbh, if you step off, its a disengagement. The catcher clearly isn't planning on going out until after he sees Cobb step off. Would have been good to see the umps conference right when it happened to clear it up, because they would have probably come to a better conclusion
The catcher goes out there to stop the pitch timer from going off because Cobb disengaged from the mound. Now wether you want to count it as a step off like Lindsay said is a gray area.
@@benjaminwirth1208 then the catcher should have called time (before the clock runs out) instead of the pitcher stepping off. IMO this should not negate the disengagement
@@andrecanis4894 that’s where it leaves me too because what if the offense has a go on first movement from the pitcher? Then what? It’s still a play on the runner.
@@benjaminwirth1208 How is any of that a "play on the runner"? If I'm just standing holding the ball, I'm not making any sort of play on a runner.
@@ericwildfong the issue is once you step off you become an infielder with the ball and you can make a play on the runner. Runner and everyone else still has to react as if you’re throwing over when the back foot moves first.
Yall have done a great job for years and this year has been the toughest I'm sure.
Keep up the great work,
Huh? What does this comment even refer too?
@ILoveCringeComments the great job close call sports has done on explaining rules and showing ejections,
This year might be the year for the “Greatest Amount of Ejections in a Season!”
MLB has put the umpires between a rock and a hard place with these new rules.
Most umpires could put themselves between a rock and a hard place in the middle of a pillow factory all on their own.
No they didn't the base coach tried to LIE and give his player a extra base
@@63076topher The base coach was told by the base umpire that it was a balk. Fixed it for you.
@@CommonSense823 The umpire only held up 1 finger why did he hold up 2?
@@63076topher Outstanding question. Glad you asked. Because the PU held up 1 before the mound visit and didn't communicate clearly otherwise to the base umpire. It's not hard to get it right between the crew while the catcher is talking to the pitcher. It should have been 2.
Also, there should be only one umpire on the field making this determination. That's where the problem really started.
Though, the mere fact that two umpires whose sole job is to enforce the rules couldn't agree on whether that was a disengagement should make it clear what a mess this rule is.
Amazes me how little broadcasters know.
Giants guys understood it, just not the incompetent homers the Brewers employ.
Check out the Minnesota ejection announcers, lol,
@@johnbutlerdesertpineshs8716
What are you talking about? The SF broadcasters in this video clearly say, “this has been handled so poorly by the umpires” & “does the mount visit negate the disengagement?” They don’t know either. Add to it the 1B ump was unknowingly giving Milwaukee incorrect info(or was it correct and the home plate ump is wrong🤷🏻♂️) with his 2 fingers…you can understand the frustration.
Remember that the broadcasters are picked, if not paid, by the team. Objectivity isn't desirable.
these new rules really do speed up the game...until there's 10 minutes of arguing because no one understand the rules 😂
SF catcher is very smart by going to the pitcher mound thus canceling Cobb's stepping off the mound disengagement! That's why I love the game of baseball
So, to me, if you step off first, that should be a disengagement. If the catcher calls time to go out there, then it should be a mound visit.
Here, he stepped off, then the catcher came out, so they should be charged with both. Pitcher stepped off while the catcher was still down. Then there's a pause, then time is called followed by the mound visit. To me, that's 2 different acts.
2. Can we put a communication system for the umpires to talk amongst themselves like the nfl has for situations like this. Where they can tell each other things like, that's 1 disengagement?
Yall are doing a great job with this channel. Keep up the great work,
Agree, it appeared as if the catcher decided to go out to the mound only after he saw the disengagement, perhaps intentionally seeking to use this rules vagueness to try and negate the disengagement.
@@wackybadger i think he prolly went out there because they wanted to get on the same page. I really doubt he was thinking about the rule. I think the disengagement was more about which pitch to throw as opposed to take advantage of the rule, which is prolly why there was a pause,
@@FoxtasticGaming but they can still not be on the same page for what pitch to throw,
@@FoxtasticGaming in a perfect world, absolutely, but in a perfect world, mlb should write the rules better,
@@FoxtasticGaming never should've been put in,
These new rules were put in place to speed up the game. And thus to attract more viewers. They need to see if that has happened. If not drop these stupid rules
The moment I heard about this incident I was looking forward to your video on it. Great job breaking this down and explaining what happened and the rules behind it. I do have a question, would it have been possible for this umpiring crew to have gone to New York for either a review or a rules check?
A rule check would have been meaningless after the fact. The HP umpire signaled one and that is what the pitcher is watching, not the base umpire behind him, and out of view. You can't then determine that the HP umpire is wrong, and penalize the pitcher
Exactly what they should've done. A disengagement followed by a mound visit doesn't negate the disengagement any more than a run scoring is negated by a third non-force-out happening after. *It already happened* and was signaled.
>90% this happened: CC missed seeing the first disengage. CC asks 1B "What are you doing?". 1B: "That was the third." CC: "You lost count, it was the second." CC makes his snap judgment public, HP stays quiet to not show up CC.
I think the big problem here is you have an umpire communicating wrong information to a runner which will cause him to take a bigger lead. If he gets thrown out, he will be out. But when he makes it back to the bag, he expects a free base because the umpire signaled to him that there were already 2 disengagements. Getting it right in the end kind of isn't good enough. Alternatively, if they had concluded that it was the third disengagement, the pitcher would be furious because his throw to first was based on the home plate umpire telling him he still had one left. So in that case, getting it right in the end also wouldn't be good enough.
Then what would be "good enough"? Every time umps use crew consultation to "get the call right" someone's gonna be upset regardless. It's not the umps job to tell the runner whether he should be taking a bigger lead or not, that's the base coaches job.
@@ericwildfong Sorting it out after the mound visit would have been good enough, regardless of the ruling. Allowing another play to happen with conflicting rulings on the field is absurd. If it's not the 1B ump job to keep track of the step offs, then he shouldn't be making the hand signals at all. If it is his job, then it's too late to fix it after the next step off. Imagine you have a simple safe/out call at first base, and the next hitter is only going to bunt if the runner is safe. Obviously you can't let the bunt happen and then go back to review the safe/out call. It's not the 1B ump job to tell hitter to lay down a sac bunt, but they are going to do it based on the game situation he created.
@@88keys81 It's not U1's job to call balls/strikes but they still keep track of the count, occasionally they might even relay it back to the PU. It's possible after the mound visit it was thought everyone was on the same page. Perhaps they should of corrected it after the "2nd" step-off but presumably the first time they realized the discrepancy was after the "3rd" one. It's likely not 1 umpire's job to count and track step offs just like they're all looking for balks. This is less like a safe/out call and more like an umpire forgetting the count (hence why multiple umps keep the count) and calling strike 3 when it's only strike 2.
i would interpret this as written to say if a mound visit causes a disengagement it does not count as a disengagement. if the pitcher steps off and 3 seconds later the catcher decides to start walking to the mound it should still count.
Lol can you throw someone back into the game? That would be hilarious. You’re back in
We knew going into the season it could be chaos. But as people get used to it, I think we will get less ejections and a better understanding of the rules. But I do love the speed of the games now.
There’s been too many ejections so far this season. This is truly a bad season so far.
For ejections, sure. For pace of play, it's been great.
I saw bits and pieces of this ejection as SOON AS I put on Quick Pitch that happened and Counsell had me dying laughing when he gets ejected as a Brewers fan 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I can't wait to see the whole thing in its entirety when all of may's ejections are uploaded lol.
Wow that's gotta be one of the most heated Counsell ejections I've seen. Let's go jomboy
Yes, I know the violation call itself isn’t reviewable, but I’m surprised the umps didn’t call New York for a rules check. Also, I think the crew chief should’ve gotten on the loudspeaker and and told the crowd and people watching on TV what the discussion was about - but I digress.
How was Counsell the only one tossed 😂
Players and umps are having to remember more and do more. Guess they all deserve a raise.
Really to this channel, just started watching. Been a watcher of Jomboy for a while. Gotta say I like your take on this stuff too, thsnks for the upload!
I understand the lack of clarity in the rule, but I absolutely do not want to go back to a time before the pitch clock. The product is so much better for the increased pace of play. Let's just take notes on the pieces that are confusing and cause issues like this and fix them for future seasons.
It feels rushed to me. Like we aren't seeing the best game on the field anymore. I'd scrap it. But I get it, if we want the game played quicker so we can get home sooner, it works for that.
@@brianvernaglia9449 We are seeing what baseball looked like in the 1980s and early 1990s, in terms of the pace. If they could do it then, players sure as heck can do it now. I never again want to see a guy like Nomar Garciaparra take 30-40 seconds every freaking pitch, screwing with his gloves and massaging his bat to no end. He increased game times 5-10 minutes alone, all dead time. There will be detractors for every step of progress or change, and that's an opinion one is entitled to, but there is no doubt this is good for the long-term health of the game.
@@closethockeyfan5284 All is fair enough. I think the slow down of the game over the last 30 years was caused by realizing they (both pitchers and hitters) could be more effective doing so. (i.e. the players were better with a slower game). Speeding it up means we don't see peak performance from players. Which I guess is okay.
If we are stuck with a pitch clock, let's at least exempt throws to first as that dramatically favors the runner. I'd also like to see the penalties be outside of the game. If you take too long at bat, you pay a 1000$ fine. Next time 2000$. Next time 5000$, etc or something like that. I don't like to see the game impacted so dramatically for the sake of speed. I know they tried in the past, but make the fine progressive. Nomar could pay 50,000 per game by the end.
Right now it’s more at 90s pace. It won’t go to 70s/80s pace until they shorten the commercial lengths and get rid of all the advertising. There were no advertisements on the field or the walls until the 90s either.
Agreed, JoRyGu. Just because we're seeing a few growing pains as umps and players adapt, it doesn't make them bad rules. The game is better than ever this year. The person who made this video is just a whiner with no interesting insights to offer. I'm blocking this channel going forward.
The other thing that threw me off is that Cobb's move on the relevant disengagement may have bene a balk on the move not the throwover count.
The problem with all of this is that the pitch clock is doing SO MUCH for the time of games (at least a 15% reduction across the board), nothing is going to get done about it.
There was a significant gap between the pitcher stepping off the rubber and the catcher calling for time for a mound visit. Looks like two separate acts to me, which is why the 1B umpire counted it as a disengagement.
Funniest part is cobb made a legit balk on the pickoff. He moved his left foot prior to stepping off with his right.
Wonderful, evocative end image. Artistically done!
I like the pitch clock. I like the speed of the game currently. But goddamn I hate how confusing the rules are now. 99% of the time the game is improved but that 1% is a circus so far.
It says the mound visit does not count as a disengagement. It does not say a mound visit negates a disengagement. Therefore - pitcher disengeges (first disengagement), catcher make a mound visit - disengegement still stands.
This is just new for everyone, doesn't mean we should go back to before the pitch clock because one game had a delay when all the others that day finished faster than previous years
Why can’t they all just agree that they forgot about the rule, accept their mistake, learn from it and move on? I don’t get why every objection has to turn into a family feud
"It's like the mound visit exclusion part of the rule was NEVER presented to Milwaukee ahead of the season."
With Counsell, it's more like most of the rule book was never presented to Milwaukee ahead of the season.
With Manfred, it's like most of the rule book was never presented to anyone ahead of the season.
@@priceright8963 Fair.
To quote Jim Joyce: "If we put $100 bills in the rulebooks that we hand out to the clubs at the beginning of Spring Training, we'd get 80-90% of our money back when they turn them in at the end of the season."
I understand the need to speed the game up some and create higher scoring games but it's being approached in such a terrible way.
I honestly prefer the NCAA's pitch clock rules better. The penalties are still the same as MLB, but certain aspects are different. For instance, pick off attempts are not limited. However the pitcher can only disengage with the pitcher's plate one time (if the pitcher disenages a second time, he has to throw to an occupied base). The penalty is just an automatic ball, not a balk.
I feel like any game speed up gained by using a pitch clock is being lost to all these arguments and ejections. Also are we on track for most ejections for a season? It seems just leaving the dugout is ejection worthy at this point. I know there are rules to say when to eject people but it's making umps look soft and the game weak as a whole
It might feel like that but the games are almost 30 minutes shorter on average this year, so…nope
Gonna be honest, I think there's a much bigger issue here if this is how whole coaching groups are going to act about a couple of disengagements. One that exists outside of, and began long long before the pitch clock rule changes.
Amen. Managers are just whiners, and it’s long past time MLB put a stop to it. It’s embarrassing and disrespectful to the game. Could you imagine if a football coach stopped a game for 10 minutes to run out onto the field to berate an official? The NFL would never allow such BS, and neither should MLB. Large fines and lengthy unpaid suspensions would fix this nonsense.
As for the pitch timer rules…it’s been a month. If anyone expected there would not take some time to work things out they are hopelessly naive. Umpires simply being horrible at their jobs is a far, far greater problem in the game than how they handle an infantile manager fit.
@@mph7282 It's been a month + spring training, but yeah sure they'll be growing pains with the new rules, on both the team's and umpires' parts. Just cause the umps don't have the new rules down 100% doesn't make them horrible at their jobs either.
@@ericwildfong correct. They are often horrible at their jobs, but not because they are still learning the subtleties of the pitch timer rules.
@@mph7282 Oh they are, are they? Cause I imagine you'd do so much better than the people whos job it is to study the rulebook.
@@ericwildfong you are *this* close to actually getting it. But alas…
If you're going to use hand signals, you should actually pay attention to the signals. This happens at every level. Umpires go through the motions of the signals but don't actually pay attention to each other.
This was easy, step off designment. Then mound visit. HP ump kicked this hard.
Mound visits by the catcher typically start with the pitcher stepping off in the middle of an AB.
This looks like another example of "failure of imagination"-apparently MLB didn't stop to think about things like whether a mound visit negates a disengagement and let the umpires know what the rule is.
Personally, I think it should only negate it if there's a possible injury, but whatever the decision is, it needs to be communicated to the umpires and the teams.
I would tend to agree that if the catcher is willing to use one of their allotted mound visits, that should negate the disengagement.
Approved ruling: F1 disengages the pitchers plate then before the next pitch, play, or attempted play, a charged mound visit, injury visit, or pitching change occurs, a disengagement shall not be charged.
Really poor communication within the umpires. When U1 holds up two fingers, the runner is going to take a larger lead and that really puts them at a disadvantage
Why not wear on field communication devices to where the umpires can communicate with each other?
Nowhere in the rules does it say that the mound visit that happens after a disengagement erases the disengagement. If the first disengagement was a pick off attempt (not just a step off, although both moves are defined exactly the same as a disengagement), and then the catcher comes out to talk to the pitcher, does the pitcher get 2 more pick off attempts without a balk called? No.
It will be fine. Always take a season to understand for everyone.
It's much like the pitching change negates the charged mound visit... You wondered why all the ejections this year... all the players and coaches dealing with the new pitch clock rules. Painful now.. but in a few years, nobody will even think about them.
When Manfred continues to put the umpires in lose-lose situations, things like this happen.
When the rules meant to shorten the game cause the game to become longer from time to time i.e. Any time one of these rules is broken sans pitch clock violations (read: not you Machado).
I agree that the rule needs to be clarified, however I'm not sure why everyone gets so upset about these things when they first happen. An unexpected situation arises and then you issue a clarification or situation specific rule. No rule making body can anticipate every situation. In fact, trying to account for every possible situation in a general rule would make the rule even more confusing.
Why didn't HPU and 1U get together and discuss this if they saw they had two different disengagement calls and then explain... 1st Base Coach went on good faith that 1U had the right count...
10 years ago, this game took an hour longer, even without this drama. 10 years ago, MLB baseball was a boring snoozefest, only an excuse for some people to drink lots of beer.
This play is continued PROOF to the world that MLB is messaging that they want to address pace of play but, what they REALLY like...is all of the on-field drama between the umpires, coaches and players. Look...games evolve and rules have to be updated. In my opinion, MLB is the slowest North American pro sports league at acknowledging their on-field problems and addressing them in their rules. I support the pitch clock and I support measures to move the games along. If MLB is going to change the rules, they must understand that there are going to be further refinements to those rule changes because players and coaches will change and update their actions and decisions in-game to find advantages around the new rule that the rulebook editor(s) did not anticipate. (see Scherzer, Maxwell Martin...) When you are dealing with rulebook changes in any league, you must be ready for this and you must have a mechanism in place to properly address it to keep the games equitable. All MLB has to do is issue further direction and or revision to the rules...and then publicize them to the teams and media so everyone can be aware of how the game should be played and how the rules should be enforced. With CloseCallSports doing their thing nearly EVERY day during baseball season, you have a defacto arm of MLB doing all the legwork and identifying the problematic plays and situations. MLB could include these or just use the game footage with their public and private communications to help the teams understand the rules. I do not understand why this is so difficult to resolve. Which must mean THIS is the product they want out there for the world to consume...
Oh man, the Gooch looks worn out by the end of this video. 🤣
MLB needs to do something about these new rules. They should of explained it better to teams and umpires.
It is crazy hope it gets better I like the pitch clock as an umpire games get over much faster😂😊😊
Ah yes, the ultimate "manager argues over bad call and gets ejected" conflict.
After all that arguing did they really save any time by having the pitch clock? I've never saw so many managers getting ejected as i have this year. It's ridiculous!!!
Might be time to add the number of current disengagements to the scoreboard or other electronic sign…
Another manager tossed because of the new rule
The umps are not paying attention to each other. The plate umpire should have taken a moment and made sure they were all on the same page. BASEBALL Umpires Don't TALK TO EACH OTHER. On a soccer field you ALWAYS make sure , as the center ref, you and ypour assistants are on the same page. Referees, in the professional leagues , wear headsets so they are always communicating . I know you hate the new rules. But instead of blaming the rules, blame MLB and the Umpires Union for not giving the umps extra training and for not encouraging communication between umps on a crew.
Are you shitting me? Umpires are constantly communicating between pitches. Why else would these umpire-to-umpire signals exist?
That following the umpire should end up with the umpires going back into position and calling play and if the ejected coach is still there they call the batter our. And obviously the pitch clock rules are something no-one bothered to really think too hard about.
If a mound visit negates a disengagement, would an offensive timeout negate it also? What about an injury timeout (offense and/or defense).
One of the things I hate about these rules that "improve the game" is you eventually have rules to clarify those rules and you have three pages of rules you have to go through. How does trying to explain all this to a new fan help to grow the game?
Yes. In this video there is a screen shot where it literally says injury timeouts dont count as disengagement.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm not asking if an injury timeout is a disengagement. I'm asking if an injury timeout negates a disengagement. It could be something similar to this video, but an injury timeout instead of a mound visit. Or what if the pitcher steps off and a few seconds later says his PitchCom isn't working? Or what if the pitcher fakes an inside move, tweaks his ankle a bit, and it becomes an injury timeout?
Why not just put a tee on the plate and eliminate the pitcher altogether? These pitch clock rules and disengagement rules suck!! 😡
I feel like the catcher was smart, knew the situation and tried to nullify it himself by visiting, hence that slight hesitation. I don't think there was any intention to visit just a pitcher disengaging to give himself time.
It seems Counsell is always complaining about the pitch clock.. It's like he doesn't even know the rules
Stop your whining and complaining about the new rules. They will take a little time to get all of the quirks and unexpected issues sorted out (Max Scherzer rule change), but overall, it's turning what had become a boring time wasting game back into a sport. Managers and players need to stop barking at the umps when a call doesn't go their way, and the ejections will decrease. Throw the ball, hit the ball, run, catch the ball. That simple.
Y'all are acting like this is all that difficult. Just put a couple of dots next to the countdown timer showing how many timeouts / disengagements the batter / pitcher has left, just like how each stadium has a counter for "Remaining Mound Visits". Problem solved. All the umpires can see it, and if there's a mistake, they can correct it right away.
There needs to be a heavy fine for not getting off the field in a timely manner after having been ejected.
Counsell will probably be writing a check. At one point, a coach or manager who was ejected was usually suspended as well, but that didn't last long.
MLB is so rotten compared to 20 years ago. Virtually all of the rules changes that started with Buster Posey and Utley's leg break slide have been for the worse, not better.
They have immediate review with the league in New York, so just get on the headphones and clear it up immediately. MLB has to quickly and publicly own up to these situations. Btw, imo he stepped off the rubber before the catcher called time.
Whats with the MLB trying to make the game "Faster" with these pitch clocks and disengagement rules? No fans are complaining about the game being "too slow". Just put the limit on two checks for a base runner. That's it. None of this other unnecessary stuff. The fans care more about fairness of umpires. This rule just adds to the chaos that umpires don't need.
The NL shouldn't have picked up the DH spot on the roster. I considered that a defensive advantage.
I guess no actual games are being played anymore, because where we used to watch and discuss highlights of hits, strikeouts, errors, etc...All we talk about this season is the clock. Day after day, it's application of the clock, who got ejected over the clock, whether a stepoff is a "disengagement" or not under the new clock rule.
Even though the clock is now part of the game, the clock isn't the game, and NOBODY watches highlights/analysis hoping for more clock coverage.
Lemme know when MLB rolls back the pitch clock and they actually start playing baseball again.
They need to tweak the rules anyway doubt it stays the same for next season they might even tweak it midseason
Baseball commissioner wanted. Idiots need not apply.
Stepped off before the catcher called time, counts as 1 is how I see it. New rules fun!
I agree with the sentiment of the video. I think we should look at this as a microcosm of society. Making too many rules, without considering the side effects, can cause things like this.
Oh man, you absolutely nailed it!!
For everyday folks, maybe. For the people at the top, there are fewer rules than any point the last 100 years.
This is not baseball.
Another case of an entire crew screwing up and affecting a game. No consequences for the umpire’s inability to do their jobs correctly, causing the entire situation with their incompetence. But the manager will get ejected and fined for something caused entirely by the umpire crew. Nice work MLB and the umpire’s union.
Prob is umpires got it right, no effect to the game. 2 disengagement, first base ump.and hp got it right and back to business. The first base coach and skipper need to calm down for rules explanation
@@arley2246 if they had it right, there would be no need for the base coach or manager to say anything. The fact that two umpires have two different calls is the problem, but they will never be held accountable for it.
@@CommonSense823 i thought the 1st base umpire got it right.
Disengagement, pause, mound visit.
Should've been charged with both,
@chris kinkaid one of those either/or situations. Rule doesn't state you can charge both on same instance
@@arley2246 no doubt.
I would only because we had the disengagement followed by the mound visit,
Fantastic way to end with Gooch's hand on his forehead. "Craig.... ugh"
MLB needs to improve in a lot of areas. Including there rules and there umpires crews and injuries and who is In replay that week.
These rules aren't that hard to follow v
LOL! Well paid adults who don't know the rules yet. Craig counsel is a fiasco all by himself. Well done Lindsay, I feel your pain.
This is why baseball will fail in there attempt to speed up games just get rid of replay and timing rules go back to the original game rules
Good job highlighting an issue that needs to be addressed with this situation. Does the mound visit negate the pitcher disengagement? Clearly, that is not clear. And I hope this gets an official answer pretty soon. I'd hate to see this become an issue later in the season or in the playoffs.
As to the pitch clock - I personally like it. Games were getting unbearably long. My unscientific survey of the games I've watched says that the rule has knocked something between 30 and 45 minutes off game times. It might even be a bit too much. There is room to tweak the rule, and perhaps a tweak or two towards a slightly less rushed game would be good. But the rule in general is doing what it was designed to do.
The umps messed up but it doesn't cause an out or hurt the Brewers. I think the manager needs to let it go after giving them an earful. I don't envy the umpires but they signed up for this and they continue to mess things up. If the mound visit undoes the disengagement (not sure why it would) then that needs to be communicated to the teams and other umpires so everyone is on the same page.
As a Brewers fan, Counsell and the Crew have been struggling with the umpires for a few weeks now. Counsell got ejected last week too after the umpires messed a whole other situation up. I think the team is just very frustrated right now with the umpires not following the rules as they are written.
All together, now, loud as we can yell: THE PITCH CLOCK SUCKS!!!
PITCH CLOCK FOR PRESIDENT
Mound visit counts as an disengagement in my opinion
Your opinion is contrary to the written rules of baseball.
It also would have never happened if Counsell and his coaches read the flipping rules. We have a disengagement THEN the catcher ask for time to talk to the pitcher. No second disengagement. THEN we have a pickoff. Second disengagement. TBH the 1B umpire is just as culpable for screwing the rule up. However, as usual, Counsell is so misinformed about the rules his brain won't let him accept that the umpires have corrected a mistake.
MLB needs to get the umpires communicating more with each other and with the teams. When I was officiating football we all communicated with each other about things like how many timeouts a team had left. We also communicated with the coaches that they had "X" number of timeouts left after they had called one. On the baseball field I made it a habit to inform a coach whether or not he had used his one per inning mound visit (OBR) or how many visits he had left of his three per game (NFHS) before he had to replace his pitcher.
There was the mound visit and two pickoff attempts. Not one
@@matts8211 The mound visit does not count as a disengagement.
Counsell saw, as the first base umpire and first base coach saw, that the Giants catcher manipulated the rule. The pitcher stepped off several moments before the catcher called time for a visit. How I saw the situation, the pitcher disengaged which then prompted the catcher to have a mound visit after the fact to talk about the disengagement. This should have still counted as a disengagement AND a mound visit!
I went to this game.
Following MLB rules is now as difficult as trying to follow the rules of the card game Canasta.
They should have left the game like it was instead of making new rules every year…
Looks like a lot of confusion with this one. From principal of the rule the HP Ump got it right. However, we need to communicate more about these new rules a bit more for fans that want to watch this great sport. Very sad circumstances here.
And announcers, sounds like they pull people off the street watching for the first time.
I think the rule makers neglected to address a timing element in this rule. It's common sense that the step off was not tethered to the mound visit. They were independent of each other.
@Closet Hockey Fan they need to a memo to say when a timeout can be called. As it states this can be legally abused