David Ross and Andy Fletcher have history -- remember in 2015 when home plate umpire Andy Fletcher headed toward the mound to "talk" with Jon Lester? Ross was the catcher who tried to stop Fletcher from reaching the mound.
Legendary catcher Joe girardi was on commentary today. Hearing him talk about the stuff he argued with umpires over and hearing him talk about runners Lane interference was definitely interesting. Thank you Lynn for breaking everything down. I will be the first to admit that I must have yelled runners interference at the TV at least six or seven times.
@@garygemmell3488 Anyone who's won four World Series rings can hardly be considered "run of the mill". True he had three of them as a player, but I digress.
@@priceright8963 By your reasoning a bench player with multiple rings is in the same class as a Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra? Girardi was a good catcher. Legendary? Hardly. He was simply the best catcher the Yankees had at that time. Nothing more. Legends are in the HoF. Good players sit in the audience at the induction ceremony, wishing they had HoF talent.
@@garygemmell3488 So Jorge Posada wasn't the best the Yankees had at the time? They were part of the dynasty for a reason. I'd rather let history be the judge of him and Girardi. Case in point, not all legends are in the Hall of Fame. The all-time hits leader isn't. They can't erase Pete Rose from the record books, try as they might.
@@priceright8963 Pete "The Gambler" Rose is NOT the guy you want to use as an example. Jorge Posada received just 3.8% of the vote in his first year of eligibility for the Hall. He was permanently removed from the ballot since he did not receive the minimum 5%. FIVE PERCENT. Girardi's stats don't even come close to Posada's and he's never even been on the ballot. You're obviously a Yankee fan, but just stop already. History has judged them already. Deal with it.
At first glance I thought for sure it was interference, but given how the rule is written, I agree that was NOT a legitimate throw to the 1st baseman. The 1st base COACH had a better chance to catch it. lol!
There was also some, uh, consternation about the roof at the ballpark here being closed during the game (possibly mid-inning? Couldn't tell for sure). What's the rules and stuff for that?
to make it even worse when they closed it the temp of the stadium went up 30 degrees had to sweat my ass off watching us blow the game. Thank you Ian Happ
So basically if the runner is running on the inside of the baseline you should throw the ball right in the middle of his back as hard as you can. Then you'll get the call for runner's interference.
You make a good throw to the first baseman. You don't try to hit the runner, but you don't try to throw around him either. Intentionally making a bad throw will rarely result in positive results.
“Gotta buy this guy a thesaurus.” Seriously. Oughta be a few of the manager’s, coaches’ and players’ moms in every dugout and a bar of soap handy for washing out mouths.
It's tough when a catcher drops the ball but you don't want to miss strikes. Lindsay sure has the runners lane explanation down pat. If that ball from the catcher hits the runner, I bet the call goes the other way. You're doing a great job, almost halfway there. ;)
I can't help but wonder how much of this meltdown was caused by 1. the mistaken punch out behind the plate and 2. the 1B umpire coming on strong, when it looked like the first base coach was already trying to deal with the runner on first. Thank you for teaching us more about the nuances of runners lane interference. Very interesting.
The strike 2 punch out is used by managers and players as amunition to complain about a call as evidence that the umpire is incompetent. It's gaslighting
Yeah ross was griping over the strike zone all day, not on the one pitch actually both teams were bothered by this guy's strike zone. I get it, it's a tough job but some of those strike calls were horrible especially when you here guys like hoerner and Swanson complaining when they never complain. Also this is the second time this year the home plate umpire for a cubs game has forgotten the count. It has to get better.
This is one where I can understand why the home plate umpire would think the catcher's throw wouldn't have had a chance to get the runner out, but on replay it's pretty clear it could have (whether the first baseman would have made the play is irrelevant). This brings me to a wider complaint. I dont understand why judgement calls aren't reviewable. Even on judgement calls, if multiple umpires see the play slowed down and from different angles, they are much more likely to make the correct call.
That's the answer to your question. A judgement call isn't consistent. Use this video as an example. One umpire can say his wild throw was of his own doing thus no RLI. Another umpire might say he was throwing around the runner and the throw could be caught. Who gets to make the final decision??
@@vw8886 Only an absolutist, like you, could come to that conclusion. Let's do it your way and subject every call to review at anytime by the boys in New York. Welcome to 4 hour games and the death of baseball. The fact of the matter is that reviews have to be limited or the games will get longer and the game WILL die. Answer a simple question: do you want every call to be 100% correct 100 % of the time?
You’re absolutely right. Old school umpiring means you catch a strike. The catcher dropping the pitch should not be rewarded. You’re also correct in that the computer doesn’t care.
Don’t quite give enough background. The plate ump was brutal the whole game. He missed pitches for both sides that weren’t even close. You could see the frustrations by both teams from the 7th inning on and they were letting the plate ump know. I’m surprised there weren’t ejections before this. This was building to a head. Probably wouldn’t have been any ejections had the 1st base umpire/crew chief butted in were he wasn’t needed.
To be fair, Ross didn't say much of anything on two awful strike 3 calls. I was amazed he was still in the game at that point. It was CB/Angel levels of bad.
@@keithcourvill1529 What sort of world do we live in now where human umpires actually call strikes on pitches that the catcher absolutely butchers?? Oh wait, RoboUmp had a strike?? Well then, I will extinguish my burning pitchforks.
@@danbev9313 More specifically, RoboUmp is the savior for all these Uncle Rico's who have never so much as umpired a 10U game, but fancy themselves as top tier officials.
True, because he couldn't see it due to the runner. "Reasonable chance to catch the throw without the runner", if there's no runner he likely can make that catch regardless of how off that toss was. But bottom line and the only way to fix this rule is for catchers to unite and square up the runner between the numbers, over and over again. Then they'll have to fix it.
Rossy was triggered because the Brewers closed the roof before their at bat earlier in the game. It made the shadows harder for them to hit, apparently. There was a buildup to this. Cubs won, so it worked
If the ball hit the runner when he was that same distance from first, but it was an accurate throw, would he be out? Or is it only interference if it hits him right where the first baseman is attempting to catch it?
I think they would and should have called him out if the throw had hit him from behind. That’s where Amaya made his mistake. He should have hit him rather than trying to throw around him.
An observation on the play at first, not on the rule. Watch the first baseman Mancini, a very poor fielder. Note where his glove is while awaiting the throw. I learned in little league that when waiting for a throw to give the thrower a target. Get your glove out in front. In this case, the target should have been on the fair side of the base. Give the catcher a chance.
Had my son go to a clinic for catchers with a former MLB catcher. The major leaguer said the umpires used to expect the catchers to catch and hold the pitch in order to get a strike call regardless of where the pitch was located. No catch, no strike. How times have changed.
What's changed is on-screen graphics and endless slow-motion replays, causing salary-paying, ad-watching fans to demand adherence to what they see on TV, not how games were traditionally called.
@@keithcourvill1529hat’s a baseball “purist” for you 😂 they don’t want the game called by the actual rules, but the unwritten ones. Luckily most people aren’t idiots and the sport itself saw itself dying, so changes have finally started to happen.
@@teebob21 it was a shit throw since he was trying not to hit the runner. This is a case where the rule makes it so that you want to bean the runner instead of playing safely.
"A chance" Yes, on this play Call the damn INT And thIs WAS QUALITY. Underhanded throw, sure Catchers reaction? To me, Catchers was bummed the play didn't work out
He's got to get in position to see this! Eric is standing on the grass on the 1st base side. I'm not so much concerned about the result, I'm more concered about the signaling of safe(to signal that there's no infraction)when the batter-runner is clearly inside the foul line? We all know that it is the plate umpires responsibility to follow the batter to the line, to get in position to watch for a possible pulled foot and a possible play at first that could be affected by where the baserunner is positioned as he runs to 1st? This gives the best angle and ability to see the line, the batter runner, the fielder, and the ball. Is the game getting to him? I'm not qualified, nor am I trying to criticize the man. I'm saying that on that level, which he surely paid his dues to get too, being in the best possible position that gives you the best opportunity to see the play develop and playout, is huge.
Probably a mix of what he was arguing and how frequently he argued. The three Ps are personal, prolonged and profane and I think Ross might have checked prolonged IF he brought back up and other calls. He also argued balls and strikes which is in the book as illegal to argue. Yes, some chirping usually gets ignored or acknowledged without incident, but leaving position (in this case the discussion with Andy Fletcher) to argue balls and strikes is a pretty good way to get tossed. I think the casual nature of the ejection also lends credence to this.
This comes up time and again... if the fielders would just peg the runners in the back when they're out of the lane, they'll get the call 100% of the time and it'll never ever be an issue. Plus, Counsell has less rules knowledge than anybody who ever played the game as long as he did... if you make a good throw and get the RLI call, I'd bet good money you can also get Counsell tossed over it.
@@kampoc4802 Boone seems like he goes after the rookie umps over judgment calls or balls/ strikes and just works himself into a frenzy over nothing. Counsell actually got himself tossed over basic batter's interference rules last year. Dave Martinez was literally laughing about it in the Nationals dugout. Counsell didn't have a clue, or a prayer of having a clue.
@@austin.draude Agreed on Boone bullying younger umps, and yes Martinez was laughing at Counsell because Martinez keeps losing this call, both ways dating back to playoff game which was clearly called wrong. The inconsistency is the hard part.
Simple answer is just drill the runner in the back with a hard thrown ball by the catcher. Also, seems like Baccus must be having a bad night, or maybe he is trying to be the new Angel Hernandez.
I suggested one about a catch/no catch controversy during the World Test Championship. There could be another good one about a controversial run out during Day 5 of the second Ashes Test too
There's protecting your player, and then there's retaliation. Mike Napoli sure hasn't changed. David Ross provided some fireworks of his own during his postgame interview.
That is truly the most idiotic take in the world. Whether the catchers drops the ball or not changes absolutely NOTHING about where it came across the plate. You don’t ever have to change your mind, you’re just objectively wrong.
@@Renegade605Framing is used to fool umpires. It doesn't actually make a ball a strike lol. Why would umpires at the highest level of baseball follow a non existent rule?
@@Renegade605 Because dumb coaches teach catchers to frame and bad umpires who can't see the ball cheat by looking at the catcher's mitt, which perpetuates the problem. By the time an umpire or a catcher gets to NCAA or pro ball, "framing" doesn't buy strikes, but good clean receiving does.
Seriously, the commentary... "What do you expect a right handed hitter to do?" RUN IN THE LINES! That's what they're expected to do. Is it a longer path? Too bad.
My call on this would be RLI because that ball could clearly have been caught if not for the runner getting into the basemans sight line. It's like how you can be offside in football (soccer) and if you're standing in front of the goalkeeper even if you don't touch him, you can get called for an offside foul. I think if you aren't calling this RLI then why even bother with the rule? He's run in front of both players in the wrong area but gets away with it because he wasn't hit in the back by the ball. Dumb. I would simplify the rule to be that any runner who is not within the lane as required is out automatically when an attempt at a tag or throw to first base occurs while they are in the wrong area.
@@ingiford175 if the runner is not in his lane, he is not showing “sportsmanship” to the defense. Peg him in the fucking back and move on. Team gets the out, runner stays the fuck in the lane next time 🤷🏽♂️
@andrewbeasley8105 that's not confirmed. He never said it was a poor throw. You can only go by his reaction. Maybe, he was upset with Contreras. Maybe, he was upset with Bacchus not calling RLI. He can't turn around and start yelling at Bacchus. He's gotta work with him behind the dish. Bacchus had a horrible game all day. Young, in my view, could have fielded the throw. He didn't wanna get trucked by Contreras.
That's runner's interference 10/10 times in my book, Mancini could definitely have reasonably fielded that throw. It probably would have resulted in a collision, but that's not relevant to the rule. What really seals it for me is Contreras clearly cuts inside to impact the throw over the last 20 feet or so. His second and third to last strides with his right kick up dirt, then his last stride with the right is all the way back in the grass. He's so far inside you can see his last stride with his left is outside the frame of his body so he can make the cut back to the actual base. I have some sympathy for righties running a straight line that keeps them in the grass, but Contreras was clearly trying to impede the throw with his line.
It was RLI all day. The 1st baseman could have caught the ball easily but didn't want to get trucked by the runner who was in fair territory. He made a business decision the ump made the wrong decision.
Either call the runner's lane interference all the time or take it out of the rule book. Oh and I love how in the major league rule book there's always a caveat to every rule where each play could be called either way. This is ridiculous.
That's like saying call a balk on every pickoff attempt or take balks out of the rulebook. If there were no judgement calls, you wouldn't need umpires. If you can't call every pitch a strike or a ball, or every runner safe or out, what's the point of the game?
I’ve actually seen far worse umpiring all season than these examples. Some really poor ball/strike calls. I’m ready for robo calls on the balls and strikes already.
Really poor ball/strike calls? You mean: every single one the human called was exactly what the computer would have called? Well holy fuck: why did we spend billions of dollars on a computer system that is just as good as a human being?
So the HP ump wanted the first baseman to Cliff Floyd himself to get an out call? "Ah yes let me reach into the path of the runner, shatter my arm all for an out."
Ok, so according to the letter of the rule on running to first base, based on your explanation, then those stripes and running lane mean nothing. I guess those white stripes and running lane are there for looks and mean nothing at all. Its funny how the umpires will ignore one rule but be overly strict on another. This is why I no longer watch MLB, the rules are ridiculous.
@@andrewbeasley8105 If they are not going to call it every time, why bother having RLI as a rule? The batter was on the infield grass, do you think it was an accident?
@@Sunshiner129 oh trust me I know and have noticed that. I'm a die hard cub fan but if you wanna get to the base in a straight line you can't run in that baseline
non-managers should be seen and NEVER heard.. unless they are addressing their players... coaches have no rope and we are taught to give them even less... I will give a first base coach a little leeway on "blue, he pulled his foot"... beyond that..... YOU don't talk to me unless you're the manager... Yeah, the plate ump made a mistake.. (one we've all made...) and he corrected himself to the hitter.. we all lose count... but the 1BC should not have gone off on the 1BU like that... or ever..
I think Napoli was trying to redirect fletcher away from nico after hoerner was yelling about the Bacchus' strike call. The first base coach getting ejected is clearly more desirable than the runner from Napoli's perspective.
I think it was closer than it first looked, but I think the 1st Baseman kinda "no-selled" the throw. If had made a more earnest attempt at it, I think it would/should be called. However, with the "lack of effort" by the 1st Baseman, I think it was closer to a 50/50 play, with it ultimately being a no-call.
@@Subangelis Exactly. I don't see how the batter-runner would have been retired when the first baseman couldn't get the ball. Simply throwing the ball away just because the runner is not in the running lane is not enough to constitute RLI. I agree with a no-call here.
@@TurnedToast That wouldn't guarantee the call because the runner has to interfere with the fielder taking the throw only, not with the fielder making the throw. In college this might have been runner's lane interference, since in college the rule requires the runner interfere with the fielder making the throw or the fielder taking the throw, but this is not college. So what may be correct in college, may be incorrect at the professional level. Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11): In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base. NCAA Rule 7, Section 11 (p) : In running the last half of the distance from home plate to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, the batter-runner runs outside the 3-foot restraining line or inside the foul line and, in so doing, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, except that the batter may go outside these lines to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. NCAA Rule 7, Section 11 (p) Note 1: If the batter-runner is running illegally to first base and his being outside the lane alters the throw of a fielder, hinders or alters a fielder’s opportunity to field the throw, or the batter-runner is hit by the throw that has been made in an attempt to make a play, it shall be called interference and the batter-runner is to be called out. NCAA Rule 7, Section 11 (p) Note 2: The batter-runner is considered outside this 3-foot lane if either foot is outside either line.
@@vincentwendt720 if the ball hits the runner in the back and would otherwise have made it accurately to the 1st baseman on time, that very straightforwardly interferes with the 1st baseman receiving the the throw.
This video left out two of the worst called strikes 3s of the season on cub hitters. (Tauchman and Nico) The umpire not knowing the count was indicative of his level of concentration all day. Very poor performance.
"It's a silly rule anyway. What do you expect a right-handed hitter to do?". Why, for those of us charged with enforcing the rules, WE EXPECT THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE DAMNED RULES, FFS!! For those of you who think it's a stupid rule, you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't want to hear you opinion, only a better solution. There is a solution, but I don't think MLB will use it. It's been around for at least 20 years and has all but eliminated situations in which RLI might occur.
Gary, I'm assuming you're referring to the orange safety base used in lower-level softball and youth baseball. The double base introduces a bunch of new unneeded unintuitive rules and scenarios that are difficult to officiate correctly. The current OBR rule is fine as it is: batter-runners may not interfere with the quality throw to 1B when they are outside the runner's lane. It's very simple. Weird scenarios with the double base: Tag ups -- may a runner use the orange safety base to tag up on a fly ball? Pick off attempts: F1 attempts a pickoff at 1B. R1 slides in headfirst, but is only in contact with the orange portion of the base: safe or out? Overruns: B1 hits an infield single and reaches 1B safely, overrunning it legally. When he returns to 1B, he stands only on the orange portion of the base when he is tagged by F3. Safe or out? Batted balls: A batted ball hits the safety base at the dividing line. By rule, any batted ball that touches the orange portion of the base is a foul ball, and a batted ball which touches the white portion is a fair ball. When the contact is simultaneous with both the white and orange bases, is the batted ball fair or foul? Runners who touch the white base during a play: In most codes that permit a double safety base, the batter-runner is liable to be called out on appeal if they touch only the white portion of the base while running out a batted ball with an incoming play at 1B, even if they beat the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? Runner's interference: With the safety base, any contact or collision initiated by the runner with a fielder who is entirely on the white portion of the base is interference, even if they would have beaten the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? Obstruction: With the safety base, if F3 positions himself blocking any portion of the orange safely base to receive a throw, he has obstructed the batter-runner, even if the throw would have beaten the runner. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? Dropped third strike: F3 is permitted to use the orange portion of the base on a dropped third strike which rolls away from the catcher in foul territory. The runner may use either portion of the base. F3 will not be called for OBS in this scenario, even if he positions himself blocking the orange safely base to receive the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? The double base in professional baseball is a solution in search of a problem which does not exist, except for people who don't know the rules....because HERE'S THE KICKER: Even with a double safety base, with this non-quality throw, the batter-runner still would not have been out under OBR rules for Runner's Lane Interference in this play. Adding a double base would solve nothing.
@@teebob21 Tag ups -- may a runner use the orange safety base to tag up on a fly ball? No, they may not. Once the BR reaches 1B safely, the orange portion ceases to exist, figuratively speaking. Pick off attempts: F1 attempts a pickoff at 1B. R1 slides in headfirst, but is only in contact with the orange portion of the base: safe or out? Out. The orange portion of the bag is used only on the initial play on the BR on the way to first base. Once again, once the BR reaches 1B safely, the orange portion ceases to exist. Overruns: B1 hits an infield single and reaches 1B safely, overrunning it legally. When he returns to 1B, he stands only on the orange portion of the base when he is tagged by F3. Safe or out? Out. The orange portion of the bag is used only on the initial play on the BR on the way to first base Once again, once the BR reaches 1B safely, the orange portion ceases to exist. Batted balls: A batted ball hits the safety base at the dividing line. By rule, any batted ball that touches the orange portion of the base is a foul ball, and a batted ball which touches the white portion is a fair ball. When the contact is simultaneous with both the white and orange bases, is the batted ball fair or foul? Fair. Runners who touch the white base during a play: In most codes that permit a double safety base, the batter-runner is liable to be called out on appeal if they touch only the white portion of the base while running out a batted ball with an incoming play at 1B, even if they beat the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? I've never heard of this rule. Runner's interference: With the safety base, any contact or collision initiated by the runner with a fielder who is entirely on the white portion of the base is interference, even if they would have beaten the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? How can it be interference if they have beaten the throw? Is this a BR attempting to beat the initial throw to the base or a runner attempting to retreat to the base on a tag up? Obstruction: With the safety base, if F3 positions himself blocking any portion of the orange safely base to receive a throw, he has obstructed the batter-runner, even if the throw would have beaten the runner. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? Was F3 in contact with the white portion? Dropped third strike: F3 is permitted to use the orange portion of the base on a dropped third strike which rolls away from the catcher in foul territory. The runner may use either portion of the base. F3 will not be called for OBS in this scenario, even if he positions himself blocking the orange safely base to receive the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule? In this scenario the BR is allowed to use the white portion of the base. The double base in professional baseball is a solution in search of a problem which does not exist, except for people who don't know the rules....because HERE'S THE KICKER: Even with a double safety base, with this non-quality throw, the batter-runner still would not have been out under OBR rules for Runner's Lane Interference in this play. Adding a double base would solve nothing. Please don't tell me you're another one of those who want the rules to cover every scenario. We used to have guys who attended annual rules clinics with questions that began with "What if". Those questions were banned because in order for the rulebook to cover every possible scenario it would weigh pounds instead of ounces. Finally, you imply that you have read, in black and white, these rulings. If so what rulebook(s) did they come from?
@@garygemmell3488 See? These are the types of things that come up with the safety base. These rulings and scenarios are collected from the current interpretations of the safety base in Pony Baseball, USA Softball, as well as the NCAA Softball experimental rule....which is not consistent with the other two leagues mentioned. For example, USA Softball treats the double base as one large permanent object which never goes away, while Pony and NCAA Softball imagine that it goes POOF once first reached by the B/R. As you can observe, that "simple" decision of whether the orange base disappears by rule or not complicates the adjucation of a bunch of other rules in the game.
@@teebob21 I've only experienced the double bag while umpiring ASA softball, and it worked to nearly eliminate RLI. The RLI rule has been on the books for seemingly forever and yet, people just do not understand it and are pissed off when it is enforced. Muy post was meant to basically shut up all the naysayers who liked to complain but had no solutions. As I expected, none of the back bench bomb throwers uttered a peep. As a former umpire with way too many games under my belt and a pair of nearly useless knees, my solution is a simple one: Comply with the rules we have now. FYI, all those scenarios you mentioned regarding the double bag never were an issue. Not saying they couldn't have, but they just never were.
@@garygemmell3488 Agree with your position that players simply need to comply with the rules as written, or handle the consequences. The scenarios I've posited weren't hypotheticals. They are actual situations (most of which have an official rule interp) that I have encountered in my 25+ years as an ASA/USA + Fed + NCAA softball umpire and my decade of working garbage Pony/Legion baseball. (Also, the orange part of the bag hasn't "disappeared" under ASA/USA rules for the better part of 5 years.)
What this video completely fails to talk about is the tremendous amount of balls called strikes this day. Particularly on the left handed batters box side. Instead it chooses to editorialize and cherry pick in order to frame and argument. Both teams were mad for a reason. And it’s very common that the inciting incident for an ejection in a game like this is actually on a close pitch called correctly. But that is because there had been so many other bad calls. This video decides to make points out of no issues. Particularly the pitch clock violation strike out. Not a single argument was had but this video decides to make make it one of the arguments in order to bolster their position that the umpire had a good game and everyone was a cry baby. Further more, the video maker decides to input what they believe to be the argument Dansby Swanson as balls and strikes and completely dismisses that the umpire lost track of the count. Something that any professional umpire rarely does. Again, after 9 full innings of bad calls (not shown in this video) ringing a guy up on strike 2 is a “final straw” moment. Showing your incompetence all game only to double down with that by losing track of the count is embarrassing and deserving of a tongue lashing. Overall, this video was entirely bias while it made some good points those were lost to the fact that key information was dropped. Points over the runner in the base line argument was well done and correct but it loses its muster when accompanied by intentional framing of other issues.
calling strike 3 on strike 2 "doesn't matter"? -- pretty sure lots of stuff matters when you're one v one in front of 40k people that wouldn't normally "matter". pretty poor game from bacchus -- whitewashed to no end here....
It happens. It's not common that the umpire would call a strikeout when the strike call is strike 2 but it happens on rare occasion. I'm sure every umpire at some point has done that by mistake. It's really not a big deal. They just correct and signify that it was strike 2.
That first base umpire is a punk,, you brushed agents me so ima over exaggerate to make look dramatic. What a chump. These umpires are destroying baseball. And it is runners interference its plain as day
So just checking, you're saying that Lindsey's explanation of the RLI rule for OBR (MLB) was incorrect? This would have been RLI in college or high school, but not in the pros, even though it looked like RLI given where the batter-runner was running.
@kennowens7381 The explanation is spot on, the suggestion of the play being a judgment call is wrong. The runner is clearly on the grass making him out of the base path
@@randolphhudson8645More to the rule than his position. As explained in the video, the runner could’ve ran to the pitchers mound and not been guilty of RLI.
ur painting a rosier picture of the ump than he deserves. I watched the game. he appeared unprofessional, confused and frankly scared throughout this game. needs more training.
![Nikola Jokic INJURED Markieff Morris & ALMOST ENDED HIS CAREER 👀 [Full Play]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L06009FEQRs/mqdefault.jpg)
I've spent more time watching your baseball rules and officiating videos than actual TV baseball games. 😀😀😀
David Ross and Andy Fletcher have history -- remember in 2015 when home plate umpire Andy Fletcher headed toward the mound to "talk" with Jon Lester? Ross was the catcher who tried to stop Fletcher from reaching the mound.
“Cluster of stupidity”
I’m stealing this phrase, thank you. Lol
Legendary catcher Joe girardi was on commentary today. Hearing him talk about the stuff he argued with umpires over and hearing him talk about runners Lane interference was definitely interesting. Thank you Lynn for breaking everything down. I will be the first to admit that I must have yelled runners interference at the TV at least six or seven times.
Joe Girardi was a legend to nobody except himself and Yankee fans. He was run of the mill.
@@garygemmell3488 Anyone who's won four World Series rings can hardly be considered "run of the mill". True he had three of them as a player, but I digress.
@@priceright8963 By your reasoning a bench player with multiple rings is in the same class as a Johnny Bench or Yogi Berra? Girardi was a good catcher. Legendary? Hardly. He was simply the best catcher the Yankees had at that time. Nothing more. Legends are in the HoF. Good players sit in the audience at the induction ceremony, wishing they had HoF talent.
@@garygemmell3488 So Jorge Posada wasn't the best the Yankees had at the time? They were part of the dynasty for a reason. I'd rather let history be the judge of him and Girardi.
Case in point, not all legends are in the Hall of Fame. The all-time hits leader isn't. They can't erase Pete Rose from the record books, try as they might.
@@priceright8963 Pete "The Gambler" Rose is NOT the guy you want to use as an example.
Jorge Posada received just 3.8% of the vote in his first year of eligibility for the Hall. He was permanently removed from the ballot since he did not receive the minimum 5%. FIVE PERCENT. Girardi's stats don't even come close to Posada's and he's never even been on the ballot. You're obviously a Yankee fan, but just stop already.
History has judged them already. Deal with it.
At first glance I thought for sure it was interference, but given how the rule is written, I agree that was NOT a legitimate throw to the 1st baseman. The 1st base COACH had a better chance to catch it. lol!
you make these breakdowns so easy to understand thank you!
What I found interesting is Mike Napoli's last ejection was also in Milwaukee and was also a ball/strike argument.
There was also some, uh, consternation about the roof at the ballpark here being closed during the game (possibly mid-inning? Couldn't tell for sure). What's the rules and stuff for that?
to make it even worse when they closed it the temp of the stadium went up 30 degrees had to sweat my ass off watching us blow the game. Thank you Ian Happ
There was a weather delay. Consternation from who?
@@mr.brenman2132 You know...."them".
@@teebob21 Unfortunately I know exactly who "them" is.
So basically if the runner is running on the inside of the baseline you should throw the ball right in the middle of his back as hard as you can. Then you'll get the call for runner's interference.
Yes. And teach them to not run outside of their lane.
That is the only way the rule cannot be misinterpreted
The runner had nothing to do with that throw that didn't come close.
You make a good throw to the first baseman. You don't try to hit the runner, but you don't try to throw around him either. Intentionally making a bad throw will rarely result in positive results.
This is turning into a recurring theme. Runners interference.
Wow 133 ejections?! 🤯🤯🤯🤯 still on pace to 250 ejections. 260 is definitely coming Including playoffs!
“Gotta buy this guy a thesaurus.” Seriously. Oughta be a few of the manager’s, coaches’ and players’ moms in every dugout and a bar of soap handy for washing out mouths.
lol for a sec, i thought Mike Napoli is still in the league playing
They were also arguing the inexplicable closing of the Miller Park roof late in the game for no reason.
It's tough when a catcher drops the ball but you don't want to miss strikes. Lindsay sure has the runners lane explanation down pat. If that ball from the catcher hits the runner, I bet the call goes the other way. You're doing a great job, almost halfway there. ;)
amazing channel my guy, subscribed within a minute
They would have gotten the interference call if the catcher buried the throw into the runner...
True
Great explanations. Funny to watch a sub-500 team arguing at the margins of calls.
I can't help but wonder how much of this meltdown was caused by 1. the mistaken punch out behind the plate and 2. the 1B umpire coming on strong, when it looked like the first base coach was already trying to deal with the runner on first. Thank you for teaching us more about the nuances of runners lane interference. Very interesting.
The strike 2 punch out is used by managers and players as amunition to complain about a call as evidence that the umpire is incompetent.
It's gaslighting
@@danbev9313 It happens to all umpires. There is no reason to argue it and use it to say the umpire is incompetent.
Assistant coaches have a very short leash because they have no business arguing with umpires, that is the job of the manager.
@@alanhess9306
No kidding. The teams don't care, they do it anyway
Up until then, both teams were chirping hard towards the umpire. Lots of bad ball strike calls. It was inevitable
subscribed. this is awesome.
That was the defence giving away a free out, too bad.
Now 134 ejections as Jean Seguar tossed for pointing at the Home Plate umpire where the pitch was with his bat
Yeah ross was griping over the strike zone all day, not on the one pitch actually both teams were bothered by this guy's strike zone. I get it, it's a tough job but some of those strike calls were horrible especially when you here guys like hoerner and Swanson complaining when they never complain. Also this is the second time this year the home plate umpire for a cubs game has forgotten the count. It has to get better.
This was more about recent struggles and letting out frustration. That’s all it was. I wanted to do the same thing yesterday
"Gotta buy this guy a thesaurus".
😂
Everywhere, English teachers loving Lindsay!
This is one where I can understand why the home plate umpire would think the catcher's throw wouldn't have had a chance to get the runner out, but on replay it's pretty clear it could have (whether the first baseman would have made the play is irrelevant).
This brings me to a wider complaint. I dont understand why judgement calls aren't reviewable. Even on judgement calls, if multiple umpires see the play slowed down and from different angles, they are much more likely to make the correct call.
If judgement calls were reviewable, why even have umpires? Just let the drunkards in the booth in New York make the calls
That's the answer to your question. A judgement call isn't consistent. Use this video as an example. One umpire can say his wild throw was of his own doing thus no RLI. Another umpire might say he was throwing around the runner and the throw could be caught. Who gets to make the final decision??
@@garygemmell3488 Catcher guarding the plate is a judgement call but reviewable.
@@garygemmell3488 So an ump can make an absolute wrong judgement call and you want it to stand?
@@vw8886 Only an absolutist, like you, could come to that conclusion. Let's do it your way and subject every call to review at anytime by the boys in New York. Welcome to 4 hour games and the death of baseball. The fact of the matter is that reviews have to be limited or the games will get longer and the game WILL die. Answer a simple question: do you want every call to be 100% correct 100 % of the time?
5 catcher's prominently in this video. Only Joe Girardi doesn't really mess anything up.
You’re absolutely right. Old school umpiring means you catch a strike. The catcher dropping the pitch should not be rewarded. You’re also correct in that the computer doesn’t care.
Don’t quite give enough background. The plate ump was brutal the whole game. He missed pitches for both sides that weren’t even close. You could see the frustrations by both teams from the 7th inning on and they were letting the plate ump know. I’m surprised there weren’t ejections before this. This was building to a head. Probably wouldn’t have been any ejections had the 1st base umpire/crew chief butted in were he wasn’t needed.
they called it right in an astros game very recently he ran on the inside dirt the whole way and it got called pretty quick.
Yep, I was there.
One thing I realize is that almost every player/coach is so wound up, everything must be a huge argument, it’s never a respectable conversation.
To be fair, Ross didn't say much of anything on two awful strike 3 calls. I was amazed he was still in the game at that point. It was CB/Angel levels of bad.
@markmohr9356 the calls were so awful that even the robo ump would have called them strikes.
@@keithcourvill1529 What sort of world do we live in now where human umpires actually call strikes on pitches that the catcher absolutely butchers?? Oh wait, RoboUmp had a strike?? Well then, I will extinguish my burning pitchforks.
Robo ump is the new Jesus Christ to ump hating Nerds
@@danbev9313 More specifically, RoboUmp is the savior for all these Uncle Rico's who have never so much as umpired a 10U game, but fancy themselves as top tier officials.
The first baseman didn't even know where the ball was.
True, because he couldn't see it due to the runner. "Reasonable chance to catch the throw without the runner", if there's no runner he likely can make that catch regardless of how off that toss was. But bottom line and the only way to fix this rule is for catchers to unite and square up the runner between the numbers, over and over again. Then they'll have to fix it.
Rossy was triggered because the Brewers closed the roof before their at bat earlier in the game. It made the shadows harder for them to hit, apparently. There was a buildup to this. Cubs won, so it worked
The catcher blew that one playing tossy toss...pick it up and drill the runner
If the ball hit the runner when he was that same distance from first, but it was an accurate throw, would he be out? Or is it only interference if it hits him right where the first baseman is attempting to catch it?
I think they would and should have called him out if the throw had hit him from behind. That’s where Amaya made his mistake. He should have hit him rather than trying to throw around him.
@@BigLar56321It didn't look like he tried to throw around him. It looked like an error.
If it's an accurate throw that could have reasonably retired the runner, then it's interference. Honestly, this is not a difficult rule to understand.
Refer to 2021 Erich Bacchus ejects David Ross for perspective
That was my first thought as well. It was really early in Bacchus’s big league career and Ross really jumped on him.
An observation on the play at first, not on the rule. Watch the first baseman Mancini, a very poor fielder. Note where his glove is while awaiting the throw. I learned in little league that when waiting for a throw to give the thrower a target. Get your glove out in front. In this case, the target should have been on the fair side of the base. Give the catcher a chance.
Yea that was legitimately an awful, lazy throw
Had my son go to a clinic for catchers with a former MLB catcher. The major leaguer said the umpires used to expect the catchers to catch and hold the pitch in order to get a strike call regardless of where the pitch was located. No catch, no strike. How times have changed.
What's changed is on-screen graphics and endless slow-motion replays, causing salary-paying, ad-watching fans to demand adherence to what they see on TV, not how games were traditionally called.
So you are complaining that the umpire correctly called a strike????
@@keithcourvill1529hat’s a baseball “purist” for you 😂 they don’t want the game called by the actual rules, but the unwritten ones. Luckily most people aren’t idiots and the sport itself saw itself dying, so changes have finally started to happen.
What am I missing. The ball would have made it to first before the runner
The throw was shit and would not have reasonably retired the runner. No INT under OBR rules.
@@teebob21 it was a shit throw since he was trying not to hit the runner. This is a case where the rule makes it so that you want to bean the runner instead of playing safely.
@@ingiford175 Nah, it was shit because he rushed it and made a poor attempt. To say anything else is just making up excuses and is player apologia.
The first baseman was set up inside in FAIR territory and the catcher threw it outside into FOUL territory. No true throw = no RLI.
"A chance"
Yes, on this play
Call the damn INT
And thIs WAS QUALITY.
Underhanded throw, sure
Catchers reaction? To me, Catchers was bummed the play didn't work out
He was bummed by the throw that had no chance.
He's got to get in position to see this! Eric is standing on the grass on the 1st base side.
I'm not so much concerned about the result, I'm more concered about the signaling of safe(to signal that there's no infraction)when the batter-runner is clearly inside the foul line? We all know that it is the plate umpires responsibility to follow the batter to the line, to get in position to watch for a possible pulled foot and a possible play at first that could be affected by where the baserunner is positioned as he runs to 1st? This gives the best angle and ability to see the line, the batter runner, the fielder, and the ball.
Is the game getting to him?
I'm not qualified, nor am I trying to criticize the man.
I'm saying that on that level, which he surely paid his dues to get too, being in the best possible position that gives you the best opportunity to see the play develop and playout, is huge.
Does the coach move further up the ejection food chain if the umpire knows he F’d up?
No, if anything, they'll get a bit more rope...but getting profane or personal will still get them auto-dumped.
I have no clue why ross got ejected so quickly, he walked up and approached the ump so calmly,I don’t what he said to make him get ejected so quickly
Probably a mix of what he was arguing and how frequently he argued. The three Ps are personal, prolonged and profane and I think Ross might have checked prolonged IF he brought back up and other calls. He also argued balls and strikes which is in the book as illegal to argue. Yes, some chirping usually gets ignored or acknowledged without incident, but leaving position (in this case the discussion with Andy Fletcher) to argue balls and strikes is a pretty good way to get tossed.
I think the casual nature of the ejection also lends credence to this.
Wait Mike Napoli is a first base coach??
Great job by the Crew.
This comes up time and again... if the fielders would just peg the runners in the back when they're out of the lane, they'll get the call 100% of the time and it'll never ever be an issue.
Plus, Counsell has less rules knowledge than anybody who ever played the game as long as he did... if you make a good throw and get the RLI call, I'd bet good money you can also get Counsell tossed over it.
He tried to hit him but missed. That's why it sailed to the right.
Counsell? When Aaron “10%” Boone is around?
@@mudandbleach Beat me to it! No one is wrong about the rules more than Boone.
@@kampoc4802 Boone seems like he goes after the rookie umps over judgment calls or balls/ strikes and just works himself into a frenzy over nothing.
Counsell actually got himself tossed over basic batter's interference rules last year. Dave Martinez was literally laughing about it in the Nationals dugout. Counsell didn't have a clue, or a prayer of having a clue.
@@austin.draude Agreed on Boone bullying younger umps, and yes Martinez was laughing at Counsell because Martinez keeps losing this call, both ways dating back to playoff game which was clearly called wrong. The inconsistency is the hard part.
Given the technology in the dugout, why are these guys still bitching about correct calls? It’s a really bad look.
napoli is going to be facing a suspension
Simple answer is just drill the runner in the back with a hard thrown ball by the catcher. Also, seems like Baccus must be having a bad night, or maybe he is trying to be the new Angel Hernandez.
A simpler answer is to just make an accurate throw.
Jomboy benefitted greatly when he covered cricket. Howabouta a cricket rules video?
I suggested one about a catch/no catch controversy during the World Test Championship. There could be another good one about a controversial run out during Day 5 of the second Ashes Test too
I can’t imagine how arcane some of those rules must be
🇺🇸Happy birthday America 🇺🇸
🎆
The umpires just want tv time it’s getting worse and worse by the day. This isn’t the worst of calls but thru the year it’s been horrendous
There's protecting your player, and then there's retaliation. Mike Napoli sure hasn't changed.
David Ross provided some fireworks of his own during his postgame interview.
I'm on team "dropped balls aren't strikes" and I don't think I'll ever not be.
That is truly the most idiotic take in the world. Whether the catchers drops the ball or not changes absolutely NOTHING about where it came across the plate. You don’t ever have to change your mind, you’re just objectively wrong.
@@andrewbeasley8105 if how the catcher receives the pitch doesn't matter, why do they bother framing anything?
@@Renegade605Framing is used to fool umpires. It doesn't actually make a ball a strike lol. Why would umpires at the highest level of baseball follow a non existent rule?
@@Renegade605 Because dumb coaches teach catchers to frame and bad umpires who can't see the ball cheat by looking at the catcher's mitt, which perpetuates the problem.
By the time an umpire or a catcher gets to NCAA or pro ball, "framing" doesn't buy strikes, but good clean receiving does.
@@teebob21 ah yes, I too like to argue semantics.
Another wonderful baseball rule that is defined and then further defined as a "meh but only sometimes".
Seriously, the commentary... "What do you expect a right handed hitter to do?" RUN IN THE LINES! That's what they're expected to do. Is it a longer path? Too bad.
My call on this would be RLI because that ball could clearly have been caught if not for the runner getting into the basemans sight line. It's like how you can be offside in football (soccer) and if you're standing in front of the goalkeeper even if you don't touch him, you can get called for an offside foul. I think if you aren't calling this RLI then why even bother with the rule? He's run in front of both players in the wrong area but gets away with it because he wasn't hit in the back by the ball. Dumb. I would simplify the rule to be that any runner who is not within the lane as required is out automatically when an attempt at a tag or throw to first base occurs while they are in the wrong area.
Yep, they want to penalize sportsmanship (ie not beaning the back of the player).
@@ingiford175 if the runner is not in his lane, he is not showing “sportsmanship” to the defense. Peg him in the fucking back and move on. Team gets the out, runner stays the fuck in the lane next time 🤷🏽♂️
He got it right.
So who win the game🤣🤣
Pro ball requires a quality throw. F2 did not make a quality throw. EZPZ no-call.
I disagree. I thought it was a solid underhanded toss to F3.
@@joepeters5852even the catcher thought it was a garbage toss. Weird the guy who actually did the toss disagrees with you 😂
@andrewbeasley8105 that's not confirmed. He never said it was a poor throw. You can only go by his reaction. Maybe, he was upset with Contreras. Maybe, he was upset with Bacchus not calling RLI. He can't turn around and start yelling at Bacchus. He's gotta work with him behind the dish. Bacchus had a horrible game all day. Young, in my view, could have fielded the throw. He didn't wanna get trucked by Contreras.
That's runner's interference 10/10 times in my book, Mancini could definitely have reasonably fielded that throw. It probably would have resulted in a collision, but that's not relevant to the rule. What really seals it for me is Contreras clearly cuts inside to impact the throw over the last 20 feet or so. His second and third to last strides with his right kick up dirt, then his last stride with the right is all the way back in the grass. He's so far inside you can see his last stride with his left is outside the frame of his body so he can make the cut back to the actual base. I have some sympathy for righties running a straight line that keeps them in the grass, but Contreras was clearly trying to impede the throw with his line.
How many games a year do you work?
It was RLI all day. The 1st baseman could have caught the ball easily but didn't want to get trucked by the runner who was in fair territory. He made a business decision the ump made the wrong decision.
man I'm a cubs fan and I think that's Amayas fault. Why throw it away when you can throw it 80 mph into the guys back AND get the out call?
Either call the runner's lane interference all the time or take it out of the rule book.
Oh and I love how in the major league rule book there's always a caveat to every rule where each play could be called either way. This is ridiculous.
That's like saying call a balk on every pickoff attempt or take balks out of the rulebook. If there were no judgement calls, you wouldn't need umpires. If you can't call every pitch a strike or a ball, or every runner safe or out, what's the point of the game?
MLB action plays
Umpires who think the fans are there to watch them umpire drive me insane.
I’ve actually seen far worse umpiring all season than these examples. Some really poor ball/strike calls. I’m ready for robo calls on the balls and strikes already.
Please point out in this video a single incorrect call?
Please tell me how robo umps would of handled this game differently?
Really poor ball/strike calls? You mean: every single one the human called was exactly what the computer would have called?
Well holy fuck: why did we spend billions of dollars on a computer system that is just as good as a human being?
Robo ump is the ignorant umpire hating Nerd's Jesus Christ
cubs are morons it seems.
So the HP ump wanted the first baseman to Cliff Floyd himself to get an out call?
"Ah yes let me reach into the path of the runner, shatter my arm all for an out."
It's not the umpire's fault the catcher threw it where he did.
Mancini could’ve gone for it. But then he would’ve been decked by the runner.
It was Young not Mancini. Better footwork by Young and he may have reasonably been able to catch the ball tossed underhanded by Amaya.
Ok, so according to the letter of the rule on running to first base, based on your explanation, then those stripes and running lane
mean nothing. I guess those white stripes and running lane are there for looks and mean nothing at all.
Its funny how the umpires will ignore one rule but be overly strict on another.
This is why I no longer watch MLB, the rules are ridiculous.
Truly horrendous take.
@@andrewbeasley8105 If they are not going to call it every time, why bother having RLI as a rule? The batter was on the infield grass, do you think it was an accident?
@@brianmullaney6237 If they're not going to call a balk on every pickoff, why have balks?
It amazes me that they still havent lined up the bases with the base lines
If they did that half the base would be fair and half foul.
@@Sunshiner129 oh trust me I know and have noticed that. I'm a die hard cub fan but if you wanna get to the base in a straight line you can't run in that baseline
They have! You'll notice that every single base (including the plate) is entirely within the base lines/ foul lines.
non-managers should be seen and NEVER heard.. unless they are addressing their players... coaches have no rope and we are taught to give them even less... I will give a first base coach a little leeway on "blue, he pulled his foot"... beyond that..... YOU don't talk to me unless you're the manager... Yeah, the plate ump made a mistake.. (one we've all made...) and he corrected himself to the hitter.. we all lose count... but the 1BC should not have gone off on the 1BU like that... or ever..
You are correct.
I would think Napoli told him he needed to do something about his shitty performance all day.
first base umpire should shut the hell up and not go after a player, stay in your lane bozo
I think Napoli was trying to redirect fletcher away from nico after hoerner was yelling about the Bacchus' strike call. The first base coach getting ejected is clearly more desirable than the runner from Napoli's perspective.
@@MrTastelikechicken93 Napoli threw out a couple F bombs in that exchange, so not sure about that.
This throw would have EASILY retired the runner. Horrible call by the ump
I think it was closer than it first looked, but I think the 1st Baseman kinda "no-selled" the throw. If had made a more earnest attempt at it, I think it would/should be called. However, with the "lack of effort" by the 1st Baseman, I think it was closer to a 50/50 play, with it ultimately being a no-call.
The first baseman didn't even know where the ball was.
The throw was 4 ft wide of 1st base lol
@@Subangelis Exactly. I don't see how the batter-runner would have been retired when the first baseman couldn't get the ball. Simply throwing the ball away just because the runner is not in the running lane is not enough to constitute RLI. I agree with a no-call here.
@@kendog52361 "lack of effort" was because he could not see the ball
knowing how the umps are gonna call it, runners should always run on the grass. just my take.
If runner's did that every time, catchers would remember every time to hit them hard in the back and get the call
@@TurnedToast That wouldn't guarantee the call because the runner has to interfere with the fielder taking the throw only, not with the fielder making the throw. In college this might have been runner's lane interference, since in college the rule requires the runner interfere with the fielder making the throw or the fielder taking the throw, but this is not college. So what may be correct in college, may be incorrect at the professional level.
Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11): In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.
NCAA Rule 7, Section 11 (p) : In running the last half of the distance from home plate to first base while the ball is being fielded to first base, the batter-runner runs outside the 3-foot restraining line or inside the foul line and, in so doing, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, except that the batter may go outside these lines to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
NCAA Rule 7, Section 11 (p) Note 1: If the batter-runner is running illegally to first base and his being outside the lane alters the throw of a fielder, hinders or alters a fielder’s opportunity to field the throw, or the batter-runner is hit by the throw that has been made in an attempt to make a play, it shall be called interference and the batter-runner is to be called out.
NCAA Rule 7, Section 11 (p) Note 2: The batter-runner is considered outside this 3-foot lane if either foot is outside either line.
@@vincentwendt720 if the ball hits the runner in the back and would otherwise have made it accurately to the 1st baseman on time, that very straightforwardly interferes with the 1st baseman receiving the the throw.
Let’s make this simple: runner gets foul territory and the fielder gets fair territory.
This video left out two of the worst called strikes 3s of the season on cub hitters. (Tauchman and Nico) The umpire not knowing the count was indicative of his level of concentration all day. Very poor performance.
How many games a year do you work? Have you never accidentally rung up a Strike 2?
Please stop calling them correct strike calls, one of the pitches completely missed the zone but was “expected strike” they were almost all balls
Almost a ball is still a strike.
EVERY SINGLE GAME i have watched this season hasnt been decided by who the best team is....they are decide on horrible ball/strike calls. every game
"It's a silly rule anyway. What do you expect a right-handed hitter to do?". Why, for those of us charged with enforcing the rules, WE EXPECT THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE DAMNED RULES, FFS!!
For those of you who think it's a stupid rule, you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't want to hear you opinion, only a better solution. There is a solution, but I don't think MLB will use it. It's been around for at least 20 years and has all but eliminated situations in which RLI might occur.
Gary, I'm assuming you're referring to the orange safety base used in lower-level softball and youth baseball. The double base introduces a bunch of new unneeded unintuitive rules and scenarios that are difficult to officiate correctly. The current OBR rule is fine as it is: batter-runners may not interfere with the quality throw to 1B when they are outside the runner's lane. It's very simple.
Weird scenarios with the double base: Tag ups -- may a runner use the orange safety base to tag up on a fly ball?
Pick off attempts: F1 attempts a pickoff at 1B. R1 slides in headfirst, but is only in contact with the orange portion of the base: safe or out?
Overruns: B1 hits an infield single and reaches 1B safely, overrunning it legally. When he returns to 1B, he stands only on the orange portion of the base when he is tagged by F3. Safe or out?
Batted balls: A batted ball hits the safety base at the dividing line. By rule, any batted ball that touches the orange portion of the base is a foul ball, and a batted ball which touches the white portion is a fair ball. When the contact is simultaneous with both the white and orange bases, is the batted ball fair or foul?
Runners who touch the white base during a play: In most codes that permit a double safety base, the batter-runner is liable to be called out on appeal if they touch only the white portion of the base while running out a batted ball with an incoming play at 1B, even if they beat the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
Runner's interference: With the safety base, any contact or collision initiated by the runner with a fielder who is entirely on the white portion of the base is interference, even if they would have beaten the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
Obstruction: With the safety base, if F3 positions himself blocking any portion of the orange safely base to receive a throw, he has obstructed the batter-runner, even if the throw would have beaten the runner. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
Dropped third strike: F3 is permitted to use the orange portion of the base on a dropped third strike which rolls away from the catcher in foul territory. The runner may use either portion of the base. F3 will not be called for OBS in this scenario, even if he positions himself blocking the orange safely base to receive the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
The double base in professional baseball is a solution in search of a problem which does not exist, except for people who don't know the rules....because HERE'S THE KICKER: Even with a double safety base, with this non-quality throw, the batter-runner still would not have been out under OBR rules for Runner's Lane Interference in this play. Adding a double base would solve nothing.
@@teebob21 Tag ups -- may a runner use the orange safety base to tag up on a fly ball? No, they may not. Once the BR reaches 1B safely, the orange portion ceases to exist, figuratively speaking.
Pick off attempts: F1 attempts a pickoff at 1B. R1 slides in headfirst, but is only in contact with the orange portion of the base: safe or out?
Out. The orange portion of the bag is used only on the initial play on the BR on the way to first base. Once again, once the BR reaches 1B safely, the orange portion ceases to exist.
Overruns: B1 hits an infield single and reaches 1B safely, overrunning it legally. When he returns to 1B, he stands only on the orange portion of the base when he is tagged by F3. Safe or out?
Out. The orange portion of the bag is used only on the initial play on the BR on the way to first base Once again, once the BR reaches 1B safely, the orange portion ceases to exist.
Batted balls: A batted ball hits the safety base at the dividing line. By rule, any batted ball that touches the orange portion of the base is a foul ball, and a batted ball which touches the white portion is a fair ball. When the contact is simultaneous with both the white and orange bases, is the batted ball fair or foul?
Fair.
Runners who touch the white base during a play: In most codes that permit a double safety base, the batter-runner is liable to be called out on appeal if they touch only the white portion of the base while running out a batted ball with an incoming play at 1B, even if they beat the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
I've never heard of this rule.
Runner's interference: With the safety base, any contact or collision initiated by the runner with a fielder who is entirely on the white portion of the base is interference, even if they would have beaten the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
How can it be interference if they have beaten the throw?
Is this a BR attempting to beat the initial throw to the base or a runner attempting to retreat to the base on a tag up?
Obstruction: With the safety base, if F3 positions himself blocking any portion of the orange safely base to receive a throw, he has obstructed the batter-runner, even if the throw would have beaten the runner. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
Was F3 in contact with the white portion?
Dropped third strike: F3 is permitted to use the orange portion of the base on a dropped third strike which rolls away from the catcher in foul territory. The runner may use either portion of the base. F3 will not be called for OBS in this scenario, even if he positions himself blocking the orange safely base to receive the throw. Is this an improvement on the existing rule?
In this scenario the BR is allowed to use the white portion of the base.
The double base in professional baseball is a solution in search of a problem which does not exist, except for people who don't know the rules....because HERE'S THE KICKER: Even with a double safety base, with this non-quality throw, the batter-runner still would not have been out under OBR rules for Runner's Lane Interference in this play. Adding a double base would solve nothing.
Please don't tell me you're another one of those who want the rules to cover every scenario. We used to have guys who attended annual rules clinics with questions that began with "What if". Those questions were banned because in order for the rulebook to cover every possible scenario it would weigh pounds instead of ounces.
Finally, you imply that you have read, in black and white, these rulings. If so what rulebook(s) did they come from?
@@garygemmell3488 See? These are the types of things that come up with the safety base.
These rulings and scenarios are collected from the current interpretations of the safety base in Pony Baseball, USA Softball, as well as the NCAA Softball experimental rule....which is not consistent with the other two leagues mentioned. For example, USA Softball treats the double base as one large permanent object which never goes away, while Pony and NCAA Softball imagine that it goes POOF once first reached by the B/R.
As you can observe, that "simple" decision of whether the orange base disappears by rule or not complicates the adjucation of a bunch of other rules in the game.
@@teebob21 I've only experienced the double bag while umpiring ASA softball, and it worked to nearly eliminate RLI. The RLI rule has been on the books for seemingly forever and yet, people just do not understand it and are pissed off when it is enforced. Muy post was meant to basically shut up all the naysayers who liked to complain but had no solutions. As I expected, none of the back bench bomb throwers uttered a peep. As a former umpire with way too many games under my belt and a pair of nearly useless knees, my solution is a simple one: Comply with the rules we have now. FYI, all those scenarios you mentioned regarding the double bag never were an issue. Not saying they couldn't have, but they just never were.
@@garygemmell3488 Agree with your position that players simply need to comply with the rules as written, or handle the consequences.
The scenarios I've posited weren't hypotheticals. They are actual situations (most of which have an official rule interp) that I have encountered in my 25+ years as an ASA/USA + Fed + NCAA softball umpire and my decade of working garbage Pony/Legion baseball.
(Also, the orange part of the bag hasn't "disappeared" under ASA/USA rules for the better part of 5 years.)
That umpire crew has been awful all year
What this video completely fails to talk about is the tremendous amount of balls called strikes this day. Particularly on the left handed batters box side. Instead it chooses to editorialize and cherry pick in order to frame and argument. Both teams were mad for a reason. And it’s very common that the inciting incident for an ejection in a game like this is actually on a close pitch called correctly. But that is because there had been so many other bad calls.
This video decides to make points out of no issues. Particularly the pitch clock violation strike out. Not a single argument was had but this video decides to make make it one of the arguments in order to bolster their position that the umpire had a good game and everyone was a cry baby.
Further more, the video maker decides to input what they believe to be the argument Dansby Swanson as balls and strikes and completely dismisses that the umpire lost track of the count. Something that any professional umpire rarely does. Again, after 9 full innings of bad calls (not shown in this video) ringing a guy up on strike 2 is a “final straw” moment. Showing your incompetence all game only to double down with that by losing track of the count is embarrassing and deserving of a tongue lashing.
Overall, this video was entirely bias while it made some good points those were lost to the fact that key information was dropped. Points over the runner in the base line argument was well done and correct but it loses its muster when accompanied by intentional framing of other issues.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
calling strike 3 on strike 2 "doesn't matter"? -- pretty sure lots of stuff matters when you're one v one in front of 40k people that wouldn't normally "matter". pretty poor game from bacchus -- whitewashed to no end here....
It happens. It's not common that the umpire would call a strikeout when the strike call is strike 2 but it happens on rare occasion. I'm sure every umpire at some point has done that by mistake. It's really not a big deal. They just correct and signify that it was strike 2.
That first base umpire is a punk,, you brushed agents me so ima over exaggerate to make look dramatic. What a chump. These umpires are destroying baseball. And it is runners interference its plain as day
So just checking, you're saying that Lindsey's explanation of the RLI rule for OBR (MLB) was incorrect? This would have been RLI in college or high school, but not in the pros, even though it looked like RLI given where the batter-runner was running.
Bumping an official should NEVER be tolerated at ANY level. Actions have consequences.
@kennowens7381
The explanation is spot on, the suggestion of the play being a judgment call is wrong. The runner is clearly on the grass making him out of the base path
@vincentwendt720
He didn't bump him, he brushed him and his over reaction was unnecessary. The umpire is a bad joke
@@randolphhudson8645More to the rule than his position. As explained in the video, the runner could’ve ran to the pitchers mound and not been guilty of RLI.
Brewers clearly SHOULD’ve won this game.
Based on what?
Yeah they tried closing the roof during the cubs at bats they tried everything and still lost lol
ur painting a rosier picture of the ump than he deserves. I watched the game. he appeared unprofessional, confused and frankly scared throughout this game. needs more training.