Thats one of the worst overturns I've seen in a long time. Everyone did their job correctly on the field, and NY overturns it from hundreds of miles away.
It was kinda of mentioned, but if the runners path is impeded it counts too. Looking at how close the play was on the field, the judgment of the rule in this instance is that if the runner didn’t have to swing back to get the open plate he would have been safe, which is true (again, considering how close the play was with the runner having to change trajectory proves this). Hence the conclusion is: he’s safe if the ball is thrown on target, which means the catcher wouldn’t have to switch sides, which impeded the runner, which allowed the tag to happen before the runner got home. If you understand the basic rules and the judgement calls it makes 100% sense. I still don’t agree though lol, these rules are crazy
I appreciate your explanation of the rules in question here. I really do, because otherwise I would have absolutely NO CLUE why they would overturn this call based on that replay. This is the most ludicrous example of "technically correct is the best kind of correct" that I've ever seen with replay. They took an excellent baseball play and disallowed it in favor of an incoherent interpretation of a safety rule in a situation that had no safety concern. One of these days MLB is going to remember that baseball is supposed to be an entertainment product, but today is not that day.
I agree. I am for a rule that prevents home plate collisions, but this is overly nuanced, because it involves judgement on whether the catcher needed to occupy any portion of the plate. Well replay review team, that's easy for you to judge when you slow down the play. You try receiving a 70 mph throw while checking that your feet don't touch the plate. The catcher should be given more leeway with receiving the throw. I would suggest a standard of not blocking over half the plate when receiving a throw. That allows the catcher a fair opportunity to clear part of the plate while still focusing on receiving the throw. He simply needs to be on one side of the plate; he doesn't have to focus on avoiding the plate altogether. And it'd still mean the catcher must allow the full plate when he's not adjusting to the throw - because the catcher can afford to check his exact positioning in that situation.
@@DAK4Blizzard I understand that NY wants to prevent catchers from abusing the rule in a way that would let them block the plate when fielding the ball (as in a situation where the catcher didnt have to move as much to receive a throw but did anyway to block the runner), but this is just too much. Like David said, they took an excellent baseball play and disallowed based on a technicality. I also understand the attempt to remove judgement calls from replay ("stick to the letter of the law and all replay calls will be the same" but that is not the case anyway, especially with home plate violations). Allowing replay officials to interpret and judge situations individually might be opening pandora's box, but the way it is right now they're not making themselves friends either. I have an out here in this video every time. Good call on DJ for seing that close tag!
@@johannesney2132 Ironically, I think the rule as written allows circumstances for catchers to fully block the plate when fielding the ball. (For example, the catcher is a few feet in front of plate, the throw is directly to the plate, so the catcher shifts and blocks the plate to field it.) I accept that some judgement is probably necessary. I think it's fair to judge whether the catcher needed to move to field the ball. By setting a standard on how much of the plate can be blocked, it's a check against the catcher "faking" a move in order to fully block the plate. That standard also eliminates the subjective variable of "Did the catcher need that body part blocking the plate to field the ball?" It becomes an objective variable of "How much of the plate did the catcher's body block?" The one big complication I can think of is how to determine the fraction of the plate blocked when the catcher isn't on the plate. I'd say it could use a comment guiding that process. I'd suggest the start of the home plate circle (currently 13 ft from the back of the plate) can be the threshold for referencing how much of home plate is blocked, and the standard can be whether the catcher is on both sides of the 3B lines when receiving the throw. (If he is, that's considered blocking over half the plate.) If the catcher is further up the 3B line from that point, the current rules apply: he can block the entire path to the plate if he's moving to receive the ball. And yes, we're in agreement the runner should've been out here.
This ruling was absurd. There's not a single person in the world who could have fielded that throw without moving. I mean the fact that he moved right before the bounce even benefited the runner, because it still did give him that half second to decide to slide toward the first base corner. He likely would have been out even if the throw was right on the money.
And the catcher was at the back of the plate. if the catcher took the front of the plate, I might agree with the overturn, but the catcher did everything right in my opinion.
It wasn't necessary, at all, for the catcher to keep his foot extended onto and covering part of home plate while waiting for the ball. There's no requirement to touch a base or home plate if it's not a force play. A tag was needed. The catcher did what was reasonably convenient for him to reposition himself for the catch and then the tag. Unfortunately, the new rules don't allow the catcher to act in a manner that's reasonably convenient for the catcher, because it's a safety rule that should reduce collisions and injuries and perhaps also a rule to encourage aggressive base running and scoring. ***I think the runner should've been out. But this is my explanation for how they might justify the overturn -- if the league doesn't issue a clarification or revision as a result of this play.
@@danielj6880 I agree with your assessment. I do think the rule lacks intentionality. I don't think most fielders would have 100% awareness of their feet when trying to square up a throw in anticipation of a runner and tag. Here the catcher hops over the plate indicating he knows the plate is a no go zone but leaves part of his foot on the plate. It's not like other catchers who drop the shin guard as the ball is coming. I can't see the "changing base path" since the runner (especially one as savvy as andrus) always alters path based on fielder. Runners are lauded for moving INTO the path of the ball when a throw is behind them in order to get in the way. The runner here could be moving inside in hopes the ball hits them. My opinion is as is, it's a tough overturn, but there should be even more clarity on receiving throws.
Part of the game at catcher is maneuvering - instinctively - to force the runner to make adjustments. I consider this play by Heim a masterful maneuver to force Andrus to alter his approach - WITHOUT BREAKING THE RULE. He did not block access to the plate. What was he supposed to do, not square up naturally to receive the incoming ball? Was he supposed to think, Andrus is coming on the third base side of the plate and wants to touch that side of it so I better reach way out to my left to hopefully catch the ball on a bounce and then try to make a completely awkward, off-balance tag just so Andrus can have an easier route?
This is the first time in awhile that I absolutely cannot see a reason to overturn the call here. I'm shocked. Like, this ejection wasn't for arguing really. It was out of pure shock and disbelief.
What the catcher did on this play -- he made it look easy, but he executed magnificent awareness and precision in a combination of athleticism and fairness to the runner in the spirit of NOT blocking the plate. That was an amazing play by all on the field. If that is a violation in today's version of the game, then don't stop with robo-umpires ... we might as well have robo-players and robo-everything.
Yep, his initial position.. correct. Ball hops and causes person to move... correct... add to it, the catcher stayed at the BACK of the plate and ceded the entire front of the plate to the runner. More then correct, it should be textbook.
@@ingiford175 I'm agreeing with both of you. ADD to that that the point of replay is to overturn clear errors! Clear and convincing errors. This was FAR from that. It was an amazing play. And the rule itself allows for judgement by the umpire on the field, which they correctly used!
Stellar defense negated by thumb-twiddling in New York. The more this rule is applied, the more it's intended to punish the catcher instead of protect him.
It’s intended to fuck over the Rangers. The MLB never wanted the Senators 2.0 to happen and now they have that vestigial team in the Rangers left over…
@@dylancampbell8064 They were the sad replacement team in DC starting in 1961 and failed there as the fans tore up RFK stadium in their final game there. They moved to DFW and continue to be a sad and downtrodden franchise that has one of the longest WS title droughts ever and the longest for any expansion team.
Ironic that a rule implemented to protect catchers is primarily used to penalize catchers for making perfect defensive plays. Essentially what they're saying he did wrong was accurately reading the throw and adjusting his position with the maximum time possible to allow the runner a safe sliding path. You know, the very thing that the rule is intended to promote. For the entire lifespan of this rule (which I wholeheartedly support in concept, in the interests of safety), it has been a perfect example of a poorly-written rule that hurts every party involved, including officials. If ever there's a rule of any kind where you can't give a clear answer to "what was he supposed to do instead?" then it needs to be rewritten.
Excellent post. I was in row 11 section 115 when Buster was injured and lost for the season. It was a merciless football move into a catcher who was not blocking home plate, and did not have possession of the ball. Baseball was changed in that moment. The pendulum will most likely swing back to a more reasonable rule interpretation. You are correct, and have the best post I have read so far. A rule meant to protect catchers has protected baserunners.
@@cushmfg yes sir. Catchers need to get smart and play the rules makers game. Stand in front of home plate and sweep tag. It’s exactly what Posey was doing when his season was ended by a vicious tackle. MLB acted swiftly and with too much restriction for catchers. The rule was suppose to restrict runners, not catchers. The pendulum will swing back. Bochy was Posey’s manager when he was injured. He himself was a catcher. He has some influence. His public statement is powerful. Big owners own the rules committee. The pendulum will most likely swing back to a more reasonable interpretation of the rule.
At this point, the MLB might as well have the rule say, the catcher has to have the ball before the runner rounds third base, or else the runner has to score, since catchers can't seem to do anything right since this stupid rule was announced and is constantly being misinterpreted. The runner should be the ONLY one that rule applies to since they're the ones who can cause the impact and injure either themselves or the catcher. If a catcher has the ball and is in your running lane, you're going to be out, and the lowering of a shoulder to slam into the catcher in an attempt to force the ball out is a bad show of sportsmanship. You got beat, accept it with grace.
@@Baldeagle-tw2nv I feel like the simple, straightforward way to address this is to just say that the runner is awarded home if the catcher - without possession of the ball - blocks the "front" of home plate. I would consider that to be the half of the plate closest to third base, not the flat edge facing the mound. Then couple that with a sliding rule that's similar to what there is on double play balls, and you're good. The dangerous play is a catcher putting their body out in front and the runner coming through full steam. Eliminate both of those and even if there's a collision, it'll be considerably less risk of injury to either party. As well, it puts the onus on BOTH parties to play safe, instead of "the catcher must be perfect" being the only consideration.
Remember all those years we were told if only umpire calls could be subjected to review through instant replay then everything would be just hunky dory?
What you can say is that replay in NEW YORK has a vested interest in the outcome of the game, which is not the first time I've thought that. If there ever was a time a manager should have pulled his team into the locker and forfeited the game in protest, this was it.
What's frustrating is that Heim (a young player) is clearly concentrating to make sure he starts in a good position, and that he fields the ball only when necessary and gives the runner part of the plate. Doing all that, he still tags him out, but is called for a violation. Might as well not make it so clean next time...
Runner's hand was just blocked by foot in FRONT of homeplate and embarrassingly inconsistent NEW YORK says player was out. Just happened in Cincinnati on 6/30/2023. Compare the two plays and ask yourself how the same NEW YORK crew could make such inconsistent calls. They are HORRIBLE!!!
You definitely explained that better than the big sports channels. I am a Rangers fan and I, of course, am very biased by the outcome, but you opened my eyes to the explanation of the rule as it pertains to the play. Excellent work and keep it up.
So people complained that there should be instant replay to get the calls right. Now there’s instant replay and they get calls right. Still - people whine and complain.
The irony is that it was Bruce Bochy's SF Giants, specifically poor positioning by Buster Posey and subsequent broken leg, that led to this rule's creation.
@@frig5956 I have no personal interest in this game so the outcome doesn’t matter to me. Maybe the rule is killing it off. Seems the on field ump had it correct and replay interpreted the rule differently
I hate the way that rule has been applied. It just rewards bad baserunning and kills great defensive plays. Great throw, he gave him a lane, the tag beats him and still called safe on review. I mean he touches home plate milliseconds within being tagged so HOW DID HE NOT HAVE A LANE?
i mean the argument is that if he had his original lane that was taken away from him on the outside of the plate, the milliseconds he was out would've mattered and he would've been safe having to not waste milliseconds on slightly changing his direction. not saying I agree
How is that bad running? The catcher said you come from the foul side, that's the side that's clear to you and then, no, I changed my mind, that's a bad base running, you should have come by the fair side.
"Great throw". Arguably a better throw would have been to inside of home plate where the catcher originally set up, and then the outside of home plate would have been clear for the runner sliding in. One of the issues with rules like this is that players are trained to play in a way that causes conflict. Baserunners are trained to run between the fielder and the catcher so as to make it harder for the catcher to catch. Catchers are trained to set themselves up on the most direct line and force the player to go around. For a "non-contact" sport there is a great deal of "playing chicken" with the other team and going right up to the edge of what you can do without causing actual contact. With a rule change like this it is no surprising there are additional instances where it isn't clear what the desired behavior is.
@ericblair5731 the ball hit the ground and bounced, you can't control which direction the ball bounces. I garuntee that the outfielder's intent was to bounce the ball towards homeplate on the fair side, where the catcher was, the ball bounced foul and the catcher responded to catch the ball. If it had gone further left and the catcher moved left even more the base runner STILL would've changed lanes to be AWAY from the catcher. Based on your interpretation it would be an overturn even though the catcher left both lanes, because the base runner decided to change lanes at the last second. Runners will ALWAYS change lanes last second to try and fake out a baseman or catcher, it's stupid to call interference when there's enough time for a runner to see how something developed and adjust accordingly.
If blocking the plate is so specific that it depends on which corner of the plate is left open, then it should say that in the rules. The rules do not mention how much of the plate or what corner of the plate must be left open and thus the vagueness opens up to the exact circumstance we see here. Furthermore, if the MLB intended there to be refinement in the rule they should have released such refinement immediately, which didn't happen.
Whereas I agree with your comments in the video, I disagree with the title -- what "Collision"? The catcher did not block the full plate, and the runner slid with his arm out. There was no "collision."
This was absolutely the right call on the field. I would have went nuts too, if I were Bochy. Had the catcher not moved to the other side of the plate, he would have had to reach for the ball, and since we were young, we were taught to get in front of the ball. This is exactly what he did. The fact that he moved before it bounced is a non-issue to me. Its obvious that the catcher can see the path of the throw before it bounces. The runner was given the entire front of the plat to touch. Completely a bad overturn by NY. But the real issue here is that if it had been some scrub 2nd string catcher that got blown up instead of superstar Buster Posey, this rule would not even exist.
Coaches have no choice but to argue these, even though they’re out of the umpires’ hands. If they don’t argue, these calls will never get New York’s attention and be perceived as “controversial”.
So, apparently, according to some bureaucratic fiat from New York, the catcher wasn't supposed to move to the opposite side of the plate in order to prevent the ball from sailing to the backstop because ... reasons. Yet another reason why Manfred's MLB is becoming more unwatchable every day.
I just don't see how, even with the cather's change of positioning, they could say he didn't have a lane. He had the entire front of the plate so slide towards.
@@arley2246 So? The catcher is permitted to make a legitimate attempt to field the throw, and that's exactly what the catcher did. By rule, that's not a violation.
Did the bat on the ground change the direction of the runners decision to head slide from the right to left of home plate or would that no matter there was gonna be a collision anyways?
This is the type of controversy that results when idiots keep tweaking with the rules -- rules that have been around for over 100 years, and everything was fine.
even if we say that the catcher impeded the runner by moving, where is the block of the plate? with his foot on top of the plate the runner can still reach every edge.
Phenomenal breakdown explaining the rule and the circumstances and applicability in this play at the plate. The irony of this call and the substantiating rule is that it was Bruce Bochy's SF Giants, specifically Buster Posey in poor position leading to a broken leg, that led to MLB creating this rule. I personally do not like the rule, but I'm certain owners also don't like paying their All-Star catchers to sit on the IL because they were plowed over at the plate leading to injury.
No one wants to see a catcher get plowed over at the plate, well maybe Pete Rose, and any player that does should be immediately banned from the game. The interesting thing is that this rule came about in a result of the Buster Posey collission and would have done NOTHING to prevent that. Posey was in the correct position in front of the plate, then turned to make the tag once he thought he had caught the ball. It's also worth nothing that even when attempting to make the tag he was STILL in fair territory and NOT blocking any access to the plate. It is 100% obviously that Cousins was NOT going for home plate, but rather targeting Posey directly.
I'm a lifelong baseball fan and have umpired for almost 20 years. I think players should be insta-banned for malicious contact at the plate. I think batter runners should be called out for running in fair territory to first whether it interferes with a play or not. But this play is too much. The game was never supposed to have lawyers officiating plays. The gamesmanship of something like a middle infielder "getting in the head" of a runner at second has always been a part of the game. First, I disagree that the catcher didn't need to move. Anyone with a brain could see that the throw was going to bounce and the best way to field a bounced throw/batted ball is to center your body on it so that if it bounces to either side you have the range to get it. Second, even if he didn't need to move, to take the athletic performance away over what was clearly not intended to block a lane is just a travesty.
On so many levels a bad call. He obviously had to move, and was right to move, the ball bounced right at him, he wasn't positioning to block and then reaching out to catch, he was positioning to catch! Next, the point of replay is for clear and convincing errors, not lawyer nitpicks. Because the rule repeatedly allows for umpire judgement, how in the HELL does NY overturn this as a clear error. The ump used judgement! And made a good call.
you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but calling a batter-runner out for running to first in fair territory even if he doesnt interfere with the play? I could NOT disagree with you more!
So from now on, should we just wave all runners by the bases to ensure no one possibly gets in their way? No more double play attempts because the guy turning the play at 2nd might possibly interfere with the runner? This was a ridiculous overturn, Elvis (he used to play for the Rangers a few years ago) had PLENTY of room to get in there and he was beaten. And "wide turn at 3rd" shouldn't give him free reign to run into the dugouts and then come in behind the plate, that's nonsense. He was beaten on the throw from left field, plain and simple. The ump on the field got the call right, I don't know what wild hair New York had up their collective asses on this call. Opening a very bad box there, Pandora. A very very bad box with that overturn.
I mean the rule already has the language right in it. "It shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway in a legitimate attempt to field the throw". No changes or clarifications need be made here. It is already crystal clear as-is. What is needed is accountability from whoever is adjudicating replays back in New York. Perhaps an adult literacy assessment would be in order also. There's no way a reasonable person watches that play and perceives anything but a legitimate attempt to field the throw, there.
I can understand Lindsay's explanation of "replay's" reasoning here. Lindsay does a FANTASTIC job here trying to and definitely helps the public to understand and part of the explanation was drowned out by the crowd here so I didn't here what this umpires says here and that's all the public have to go on. MLB should be making these videos but then Lindsay wouldn't have 30,000 subscribers. Congrats 🎉 Lindsay, hope you don't ignore my question :-).
This is a crazy overturn. You have a great call on the field. The evidence should be CLEAR that something was wrong. Obviously the catcher has to move over to catch this ball and the rule is clear that it's not a violation to move to field the ball. The catcher left space on one side, then left space on the other and move to field, and wasn't even in the way. Replay should be for CLEAR screwups. Why the hell do something like this, the rule literally says "in the judgement" of the ump. Let the ump exercise their (good) judgement. Replay officials just looking to be relevant.
These are the worse set of rules in MLB baseball. Frustrating to watch and I have no skin in the game. I don't think a catcher should be able to block for no reason, but this ruling is just the high of stupidity for stupidity sake.
New York had a bad night with replays yesterday, they overturned the call in the Angels game that in no way was clear or convincing of a tag being placed on Drury this one is way worse though, how can an official sit at the replay station and say he blocked the plate, who ever made that decision needs to be evaluated by mlb
Thank you for your explanation. Not saying i agree with the call but atleast i now understand their reasoning. Been around this game for 30 years and it seems like a new rule pops up every week lol.
This is the dumbest call I think I have ever seen. Not because the call is wrong, but because it came from replay officials when they had access to watch it over and over. This wasn't a split second call that an ump got wrong. The fact that they took time to view it and then overrule the call on the field is just insane. What was Heim supposed to do? Throw his whole body sideways into foul territory and superman himself back to the plate? If this is blocking the plate then any close play from now on I expect to be called safe. What a joke MLB.
MLB wants more runs scored so that's the way these reviews are going to lean. Might as well say the runner is automatically safe when they round third and start running home.
Replay was wrong. Call should have stood on the field, Heim did eveything correctly to receive the throw while maintaining a lane for Andrus to attempt to score on.
The more I think about it I think Elvis ran directly at the catcher delibery trying to get an interference call. He is running right at the catcher even he has a clear lane to the plate and then at the last minute turns and slides. I think this was a deliberate act on the part of the runner to try to get an interference call. Ellis runs directly at the catcher and then at the last second turns towards the plate. He was not running at the plate he was running at the catcher. The catcher was lined up over the back part of the plate. Not in front of the plate towards the third base side. The only way the catcher was illegally position was if Andrew was coming to the Homeplate from the first base side. Anders had to turn at the last second not simply to avoid the catcher but to touch home plate he wasn't running directly at home but he was running at the catcher. The replay Fishel took him running directly the catcher to Maine that the catcher was obstructing him when she was not. This was a veteran move on Ellis's part to try to get an interference call and he got it.
"What can you say?" Well, for one.. How about getting rid of the idiocy that is the Posey Rule? Or maybe have the untouchable umps in NY actually have to answer for stupid overturns on plays at the plate. All this does is reinforce the idea that the catcher is not allowed to field the ball.
This is one of the most garbage replay rulings in its history. Remember how we used to say that replay was to catch the egregious miss? This IS the egregious miss. Reyburn had it right from the first moment and replay screwed this. One can only ask why?
Absolutely terrible overturn. I've umpired for 12 years, and will almost always defend Blue. The PU had this right to begin with. NY turned it into a debacle and awkward situation for the PU for no reason. I was trained to not "over umpire." This is what this is. Let them play the game.
Similar to on field umps occasionally presenting views post game for close calls and tough decisions, we should expect the same from those umpires hiding behind 'replay official title' in New York. Of course that will never happen.
I swear the guys In New York doing the reviews just make the call in favour for whoever they seem fit which needs to stop it’s getting ridiculous…. I miss home plate collisions, there was a lot of guys I played with for years that never got injured ever from plate collisions me included and if Im the runner with no pads I’m pretty sure I’d be getting the worst of it wouldn’t I?
why the replay even exist if this was an obvious play so if the ball is coming your not suppose to move just let the ball go and have someone else make the play
Honestly, I'm not sure I understand this rule anymore.... Lets be honest, the crew on the field made the right call, and MLB just totally f*cked them over. What a league. This Manfred guy is honestly the worst commissioner in sports.
Neither team is mine, but this call is complete BS. He was out of the way until he knew he had to move to receive the ball and STILL he gave the runner some of the plate
Well, I guess that New York had money on that game and found a way to make sure they won their bet. At this point, replay has done more to piss people off than actually solve the issues with bad calls by making HORRIBLE overturns. As the announcers said, we might as well keep what we have and if a team challenges it, the CREW CHEIF or an umpire that didn't make the call or be in a position to make the call looks at it. While they're looking at it, they can have the rule book for reference and see if the rule applies in this situation. In fact, I'm all for a fifth ump, whose sole job is ump the other four and intervine if they CLEARLY mess up and handles reviews.
Well that is embarassing....some kind of visual judgement should be allowed to be involved when you see that there is no contact on the play. The entire point of the rule is to prevent collisions.
If you use the presence or absence of contact as an indicator when applying this rule, it incentivizes runners to initiate contact, which defeats the purpose of the rule. I get that NY is trying to judge whether there *would have* been contact had the runner maintained his path, but I think we all agree this approach is hurting the game. There's got to be a better way.
what standard is New York trying to uphold here? what other way does the catcher play that? he couldn't wait longer to get in position (i don't know why Lindsay mentioned that the ball hadn't bounced but if that's a consideration it's total bullshit), and fielding it any other way would result in sub optimal fundamentals (getting behind the ball!). He conceded the front of the plate. if the runner had not deviated from his path and was still blocked, then i can see obstruction here. but the runner made a choice to try to avoid the tagging catcher. like, HELLO?!?!?
Can we just say if a runner is halfway down the line before the catcher receives the ball then the runner is safe? This would be as legit as this ruling.
He can’t see the reason? Well, here it is. Sports gambling is now legal and the people who own sports books and casinos leave nothing to chance. They make sure that the odds are in their favor,so professional sports are now fixed. That is why they are officially and legally considered to be “Sports entertainment” not “Sports”.
Also, why do these “people in New York” go unidentified & hidden in an office somewhere? How do we know this isn’t controlled by bookmakers? We get to know the names of the umpires on the field. They should have a replay official attending each game and making the on-camera announcement themselves. Having said this, I hate replay to begin with and wish they would do away with it altogether.
Elvis Andrus is an integral part of my baseball watching and my childhood. I love the guy. However, Jonah Heim is an elite catcher and played by the rules. I love him too. He was not blocking the plate or the path to it. When Elvis is out, he’s out. Should never have been overturned.
Runner was way out in foul territory the entirety of his run from 3rd. Didn't have to adjust because of catcher moving to that side as well. Catcher's foot also on back of plate too. Not impeding. Awful.
What a terrible decision by the replay crew. Props to the PU who got every aspect of the call right on a bang-bang play!
Thats one of the worst overturns I've seen in a long time. Everyone did their job correctly on the field, and NY overturns it from hundreds of miles away.
Vegas.
It was kinda of mentioned, but if the runners path is impeded it counts too. Looking at how close the play was on the field, the judgment of the rule in this instance is that if the runner didn’t have to swing back to get the open plate he would have been safe, which is true (again, considering how close the play was with the runner having to change trajectory proves this).
Hence the conclusion is: he’s safe if the ball is thrown on target, which means the catcher wouldn’t have to switch sides, which impeded the runner, which allowed the tag to happen before the runner got home.
If you understand the basic rules and the judgement calls it makes 100% sense.
I still don’t agree though lol, these rules are crazy
@@killa2488 there is also the rule that the catcher can move to field the ball and since he was in possession of the ball impeding doesn’t count.
MLB hates the Texas Rangers. Their history bears it out. Always the whipping boy.
@@reybat4969 I already mentioned he caused the runner to change paths, hence it being too late for him to establish. Please read my comment next time
I appreciate your explanation of the rules in question here. I really do, because otherwise I would have absolutely NO CLUE why they would overturn this call based on that replay. This is the most ludicrous example of "technically correct is the best kind of correct" that I've ever seen with replay. They took an excellent baseball play and disallowed it in favor of an incoherent interpretation of a safety rule in a situation that had no safety concern. One of these days MLB is going to remember that baseball is supposed to be an entertainment product, but today is not that day.
I agree. I am for a rule that prevents home plate collisions, but this is overly nuanced, because it involves judgement on whether the catcher needed to occupy any portion of the plate. Well replay review team, that's easy for you to judge when you slow down the play. You try receiving a 70 mph throw while checking that your feet don't touch the plate.
The catcher should be given more leeway with receiving the throw. I would suggest a standard of not blocking over half the plate when receiving a throw. That allows the catcher a fair opportunity to clear part of the plate while still focusing on receiving the throw. He simply needs to be on one side of the plate; he doesn't have to focus on avoiding the plate altogether. And it'd still mean the catcher must allow the full plate when he's not adjusting to the throw - because the catcher can afford to check his exact positioning in that situation.
@@DAK4Blizzard I understand that NY wants to prevent catchers from abusing the rule in a way that would let them block the plate when fielding the ball (as in a situation where the catcher didnt have to move as much to receive a throw but did anyway to block the runner), but this is just too much. Like David said, they took an excellent baseball play and disallowed based on a technicality.
I also understand the attempt to remove judgement calls from replay ("stick to the letter of the law and all replay calls will be the same" but that is not the case anyway, especially with home plate violations). Allowing replay officials to interpret and judge situations individually might be opening pandora's box, but the way it is right now they're not making themselves friends either.
I have an out here in this video every time. Good call on DJ for seing that close tag!
Agreed, great throw, then Heim did everything right, the runner still had the clear path to the base. Then DJ made a great call. So sad...
@@johannesney2132 Ironically, I think the rule as written allows circumstances for catchers to fully block the plate when fielding the ball. (For example, the catcher is a few feet in front of plate, the throw is directly to the plate, so the catcher shifts and blocks the plate to field it.)
I accept that some judgement is probably necessary. I think it's fair to judge whether the catcher needed to move to field the ball. By setting a standard on how much of the plate can be blocked, it's a check against the catcher "faking" a move in order to fully block the plate. That standard also eliminates the subjective variable of "Did the catcher need that body part blocking the plate to field the ball?" It becomes an objective variable of "How much of the plate did the catcher's body block?"
The one big complication I can think of is how to determine the fraction of the plate blocked when the catcher isn't on the plate. I'd say it could use a comment guiding that process. I'd suggest the start of the home plate circle (currently 13 ft from the back of the plate) can be the threshold for referencing how much of home plate is blocked, and the standard can be whether the catcher is on both sides of the 3B lines when receiving the throw. (If he is, that's considered blocking over half the plate.) If the catcher is further up the 3B line from that point, the current rules apply: he can block the entire path to the plate if he's moving to receive the ball.
And yes, we're in agreement the runner should've been out here.
Well said
This ruling was absurd. There's not a single person in the world who could have fielded that throw without moving. I mean the fact that he moved right before the bounce even benefited the runner, because it still did give him that half second to decide to slide toward the first base corner. He likely would have been out even if the throw was right on the money.
And the catcher was at the back of the plate. if the catcher took the front of the plate, I might agree with the overturn, but the catcher did everything right in my opinion.
Yeah, I don't understand this one at all. Bad reversal
It wasn't necessary, at all, for the catcher to keep his foot extended onto and covering part of home plate while waiting for the ball. There's no requirement to touch a base or home plate if it's not a force play. A tag was needed. The catcher did what was reasonably convenient for him to reposition himself for the catch and then the tag. Unfortunately, the new rules don't allow the catcher to act in a manner that's reasonably convenient for the catcher, because it's a safety rule that should reduce collisions and injuries and perhaps also a rule to encourage aggressive base running and scoring. ***I think the runner should've been out. But this is my explanation for how they might justify the overturn -- if the league doesn't issue a clarification or revision as a result of this play.
@@danielj6880 I agree with your assessment. I do think the rule lacks intentionality.
I don't think most fielders would have 100% awareness of their feet when trying to square up a throw in anticipation of a runner and tag. Here the catcher hops over the plate indicating he knows the plate is a no go zone but leaves part of his foot on the plate. It's not like other catchers who drop the shin guard as the ball is coming.
I can't see the "changing base path" since the runner (especially one as savvy as andrus) always alters path based on fielder. Runners are lauded for moving INTO the path of the ball when a throw is behind them in order to get in the way. The runner here could be moving inside in hopes the ball hits them.
My opinion is as is, it's a tough overturn, but there should be even more clarity on receiving throws.
Part of the game at catcher is maneuvering - instinctively - to force the runner to make adjustments. I consider this play by Heim a masterful maneuver to force Andrus to alter his approach - WITHOUT BREAKING THE RULE. He did not block access to the plate. What was he supposed to do, not square up naturally to receive the incoming ball? Was he supposed to think, Andrus is coming on the third base side of the plate and wants to touch that side of it so I better reach way out to my left to hopefully catch the ball on a bounce and then try to make a completely awkward, off-balance tag just so Andrus can have an easier route?
This is the first time in awhile that I absolutely cannot see a reason to overturn the call here. I'm shocked. Like, this ejection wasn't for arguing really. It was out of pure shock and disbelief.
bochy is going to likely get fined to add insult to injury
This is why I can't stand the way the game is played today! Overturning that call is a JOKE!!! Over paid fools in New York!
@@EdwardPickard-i4i I guess we know where Angel is ??
His entire foot is on the plate and its not a force out
@@tubelooker71 It does feel like something he would do - look for a reason, no matter how ticky-tacky or dubious, to overturn a call.
What the catcher did on this play -- he made it look easy, but he executed magnificent awareness and precision in a combination of athleticism and fairness to the runner in the spirit of NOT blocking the plate. That was an amazing play by all on the field. If that is a violation in today's version of the game, then don't stop with robo-umpires ... we might as well have robo-players and robo-everything.
Yep, his initial position.. correct. Ball hops and causes person to move... correct... add to it, the catcher stayed at the BACK of the plate and ceded the entire front of the plate to the runner. More then correct, it should be textbook.
@@ingiford175 I'm agreeing with both of you. ADD to that that the point of replay is to overturn clear errors! Clear and convincing errors. This was FAR from that. It was an amazing play. And the rule itself allows for judgement by the umpire on the field, which they correctly used!
I found this channel by accident. It's now my favorite YT channel. So much quality content!
Great call by DJ. Great analysis as always Lindsay. Horrible job by New York on this one.
I think New York saw the other hand get in first.
Stellar defense negated by thumb-twiddling in New York. The more this rule is applied, the more it's intended to punish the catcher instead of protect him.
Vegas.
Look at the bets
It’s intended to fuck over the Rangers. The MLB never wanted the Senators 2.0 to happen and now they have that vestigial team in the Rangers left over…
@@TigerWoodsLibidolmao what
@@dylancampbell8064 They were the sad replacement team in DC starting in 1961 and failed there as the fans tore up RFK stadium in their final game there. They moved to DFW and continue to be a sad and downtrodden franchise that has one of the longest WS title droughts ever and the longest for any expansion team.
Coming from a current umpire and an ex-catcher - that was a ridiculous overturn!
Love the squidward in the bottom left when he says “he’s hot”. 😂
The catcher blocking the plate rule is the stupidest rule in baseball. This call from New York just confirms the stupidity.
Ironic that a rule implemented to protect catchers is primarily used to penalize catchers for making perfect defensive plays. Essentially what they're saying he did wrong was accurately reading the throw and adjusting his position with the maximum time possible to allow the runner a safe sliding path. You know, the very thing that the rule is intended to promote.
For the entire lifespan of this rule (which I wholeheartedly support in concept, in the interests of safety), it has been a perfect example of a poorly-written rule that hurts every party involved, including officials. If ever there's a rule of any kind where you can't give a clear answer to "what was he supposed to do instead?" then it needs to be rewritten.
Excellent post. I was in row 11 section 115 when Buster was injured and lost for the season. It was a merciless football move into a catcher who was not blocking home plate, and did not have possession of the ball. Baseball was changed in that moment. The pendulum will most likely swing back to a more reasonable rule interpretation. You are correct, and have the best post I have read so far. A rule meant to protect catchers has protected baserunners.
@@rayray4192not only protected baserunners but has made it almost literally impossible for a catcher to do their job as a fielder in that spot.
@@cushmfg yes sir. Catchers need to get smart and play the rules makers game. Stand in front of home plate and sweep tag. It’s exactly what Posey was doing when his season was ended by a vicious tackle. MLB acted swiftly and with too much restriction for catchers. The rule was suppose to restrict runners, not catchers. The pendulum will swing back. Bochy was Posey’s manager when he was injured. He himself was a catcher. He has some influence. His public statement is powerful. Big owners own the rules committee. The pendulum will most likely swing back to a more reasonable interpretation of the rule.
At this point, the MLB might as well have the rule say, the catcher has to have the ball before the runner rounds third base, or else the runner has to score, since catchers can't seem to do anything right since this stupid rule was announced and is constantly being misinterpreted. The runner should be the ONLY one that rule applies to since they're the ones who can cause the impact and injure either themselves or the catcher. If a catcher has the ball and is in your running lane, you're going to be out, and the lowering of a shoulder to slam into the catcher in an attempt to force the ball out is a bad show of sportsmanship. You got beat, accept it with grace.
@@Baldeagle-tw2nv I feel like the simple, straightforward way to address this is to just say that the runner is awarded home if the catcher - without possession of the ball - blocks the "front" of home plate. I would consider that to be the half of the plate closest to third base, not the flat edge facing the mound. Then couple that with a sliding rule that's similar to what there is on double play balls, and you're good. The dangerous play is a catcher putting their body out in front and the runner coming through full steam. Eliminate both of those and even if there's a collision, it'll be considerably less risk of injury to either party. As well, it puts the onus on BOTH parties to play safe, instead of "the catcher must be perfect" being the only consideration.
I was veeeeerrry eager to have your take on this. Thanks !
Remember all those years we were told if only umpire calls could be subjected to review through instant replay then everything would be just hunky dory?
This has to be the worst review decision EVER! New York reviewers should have to answer for these kinds of calls.
Eliminate the block rule. If you want to stand in the path of a freight train, go for it. Just accept the consequences.
What you can say is that replay in NEW YORK has a vested interest in the outcome of the game, which is not the first time I've thought that. If there ever was a time a manager should have pulled his team into the locker and forfeited the game in protest, this was it.
Appreciate the breakdown as always, so refreshing to hear someone unbiased talk about umpires and their happenings.
What's frustrating is that Heim (a young player) is clearly concentrating to make sure he starts in a good position, and that he fields the ball only when necessary and gives the runner part of the plate. Doing all that, he still tags him out, but is called for a violation. Might as well not make it so clean next time...
Runner's hand was just blocked by foot in FRONT of homeplate and embarrassingly inconsistent NEW YORK says player was out. Just happened in Cincinnati on 6/30/2023. Compare the two plays and ask yourself how the same NEW YORK crew could make such inconsistent calls. They are HORRIBLE!!!
No mention that the runner seeing the bat in his slide path may have influenced his decision to go for the other edge
I also saw the bat and thought the same thing. Maybe the catcher should have taken time to move the bat out of the way also? 🙄
As a catcher, I have to wonder, where the hell am I allowed to stand?
You definitely explained that better than the big sports channels. I am a Rangers fan and I, of course, am very biased by the outcome, but you opened my eyes to the explanation of the rule as it pertains to the play. Excellent work and keep it up.
I always look forward to these breakdowns. Excellent job
One of the most exciting plays in baseball is the play at the plate and replay is killing it off.
So people complained that there should be instant replay to get the calls right.
Now there’s instant replay and they get calls right.
Still - people whine and complain.
@@frig5956 They didn't get it correct.
The irony is that it was Bruce Bochy's SF Giants, specifically poor positioning by Buster Posey and subsequent broken leg, that led to this rule's creation.
@@frig5956 Reply incorrectly overturned a correct call. That's a problem. What are you whining about?
@@frig5956 I have no personal interest in this game so the outcome doesn’t matter to me. Maybe the rule is killing it off. Seems the on field ump had it correct and replay interpreted the rule differently
I hate the way that rule has been applied. It just rewards bad baserunning and kills great defensive plays. Great throw, he gave him a lane, the tag beats him and still called safe on review.
I mean he touches home plate milliseconds within being tagged so HOW DID HE NOT HAVE A LANE?
i mean the argument is that if he had his original lane that was taken away from him on the outside of the plate, the milliseconds he was out would've mattered and he would've been safe having to not waste milliseconds on slightly changing his direction. not saying I agree
How is that bad running? The catcher said you come from the foul side, that's the side that's clear to you and then, no, I changed my mind, that's a bad base running, you should have come by the fair side.
He gave him a lane then took that lane away. Not difficult to understand.
"Great throw". Arguably a better throw would have been to inside of home plate where the catcher originally set up, and then the outside of home plate would have been clear for the runner sliding in.
One of the issues with rules like this is that players are trained to play in a way that causes conflict. Baserunners are trained to run between the fielder and the catcher so as to make it harder for the catcher to catch. Catchers are trained to set themselves up on the most direct line and force the player to go around.
For a "non-contact" sport there is a great deal of "playing chicken" with the other team and going right up to the edge of what you can do without causing actual contact. With a rule change like this it is no surprising there are additional instances where it isn't clear what the desired behavior is.
@ericblair5731 the ball hit the ground and bounced, you can't control which direction the ball bounces. I garuntee that the outfielder's intent was to bounce the ball towards homeplate on the fair side, where the catcher was, the ball bounced foul and the catcher responded to catch the ball. If it had gone further left and the catcher moved left even more the base runner STILL would've changed lanes to be AWAY from the catcher. Based on your interpretation it would be an overturn even though the catcher left both lanes, because the base runner decided to change lanes at the last second. Runners will ALWAYS change lanes last second to try and fake out a baseman or catcher, it's stupid to call interference when there's enough time for a runner to see how something developed and adjust accordingly.
Immediately thought about you the moment this happened. I'm a White Sox fan, and 100%, this was a mind boggling call.
If blocking the plate is so specific that it depends on which corner of the plate is left open, then it should say that in the rules. The rules do not mention how much of the plate or what corner of the plate must be left open and thus the vagueness opens up to the exact circumstance we see here. Furthermore, if the MLB intended there to be refinement in the rule they should have released such refinement immediately, which didn't happen.
Someone in New York bet the over and needed one more point 🤣🤣
Whereas I agree with your comments in the video, I disagree with the title -- what "Collision"? The catcher did not block the full plate, and the runner slid with his arm out. There was no "collision."
So the Catcher can't be anywhere near the plate? WTF?
NY and Torre need to get their shit in order!! This overturn is pathetic and never was meant for this type of play.
This was absolutely the right call on the field. I would have went nuts too, if I were Bochy. Had the catcher not moved to the other side of the plate, he would have had to reach for the ball, and since we were young, we were taught to get in front of the ball. This is exactly what he did. The fact that he moved before it bounced is a non-issue to me. Its obvious that the catcher can see the path of the throw before it bounces. The runner was given the entire front of the plat to touch. Completely a bad overturn by NY. But the real issue here is that if it had been some scrub 2nd string catcher that got blown up instead of superstar Buster Posey, this rule would not even exist.
Coaches have no choice but to argue these, even though they’re out of the umpires’ hands. If they don’t argue, these calls will never get New York’s attention and be perceived as “controversial”.
So, apparently, according to some bureaucratic fiat from New York, the catcher wasn't supposed to move to the opposite side of the plate in order to prevent the ball from sailing to the backstop because ... reasons. Yet another reason why Manfred's MLB is becoming more unwatchable every day.
I just don't see how, even with the cather's change of positioning, they could say he didn't have a lane. He had the entire front of the plate so slide towards.
He denied his initial lane by obstruction
@@arley2246 So? The catcher is permitted to make a legitimate attempt to field the throw, and that's exactly what the catcher did. By rule, that's not a violation.
Did the bat on the ground change the direction of the runners decision to head slide from the right to left of home plate or would that no matter there was gonna be a collision anyways?
This is the type of controversy that results when idiots keep tweaking with the rules -- rules that have been around for over 100 years, and everything was fine.
Runner is out. I wish I could say that I didn't believe New York blew that one so bad but...
even if we say that the catcher impeded the runner by moving, where is the block of the plate? with his foot on top of the plate the runner can still reach every edge.
Phenomenal breakdown explaining the rule and the circumstances and applicability in this play at the plate.
The irony of this call and the substantiating rule is that it was Bruce Bochy's SF Giants, specifically Buster Posey in poor position leading to a broken leg, that led to MLB creating this rule.
I personally do not like the rule, but I'm certain owners also don't like paying their All-Star catchers to sit on the IL because they were plowed over at the plate leading to injury.
No one wants to see a catcher get plowed over at the plate, well maybe Pete Rose, and any player that does should be immediately banned from the game. The interesting thing is that this rule came about in a result of the Buster Posey collission and would have done NOTHING to prevent that. Posey was in the correct position in front of the plate, then turned to make the tag once he thought he had caught the ball. It's also worth nothing that even when attempting to make the tag he was STILL in fair territory and NOT blocking any access to the plate. It is 100% obviously that Cousins was NOT going for home plate, but rather targeting Posey directly.
I'm a lifelong baseball fan and have umpired for almost 20 years. I think players should be insta-banned for malicious contact at the plate. I think batter runners should be called out for running in fair territory to first whether it interferes with a play or not. But this play is too much. The game was never supposed to have lawyers officiating plays. The gamesmanship of something like a middle infielder "getting in the head" of a runner at second has always been a part of the game. First, I disagree that the catcher didn't need to move. Anyone with a brain could see that the throw was going to bounce and the best way to field a bounced throw/batted ball is to center your body on it so that if it bounces to either side you have the range to get it. Second, even if he didn't need to move, to take the athletic performance away over what was clearly not intended to block a lane is just a travesty.
On so many levels a bad call. He obviously had to move, and was right to move, the ball bounced right at him, he wasn't positioning to block and then reaching out to catch, he was positioning to catch! Next, the point of replay is for clear and convincing errors, not lawyer nitpicks. Because the rule repeatedly allows for umpire judgement, how in the HELL does NY overturn this as a clear error. The ump used judgement! And made a good call.
you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but calling a batter-runner out for running to first in fair territory even if he doesnt interfere with the play? I could NOT disagree with you more!
I'm surprised Bochy didn't take a page outof Robin Ventura/sbook and kick dirt at home plate.
Great breakdown, clearly explaining how the umps got this wrong. :)
So from now on, should we just wave all runners by the bases to ensure no one possibly gets in their way? No more double play attempts because the guy turning the play at 2nd might possibly interfere with the runner? This was a ridiculous overturn, Elvis (he used to play for the Rangers a few years ago) had PLENTY of room to get in there and he was beaten. And "wide turn at 3rd" shouldn't give him free reign to run into the dugouts and then come in behind the plate, that's nonsense. He was beaten on the throw from left field, plain and simple. The ump on the field got the call right, I don't know what wild hair New York had up their collective asses on this call. Opening a very bad box there, Pandora. A very very bad box with that overturn.
Catcher was not blocking the plate...runner had plenty of room to touch the plate. If ump called him safe..Bochy would of argued that call as well.
I mean the rule already has the language right in it. "It shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway in a legitimate attempt to field the throw".
No changes or clarifications need be made here. It is already crystal clear as-is.
What is needed is accountability from whoever is adjudicating replays back in New York. Perhaps an adult literacy assessment would be in order also.
There's no way a reasonable person watches that play and perceives anything but a legitimate attempt to field the throw, there.
The catcher had to move to foul territory to field the ball. This overturn is INSANE!
Gave him the entire plate until the ball was already in the infield. Is CB Bucknor working replay this week?
I can understand Lindsay's explanation of "replay's" reasoning here.
Lindsay does a FANTASTIC job here trying to and definitely helps the public to understand and part of the explanation was drowned out by the crowd here so I didn't here what this umpires says here and that's all the public have to go on.
MLB should be making these videos but then Lindsay wouldn't have 30,000 subscribers. Congrats 🎉 Lindsay, hope you don't ignore my question :-).
Great breakdown. I also agree with the out call. All these technicalities are just making it impossible for the players to play baseball. 😂
This is a crazy overturn. You have a great call on the field. The evidence should be CLEAR that something was wrong. Obviously the catcher has to move over to catch this ball and the rule is clear that it's not a violation to move to field the ball. The catcher left space on one side, then left space on the other and move to field, and wasn't even in the way. Replay should be for CLEAR screwups. Why the hell do something like this, the rule literally says "in the judgement" of the ump. Let the ump exercise their (good) judgement. Replay officials just looking to be relevant.
These are the worse set of rules in MLB baseball. Frustrating to watch and I have no skin in the game. I don't think a catcher should be able to block for no reason, but this ruling is just the high of stupidity for stupidity sake.
New York had a bad night with replays yesterday, they overturned the call in the Angels game that in no way was clear or convincing of a tag being placed on Drury
this one is way worse though, how can an official sit at the replay station and say he blocked the plate, who ever made that decision needs to be evaluated by mlb
People complain about the pitch clock and stuff, but honestly this is the crap that continues to turn me away from baseball.
Thank you for your explanation. Not saying i agree with the call but atleast i now understand their reasoning. Been around this game for 30 years and it seems like a new rule pops up every week lol.
What we have here is a question about what does the word “block” mean.
This is the dumbest call I think I have ever seen. Not because the call is wrong, but because it came from replay officials when they had access to watch it over and over. This wasn't a split second call that an ump got wrong. The fact that they took time to view it and then overrule the call on the field is just insane. What was Heim supposed to do? Throw his whole body sideways into foul territory and superman himself back to the plate? If this is blocking the plate then any close play from now on I expect to be called safe. What a joke MLB.
Even as an umpire, this is ridiculous. Nothing should have been overturned here and it goes against the intentions of the rules.
MLB wants more runs scored so that's the way these reviews are going to lean. Might as well say the runner is automatically safe when they round third and start running home.
Replay was wrong. Call should have stood on the field, Heim did eveything correctly to receive the throw while maintaining a lane for Andrus to attempt to score on.
The more I think about it I think Elvis ran directly at the catcher delibery trying to get an interference call. He is running right at the catcher even he has a clear lane to the plate and then at the last minute turns and slides. I think this was a deliberate act on the part of the runner to try to get an interference call. Ellis runs directly at the catcher and then at the last second turns towards the plate. He was not running at the plate he was running at the catcher. The catcher was lined up over the back part of the plate. Not in front of the plate towards the third base side. The only way the catcher was illegally position was if Andrew was coming to the Homeplate from the first base side. Anders had to turn at the last second not simply to avoid the catcher but to touch home plate he wasn't running directly at home but he was running at the catcher. The replay Fishel took him running directly the catcher to Maine that the catcher was obstructing him when she was not. This was a veteran move on Ellis's part to try to get an interference call and he got it.
The MLB is going to start using this rule to rig games, this rule is so unclear and there is no uniformity to its enforcement.
Ump got it correct. Gotta give them credit where credit is due. Sucks that replay was wrong and overturned it.
So what is the catcher supposed to do to catch the ball and make the tag in this situation?
Great call on the field. Terrible job by New York. What a shame.
Did the runner have to alter his course because of the catchers position or because his teammate left his damn bat in his pathway?
"What can you say?" Well, for one.. How about getting rid of the idiocy that is the Posey Rule? Or maybe have the untouchable umps in NY actually have to answer for stupid overturns on plays at the plate. All this does is reinforce the idea that the catcher is not allowed to field the ball.
I agree Lindsay, ... great call, but TOTALLY disagree w/ NY on this .... that's just bad.
This is one of the most garbage replay rulings in its history. Remember how we used to say that replay was to catch the egregious miss? This IS the egregious miss. Reyburn had it right from the first moment and replay screwed this. One can only ask why?
The replay guys screwed the pooch on that overturn. There was no obstruction.
Absolutely terrible overturn. I've umpired for 12 years, and will almost always defend Blue. The PU had this right to begin with. NY turned it into a debacle and awkward situation for the PU for no reason. I was trained to not "over umpire." This is what this is. Let them play the game.
Similar to on field umps occasionally presenting views post game for close calls and tough decisions, we should expect the same from those umpires hiding behind 'replay official title' in New York. Of course that will never happen.
I swear the guys In New York doing the reviews just make the call in favour for whoever they seem fit which needs to stop it’s getting ridiculous…. I miss home plate collisions, there was a lot of guys I played with for years that never got injured ever from plate collisions me included and if Im the runner with no pads I’m pretty sure I’d be getting the worst of it wouldn’t I?
I agree with @CloseCallSports.
I have not seen one person who agreed with this. Ump had it right. Heim got his revenge last night and took a shot at the umps in the process.
why the replay even exist if this was an obvious play so if the ball is coming your not suppose to move just let the ball go and have someone else make the play
DJ had great footwork there. Took some quiet steps to get in a great position to see that tag!
Honestly, I'm not sure I understand this rule anymore.... Lets be honest, the crew on the field made the right call, and MLB just totally f*cked them over. What a league. This Manfred guy is honestly the worst commissioner in sports.
Neither team is mine, but this call is complete BS. He was out of the way until he knew he had to move to receive the ball and STILL he gave the runner some of the plate
Sometimes I believe that the people at NY are bias towards some teams
Well, I guess that New York had money on that game and found a way to make sure they won their bet. At this point, replay has done more to piss people off than actually solve the issues with bad calls by making HORRIBLE overturns. As the announcers said, we might as well keep what we have and if a team challenges it, the CREW CHEIF or an umpire that didn't make the call or be in a position to make the call looks at it. While they're looking at it, they can have the rule book for reference and see if the rule applies in this situation. In fact, I'm all for a fifth ump, whose sole job is ump the other four and intervine if they CLEARLY mess up and handles reviews.
Well that is embarassing....some kind of visual judgement should be allowed to be involved when you see that there is no contact on the play. The entire point of the rule is to prevent collisions.
If you use the presence or absence of contact as an indicator when applying this rule, it incentivizes runners to initiate contact, which defeats the purpose of the rule. I get that NY is trying to judge whether there *would have* been contact had the runner maintained his path, but I think we all agree this approach is hurting the game. There's got to be a better way.
what standard is New York trying to uphold here? what other way does the catcher play that? he couldn't wait longer to get in position (i don't know why Lindsay mentioned that the ball hadn't bounced but if that's a consideration it's total bullshit), and fielding it any other way would result in sub optimal fundamentals (getting behind the ball!). He conceded the front of the plate. if the runner had not deviated from his path and was still blocked, then i can see obstruction here. but the runner made a choice to try to avoid the tagging catcher. like, HELLO?!?!?
This is absurd. The play at the plate rules have only clouded the game. I hate those rules
I don't agree that the plate was blocked - and sure not that the runner was impeded.
New York's reasoning on this isn't terrible but I do think you should need more to overturn a call. There's too many ifs and maybes here.
I maintain that the Rangers are the most downtrodden franchise in the history of Northern American professional sports.
Great call Home Plate umpire!
Can we just say if a runner is halfway down the line before the catcher receives the ball then the runner is safe? This would be as legit as this ruling.
Make it as soon as they round third base, that way the MLB has their super high scoring games and makes pitcher ERAs into a complete joke.
That replay official needs fired
He can’t see the reason? Well, here it is. Sports gambling is now legal and the people who own sports books and casinos leave nothing to chance. They make sure that the odds are in their favor,so professional sports are now fixed. That is why they are officially and legally considered to be “Sports entertainment” not “Sports”.
I don’t how you can keep all these rules straight Lindsey. I love listening to you explain them. 😊
Also, why do these “people in New York” go unidentified & hidden in an office somewhere? How do we know this isn’t controlled by bookmakers?
We get to know the names of the umpires on the field. They should have a replay official attending each game and making the on-camera announcement themselves.
Having said this, I hate replay to begin with and wish they would do away with it altogether.
Nah! New York got his one wrong.
Elvis Andrus is an integral part of my baseball watching and my childhood. I love the guy. However, Jonah Heim is an elite catcher and played by the rules. I love him too. He was not blocking the plate or the path to it. When Elvis is out, he’s out. Should never have been overturned.
That’s a crazy call!
Replays have made baseball better in so many ways and ruined it in so many other ways
The problem is replay umps aren't looking from a common sense standpoint. Let the field umps review the play.
Runner was way out in foul territory the entirety of his run from 3rd. Didn't have to adjust because of catcher moving to that side as well. Catcher's foot also on back of plate too. Not impeding. Awful.