Anyone who coaches, or plays or umpires under OBR...needs to watch this video and copy Amaya's technique. This is absolute perfection. He puts himself in the IDEAL position to make a tag play on the runner AND...this is the important part, he ALSO gives the runner ALL of foul territory AND that little slice of home plate to make his touch. It's a great throw, a great relay, the runner is out and the plate was not blocked. Great play, great hustle by Alonso and a great call by Ramos at the plate. Are we not entertained?!?!?!!?
Alonso was safe …. His left hand touched the plate just ahead of Amayas tag…. I don’t understand why he was called out!!!… that’s a very very unfair call
Wow. I came here expecting you to blast the call, assuming there was no gray area here… I was certain it was a terrible call. I watched your video and now think you are absolutely correct. Excellent explanation! Thank you for what you do.
Safe at 2nd, and make it illegal tomorrow. Like the Kenny Pickett fake slide. Or the Ross Chastain wall ride, Or like making the infield fly rule because someone figured out 100 years ago you can just drop the ball and get 2 outs. If it isn't in the rules, fine,. You did it, you found a loophole after all this time. You deserve it. Then it gets patched out.
@@OffWalrusCargo The ump called him safe because he had never seen it before and didn't know what else to do. The runner was just being lazy by hanging on to his helmet. I would argue that there is no difference between him using the helm (part of his gear as a batter/runner) and the runner wearing a mitten on his hand. Pretty soon those guys will start extending the mittens to gain some "reach" or adapting hooks or some other way to gain a grip on the bag. When you allow changes to the equipment (or the approach to play) used by the players - it opens the possibility of the change being used other than for it's intended use. The new change then has to be further defined, and rules further refined accordingly - then someone will find a loop hole in the definition or the rule (or both) - the rule book gets bigger and the cycle goes on and on. A perfect example is how the "rules of golf" (a simple game - hit a ball into a hole) has turned into an Encyclopedia Britannica that weighs as much as an elephant and they continually have to add "interpretations of the rules". The end result is that no one (including the rules officials) understands the rules without much debate and the pace of play suffers. In the case of baseball, decisions need to be made instantaneously or the course of play (or even the game) is adversely affected. Make a rule/law, someone will figure out how to break , bend , or cheat it to their advantage. Think Houston Astros and garbage cans and men competing as women.. There should be heavy penalties for EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF CHEATING. That is how you curtail it - society has become too accommodating of low moral character.
By blocking the plate, which is what they have always done. The runners hand came up because there was a foot on the base preventing a safe slide without the runner breaking their fingers, aka the reason the no blocking the base/plate rule exists.
Agree with some others that said it. You have a way of clearly explaining these things that can make me go from saying that was a BS call to “Ok, I don’t like it but I see it now.” Also I love that you keep breaking down similar calls even though you may have covered them in the past. Thank you all around.
Personally I think he got it back down in time, but definitely not clear enough to overturn the call on the field. Review did its job, and given I'm only 60-40 he's safe I'm certainly not going to say the umpire standing right there was definitively wrong.
Yep. Especially when you go watch other channels and they're 180* different from what Lindsay says. What makes it so bad is that everybody that watches Channel X thinks that person is right because they flaunt "previous 1st round draft pick" and it makes people think said person knows what they're talking about when they usually don't.
Good analysis. Catcher Setting up in fair territory, not blocking any part of the plate and follow the ball in to catch it. Really good play by the Cubs. This Outfield relay and hp tag was what all coaches love to see.
Well done... Pete should have worn his oven mitt. Is this going to be an example for other Catcher defense of home plate?. Crew chief held his ground and did not escalate the situation. Very professional and took care of business.
Pete was batting and hit a double. As he began his slide into 2nd his helmet was bouncing and got in his eyes. That's when he grabbed it by the chin guard with his right hand and used it to touch the bag. I immediately said, "Is that legal?" ;-)
Preface: I absolutely HATE the blocking rule for home plate, and think it has taken away from the game big time. But thanks for the solid explanation....my initial reaction was that had to be a blocking violation, but you have shown me why it was the correct call. Cheers!
Do you really think Charlie saw Pete's hand bouncing up off the ground by an inch from that angle? A hand would have clearly passed over home plate from any angle, including from the "key hole" or "window" where the Umpire was. I think he guessed wrong and was redeemed by replay. Better to be lucky than good.
@@baseballfan9848 I’m not that pessimistic. He made a call on a difficult and close play while the stakes were high.. A call that seems to be correct after replay. Sometimes it’s ok to give the umpire some credit. Iim not asking anyone to build the guy a statue.
You forgot the word detached that's actually in that statement, which is a world of difference. There are separate rules governing what equipment is legal when it's not detached.
If the runner’s hand didn’t bounce over the plate, obstruction is a moot point. The runner beat the tag, just failed to touch home plate. And call that out at 2nd for Pete’s sake! Expecting a memo to be released on Friday about that…
Thanks for the breakdown, Lindsay. I think MLBneeds to change the language of the rule at home since the letter says on the plate, and they're enforcing it by the spirit of foul line extended. Seems that language would be easy to clarify one way or the other. On the helmet issue I agree, and also would say my reading has it being a warning for intentional removal of the helmet while running the bases, since it's a requirement for all baserunners to wear one properly. So two misses on the officials there.
Saw this first thing this morning -- great job as always Lindsay. What I find most interesting is the "initial setup" part of the rule, and that no one (except maybe HPU) might notice where C sets up. Only NY (and maybe HPU) can make that determination. Everyone else is looking at ball/runner/throw, and C position only comes into play at the end. Oh ... and bonus helmet coverage is awesome. Yeah -- common sense sez OUT.
Earlier in the year, a Rangers player was called out when the fielder tagged his gloves sticking out of his back pocket. So his body was extended by the gloves. If it is judged fair to call out a runner using his gloves, why can't a runner use his hat? If he used his gloves (which would not be on his hands) to touch the base, would be be tagged out?
Totally agree, except I have the runners hand on the plate as the tag is applied. The slide hand was high of the plate initially, but it bounced down of the catcher and hit the plate as the tag was applied. Tie going to the runner, unless that's a myth my coaches told me to make me run harder, lol! Great Breakdown as always, top tier!!!
I believe tie goes to the runner is not the case. From what I understand, in the case that are not able to determine which came first, they go with the call on the field.
I agree with you completely. As officials we are not legislators, we are enforcers. While there is some interpretation, we enforce as written. Assuming the official knows and understands the rules.
Great play by everyone all around. Alonso great hustle even if I think he had a chance to touch and be safe there anyway. Catcher had great setup and made a legal play to catch the ball. Throw was top tier. Call was correct. A+ baseball.
The helmet one… I’d have to say out just based on other rules surrounding loose equipment. If he ran by him holding his helmet out in the air nowhere near a base, and got tagged on the helmet, it’s not a tag. So if that doesn’t exist on an open field tag, it wouldn’t make sense to exist as holding the base itself. Glad to hear that a challenge would’ve clarified that.
The reason the blocking rule was made was to eliminate collisions. By standing with a portion of the plate exposed to the sliding runner it appears catcher was following the intent of the rule
I can agree with the call.. it's clear even at full speed that the F2 started in proper position and moved only to get the ball.. Too bad.. so sad but thems the rules..
Gotta make a note on the positive game management here too. When Carlos is arguing afterward, they could have easily ejected him immediately for arguing a replay review but they gave him some good leeway because the game was over anyway and they knew he would be upset. They let him say his peace and gave him a couple of outs to calm down and walk away without further issue.
Listening to Steve Gelb’s explanation, how do you square that ruling with the batter over mitts? I get those are for safety, but they extend the reach. They’re longer than the fingers and have certainly made the difference in close plays.
I could see the rule at second modified to prohibit intentionally removing a helmet as a runner, but I'd say the helmet as an extension is no different than those long oven mitts some runners wear to 'protect' their hands while gaining several inches or on the other side of it, the fielder's glove. If even a dangling lace of the glove touches the base or runner, it counts as a tag and some of those gloves give a decent amount of extra reach, especially the first baseman's glove.
Regarding the helmet, doesn't the sliding mitt also potentially confer an advantage? What if they don't wear it properly or use one a few inches longer?
I feel like it's a "only counts when worn as intended" but you're right, they're going to have to limit the length (since I'm now imagining a 90' long Bugs Bunny-style extending mitt that lets them reach second from first).
This is really good umpiring by Ramos. How long did that review take to go, "Yeah, Charlie got everything right in the 2 seconds it took the play to happen."
Back before my knees forced me to hang up my mask I worked an absolute ton of high level, elite girl's fastpitch. I'm talking where parents were spending $250 or more per month for these girls to play on these teams. The prize at the end of the rainbow was a full ride scholarship to college for these girls. During that time frame there was a LOT of fielders, especially first basemen. blocking the bags on steals and pickoffs. I use a very simple yardstick to judge obstruction. Namely, did the runner have access to the bag? Not every square inch of the bag or just 2 square inches, but enough of the bag to give her a legit shot of reaching it. We had no video review, we called it on the fly because we had to and it made us better umpires. MLB has the awful habit of overthinking things. The moment I saw how the catcher was setup I knew it would not be overturned because my common sense brain told me it was the right call in real time.
That sort of common sense approach will still work on the field in NFHS and summer ball baseball and softball, but no longer in NCAA softball. NCAA has defined obstruction as blocking any portion of the leading edge of the base without possession of the ball. Frankly, it's a good rule and it's easy to officiate.
I think the home plate call was right in this instance (and pete could/should have scored) but I'm not sure on the rule, as it seems to allow the catcher to block the plate if in the natural process of fielding the ball (so it would make sense for the thrower to aim wide on the 3rd base side, giving the catcher an unfair advantage). Unless I'm wrong - Wouldn't mind some clarity of that.
If the throw is errant enough that the fielder must move into an otherwise illegal obstructing position to successfully catch it, like this throw, then the obstruction ("blocking") is ignored. At first I thought this was a quality throw and OBS by the catcher, but the outfield camera angle shows how wide the relay throw was from third base. Legal setup, no OBS when receiving the ball, and the runner was not hindered or impeded prior to F2 being in possession of the ball. The runner failed to clearly touch home plate before the tag was applied. Correct call. Out, no obstruction.
These seem like really easy plays to call. I don't understand all the confusion. Helmet guy at 2nd is OUT. And the runner at home plate would have been safe if he kept his hand on the ground and the catcher DID NOT block the plate at all. I don't see how anyone could even think it's blocking the plate when the whole front of the plate was available to the runner.
The one thing that worries me here is that the throws will intentionally be on the fair side to create this scenario going forward. Making it almost impossible for runners to score. I'm not sure how to fix this.
I think you meant "foul side", not fair, and you make a good point. However, the rule still states that if the runner is impeded (such as if there is contact) prior to the catcher possessing the ball, then it is obstruction and the runner is awarded home. I don't think there is anything to fix. I don't think this can be gamed in a way that reliably favors the defense.
re: helmet extending the runner's reach. OK, but if you use this argument, sliding gloves also extend the runner's reach. Why are they OK? I have seen some really long ones. Someday we'll see a runner with one of those big "we're number one" foam fingers....
@@teebob21 it’s inevitable that I’m going to see a pitch hit the sliding glove in the back pocket of a hitter. What do you suggest as a ruling? The sliding gloves piss me off because they delay the game. How in the world did hall of fame players play the game without a sliding glove? Is a sliding glove part of a player’s uniform? I say no. But if a pitcher throws a pitch that far inside I’m not going to pick up the shitty end of the stick defending him.
3:50 Is it also possible that, while the memo is 6.01(i) specifically, some confusion resulted in bleed-over from 6.01(g) about squeeze plays and the like where the rule book does specifivally say you can't stand on the plate?
That's my beef. Lindsay makes sense, but the language in the memo says on home plate (not on center, or foul-line extended). The catcher was on home plate so, by rule since it's needing review, it seems it should be blocking. They need to clarify the language since the memo is seemingly clear one way by the letter of the law, but being enforced a different way in the spirit of it.
@@iamthebum I'd rather say the memo is incorrect rather than clear by letter of the law/rule, whatever. 6.01(g) specially calls out on home plate, but that is only for steals of home and squeezes. Other plays at home are covered by 6.01(i), which the memo notes, and that one doesn't saying anything about stepping on home plate at all, or even the line. It just says "blocking the runner's path". Even the "in foul territory"/"in fair territory" enforcement discussed in this video is fully interpretation, not written rule. Thus, the memo really should be an accurate representation of that interpretation. If the memo says "on home plate" is illegal, it should be enforced as such. If being on home plate but in fair territory isn't going to be enforced as a violation, the memo should have been more clear.
Like, sure, in my opinion, this play was not blocking, neither by precedent nor how I'd interpret the rules. There was a spot of the plate left open, the runner's path wasn't blocked (he could have even been safe if his hand didn't pop up). But the memo implied it should have been, and that's a problem.
Both the call on the field and the replay confirmation were clearly correct. People are harping on the memo thing, but the memos are irrelevant. None of the stuff in the memo is actually a part of the official rule. Now you can have a problem with the league sending out a memo talking about things that are inconsistent with the actual rule. That's a legitimate beef. But it doesn't change the fact that at the time that call was made the play in question was clearly legal per the actual rule.
Adjacent question to the helmet issue, is there a rule requiring batters and runners to drop their bat? If you can hold onto a base using a helmet, what's stopping a runner from using the bat to touch the base like how they do in cricket, that would be a huge advantage going to first. Or is it just another of the unwritten rules and that the umpire would call out based on the elastic clause?
Batter-runners are not required to drop the bat. They are free to carry it all the way around the basepaths if they want to. However, they can't use it cricket-style as an implement to touch the base. The helmet touch should have been ruled an out.
If you allow the catcher to stand on the plate and lower/project his knee into the runner's face if sliding head first, you're going to encourage runners to run over the catcher. They need to fix this, if they want to prevent collisions.
Can someone explain how the plate blocking element (not called on the field) of this play is reviewable, yet the obstruction element of the recent CCS video of a play at first base was not reviewable. Am I wrong that MLB decided to bring the enforcement of blocking without the ball at the bases in line with the enforcement that has existed at the plate? The plate is reviewable but the bases are not reviewable???
I love all the comments about this being how it should be taught to catchers because if the runner keeps his hand down he is safe. I just dont know that you want to use an example where the runner should have been safe in your how to Catch manual. That being said, it was perfectly played by the catcher and the ultimate example of better to be lucky than good (as his goodness was not got the out). And on an umping note, did that ump see the hand come in high? I really thought he was safe until the slow replay and was expecting to be mad at the rules for calling him out on perfect catcher position. Turns out it seems like the ump saw better than me here.
Lindsay, what is the reference for your assertion that: "what they're referring to when they say foul line or home plate is the part of home plate that is the foul line extended"? Was that in the memo somewhere? Also wondering about your claim that "of course being on the other side doesn't mean you're violating." I thought "home plate" meant the entirety of home plate. Are there other rules where "home plate" is interpreted to mean only some subset of the plate itself?
Regarding the helmet use to touch the base - then what rule is there about the mittens? I know there's a difference, but i would also imagine that they're made or worn to give just a little more reach.
If they can hold their helmet to the base to be declared safe, what is to stop the batter-runner from holding the bat all the way around until their play ends and get 30 inches of extra reach ?
Ok, he wasn't blocking the plate, I agree with that. It sure looks like he beat the tag though. The only issue with that is that his hand and arm appear slightly elevated and above the plate at first instead of touching it, but it looked like he got it down before the tag.
This looks like a trained throw wide of the plate in order to legally allow the plate blocking. "Just throw it slightly toward foul" kind of thing. The catcher probably doesn't need to move to block the plate to actually catch the ball there but being a little to his left makes that cover the "legitimate" need to catch.
Having played 3B, you are just looking to get rid of the relay as fast as possible. Madrigal didn't have time to plant or even look at the catcher before he made the throw. If it were a grounder to 3B trying to get the runner at home, then I could see the placement of the throw as intentional.
I wonder how the ump actually got that call in the first place, the leg & body seems to be completely obscuring his line of sight, my guess would be he's seen the catcher block the plate and figured "well, he's a little late and there's blocking, he's not gonna get in" but the bouncing hand comes off the ground which is the only thing stopping that being safe. If the ump has seen the bouncing hand in real time and called out that's a crazy good decision.
How did he get the call right? Proper depth, angle, and keeping all of the elements of the play in sight. Even when we are perfectly positioned, sometimes we get blocked from seeing one of the elements, and that's where experience and intuition come in to inform our judgment. We can see the ball beat the runner, the tag was made, and that the runner's hand was over but not touching the plate. Even if we're straight-lined on a part of the play (and there is no evidence that the plate umpire was), we can assume the out was made. If video review overturns it, oh well: we'll learn from it and position better on the next play.
Overlooked: Block must be intentional. Catcher is allowed to move to his left to catch incoming throw, making a potential block unintentional. Enough of the plate was exposed. All the runner had to do was keep his hand down when crossing the plate, which he failed to do. Bottom line: The league made the decision, not the game umps.
After only watching the replay (and not the appeal or the explanation), it was clear to me that this call would stand. The catcher was not blocking the plate and it was not clear that the runner touched home.
@@minaeldiwany3215 Literally he was not. If the runner can reach the front edge of the plate without contacting the catcher, the catcher is not blocking. The catcher's foot was BEHIND the front edge of the plate, so by definition, he is not blocking it.
This game is hardly recognizable to me anymore. No wonder more and more umpires are retiring. I'm in favor of going back to old school baseball. If there's a collision at home plate, so be it, it is professional baseball.
All this drama wouldn't be happening it wasn't for Buster Posey getting hurt. Just go back to letting people plow over each other at home and boom no more catch/blocking drama.
Can a catcher set up ENTIRELY in foul territory. I know they can't straddle but if you are completely in foul territory they have all fair territory and the enitre base is in fair territory which means more plate to slide at than if you were in only fair territory. The rule says you can't block it, but it doesn't say that this is in reference to the runner, so would this be ok? And if not, why not?
Yes, they can set up completely foul, but they either need to be behind the plate (3rd baseline extended) or so far foul that they grant access to the entire "foul side" (which doesn't actually exist) of home plate. Setting up entirely in fair territory is much more advantageous to the defense, but is not strictly required. Straddling the foul line will almost always result in a call of obstruction for blocking the base path without possession of the ball.
@@mse326 The part that defines illegal plate blocking, OBR Rule 6.01(i)(2). If you don't do what's specifically illegal, then what you are doing is legal.
If the runner didn’t take such a crappy bellyflop slide the “catcher’s position” wouldn’t have mattered… the replay would have just reversed the out call.
If the rules states that the catcher can change his position after initially "not blocking the plate" to blocking the plate to catch the ball then the runner should be able to change his position from "not creating a collision with the catcher" to going through the interfering catcher to tag home plate. The point of this rule was to put and end to career ending contact at home plate. The defense will (and probably already have) learn to throw the ball in a way that gives the catcher the opportunity to legally block the runner from tagging the plate without any recourse on the runners part. This is pretty much an automatic out at home plate by design with little chance of hurting the catcher (who has full gear designed to protect him) and no chance of the runner reaching the plate. As usual, MLB getting it wrong again. Let the athletes and coaches, who actually know how to play baseball, design the rules of baseball - not the clowns who never played and are jealous of the players skilled enough to compete.
if a catcher can't use his mask to trap the ball a runner shouldn't be able to use his helmet to be on the base. Also a better slide into home and he would have been safe.
![UCF Professor Richard Quinn accuses class of cheating [Original]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rbzJTTDO9f4/mqdefault.jpg)
Anyone who coaches, or plays or umpires under OBR...needs to watch this video and copy Amaya's technique. This is absolute perfection. He puts himself in the IDEAL position to make a tag play on the runner AND...this is the important part, he ALSO gives the runner ALL of foul territory AND that little slice of home plate to make his touch. It's a great throw, a great relay, the runner is out and the plate was not blocked. Great play, great hustle by Alonso and a great call by Ramos at the plate. Are we not entertained?!?!?!!?
Baseball is fantastic and entertaining. I go MLB games often. I’m primarily here to be educated.
Alonso should have run in fair territory
Except that almost this exact thing has been called the other way before. Aside from that it’s swell.
Alonso was safe …. His left hand touched the plate just ahead of Amayas tag…. I don’t understand why he was called out!!!… that’s a very very unfair call
@@HectorSandoval-fq4cq You don’t have the umpire’s angle nor the umpire’s authority. He could’ve changed his call but then you’d both be wrong…
Wow. I came here expecting you to blast the call, assuming there was no gray area here… I was certain it was a terrible call. I watched your video and now think you are absolutely correct. Excellent explanation! Thank you for what you do.
"Take it up with the office." 100%.
I agree that replay got it right.
Oh, and yeah, out at 2nd.
underrated line for sure!
Safe at 2nd, and make it illegal tomorrow. Like the Kenny Pickett fake slide. Or the Ross Chastain wall ride, Or like making the infield fly rule because someone figured out 100 years ago you can just drop the ball and get 2 outs. If it isn't in the rules, fine,. You did it, you found a loophole after all this time. You deserve it. Then it gets patched out.
I would argue the if he didn't hold onto his helmet he would have gripped second to stay on. Ump called safe probably for that reason.
Tell it to the judge.
@@OffWalrusCargo The ump called him safe because he had never seen it before and didn't know what else to do. The runner was just being lazy by hanging on to his helmet.
I would argue that there is no difference between him using the helm (part of his gear as a batter/runner) and the runner wearing a mitten on his hand. Pretty soon those guys will start extending the mittens to gain some "reach" or adapting hooks or some other way to gain a grip on the bag.
When you allow changes to the equipment (or the approach to play) used by the players - it opens the possibility of the change being used other than for it's intended use. The new change then has to be further defined, and rules further refined accordingly - then someone will find a loop hole in the definition or the rule (or both) - the rule book gets bigger and the cycle goes on and on.
A perfect example is how the "rules of golf" (a simple game - hit a ball into a hole) has turned into an Encyclopedia Britannica that weighs as much as an elephant and they continually have to add "interpretations of the rules". The end result is that no one (including the rules officials) understands the rules without much debate and the pace of play suffers. In the case of baseball, decisions need to be made instantaneously or the course of play (or even the game) is adversely affected.
Make a rule/law, someone will figure out how to break , bend , or cheat it to their advantage. Think Houston Astros and garbage cans and men competing as women.. There should be heavy penalties for EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF CHEATING. That is how you curtail it - society has become too accommodating of low moral character.
It looks like catches are finally being taught (and learning) how to properly set up for a tag at home plate.
By blocking the plate, which is what they have always done. The runners hand came up because there was a foot on the base preventing a safe slide without the runner breaking their fingers, aka the reason the no blocking the base/plate rule exists.
@@johnthomas1422he had the ball by that point.
@@johnthomas1422 he already had the ball and was tagging him at that point
Cubbies fan here and I watched the game last night. I was waiting all day for you to make this video. Thanks so much.
Agree with some others that said it. You have a way of clearly explaining these things that can make me go from saying that was a BS call to “Ok, I don’t like it but I see it now.” Also I love that you keep breaking down similar calls even though you may have covered them in the past. Thank you all around.
I think he wouldve been safe had his hand stayed on the ground, looked like it came up and didn't touch the plate
I thought it might've come back down before he was actually tagged but it was too hard to see for sure
Personally I think he got it back down in time, but definitely not clear enough to overturn the call on the field. Review did its job, and given I'm only 60-40 he's safe I'm certainly not going to say the umpire standing right there was definitively wrong.
Slide feet first and you are safe.
Alonso needs a sliding mitt to slide like that. It's not just for the fast guys
@@dylan456 village idiots slide head first. Rickey Henderson was not a genius.
These analyses are always illuminating. Thanks.
Yep. Especially when you go watch other channels and they're 180* different from what Lindsay says. What makes it so bad is that everybody that watches Channel X thinks that person is right because they flaunt "previous 1st round draft pick" and it makes people think said person knows what they're talking about when they usually don't.
Good analysis. Catcher Setting up in fair territory, not blocking any part of the plate and follow the ball in to catch it. Really good play by the Cubs. This Outfield relay and hp tag was what all coaches love to see.
I think you're absolutely right here. Thanks for sharing this analysis.
Well done... Pete should have worn his oven mitt. Is this going to be an example for other Catcher defense of home plate?. Crew chief held his ground and did not escalate the situation. Very professional and took care of business.
Pete was batting and hit a double. As he began his slide into 2nd his helmet was bouncing and got in his eyes. That's when he grabbed it by the chin guard with his right hand and used it to touch the bag. I immediately said, "Is that legal?" ;-)
@@bytehauler wrong pete i think the original comment is talking about alonso not PCA
@@sahmueI My bad!
0:56 the league really said "because I said so"
When I saw both of these, earlier today, I thought instantly, can’t wait for Lindsay to cover these!!
Preface: I absolutely HATE the blocking rule for home plate, and think it has taken away from the game big time.
But thanks for the solid explanation....my initial reaction was that had to be a blocking violation, but you have shown me why it was the correct call.
Cheers!
We gotta clean those memos up.. cmon MLB. Same with MiLB.
On a sidenote, how about that call by Charlie Ramos!? That was awesome.
Do you really think Charlie saw Pete's hand bouncing up off the ground by an inch from that angle? A hand would have clearly passed over home plate from any angle, including from the "key hole" or "window" where the Umpire was. I think he guessed wrong and was redeemed by replay. Better to be lucky than good.
@@baseballfan9848 I’m not that pessimistic. He made a call on a difficult and close play while the stakes were high.. A call that seems to be correct after replay. Sometimes it’s ok to give the umpire some credit.
Iim not asking anyone to build the guy a statue.
@@SLC-Smudge42skeptics suck.
@@baseballfan9848skeptics suck.
The memo’s look like baby’s first powerpoint 🤦♂️
"You cannot use equipment to gain an advantage", yet here's a mitt that's a 4" extension off your hand.
MLB sent out a memo about the oven mitts by baserunners they have to be under a certain number of inches
@@tmlms1313thanks for the info.
Are spikes not equipment? Just kidding. I'm a Cub fan and I thought he should have been called out, but it was entertaining.
@@srellison561 what was he thinking?
You forgot the word detached that's actually in that statement, which is a world of difference. There are separate rules governing what equipment is legal when it's not detached.
If the runner’s hand didn’t bounce over the plate, obstruction is a moot point. The runner beat the tag, just failed to touch home plate. And call that out at 2nd for Pete’s sake! Expecting a memo to be released on Friday about that…
If his hand did not 'bounce', he would have been safe....
Thanks for the breakdown, Lindsay. I think MLBneeds to change the language of the rule at home since the letter says on the plate, and they're enforcing it by the spirit of foul line extended. Seems that language would be easy to clarify one way or the other.
On the helmet issue I agree, and also would say my reading has it being a warning for intentional removal of the helmet while running the bases, since it's a requirement for all baserunners to wear one properly. So two misses on the officials there.
Saw this first thing this morning -- great job as always Lindsay.
What I find most interesting is the "initial setup" part of the rule, and that no one (except maybe HPU) might notice where C sets up. Only NY (and maybe HPU) can make that determination. Everyone else is looking at ball/runner/throw, and C position only comes into play at the end.
Oh ... and bonus helmet coverage is awesome. Yeah -- common sense sez OUT.
Haha, gotta love the Wes McCauley "ya can't do that" edit
You are awesome on these detailed reviews.
Thank you for the video
Good call
Earlier in the year, a Rangers player was called out when the fielder tagged his gloves sticking out of his back pocket. So his body was extended by the gloves. If it is judged fair to call out a runner using his gloves, why can't a runner use his hat? If he used his gloves (which would not be on his hands) to touch the base, would be be tagged out?
Nice job, Lindsay! 👊👍
What a great line from the official, "take it up with the office"
Totally agree, except I have the runners hand on the plate as the tag is applied. The slide hand was high of the plate initially, but it bounced down of the catcher and hit the plate as the tag was applied. Tie going to the runner, unless that's a myth my coaches told me to make me run harder, lol! Great Breakdown as always, top tier!!!
The review has to clearly show the call is wrong. Obviously, they didn't think it was clear enough to overturn the call on the field.
I believe tie goes to the runner is not the case. From what I understand, in the case that are not able to determine which came first, they go with the call on the field.
@@srellison561there’s been times it does but it’s considered “not enough to overturn”
I agree with you completely. As officials we are not legislators, we are enforcers. While there is some interpretation, we enforce as written. Assuming the official knows and understands the rules.
Then the written language has to be objective , right? Some rules are horribly written. (I’m just saying in general)
@@mbdg6810 rule books should be written by a technical writer, and yes some are horribly written.
Thank you, Lindsay!
Well, this was something. A great analysis of the play.
Great play by everyone all around. Alonso great hustle even if I think he had a chance to touch and be safe there anyway. Catcher had great setup and made a legal play to catch the ball. Throw was top tier. Call was correct. A+ baseball.
Thanks for the helmet clarification.
Great content, love the explanations
I was so waiting for this one!!
The helmet one… I’d have to say out just based on other rules surrounding loose equipment. If he ran by him holding his helmet out in the air nowhere near a base, and got tagged on the helmet, it’s not a tag. So if that doesn’t exist on an open field tag, it wouldn’t make sense to exist as holding the base itself. Glad to hear that a challenge would’ve clarified that.
Pete should have kept his hand down.... That's the only problem I see.
The reason the blocking rule was made was to eliminate collisions. By standing with a portion of the plate exposed to the sliding runner it appears catcher was following the intent of the rule
This is absolutely excellent analysis!
I can agree with the call.. it's clear even at full speed that the F2 started in proper position and moved only to get the ball.. Too bad.. so sad but thems the rules..
Gotta make a note on the positive game management here too. When Carlos is arguing afterward, they could have easily ejected him immediately for arguing a replay review but they gave him some good leeway because the game was over anyway and they knew he would be upset. They let him say his peace and gave him a couple of outs to calm down and walk away without further issue.
Make no mistake, there will be a rule addendum forthcoming to address a similar occurrence of this
Listening to Steve Gelb’s explanation, how do you square that ruling with the batter over mitts? I get those are for safety, but they extend the reach. They’re longer than the fingers and have certainly made the difference in close plays.
As long as they’re worn as intended it’s legal…for now. The helmet isn’t because he took it off and used as an extension in an unnatural way.
Can't use a helmet but you can use an oven mitt and add 4 inches to your reach.
That was an outstanding explanation. ;)
Go back to collisions at the plate . Nobody gets confused by that rule.
I could see the rule at second modified to prohibit intentionally removing a helmet as a runner, but I'd say the helmet as an extension is no different than those long oven mitts some runners wear to 'protect' their hands while gaining several inches or on the other side of it, the fielder's glove. If even a dangling lace of the glove touches the base or runner, it counts as a tag and some of those gloves give a decent amount of extra reach, especially the first baseman's glove.
Great video... but sad no Roller Coaster Tycoon coverage. 😆
Regarding the helmet, doesn't the sliding mitt also potentially confer an advantage? What if they don't wear it properly or use one a few inches longer?
I feel like it's a "only counts when worn as intended" but you're right, they're going to have to limit the length (since I'm now imagining a 90' long Bugs Bunny-style extending mitt that lets them reach second from first).
This is really good umpiring by Ramos. How long did that review take to go, "Yeah, Charlie got everything right in the 2 seconds it took the play to happen."
Back before my knees forced me to hang up my mask I worked an absolute ton of high level, elite girl's fastpitch. I'm talking where parents were spending $250 or more per month for these girls to play on these teams. The prize at the end of the rainbow was a full ride scholarship to college for these girls. During that time frame there was a LOT of fielders, especially first basemen. blocking the bags on steals and pickoffs. I use a very simple yardstick to judge obstruction. Namely, did the runner have access to the bag? Not every square inch of the bag or just 2 square inches, but enough of the bag to give her a legit shot of reaching it. We had no video review, we called it on the fly because we had to and it made us better umpires. MLB has the awful habit of overthinking things. The moment I saw how the catcher was setup I knew it would not be overturned because my common sense brain told me it was the right call in real time.
That sort of common sense approach will still work on the field in NFHS and summer ball baseball and softball, but no longer in NCAA softball. NCAA has defined obstruction as blocking any portion of the leading edge of the base without possession of the ball. Frankly, it's a good rule and it's easy to officiate.
I think the home plate call was right in this instance (and pete could/should have scored) but I'm not sure on the rule, as it seems to allow the catcher to block the plate if in the natural process of fielding the ball (so it would make sense for the thrower to aim wide on the 3rd base side, giving the catcher an unfair advantage). Unless I'm wrong - Wouldn't mind some clarity of that.
If the throw is errant enough that the fielder must move into an otherwise illegal obstructing position to successfully catch it, like this throw, then the obstruction ("blocking") is ignored.
At first I thought this was a quality throw and OBS by the catcher, but the outfield camera angle shows how wide the relay throw was from third base. Legal setup, no OBS when receiving the ball, and the runner was not hindered or impeded prior to F2 being in possession of the ball. The runner failed to clearly touch home plate before the tag was applied. Correct call. Out, no obstruction.
I am glad this did not happen to poor Dave Martinez. His team seemed to always get weird base path scenarios like these go against them.
Nothing weird about running lane interference.
These seem like really easy plays to call. I don't understand all the confusion. Helmet guy at 2nd is OUT. And the runner at home plate would have been safe if he kept his hand on the ground and the catcher DID NOT block the plate at all. I don't see how anyone could even think it's blocking the plate when the whole front of the plate was available to the runner.
“If they want to change the rule, they will.” 😂 Seemingly with no rhyme, reason, or explanation, but they will
You would think at this point in time the rules would be clear for any possible scenario.
The one thing that worries me here is that the throws will intentionally be on the fair side to create this scenario going forward. Making it almost impossible for runners to score. I'm not sure how to fix this.
I think you meant "foul side", not fair, and you make a good point. However, the rule still states that if the runner is impeded (such as if there is contact) prior to the catcher possessing the ball, then it is obstruction and the runner is awarded home. I don't think there is anything to fix. I don't think this can be gamed in a way that reliably favors the defense.
re: helmet extending the runner's reach. OK, but if you use this argument, sliding gloves also extend the runner's reach. Why are they OK? I have seen some really long ones. Someday we'll see a runner with one of those big "we're number one" foam fingers....
Theoretically, helmet counts when it's on the runner head.
If a defensive player touches a base on a force out with his cap before a runner reaches a base is the runner out?
@@rayray4192is it in his head?
@@rayray4192If the fielder is wearing the hat correctly, yes, the force play has been made. A hat on a head is no different than a shoe on a foot.
@@teebob21 thanks, good analogy.
@@teebob21 it’s inevitable that I’m going to see a pitch hit the sliding glove in the back pocket of a hitter. What do you suggest as a ruling? The sliding gloves piss me off because they delay the game. How in the world did hall of fame players play the game without a sliding glove? Is a sliding glove part of a player’s uniform? I say no. But if a pitcher throws a pitch that far inside I’m not going to pick up the shitty end of the stick defending him.
3:50 Is it also possible that, while the memo is 6.01(i) specifically, some confusion resulted in bleed-over from 6.01(g) about squeeze plays and the like where the rule book does specifivally say you can't stand on the plate?
That's my beef. Lindsay makes sense, but the language in the memo says on home plate (not on center, or foul-line extended). The catcher was on home plate so, by rule since it's needing review, it seems it should be blocking. They need to clarify the language since the memo is seemingly clear one way by the letter of the law, but being enforced a different way in the spirit of it.
@@iamthebum I'd rather say the memo is incorrect rather than clear by letter of the law/rule, whatever. 6.01(g) specially calls out on home plate, but that is only for steals of home and squeezes. Other plays at home are covered by 6.01(i), which the memo notes, and that one doesn't saying anything about stepping on home plate at all, or even the line. It just says "blocking the runner's path".
Even the "in foul territory"/"in fair territory" enforcement discussed in this video is fully interpretation, not written rule. Thus, the memo really should be an accurate representation of that interpretation.
If the memo says "on home plate" is illegal, it should be enforced as such. If being on home plate but in fair territory isn't going to be enforced as a violation, the memo should have been more clear.
Like, sure, in my opinion, this play was not blocking, neither by precedent nor how I'd interpret the rules. There was a spot of the plate left open, the runner's path wasn't blocked (he could have even been safe if his hand didn't pop up).
But the memo implied it should have been, and that's a problem.
Thanks Lins
His hand was there in time but came up. I could never see if it came back down in home plate. Is that a part of the review?
Both the call on the field and the replay confirmation were clearly correct. People are harping on the memo thing, but the memos are irrelevant. None of the stuff in the memo is actually a part of the official rule. Now you can have a problem with the league sending out a memo talking about things that are inconsistent with the actual rule. That's a legitimate beef. But it doesn't change the fact that at the time that call was made the play in question was clearly legal per the actual rule.
In the immortal words of Miles Lane, “I’ll allow it!”
Adjacent question to the helmet issue, is there a rule requiring batters and runners to drop their bat? If you can hold onto a base using a helmet, what's stopping a runner from using the bat to touch the base like how they do in cricket, that would be a huge advantage going to first. Or is it just another of the unwritten rules and that the umpire would call out based on the elastic clause?
Batter-runners are not required to drop the bat. They are free to carry it all the way around the basepaths if they want to. However, they can't use it cricket-style as an implement to touch the base. The helmet touch should have been ruled an out.
If you allow the catcher to stand on the plate and lower/project his knee into the runner's face if sliding head first, you're going to encourage runners to run over the catcher. They need to fix this, if they want to prevent collisions.
There was no collision on this play, just a clean baseball slide and tag.
Excellent positioning, stance and tag by Amaya but …… Alonso couldn’t keep his hand down or else he would have been save since he did beat the tag.
Man, I wouldn't want to jam my fingers into a catcher's shoe at full speed.
Where is that baseball rules differences guide? OBR vs NCAA vs FED/NFHS is always helpful
Google is your friend.
@@teebob21 Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't!
That's "you can't do that" 901c, he gained an advantage.
Can someone explain how the plate blocking element (not called on the field) of this play is reviewable, yet the obstruction element of the recent CCS video of a play at first base was not reviewable. Am I wrong that MLB decided to bring the enforcement of blocking without the ball at the bases in line with the enforcement that has existed at the plate? The plate is reviewable but the bases are not reviewable???
You're right. The rules are the same but they specifically made the plays at bases non-reviewable
Helmet one is interesting.
Am I right in saying there is no rule that you must drop the bat?
I love all the comments about this being how it should be taught to catchers because if the runner keeps his hand down he is safe.
I just dont know that you want to use an example where the runner should have been safe in your how to Catch manual. That being said, it was perfectly played by the catcher and the ultimate example of better to be lucky than good (as his goodness was not got the out).
And on an umping note, did that ump see the hand come in high? I really thought he was safe until the slow replay and was expecting to be mad at the rules for calling him out on perfect catcher position. Turns out it seems like the ump saw better than me here.
Pete didn't remove his helmet to get an advantage. The chin guard was up to his eyes when he was running, so he took it off.
Lindsay, what is the reference for your assertion that: "what they're referring to when they say foul line or home plate is the part of home plate that is the foul line extended"? Was that in the memo somewhere? Also wondering about your claim that "of course being on the other side doesn't mean you're violating." I thought "home plate" meant the entirety of home plate. Are there other rules where "home plate" is interpreted to mean only some subset of the plate itself?
No violation but the hand it's in home plate before catcher touch him (it was safe).
"Take that up with the office" Yeah, I'm sure they will do something. Just like all the times they did nothing.
Where is the micd up audio at? Where can I find it.
Regarding the helmet use to touch the base - then what rule is there about the mittens? I know there's a difference, but i would also imagine that they're made or worn to give just a little more reach.
Properly worn equipment is considered part of the player's body.
@@teebob21 you got a rule reference? I can't find it.
@@ryanvannice7878 OBR Definition of Terms: *The PERSON of a player or an umpire is any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment.*
@@teebob21 thanks! I didn't think to look at that definition!
@@ryanvannice7878 Happy to be of assistance
Sliding mitts extend the runner's reach. Same difference.
If they can hold their helmet to the base to be declared safe, what is to stop the batter-runner from holding the bat all the way around until their play ends and get 30 inches of extra reach ?
You are describing Cricket
Ok, he wasn't blocking the plate, I agree with that. It sure looks like he beat the tag though. The only issue with that is that his hand and arm appear slightly elevated and above the plate at first instead of touching it, but it looked like he got it down before the tag.
While you may be right, it is not conclusive on replay that the hand got down before the tag. Therefore, the call on the field stands.
Are you going to do a Cooper vs. MLB video?
This looks like a trained throw wide of the plate in order to legally allow the plate blocking. "Just throw it slightly toward foul" kind of thing. The catcher probably doesn't need to move to block the plate to actually catch the ball there but being a little to his left makes that cover the "legitimate" need to catch.
Having played 3B, you are just looking to get rid of the relay as fast as possible. Madrigal didn't have time to plant or even look at the catcher before he made the throw. If it were a grounder to 3B trying to get the runner at home, then I could see the placement of the throw as intentional.
I wonder how the ump actually got that call in the first place, the leg & body seems to be completely obscuring his line of sight, my guess would be he's seen the catcher block the plate and figured "well, he's a little late and there's blocking, he's not gonna get in" but the bouncing hand comes off the ground which is the only thing stopping that being safe. If the ump has seen the bouncing hand in real time and called out that's a crazy good decision.
How did he get the call right? Proper depth, angle, and keeping all of the elements of the play in sight. Even when we are perfectly positioned, sometimes we get blocked from seeing one of the elements, and that's where experience and intuition come in to inform our judgment. We can see the ball beat the runner, the tag was made, and that the runner's hand was over but not touching the plate. Even if we're straight-lined on a part of the play (and there is no evidence that the plate umpire was), we can assume the out was made. If video review overturns it, oh well: we'll learn from it and position better on the next play.
Overlooked:
Block must be intentional.
Catcher is allowed to move to his left to catch incoming throw, making a potential block unintentional.
Enough of the plate was exposed. All the runner had to do was keep his hand down when crossing the plate, which he failed to do.
Bottom line: The league made the decision, not the game umps.
His hand touched Home plate before the tag. He should of been safe.
After only watching the replay (and not the appeal or the explanation), it was clear to me that this call would stand. The catcher was not blocking the plate and it was not clear that the runner touched home.
The catcher was blocking the plate actually
@@minaeldiwany3215 Literally he was not. If the runner can reach the front edge of the plate without contacting the catcher, the catcher is not blocking. The catcher's foot was BEHIND the front edge of the plate, so by definition, he is not blocking it.
@@MaydayAggro no he’s blocking the plate with his left foot.
@@minaeldiwany3215 Again, on top is not blocking.
@@MaydayAggro ok but as the runner is coming to the plate the catcher blocks the plate with his left foot
If his hand doesn't bounce he's safe, so he clearly had a lane to the plate
This game is hardly recognizable to me anymore. No wonder more and more umpires are retiring. I'm in favor of going back to old school baseball. If there's a collision at home plate, so be it, it is professional baseball.
All this drama wouldn't be happening it wasn't for Buster Posey getting hurt. Just go back to letting people plow over each other at home and boom no more catch/blocking drama.
Can a catcher set up ENTIRELY in foul territory. I know they can't straddle but if you are completely in foul territory they have all fair territory and the enitre base is in fair territory which means more plate to slide at than if you were in only fair territory. The rule says you can't block it, but it doesn't say that this is in reference to the runner, so would this be ok? And if not, why not?
Yes, they can set up completely foul, but they either need to be behind the plate (3rd baseline extended) or so far foul that they grant access to the entire "foul side" (which doesn't actually exist) of home plate. Setting up entirely in fair territory is much more advantageous to the defense, but is not strictly required. Straddling the foul line will almost always result in a call of obstruction for blocking the base path without possession of the ball.
@@teebob21 What part of the rule dictates that?
@@mse326 The part that defines illegal plate blocking, OBR Rule 6.01(i)(2). If you don't do what's specifically illegal, then what you are doing is legal.
If the runner didn’t take such a crappy bellyflop slide the “catcher’s position” wouldn’t have mattered… the replay would have just reversed the out call.
If the rules states that the catcher can change his position after initially "not blocking the plate" to blocking the plate to catch the ball then the runner should be able to change his position from "not creating a collision with the catcher" to going through the interfering catcher to tag home plate.
The point of this rule was to put and end to career ending contact at home plate. The defense will (and probably already have) learn to throw the ball in a way that gives the catcher the opportunity to legally block the runner from tagging the plate without any recourse on the runners part. This is pretty much an automatic out at home plate by design with little chance of hurting the catcher (who has full gear designed to protect him) and no chance of the runner reaching the plate.
As usual, MLB getting it wrong again. Let the athletes and coaches, who actually know how to play baseball, design the rules of baseball - not the clowns who never played and are jealous of the players skilled enough to compete.
alonso never learned how to slide correctly
How many power hitting 250lbers in history were amazing baserunners? I’ll wait.
If he can't use his helmet like that, then oven mitts longer than a player's fingers should be considered illegal for the same reason...
Properly worn equipment is considered part of the player's body.
Dude is safe, hand touched the plate before the tag.
What’s the point of arguing with an Ump. When it goes to review it goes to New York and they make the decision. The ump isn’t your problem
if a catcher can't use his mask to trap the ball a runner shouldn't be able to use his helmet to be on the base. Also a better slide into home and he would have been safe.
This call in my opinion is wrong the catcher is blocking the plate and he can't do that he has to give the runner a lane to touch the plate.
This is clearly a fail on MLB. We have to go back to buster-ing up the catchers.