This would be a perfect instance for the broadcasters to have a former official in the booth, the same way that they do for the NFL, having Dean Blandino in the booth to discuss why the refs rule the way they do. A lot of the broadcasters do commentary for multiple sports, and I don't think they can be expected to know the rule-book in and out. Give them access to somebody who DOES know the rules.
I know it has been said a million times on this channel. This is why we need an explanation from the umpires following a review. It would be interesting if they have the same take that we are getting here. Great Job explaining it. 👏
This is why announcers should never talk about rules. They are woefully ignorant of probably 90% of all rules. Talk stats, balls and strikes, good plays, pitch anything that is observable. Rules, never.
It continues to amaze me how many people in baseball have been in the game their whole lives and do not know the rules. Players, managers, broadcasters, etc. If you are going to go out and play a game, wouldn't knowing the rules to said game be a logical step? Guess not.
Well how many other groups don't know the rules they play by: Football players/announcers, golfers, police officers, employers, Basketball players/announcers, i'm sure the list is long. The issue is not the participants, the issue becomes the number and depth of rules.
Under the replay rules, in a runner-missed-the-base situation, the defense must (1) make a live-ball appeal the old-fashioned way, and then, after the runner is called safe on appeal, (2) challenge that call. (You can't challenge the missed base before the appeal, because the umpire doesn't yet have occasion to rule on whether the runner missed the base.) The call on appeal is the call that's reviewed, and so the 20-second clock starts when that call is made, even if the actual play happened some minutes ago. Appeal play != replay review.
Jomboy honestly admits that he is no rules expert. That explains why he always thinks the umps are wrong. Reminds me of most announcers but they never admit their ignorance.
Jomboy’s analysis is still useful on this particular play. We got the LaRussa lip reading to understand what Tony was arguing. It is the perfect complement to this video.
@@andrecanis4894 ....NO, or the video here would not be correct either. You have to UNDERSTAND the rules too. Just because Larussa "co-wrote" the replay rules doens't mean shit, ... obviously, right? LOL! :)
Reminds me of that interference call where the announcers got so mad about it, like "If they change this, they'd better change the rules of the whole game!" They made the correct call, and that specific rule was in fact changed, but the announcers were straight up wrong,with the rule the way it was at the time.
Broadcasters never know the rules. I understood why they were wrong immediately. First the Brewers had to ma,e an appeal throw to the plate. There's no time limit, it must be done before another pitch is thrown. If the runner is called safe on the appeal throw, then they can request a video review.
I think they were upset that he called safe but I know he was saying safe balls in play because it hit him while in live ball he was instructor when I went to Hunter Wendelstedt umpire school and he’s a great guy
Yeah my first thought was that that call was re: no interference by runner or umpire Now, he clearly missed Moncada missing home, too (as he called safe on the appeal), but given his attention was on the ball and the interference I think this is understandable.
@@davej3781 So because chicago is leading the division the teams can get two twenty second clocks. He should have had to make the decision after the FIRST safe call.
So, I love Jason and Steve, and this isn't necessarily an easy group of things going together. The current Sox broadcast does a very good job of being very supportive and showing good sportsmanship towards umpires. I bet that if Steve and Jason got this video, they'd do a better job on the next time something liked that happened.
Broadcasters are the biggest violators when it comes to being wrong about rules. And because 3 million people are watching, they now have incorrect rules to refer to 'because that's what the announcers said'.
This could all be fixed by giving the umpires microphones like in the NFL, NHL and now even in the NBA. It is time for this to happen. It would clear up so many issues with broadcasters and fans not understanding what is happening and why.
Fascinating. Great explanation. Home plate umpire did call time out, expecting (I presume) that the pitcher wanted a new ball. Counsell played this perfectly, I think. But about the umpire calling time (when, in retrospect he shouldn't have, but who can blame him), as you stated, the rules state an appeal can't be allowed. This greatly confuses the issue, and pretty much places the defending team (Brewers) no option to appeal. It seems the Brewers did everything correctly, but could have been punished for doing so.
@@rickhaavisto9023 "If time is out, that is not a valid appeal". Time had been called by the home plate umpire - see his hands go up, calling time out before the appeal attempt?
Roger Melin Yes, the ball is then put back in play and the pitcher steps off the mound for the appeal before he throws a pitch or attempts to make a play on a runner
This is why umpires are supposed to signal safe _twice_ when a runner is safe at home. The first safe call means he wasn't tagged, and the second one means the run scored.
As a former official of three sports - and a former journalist with a ton of sports coverage on the resume - I a staggered by how little sportswriters/commentators actually know about the sports they are paid to cover.
I think everyone’s point is that the baserunner had no incentive to touch the base after the safe call. That is appealable (imho). The umpire signaled safe. If he made no signal (which is the mechanic) the runner may have corrected his error. The umpire’s ruling significantly impacted the course of events which occurred immediately thereafter. The appeal was correct but it does not address why we are here in the first place.
How many times did I say, broadcasters should know the rules or they shouldn't be calling professional games. They just confuse the crap out of everyone.
It'd be nice for the fans to know what's going on during/after replays, but MLB continues to not give any explanation afterwards. It's one thing for people on TV because you get a general idea most of the time as to what happened and the outcome, but the fans at the game? Nothing. Left in limbo. Why can't we just get an umpire or someone designated to get on the PA and explain what happened to the people in attendance? It's no wonder people don't know the rules or what happened half the time.
Let’s assume the runner was uncertain at to whether he touched home. He sees the umpire call "safe" and concludes that there is no reason to go back and touch home (again). Why is he unable to rely on the safe call? This occurs much more frequently when a fly ball to the outfield is either trapped or caught in the umpire makes a signal. The runners then proceed according to the umpire signal which turns out to be incorrect.
Appeal plays are pretty specific though. It's only for times when a runner misses the bag which is a fairly rare occurrence. Plus on this play in particular, another rare thing happened… the umpire was hit with the ball and therefore I don't think he actually watched the runner cross home plate. He just ASSUMED the runner touched home because typically, players touch home. But in most scenarios, the umpire will very much be aware whether or not a runner touched the base, and therefore the correct call would be made on the appeal, and replay wouldn't be necessary. I'm not sure the opportunity exists for this loophole to be used that often.
@@Mark-wd5zb I wouldn't even call it a loophole. As far as the appeal goes as an umpire, you certainly can't call the runner out if you aren't sure the base/plate was missed. The runner is presumed to have touched each base he passes unless successfully appealed.
In order to appeal the "play" at the plate the ball has to be put back into play (ball w/pitcher on rubber, then steps off) before it can be ruled upon. The motion of safe had to do with the attempted play at the plate but hit the runner and the ump. There are two separate plays in that situation.
A good argument would be that when the plate ump originally signaled SAFE he was indicating that the runner touched the plate. Where as if he had not made a call the runner would have been trying to return to touch the plate and the defense would at the same time been trying to tag him out before he could do so. So what he did wrong was HE MISSED THE CALL while looking right at it.
Baseball has only had 100+ years to come up with a different hand signal for a play like this. The runner turns around and sees a safe sign on a close play, that ended the play in his mind. You know what does work pretty well? The umpire's voice. What is the reason that they can't make it clear what they're calling, especially considering that they sometimes do declare calls vocally as well? When they feel like it at least.
There wasn’t a play...therefore, why would the runner think he was ruling on a potential tag... Also, an umpire should never signal a runner safe if a tag isn’t being placed on him EDIT: Also, the runner knows there was no play attempted on him, because he was hit by the ball, which is what the ump was ruling on...
First time I saw this I thought the umpire was signaling "no interference" and as Gill said, there are more possibilities as well. That aside, the idea of "the call ended the play for the runner" does not hold up. Imagine there was a play atr first base where the runner beats the throw but overrsteps the base. The umpire may not alert the defense on him missing the base, so he signals "safe". Even if there had benn an actual play at home where Moncada missed the base/plate, the umpire would still call safe until the defense makes the appeal for missed base.
Safe doesn't actually ever mean you touched the base. It just means that you are not out. Think about a swipe tag where the runner missed home, the umpire will still signal "safe" because the missed tag is a play they need to rule on, and they only really rule on touched bases if there is an appeal. A touch of a base is something you have to ASK the umpire to rule on, it does not happen real time.
This difference here is Tony LaRussa was on the team deciding how to implement replay. He thought they had implemented a rule about no allowing a replay after a mound visit. Maybe that was something they thought of before changing it and he doesn't remember.
Honestly, I don’t know what the exact replay rules are, but he might be right in that respect. However, there was no mound visit between what was being reviewed and asking for the review, since they asked for a review of the appeal ruling, not an potential tag or force out during the previous play
Just watching this video for the first time. One thing I caught, and liked, was that at one point, one of the umpires was talking to Moncada as he was sitting on the bench. I assume the ump was explaining to the runner what happened. (edit: the umpire I'm talking about had a 26 ( 9:19 ) on his sleeve.)
seriously these announcers need to be informed of the rules. this is getting annoying. every video the announcer has something to say that’s completely wrong.
Not when it comes to rules knowledge. In that department, they have a reputation with me of being the worst, especially when it goes against the ChiSox...
I can certainly understand the argument of "The umpire signaled safe, so the runner didn't think he needed to re-touch home plate." Hypothetically, tag play at second, umpire rules the runner out. Runner leaves second, fielder tags him a second time. Out call on the tag gets overturned, but then they rule that the runner left second and got tagged out then. Once a player is changing their behavior based on an umpire call, shouldn't that affect how the call is adjudicated? Is this addressed in the rules at all?
The Replay Official is instructed to make the call (safe, out, placing runners, etc) as if the correct call (or no-call) had been made as the original call.
The runner had to know he didn't touch home. He wasn't looking at the ump when the ump signaled. As the narrator said, he could have been signaling safe as to the ball hitting him. Didn't look to me that umpire actually saw the runner touch home. He just assumed he did and we all know what happens when you assume.
@@CloseCallSports Right. But I don’t think that addresses what he said. If he hadn’t signaled safe the runner realizes his mistake and then touches home plate. But… if he goes back to touch it realizing he missed it. The catcher had the ball and tries to make the tag? And he is out anyway. I don’t think there is a fair way to project how it goes if he did or didn’t signal safe. I would argue he shouldnt have signaled safe. But his initial call on the appeal for touching home was safe until they challenged the appeal. So the umpire didn’t even know he didn’t touch home. Hence the original safe call confusing the runner(if the runner saw the call. I honestly don’t think he saw it. But teammates maybe did).
@@wdmcgaheeii The answer is a bit cut short, but if you continue the thought we do get there. The difference is that after an on-field safe call (on the bases), the runner would not leave his base. On an on-field out call (with an additional tag in the given example) that gets overturned by replay, the runner would be put on second base as he would not have left the base if not for the umpires wrong (and overturned) out call, so the call is adjusted for the umpire's mistake. In this situation, the signal safe does not have any impact on him not touching the base. See my other comment (copied here): The idea of "the call ended the play for the runner" does not hold up. Imagine there was a play at first base where the runner beats the throw but overrsteps the base. The umpire may not alert the defense on him missing the base, so he signals "safe". Even if there had benn an actual play at home where Moncada missed the base/plate, the umpire would still call safe until the defense makes the appeal for missed base.
I love baseball, but it's the most complicated sport in the world, and its broadcasters have no idea, and don't even attempt to learn the rules. As an umpire this is challenging because misconceptions are passed down to players who *swear* they heard (insert name of broadcaster here) saying the rule was "x". It gets even worse when individual leagues have their own interpretation of the rules (you guys talk about NCAA vs. MLB), and this can result in major headaches.
Hmm I wouldn’t say broadcasters have no idea or don’t even attempt to learn the rules at least at the MLB level. Like you said it’s the most complicated sport in the world and you could go years without something coming up that would challenge a previewed understanding. They 100% need to give umps the ability to explain calls live time
I've been umpiring for 25 years, and one of the most common arguments I hear from coaches on a ball thrown out of play is "he was going back to first base, you can't give him third base, he gets the base he was going to [first base] plus one [second base]!" - nowhere in the rulebook does it say a runner is awarded "the base they are going to plus one," because the rule always awards additional bases based upon what they already legally occupy. Just like these announcers, very few little league and high school coaches have read the rulebook, and it shows. I've even had a coach proudly declare he was the league's self-proclaimed "rules expert"...and in the course of two games he argued calls/rules that fall under the "if you open the rulebook just one time you'd know this rule".
Love your challenge videos and top 10 guides. :D I do have to say as a former player and as a guy who umps now while some of the rules are complicated, everything you need to know is in a document that's under 200 pages in a PDF. You just have to drill them into your brain. I will say in your point as a fan it would be super cool to have a former ump, or a rules expert on the side like soccer does in their broadcasts or even the NFL. It would help out the viewers and clear up these misconceptions.
@@JayD73 I agree with Jrose11. Announcers don't know the rules. Instead of taking the time to learn them, the announcers run off at the mouth with nonsensical made up rules. It really makes them look stupid to speculate on what they think is right. Especially when they are wrong about 80% of the time.
Ya know, I think Rehak was signaling safe because the thrown ball hit the runner. As we know, that’s nothing (on this play at least). I don’t know why he did it, but he signaled “that’s nothing” with a safe call. But I could be wrong.
Say Tony does raise the fact that the appeal was improper. Does the umpire tell the Brewers how to cure their error (since ultimately he caused it by incorrectly calling time) or does he simply tell them "you cannot lodge an appeal during a dead ball?" Because at that point, many teams who don't have their rulebook handy could think this would mean their appeal has been dismissed and cannot be raised again.
The white sox should have argued about the improper process. It might seem petty, but if, immediately after "play" from the umpire, they sent R3 to home on a steal, they could preserve the run. In order to get both the appeal out and R3, the defense must complete the appeal and ignore the runner stealing home. While yes, they could step on home and indicate that they are appealing, they would need to do that while ignoring the runner form third. If the defense makes a play on the runner from third prior to the appeal, then that appeal would happen after the next pitch or play, and the appeal could no longer be granted.
It doesn't change the fact that the umpire called him safe so the runner thought he was safe. Should have been safe period due to the umpire not doing what he was supposed to do.
So many parts to this video. I do enjoy that if umpires get something wrong it’s “ok, I’ll grant you that” and players, coaches and announcers get the most insulting sarcasm possible. The best part of the video is the two seconds the broadcast show one ump in the dugout explaining it. For all the Ron Kulpa ego and Angel Hernandez incompetence, I enjoy good umps that are cool people and deal well with players and coaches even when they don’t seem to deserve it. They’re far less recognized but it’s my favorite part of any game, especially when they’re MIC’ed and you hear how they almost best friend try to calm them and explain it. I still remember by name the ten or so umps and refs that were that way to me and when coaching it also changes my demeanor before there’s even a complaint.
In this case, the defense never even made an appeal because the umpire called time because he thought the pitcher wanted another ball. Technically the ball should have been put back in play, allow the proper appeal, then video.
ahhh... the ump realized what they were doing ... (The pitcher threw to the catcher while pointing to home plate. The catcher stepped on home plate. this indicates an appeal, even though the ump at first thought he was exchanging the ball.
@@davej3781 then why on the appeal did he still say the runner was safe without knowing if the runner touched the base he assumed because he didnt see the runner touch home plate if he would have he would have called him out
You didn't address the commentators' assertion that the umpire can't make a safe call if he sees the runner miss home. This is also false. The umpire should pause to make sure there is no tag attempt and then rule the runner safe. The umpire does not just stare at the runner, waiting for someone to act.
@@rickhaavisto9023 Um there was a play on the runner. And I was addressing the commentator's assertion that you shouldn't call a runner safe if he missed the base, as if you just stand there and stare at the runner until someone reacts.
Dave J What’s your opinion on what the ump was calling Dave? My first instinct is that he was signaling no runners interference because there can’t be umpire interference on a throw (unless it is from the catcher on a stolen base attempt)
Sadly, Chicago broadcasters have never been known to know the rules - Maybe if the bleepin announcers had a clue about the rules and stuff, they could tell the fans what's going on rather than being the idiots they behave like...
"When you don't touch the plate the umpire makes no call whatsoever.". Face palm. Umpires are instructed to hesitate and then make the safe call if the defense does not immediately attempt a tag or appeal. By not making any call the umpire is telling the defense the runner missed the bag. It is an unfair advantage since the offense has no mechanism to appeal the appeal. By calling the runner safe the defense still has the opportunity to make an appeal under the rules. Runners aren't out until they are PUT OUT. The same is true when a batter runner beats the throw at first base but misses the bag. The umpire signals safe and waits for the appeal. Runners are always assumed to have touched the base until an appeal is made. I used to have access to the MLB umpire's case book. I poured over that thing, so I know of which I am speaking
The rule states "Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play. If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half-inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field." Changing pitchers does not qualify as any of those. Unless there is additional guidance or an interpretation to the contrary, I see no reason an appeal should be disallowed if the pitching change was the only thing that happened - no intervening play before or after the change.
@@billbell2311 Re-reading what I saw, it appears that the appeal can be made after a pitching change, but the team loses the right to an instant replay challenge if a pitching change was made.
@@locustjohn3865 Without going to the rules myself, if the brewers had changed pitchers on the visit (in time-out) and made his warm pitches (that are still in time out), then, after the ball is put in play the new pitcher makes the appeal, the saffe-call on the appeal could still be challenged as the 20 seconds start once the umpire makes the call on the appeal. Am I missing something? Or do you mean they would lose the right to instant replay on whatever the umpire signaled initially, be it a no-tag, no-interference etc?
My question is in the past an appeal play and I agree it's a appeal play , in the past umpires didn't go to the replay . They never went to replay. So is this a new rule because have never seen umpires go to replay on an appeal play. Any guide on this??
One more thing from one of your own videos home plate umpire in a miss touch never made safe call waited then called out. Major league rules different??
I think, generally, the Ump already saw what happened, and didn't need to go to a review, after the appeal. Here, the Ump wasn't looking at the home base, hence he seemed to "default call" "Safe". Milwaukee knew that that wasn't "true", hence when he upheld his own call during the Appeal, they immediately called for Replay Review. I asked about this on Twitter, because this seems like the kind of play that the channel loves to take a look at, due to, in part, all of the various rules in play. From what Jomboy was saying, in his video, La Russa was in the MLB Front Office with Joe Torre when Replay came in, and he thought that they had "fixed" a potential loophole of there being lengthy delay by a mound visit to "buy time", like what seemed to be happening here, according to Tony, that is. I think that's why the rules check was done, at Tony's instigation, due to that.
@@donaldpicard7752 When MLB instituted Replay Review, they allowed appeal plays to be reviewable as well, stating that base touches, leaving early, and the like must go through the appeal process first before becoming eligible for replay. If you visit our Replay Stats and Sabermetrics page (www.closecallsports.com/p/replay-stats.html) and scroll down the UEFL/Close Call Sports' Replay Reviews by Call Type section, you'll notice a handful of Replay Reviews have pertained to leaving early and missing a base. It's not a common reason for Review, but it does happen.
The Umpire Manual says that the umpire should make no call when there is no tag/no touch of home plate, like on this play (actually, it says it is "preferable" not to make a call). So though this might not have changed the outcome, I think it should have been noted a little more forcefully in this video. The announcer even suggested that the runner may not have come back to touch because of the safe call. In addition, saying that there are only so many signals and it was not clear about what the umpire made a safe call about, that seems far fetched -- only a little while ago you made a video of a collision up the 1st base line where the umpire made a safe call on no interference, then pointed the obstruction, then called the runner out. The umpire could have done the same here, making whatever calls he thought necessary. Jomboy completely hates the umps and he doesn't know the rules (though he 's slowly learning), but his take was better in some ways, as he emphasized the fact the umpire did not see the play and provided a week safe call. This should have been emphasized here as well.
The problem is you can't make a safe call on no interference, then point at home plate and signal "no call" because there's no signal for that (I think)
@@jeffcota378 in this case, yes. I was just pointing out that in general, it wouldn’t be possible to point to home plate and signal „no call“ so Daniel‘s suggestion wouldn’t have helped even if the umpire hadn’t missed the no-touch.
There is no way that the umpire's safe call was for interference -- if it was there was no need to make it. The key call was at home plate. And an honest look at the play -- like on Jomboy -- shows that the umpire was not watching the touch and his safe call was very tentative. I just think Gil could have been a little more honest here.
Is this a matter of the umpires wanting to check on the appeal itself, as the other Umpires are at least 90 feet away? Also, is the washout by PU actually him signalling "No Umpire Interference"?
Thats what happens when you have so called broadcasters that think they know it all and they think they know the rules; but in actuality they make themselves look like Jack donkeys.
Great, fantastic channel. I like the idea of giving the umps a stadium mic. I lived in Japan for 14 years and attended a few games. Never once understood what the umpire announced, but the crowd seem happy to know what was going. Americans crowds would, I think, would bit less understanding then the Japanese
Since the home plate umpire made no call at the plate on whether the runner was safe or out (the safe mechanic was to indicate no interference on the throw hitting the runner), the live ball appeal would be reviewable as a base touch play, just like any other such incident.
@@ChrysoliteTwo no, no...you ASSUME, the safe call was for interference, just like the voice in the video assumes. Either way, Appeal is not challengeable...wasn’t on the graphic. AND the ump threw the safe sign again. So play over, appeal over, not challengeable.
@@ericschultz9291 appeals are not reviewable. The Brewers aren’t challenging the appeal. They’re challenging that the runner didn’t touched the plate which is reviewable. The only way the brewers could challenge is if the HP umpire had ruled on the appeal of whether the runner touched the plate
Complain about the broadcasters not knowing the minutia of the rule book all you want, but they’re there to make the game watchable for fans, it is strictly entertainment after all. The umpires union, meanwhile, voted down the idea of making announcements to the audience about like in the nfl because apparently they’re too shy to speak to everyone.
Yea, I love this channel for it's extremely accurate baseball rules content, but, like all rules nerds, he gets way too angry and pouty at people who aren't as smart as him. The announcers can't be expected to know everything imo
Dihydrogen Monoxide No, but when you have announcers who don’t know the rules AND make no attempt to properly explain the rules, who do you think that affects most? Umpires at all levels...
@@dollgen "The announcers can't be expected to know everything". The announcers should be required to know something. I can point out 5 times in every game where the announcers are wrong.
It is a bullshit rule that teams can extend their replay time by the appeal.Although the whole concept of 20 seconds to challenge is bullshit too. If a call is so wrong that it needs to be corrected, the team that was wronged should know IMMEDIATELY. Giving teams time to check frame by frame instant replays in the clubhouse is fucking ridiculous
Wait a sec...”the ump isn’t supposed to give away whether the runner touched the bag/plate”. I suppose if the ump didn’t give the safe call (which you graciously give the ump a pass for), then the appeal should be reviewable, as the play isn’t over until the next pitch. The safe call rendered the play over, the 20 seconds expired, and the brewers challenge a call that had been over for 2 minutes. The ump even motioned safe AGAIN, so I’m not sure why you gave them that pass earlier in the video. This was completely outside the scope of the review system. Umps blew it.
You conveniently forget that the mechanic for calling a runner safe and for indicating no interference/no obstruction are exactly identical. Notice how the home plate umpire is looking at the ball when he lifts his arms up. He's indicating that there was no interference on the runner for the thrown ball making contact with him. When the appeal is made, he's obliged to make a call, and in this instance, where he didn't see the touch because he was tracking the ball, he's obliged to presume it was safe and respond the appeal.
@@ChrysoliteTwo you conveniently overlook that an appeal is not challengeable. I assume if it were in the rule book, the OP would have mentioned it. Wasn’t on the graphic he provided as a challengeable play. If you are right, that the initial safe call was for interference, the appeal was adjudicated SAFE when the ump threw the safe sign again. Appeal over. The play can’t be reviewed as 20 seconds had passed, an Appeal is not reviewable.
Eric Schultz Dude, MLB in the rules notes that, if a manager wants to challenge a play, he has to appeal it first IF it is a play that needs to be ruled on appeal (passing base, leaving early, etc)
@@ericschultz9291 I want you to go and pick up a copy of the Official Rules of Major League Baseball and show me where Replay Review is even mentioned. Oh, that's right: Replay Review isn't included in the OBR, but is rather governed by the Replay Review regulations. According to OBR 5.09(c)(4), runners missing home plate and making no attempt to return is, by its very nature, an appeal play. The Replay Review regulations (as found at mlb.com/glossary/rules/replay-review ) specifically lists "Specified baserunning calls: Calls involving [...] whether a baserunner touched the base" as reviewable. Therefore, it is impossible to make a Replay Review manager challenge on a runner missing home plate UNTIL the appeal has been made. All this aside, it really seems like you want the umpires to be wrong. I thought the priority was to get calls right.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been saying that for years! You have TONS of retired capable MLB umpires to act as "in-booth" officials .... freakin' do it! :)
In the nfl, the rules expert is in the network studio waiting to be buzzed in. Problem in mlb is that there are a couple dozen networks, granted most of them are now under the Bally name.
NFL broadcasts are centralized with the networks. MLB broadcasts are usually with RSNs, be it NBC Regional Sports (plus SNY), Bally Sports (plus YES), NESN, or AT&T Sportsnet.
They got the call right in the end so none of this really matters, but I feel like the fact that they had an entire mound visit before appealing and then challenging is a little shady, might like to see a rule change regarding that
It's fine. It's an edge case. It's the only play where the mound visit is useful. The appeal is a play, plays can be challenged. I don't think we need to start making the rule book thicker for every little edge case like this.
It states in the rules that a trip to the mound doesn't constitute a play. They have the opportunity to collect all the information they have from all the players before making the appeal.
The mound visit was to buy time for a review. Remember that touching a base requires an appeal BEFORE a challenge. The challenge is on the appeal. There are no grounds for a challenge before the appeal. As such, the clock starts upon the appeal play ruling.
I'm not saying that announcers (and in this case the manager) should know the OBR word for word, but they should at least have a basic understanding of the rules so they don't embarrass themselves on television for being clueless
I understand what you're saying, but doesn't a "safe" call at home automatically mean that a run scored? It would make more sense to adopt a hand signal for the "that's a nothingburger" calls, like obstruction/interference non-calls. Maybe do the safe sign, but with only one arm?
@@almostfm No, a safe call does not mean that a run scored, it means the runner is not out, but he could be ultimately called out on the appeal. Since there was no play at the plate to rule on he is indicating there is no interference when the ball hits the runner then himself.
This is how misinformation spreads. The broadcasters teach their fans to be angry saying that they can protest and that it "should be 4-1" or "I've never seen the umpires do this it shouldn't have happened." They try to clarify that it's "to my understanding of the rules" and such, but if you don't know for sure you cannot spread misinformation like this because this is how fans don't understand the rules. I understand they're going to be more supportive of their team and they were trying to be objective but this is how just from each call many fans see it and get taught to be outraged and hate umpires for the correct call and that's how we end up in a world with so much hate towards good umpires.
This is why baseball needs a signal like soccer has. Something to communicate that the ump saw what happened, they're not calling anything on it, and to play on. Then the ump would have used that signal on the hit runner and it would have avoided much of this confusion.
The dead ball wasn't the only error by the umpires on this play. The umpire never saw whether Moncada touched the plate because he instinctively was watching the ball while trying to avoid it. Yet, he signaled safe on the appeal.
Jeff Cota Yes, he ruled the runner safe on appeal, because he was watching the ball (as he should) and had no idea whether the runner touched or not, which is why, when asked by the manager about the ruling on the appeal, the umpire initiated a review... What do you want him to do differently? Ignore his training and focus on home plate despite the ball still being in play? Please don’t criticize the umps if you have literally no idea what they do...
@@rickhaavisto9023 You assume too much, sir. I do know what they do. I also see what you're doing. You're deflecting. I'm not suggesting that he ignore his training. He made a mistake. Don't cover it up. It only makes it worse for the profession and diminishes the already low respect that fans have for umpires. It's a tough job. The point stands that he shouldn't have doubled down on the appeal when he knew he didn't see Moncada touch the plate. It's very simple.
Jeff Cota Dude...he HAS to rule on the appeal...he wasn’t watching because he was watching the ball like he is supposed to. He has to make a call for it to even go to replay. He ruled safe, because he didn’t see it... You want him to rule it an out? Even though he didn’t see it?
Because it's dumb that you're allowed to appeal by Heaven your picture throw a lob pass over the plate special now's days of Replay you should only have the 20 seconds and that's it it's a dumb rule but it was the right call
I just took my state's bar exam yesterday, and it feels like this would have been a great question for civil procedure haha
Do you appeal the original order, or the denial of motion for rehearing or reconsideration?
Hope you pass your bar exam
It made me brain hurt!!!!
How did you do??
This would be a perfect instance for the broadcasters to have a former official in the booth, the same way that they do for the NFL, having Dean Blandino in the booth to discuss why the refs rule the way they do. A lot of the broadcasters do commentary for multiple sports, and I don't think they can be expected to know the rule-book in and out. Give them access to somebody who DOES know the rules.
I’d love this
totally right
Great idea. Definitely for the Playoffs.
But the 20 second clock would have been long expired.
@@63076topher did you watch the video?
I know it has been said a million times on this channel. This is why we need an explanation from the umpires following a review. It would be interesting if they have the same take that we are getting here. Great Job explaining it. 👏
Kinda like how the refs in other sports have a mic and tell the crowd what happened right ?
Starting with the 2022 season, umpires will have microphones, or at least the crew chief.
This is why announcers should never talk about rules. They are woefully ignorant of probably 90% of all rules. Talk stats, balls and strikes, good plays, pitch anything that is observable. Rules, never.
It continues to amaze me how many people in baseball have been in the game their whole lives and do not know the rules. Players, managers, broadcasters, etc. If you are going to go out and play a game, wouldn't knowing the rules to said game be a logical step? Guess not.
Well how many other groups don't know the rules they play by: Football players/announcers, golfers, police officers, employers, Basketball players/announcers, i'm sure the list is long. The issue is not the participants, the issue becomes the number and depth of rules.
Under the replay rules, in a runner-missed-the-base situation, the defense must (1) make a live-ball appeal the old-fashioned way, and then, after the runner is called safe on appeal, (2) challenge that call. (You can't challenge the missed base before the appeal, because the umpire doesn't yet have occasion to rule on whether the runner missed the base.) The call on appeal is the call that's reviewed, and so the 20-second clock starts when that call is made, even if the actual play happened some minutes ago. Appeal play != replay review.
Thank you!
Excellent explanation of the rule.
Even better than Jomboy’s breakdown. Very informative.
Jomboy used to be good. Since he got famous for the Astros thing, he's turned into an arrogant douche.
Jomboy honestly admits that he is no rules expert. That explains why he always thinks the umps are wrong. Reminds me of most announcers but they never admit their ignorance.
Jomboy’s analysis is still useful on this particular play. We got the LaRussa lip reading to understand what Tony was arguing. It is the perfect complement to this video.
@@danlambesis1289 you are correct. His lip reading is very good.
@@locustjohn3865 Ha ha, you're kind of right.
As soon as I saw this play, I was waiting for this video! Excellent as always! And yes will somebody please send this to ALL the mlb broadcasters!
It's amazing how the announcers swear they know what their talking about, but truly have no clue!!!
I can’t believe Steve Stone doesn’t understand appeals. Appeals have been around forever not like replay. Dummy.
It is unfortunate that so many broadcasters today are ignorant of the rules.
How are the announcers always so wrong? They do this for a living. Know the rules before passing on bad info.
Well apparently even Larussa who co-wrote the replay rules seems to get it wrong, so it must not be as clear cut as everyone thinks.
If tony doesn’t know about the rules that he helped write, it says alot
PoliticalGangster I’m interpreting your comment to mean it says a lot about Tony
@@andrecanis4894 ....NO, or the video here would not be correct either. You have to UNDERSTAND the rules too. Just because Larussa "co-wrote" the replay rules doens't mean shit, ... obviously, right? LOL! :)
Reminds me of that interference call where the announcers got so mad about it, like "If they change this, they'd better change the rules of the whole game!"
They made the correct call, and that specific rule was in fact changed, but the announcers were straight up wrong,with the rule the way it was at the time.
Baseball broadcasters not understanding what's going on? Imagine my surprise!!
The commentators were only upset bc it hurt their team. If the roles were reversed they would be saying "hey thats the rule"
Broadcasters never know the rules. I understood why they were wrong immediately. First the Brewers had to ma,e an appeal throw to the plate. There's no time limit, it must be done before another pitch is thrown. If the runner is called safe on the appeal throw, then they can request a video review.
I think they were upset that he called safe but I know he was saying safe balls in play because it hit him while in live ball he was instructor when I went to Hunter Wendelstedt umpire school and he’s a great guy
Yeah my first thought was that that call was re: no interference by runner or umpire
Now, he clearly missed Moncada missing home, too (as he called safe on the appeal), but given his attention was on the ball and the interference I think this is understandable.
B I N G O !
What happened to the 20 second clock time to call for a review was LONG over.
@@davej3781 So because chicago is leading the division the teams can get two twenty second clocks. He should have had to make the decision after the FIRST safe call.
@@davej3781 Yes there was i saw the umpire signal safe
So, I love Jason and Steve, and this isn't necessarily an easy group of things going together. The current Sox broadcast does a very good job of being very supportive and showing good sportsmanship towards umpires. I bet that if Steve and Jason got this video, they'd do a better job on the next time something liked that happened.
Broadcasters are the biggest violators when it comes to being wrong about rules. And because 3 million people are watching, they now have incorrect rules to refer to 'because that's what the announcers said'.
I didn’t know you could no longer protest. I still remember the last upheld protest (Giants vs. Cubs 2014).
I believe that change was made last year
This could all be fixed by giving the umpires microphones like in the NFL, NHL and now even in the NBA. It is time for this to happen. It would clear up so many issues with broadcasters and fans not understanding what is happening and why.
I had read earlier this year that MLB wanted to and was exploring doing this so I find it kind of odd we haven't seen it yet.
Fascinating. Great explanation. Home plate umpire did call time out, expecting (I presume) that the pitcher wanted a new ball. Counsell played this perfectly, I think. But about the umpire calling time (when, in retrospect he shouldn't have, but who can blame him), as you stated, the rules state an appeal can't be allowed. This greatly confuses the issue, and pretty much places the defending team (Brewers) no option to appeal. It seems the Brewers did everything correctly, but could have been punished for doing so.
An appeal absolutely can be allowed following a time-out
@@rickhaavisto9023 9:40
Roger Melin None of those say time-out...
@@rickhaavisto9023 "If time is out, that is not a valid appeal". Time had been called by the home plate umpire - see his hands go up, calling time out before the appeal attempt?
Roger Melin Yes, the ball is then put back in play and the pitcher steps off the mound for the appeal before he throws a pitch or attempts to make a play on a runner
This is why umpires are supposed to signal safe _twice_ when a runner is safe at home. The first safe call means he wasn't tagged, and the second one means the run scored.
As a former official of three sports - and a former journalist with a ton of sports coverage on the resume - I a staggered by how little sportswriters/commentators actually know about the sports they are paid to cover.
I think everyone’s point is that the baserunner had no incentive to touch the base after the safe call. That is appealable (imho). The umpire signaled safe. If he made no signal (which is the mechanic) the runner may have corrected his error. The umpire’s ruling significantly impacted the course of events which occurred immediately thereafter. The appeal was correct but it does not address why we are here in the first place.
Not the right way to look at it. you are assuming the ump realized he missed the plate
How many times did I say, broadcasters should know the rules or they shouldn't be calling professional games. They just confuse the crap out of everyone.
It'd be nice for the fans to know what's going on during/after replays, but MLB continues to not give any explanation afterwards. It's one thing for people on TV because you get a general idea most of the time as to what happened and the outcome, but the fans at the game? Nothing. Left in limbo. Why can't we just get an umpire or someone designated to get on the PA and explain what happened to the people in attendance? It's no wonder people don't know the rules or what happened half the time.
Chicago's announcers showing their usual incompetence and unabashed homerism. Can someone fire Tweedle Derp and Tweedle Dickhead, please?
Let’s assume the runner was uncertain at to whether he touched home. He sees the umpire call "safe" and concludes that there is no reason to go back and touch home (again). Why is he unable to rely on the safe call? This occurs much more frequently when a fly ball to the outfield is either trapped or caught in the umpire makes a signal. The runners then proceed according to the umpire signal which turns out to be incorrect.
Now that this loophole is exposed, I have a feeling it’ll used much more often.
Not really a loophole, just convoluted due to how appeals work.
All teams should already know this part of the rule
Appeal plays are pretty specific though. It's only for times when a runner misses the bag which is a fairly rare occurrence.
Plus on this play in particular, another rare thing happened… the umpire was hit with the ball and therefore I don't think he actually watched the runner cross home plate. He just ASSUMED the runner touched home because typically, players touch home. But in most scenarios, the umpire will very much be aware whether or not a runner touched the base, and therefore the correct call would be made on the appeal, and replay wouldn't be necessary.
I'm not sure the opportunity exists for this loophole to be used that often.
@@Mark-wd5zb I wouldn't even call it a loophole.
As far as the appeal goes as an umpire, you certainly can't call the runner out if you aren't sure the base/plate was missed. The runner is presumed to have touched each base he passes unless successfully appealed.
In order to appeal the "play" at the plate the ball has to be put back into play (ball w/pitcher on rubber, then steps off) before it can be ruled upon. The motion of safe had to do with the attempted play at the plate but hit the runner and the ump. There are two separate plays in that situation.
A good argument would be that when the plate ump originally signaled SAFE he was indicating that the runner touched the plate. Where as if he had not made a call the runner would have been trying to return to touch the plate and the defense would at the same time been trying to tag him out before he could do so. So what he did wrong was HE MISSED THE CALL while looking right at it.
Also he would protest the game on the fact the umpire miss lead the player not the replay.
There are no protests in MLB anymore. There was also nothing misleading.
Baseball has only had 100+ years to come up with a different hand signal for a play like this. The runner turns around and sees a safe sign on a close play, that ended the play in his mind. You know what does work pretty well? The umpire's voice. What is the reason that they can't make it clear what they're calling, especially considering that they sometimes do declare calls vocally as well? When they feel like it at least.
There wasn’t a play...therefore, why would the runner think he was ruling on a potential tag...
Also, an umpire should never signal a runner safe if a tag isn’t being placed on him
EDIT: Also, the runner knows there was no play attempted on him, because he was hit by the ball, which is what the ump was ruling on...
First time I saw this I thought the umpire was signaling "no interference" and as Gill said, there are more possibilities as well.
That aside, the idea of "the call ended the play for the runner" does not hold up. Imagine there was a play atr first base where the runner beats the throw but overrsteps the base. The umpire may not alert the defense on him missing the base, so he signals "safe". Even if there had benn an actual play at home where Moncada missed the base/plate, the umpire would still call safe until the defense makes the appeal for missed base.
Safe doesn't actually ever mean you touched the base. It just means that you are not out. Think about a swipe tag where the runner missed home, the umpire will still signal "safe" because the missed tag is a play they need to rule on, and they only really rule on touched bases if there is an appeal. A touch of a base is something you have to ASK the umpire to rule on, it does not happen real time.
Steve Stone needs to read the Official Baseball Rulebook, not the Make S*** Up rules.
This difference here is Tony LaRussa was on the team deciding how to implement replay. He thought they had implemented a rule about no allowing a replay after a mound visit. Maybe that was something they thought of before changing it and he doesn't remember.
Honestly, I don’t know what the exact replay rules are, but he might be right in that respect.
However, there was no mound visit between what was being reviewed and asking for the review, since they asked for a review of the appeal ruling, not an potential tag or force out during the previous play
Heh. "Based on our understanding of the rules" says it all.
Let's ignore that the ball hit the umpire!! The umpire therefore, rightfully called the play dead, not safe.
The ball hitting the umpire in this situation is not a dead ball.
Just watching this video for the first time. One thing I caught, and liked, was that at one point, one of the umpires was talking to Moncada as he was sitting on the bench. I assume the ump was explaining to the runner what happened. (edit: the umpire I'm talking about had a 26 ( 9:19 ) on his sleeve.)
seriously these announcers need to be informed of the rules. this is getting annoying. every video the announcer has something to say that’s completely wrong.
Baseball is complicated it’d be easier if the umpires who are rule experts would explain like in football and sometimes basketball
I think LaRussa knows he doesn't have a case, but he's just out there supporting his team....
LaRussa supporting his team??? First time this season
MLB needs to inform these broadcasters of these rules. Btw white Sox announcers are one of the best in the business.
Not when it comes to rules knowledge. In that department, they have a reputation with me of being the worst, especially when it goes against the ChiSox...
@politicalgangster ....uhmmmm.........obviously not .........
@@jametz66 Jason Benetti is definitely one of the best play by play announcers in the league
@@politicalgangster9395 You could not prove that by what was said in this video.
Was the umpire calling the runner safe or saying after the ball hit him the ball was still in play The safe call is a catch all
Considering he is a trained MLB umpire, I don’t think he would make the mistake of calling a runner safe when there was no play on him
I can certainly understand the argument of "The umpire signaled safe, so the runner didn't think he needed to re-touch home plate." Hypothetically, tag play at second, umpire rules the runner out. Runner leaves second, fielder tags him a second time. Out call on the tag gets overturned, but then they rule that the runner left second and got tagged out then. Once a player is changing their behavior based on an umpire call, shouldn't that affect how the call is adjudicated? Is this addressed in the rules at all?
The Replay Official is instructed to make the call (safe, out, placing runners, etc) as if the correct call (or no-call) had been made as the original call.
The runner had to know he didn't touch home. He wasn't looking at the ump when the ump signaled. As the narrator said, he could have been signaling safe as to the ball hitting him. Didn't look to me that umpire actually saw the runner touch home. He just assumed he did and we all know what happens when you assume.
@@CloseCallSports Right. But I don’t think that addresses what he said. If he hadn’t signaled safe the runner realizes his mistake and then touches home plate. But… if he goes back to touch it realizing he missed it. The catcher had the ball and tries to make the tag? And he is out anyway. I don’t think there is a fair way to project how it goes if he did or didn’t signal safe. I would argue he shouldnt have signaled safe. But his initial call on the appeal for touching home was safe until they challenged the appeal. So the umpire didn’t even know he didn’t touch home. Hence the original safe call confusing the runner(if the runner saw the call. I honestly don’t think he saw it. But teammates maybe did).
On a tag play at second you stay at your base until you see if the call is challenged, you should not leave your base and get tagged before that.
@@wdmcgaheeii The answer is a bit cut short, but if you continue the thought we do get there. The difference is that after an on-field safe call (on the bases), the runner would not leave his base. On an on-field out call (with an additional tag in the given example) that gets overturned by replay, the runner would be put on second base as he would not have left the base if not for the umpires wrong (and overturned) out call, so the call is adjusted for the umpire's mistake.
In this situation, the signal safe does not have any impact on him not touching the base. See my other comment (copied here):
The idea of "the call ended the play for the runner" does not hold up. Imagine there was a play at first base where the runner beats the throw but overrsteps the base. The umpire may not alert the defense on him missing the base, so he signals "safe". Even if there had benn an actual play at home where Moncada missed the base/plate, the umpire would still call safe until the defense makes the appeal for missed base.
I love baseball, but it's the most complicated sport in the world, and its broadcasters have no idea, and don't even attempt to learn the rules. As an umpire this is challenging because misconceptions are passed down to players who *swear* they heard (insert name of broadcaster here) saying the rule was "x". It gets even worse when individual leagues have their own interpretation of the rules (you guys talk about NCAA vs. MLB), and this can result in major headaches.
Hmm I wouldn’t say broadcasters have no idea or don’t even attempt to learn the rules at least at the MLB level. Like you said it’s the most complicated sport in the world and you could go years without something coming up that would challenge a previewed understanding. They 100% need to give umps the ability to explain calls live time
I've been umpiring for 25 years, and one of the most common arguments I hear from coaches on a ball thrown out of play is "he was going back to first base, you can't give him third base, he gets the base he was going to [first base] plus one [second base]!" - nowhere in the rulebook does it say a runner is awarded "the base they are going to plus one," because the rule always awards additional bases based upon what they already legally occupy.
Just like these announcers, very few little league and high school coaches have read the rulebook, and it shows. I've even had a coach proudly declare he was the league's self-proclaimed "rules expert"...and in the course of two games he argued calls/rules that fall under the "if you open the rulebook just one time you'd know this rule".
Love your challenge videos and top 10 guides. :D
I do have to say as a former player and as a guy who umps now while some of the rules are complicated, everything you need to know is in a document that's under 200 pages in a PDF. You just have to drill them into your brain.
I will say in your point as a fan it would be super cool to have a former ump, or a rules expert on the side like soccer does in their broadcasts or even the NFL. It would help out the viewers and clear up these misconceptions.
@@JayD73 I agree with Jrose11. Announcers don't know the rules. Instead of taking the time to learn them, the announcers run off at the mouth with nonsensical made up rules. It really makes them look stupid to speculate on what they think is right. Especially when they are wrong about 80% of the time.
A thrown ball made contact with the runner, who had not yet reached base. Soaking. Out.
Wait, what year is it again?
Wait so there's an unlimited time glitch for all reviewable plays that are also appealable?
Ya know, I think Rehak was signaling safe because the thrown ball hit the runner. As we know, that’s nothing (on this play at least). I don’t know why he did it, but he signaled “that’s nothing” with a safe call. But I could be wrong.
That’s the instructed mechanic...so I imagine that was it...
Typical White Sox announcing
You need to be available for live commentary for playoff games this playoff season
Baseball rules are maddening!
Say Tony does raise the fact that the appeal was improper. Does the umpire tell the Brewers how to cure their error (since ultimately he caused it by incorrectly calling time) or does he simply tell them "you cannot lodge an appeal during a dead ball?" Because at that point, many teams who don't have their rulebook handy could think this would mean their appeal has been dismissed and cannot be raised again.
Was there a different appeal made? The one I saw was the pitcher on the rubber, stepping off, and throwing to the catcher...
If you can challenge an appeal, then the replay shouldn't be allowed to go back to the play. Just the appeal.
The broadcasters should be required to spend the off season going to umpire school and then calling ten games at any level.
A Microphone would need a censor to bleep the conversations.
The white sox should have argued about the improper process. It might seem petty, but if, immediately after "play" from the umpire, they sent R3 to home on a steal, they could preserve the run.
In order to get both the appeal out and R3, the defense must complete the appeal and ignore the runner stealing home. While yes, they could step on home and indicate that they are appealing, they would need to do that while ignoring the runner form third. If the defense makes a play on the runner from third prior to the appeal, then that appeal would happen after the next pitch or play, and the appeal could no longer be granted.
Everything you said was correct, except for the first statement.
I don’t believe there was anything improper about this...
They got it wrong the only thing we want at the end of the day is get the call right. Idk what they have to do but they need to start doing it.
I want to hear this from the brewers commentator standpoint, these broadcasters are really getting under my skin
It doesn't change the fact that the umpire called him safe so the runner thought he was safe. Should have been safe period due to the umpire not doing what he was supposed to do.
No, he didn’t call the runner safe...that isn’t how umpiring works...you never rule safe on a runner when a play isn’t being made on him...
So many parts to this video. I do enjoy that if umpires get something wrong it’s “ok, I’ll grant you that” and players, coaches and announcers get the most insulting sarcasm possible. The best part of the video is the two seconds the broadcast show one ump in the dugout explaining it. For all the Ron Kulpa ego and Angel Hernandez incompetence, I enjoy good umps that are cool people and deal well with players and coaches even when they don’t seem to deserve it. They’re far less recognized but it’s my favorite part of any game, especially when they’re MIC’ed and you hear how they almost best friend try to calm them and explain it. I still remember by name the ten or so umps and refs that were that way to me and when coaching it also changes my demeanor before there’s even a complaint.
In this case, the defense never even made an appeal because the umpire called time because he thought the pitcher wanted another ball. Technically the ball should have been put back in play, allow the proper appeal, then video.
ahhh... the ump realized what they were doing ... (The pitcher threw to the catcher while pointing to home plate. The catcher stepped on home plate. this indicates an appeal, even though the ump at first thought he was exchanging the ball.
What a mess... at least they ultimately got the right call in the mostly right manor
yeah but the ump totally messed up he needs more work
@@unanimousreporting8250 What?
@@hbk314 the ump made a safe call without seeing the play that's a big no no you can't call a play you don't see.
@@davej3781 0:08
@@davej3781 then why on the appeal did he still say the runner was safe without knowing if the runner touched the base he assumed because he didnt see the runner touch home plate if he would have he would have called him out
You didn't address the commentators' assertion that the umpire can't make a safe call if he sees the runner miss home. This is also false. The umpire should pause to make sure there is no tag attempt and then rule the runner safe. The umpire does not just stare at the runner, waiting for someone to act.
No, he shouldn’t...you don’t rule every runner touching a base safe...
You only rule if there is a play on the runner...
@@rickhaavisto9023 Um there was a play on the runner. And I was addressing the commentator's assertion that you shouldn't call a runner safe if he missed the base, as if you just stand there and stare at the runner until someone reacts.
Eric Huechteman What play? Was he close to being tagged or forced out at home?
Dave J What’s your opinion on what the ump was calling Dave? My first instinct is that he was signaling no runners interference because there can’t be umpire interference on a throw (unless it is from the catcher on a stolen base attempt)
Sadly, Chicago broadcasters have never been known to know the rules - Maybe if the bleepin announcers had a clue about the rules and stuff, they could tell the fans what's going on rather than being the idiots they behave like...
The stench of Harrelson lingers.
Who are those 2 slaps?
"When you don't touch the plate the umpire makes no call whatsoever.". Face palm. Umpires are instructed to hesitate and then make the safe call if the defense does not immediately attempt a tag or appeal. By not making any call the umpire is telling the defense the runner missed the bag. It is an unfair advantage since the offense has no mechanism to appeal the appeal. By calling the runner safe the defense still has the opportunity to make an appeal under the rules. Runners aren't out until they are PUT OUT. The same is true when a batter runner beats the throw at first base but misses the bag. The umpire signals safe and waits for the appeal. Runners are always assumed to have touched the base until an appeal is made. I used to have access to the MLB umpire's case book. I poured over that thing, so I know of which I am speaking
I was reading about this and one thing that was mentioned was that there could be no appeal if there had been a pitcher change. Is this correct?
The rule states "Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play. If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half-inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field." Changing pitchers does not qualify as any of those. Unless there is additional guidance or an interpretation to the contrary, I see no reason an appeal should be disallowed if the pitching change was the only thing that happened - no intervening play before or after the change.
@@billbell2311 Re-reading what I saw, it appears that the appeal can be made after a pitching change, but the team loses the right to an instant replay challenge if a pitching change was made.
@@locustjohn3865 Without going to the rules myself, if the brewers had changed pitchers on the visit (in time-out) and made his warm pitches (that are still in time out), then, after the ball is put in play the new pitcher makes the appeal, the saffe-call on the appeal could still be challenged as the 20 seconds start once the umpire makes the call on the appeal.
Am I missing something? Or do you mean they would lose the right to instant replay on whatever the umpire signaled initially, be it a no-tag, no-interference etc?
@@johannesney2132 I believe you're correct.
@@davej3781 Based on the video replay rules.
My question is in the past an appeal play and I agree it's a appeal play , in the past umpires didn't go to the replay . They never went to replay. So is this a new rule because have never seen umpires go to replay on an appeal play. Any guide on this??
For example on a runner scoring from 3 Rd on a fly out . I've never seen a umpire go to replay to determine if runner left early??
One more thing from one of your own videos home plate umpire in a miss touch never made safe call waited then called out. Major league rules different??
I think, generally, the Ump already saw what happened, and didn't need to go to a review, after the appeal. Here, the Ump wasn't looking at the home base, hence he seemed to "default call" "Safe". Milwaukee knew that that wasn't "true", hence when he upheld his own call during the Appeal, they immediately called for Replay Review.
I asked about this on Twitter, because this seems like the kind of play that the channel loves to take a look at, due to, in part, all of the various rules in play.
From what Jomboy was saying, in his video, La Russa was in the MLB Front Office with Joe Torre when Replay came in, and he thought that they had "fixed" a potential loophole of there being lengthy delay by a mound visit to "buy time", like what seemed to be happening here, according to Tony, that is. I think that's why the rules check was done, at Tony's instigation, due to that.
@@donaldpicard7752 When MLB instituted Replay Review, they allowed appeal plays to be reviewable as well, stating that base touches, leaving early, and the like must go through the appeal process first before becoming eligible for replay. If you visit our Replay Stats and Sabermetrics page (www.closecallsports.com/p/replay-stats.html) and scroll down the UEFL/Close Call Sports' Replay Reviews by Call Type section, you'll notice a handful of Replay Reviews have pertained to leaving early and missing a base. It's not a common reason for Review, but it does happen.
@@kendog52361 - The call is whether or not the force play happened. He likely ruled that the catcher was pulled off the plate.
Why isn’t protesting legal anymore?
The Umpire Manual says that the umpire should make no call when there is no tag/no touch of home plate, like on this play (actually, it says it is "preferable" not to make a call). So though this might not have changed the outcome, I think it should have been noted a little more forcefully in this video. The announcer even suggested that the runner may not have come back to touch because of the safe call. In addition, saying that there are only so many signals and it was not clear about what the umpire made a safe call about, that seems far fetched -- only a little while ago you made a video of a collision up the 1st base line where the umpire made a safe call on no interference, then pointed the obstruction, then called the runner out. The umpire could have done the same here, making whatever calls he thought necessary. Jomboy completely hates the umps and he doesn't know the rules (though he 's slowly learning), but his take was better in some ways, as he emphasized the fact the umpire did not see the play and provided a week safe call. This should have been emphasized here as well.
The problem is you can't make a safe call on no interference, then point at home plate and signal "no call" because there's no signal for that (I think)
@@andrecanis4894 The umpire ruled safe on the appeal, rendering your argument moot.
@@jeffcota378 in this case, yes. I was just pointing out that in general, it wouldn’t be possible to point to home plate and signal „no call“ so Daniel‘s suggestion wouldn’t have helped even if the umpire hadn’t missed the no-touch.
@@andrecanis4894 Good point.
There is no way that the umpire's safe call was for interference -- if it was there was no need to make it. The key call was at home plate. And an honest look at the play -- like on Jomboy -- shows that the umpire was not watching the touch and his safe call was very tentative. I just think Gil could have been a little more honest here.
The runner was hit with the ball, is there not a rule that the runner gets his base in that situation?
No, there is no rule that allows a runner to get a base because he was hit by a thrown ball.
Is this a matter of the umpires wanting to check on the appeal itself, as the other Umpires are at least 90 feet away? Also, is the washout by PU actually him signalling "No Umpire Interference"?
I’m more inclined to believe it’s signaling no Runner’s interference, due to a throw never being umpire’s interference.
@@rickhaavisto9023 good point
Thats what happens when you have so called broadcasters that think they know it all and they think they know the rules; but in actuality they make themselves look like Jack donkeys.
Great, fantastic channel. I like the idea of giving the umps a stadium mic. I lived in Japan for 14 years and attended a few games. Never once understood what the umpire announced, but the crowd seem happy to know what was going. Americans crowds would, I think, would bit less understanding then the Japanese
Where is the rule that says an appeal is challengeable? Your graphic does NOT include the word appeal. You gloss over this defending the umps.
Since the home plate umpire made no call at the plate on whether the runner was safe or out (the safe mechanic was to indicate no interference on the throw hitting the runner), the live ball appeal would be reviewable as a base touch play, just like any other such incident.
@@ChrysoliteTwo no, no...you ASSUME, the safe call was for interference, just like the voice in the video assumes. Either way, Appeal is not challengeable...wasn’t on the graphic. AND the ump threw the safe sign again. So play over, appeal over, not challengeable.
@@ericschultz9291 If appeals weren't challengeable, the Replay Center in New York would have told them off for that.
@@ChrysoliteTwo the OP states that the rule book is extremely specific. I’d love to see the passage that says appeals are reviewable.
@@ericschultz9291 appeals are not reviewable.
The Brewers aren’t challenging the appeal. They’re challenging that the runner didn’t touched the plate which is reviewable.
The only way the brewers could challenge is if the HP umpire had ruled on the appeal of whether the runner touched the plate
6:12 I think these two guys have it figured out. Why not appeal to them?
It's a grey area. It's a review of an appeal, of a play that happened over 20 seconds ago.
It’s not a gray area, it’s a loophole in a poorly written rule
Then the rule should say that you have only 20 seconds from when the previous play concludes to launch an appeal play.
Its not a grey area and its not a loophole. The "play" being reviwed is the appeal.
Complain about the broadcasters not knowing the minutia of the rule book all you want, but they’re there to make the game watchable for fans, it is strictly entertainment after all. The umpires union, meanwhile, voted down the idea of making announcements to the audience about like in the nfl because apparently they’re too shy to speak to everyone.
Wasn’t that rule literally planed on be implemented before Covid? I’m sure I remember that...
Yea, I love this channel for it's extremely accurate baseball rules content, but, like all rules nerds, he gets way too angry and pouty at people who aren't as smart as him. The announcers can't be expected to know everything imo
Dihydrogen Monoxide No, but when you have announcers who don’t know the rules AND make no attempt to properly explain the rules, who do you think that affects most? Umpires at all levels...
@@dollgen "The announcers can't be expected to know everything". The announcers should be required to know something. I can point out 5 times in every game where the announcers are wrong.
It is a bullshit rule that teams can extend their replay time by the appeal.Although the whole concept of 20 seconds to challenge is bullshit too. If a call is so wrong that it needs to be corrected, the team that was wronged should know IMMEDIATELY. Giving teams time to check frame by frame instant replays in the clubhouse is fucking ridiculous
Touching home plate helps.
Microphones would be great can’t blame the broadcast
Oh my god. Are these the White Sox broadcasters? Why’re they always the worst? Lol
Hawk Harrelson taught them to be as stupid as possible, just like he was.
Wait a sec...”the ump isn’t supposed to give away whether the runner touched the bag/plate”. I suppose if the ump didn’t give the safe call (which you graciously give the ump a pass for), then the appeal should be reviewable, as the play isn’t over until the next pitch. The safe call rendered the play over, the 20 seconds expired, and the brewers challenge a call that had been over for 2 minutes. The ump even motioned safe AGAIN, so I’m not sure why you gave them that pass earlier in the video. This was completely outside the scope of the review system. Umps blew it.
You conveniently forget that the mechanic for calling a runner safe and for indicating no interference/no obstruction are exactly identical. Notice how the home plate umpire is looking at the ball when he lifts his arms up. He's indicating that there was no interference on the runner for the thrown ball making contact with him. When the appeal is made, he's obliged to make a call, and in this instance, where he didn't see the touch because he was tracking the ball, he's obliged to presume it was safe and respond the appeal.
@@ChrysoliteTwo you conveniently overlook that an appeal is not challengeable. I assume if it were in the rule book, the OP would have mentioned it. Wasn’t on the graphic he provided as a challengeable play. If you are right, that the initial safe call was for interference, the appeal was adjudicated SAFE when the ump threw the safe sign again. Appeal over. The play can’t be reviewed as 20 seconds had passed, an Appeal is not reviewable.
Eric Schultz Dude, MLB in the rules notes that, if a manager wants to challenge a play, he has to appeal it first IF it is a play that needs to be ruled on appeal (passing base, leaving early, etc)
@@ericschultz9291 I want you to go and pick up a copy of the Official Rules of Major League Baseball and show me where Replay Review is even mentioned. Oh, that's right: Replay Review isn't included in the OBR, but is rather governed by the Replay Review regulations. According to OBR 5.09(c)(4), runners missing home plate and making no attempt to return is, by its very nature, an appeal play. The Replay Review regulations (as found at mlb.com/glossary/rules/replay-review ) specifically lists "Specified baserunning calls: Calls involving [...] whether a baserunner touched the base" as reviewable. Therefore, it is impossible to make a Replay Review manager challenge on a runner missing home plate UNTIL the appeal has been made.
All this aside, it really seems like you want the umpires to be wrong. I thought the priority was to get calls right.
@@ericschultz9291 What an embarrassing couple of comments for you.
Soooo the runner getting hit with the ball being the bases loaded doesn't matter
correct
No, it doesn't matter at all.
Horrible base running last 5 years.
The NFL has a rules exert in the booth for their games why don’t networks do this for MLB
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been saying that for years! You have TONS of retired capable MLB umpires to act as "in-booth" officials .... freakin' do it! :)
In the nfl, the rules expert is in the network studio waiting to be buzzed in. Problem in mlb is that there are a couple dozen networks, granted most of them are now under the Bally name.
@@stephenbeck7222 they should hire people to educate their broadcast teams. But also ESPN/Fox doesn’t have them wither
NFL broadcasts are centralized with the networks. MLB broadcasts are usually with RSNs, be it NBC Regional Sports (plus SNY), Bally Sports (plus YES), NESN, or AT&T Sportsnet.
It really looks like he jumped over the plate.....
They got the call right in the end so none of this really matters, but I feel like the fact that they had an entire mound visit before appealing and then challenging is a little shady, might like to see a rule change regarding that
It's fine. It's an edge case. It's the only play where the mound visit is useful. The appeal is a play, plays can be challenged. I don't think we need to start making the rule book thicker for every little edge case like this.
Just move the replau review time back to 30
It states in the rules that a trip to the mound doesn't constitute a play. They have the opportunity to collect all the information they have from all the players before making the appeal.
@@adamleblanc5294 yeah thats probably true, plus everything worked out so all is well
The mound visit was to buy time for a review. Remember that touching a base requires an appeal BEFORE a challenge. The challenge is on the appeal. There are no grounds for a challenge before the appeal. As such, the clock starts upon the appeal play ruling.
I'm not saying that announcers (and in this case the manager) should know the OBR word for word, but they should at least have a basic understanding of the rules so they don't embarrass themselves on television for being clueless
Tony's brain is fried. He needs to hang it up
An appeal is a play. Interesting case play. Review is an appeal play. Is it an appeal of an appeal?
*Yoan
MLB needs to adopt better mechanics. There needs to be a standard hand signal for run scoring. And of course mic up the umpires.
I understand what you're saying, but doesn't a "safe" call at home automatically mean that a run scored? It would make more sense to adopt a hand signal for the "that's a nothingburger" calls, like obstruction/interference non-calls. Maybe do the safe sign, but with only one arm?
In the 1860's rules league we have locally they ring a bell for a run scored. Maybe they should go back to that. 😂
@@almostfm No, a safe call does not mean that a run scored, it means the runner is not out, but he could be ultimately called out on the appeal. Since there was no play at the plate to rule on he is indicating there is no interference when the ball hits the runner then himself.
This is how misinformation spreads. The broadcasters teach their fans to be angry saying that they can protest and that it "should be 4-1" or "I've never seen the umpires do this it shouldn't have happened." They try to clarify that it's "to my understanding of the rules" and such, but if you don't know for sure you cannot spread misinformation like this because this is how fans don't understand the rules. I understand they're going to be more supportive of their team and they were trying to be objective but this is how just from each call many fans see it and get taught to be outraged and hate umpires for the correct call and that's how we end up in a world with so much hate towards good umpires.
A sport I used to love playing, has got so dumb in so many damn rules.
Announcers just suck. They rely on a 100 years of baseball myths.
Yep....And say, we strive to know the rules... 😂😂😂
What I can't understand is why 9 people didn't like this video. Lol. Great job. Love this channel.
Close call sports you spelled yoan moncada wrong in the title
This is why baseball needs a signal like soccer has. Something to communicate that the ump saw what happened, they're not calling anything on it, and to play on. Then the ump would have used that signal on the hit runner and it would have avoided much of this confusion.
common sense dictates ..he was signaling safe at the plate...and no interference .mgod
What? He was signalling "that's nothing" about the ball hitting the runner and himself. There was no play at the plate to call.
The dead ball wasn't the only error by the umpires on this play. The umpire never saw whether Moncada touched the plate because he instinctively was watching the ball while trying to avoid it. Yet, he signaled safe on the appeal.
You know, watching the ball like he is instructed to...
You shouldn’t comment on ump procedure mistakes if you don’t know the procedures...
@@rickhaavisto9023 He shouldn't have doubled down on the safe call on the appeal. That was the mistake.
Jeff Cota Yes, he ruled the runner safe on appeal, because he was watching the ball (as he should) and had no idea whether the runner touched or not, which is why, when asked by the manager about the ruling on the appeal, the umpire initiated a review...
What do you want him to do differently?
Ignore his training and focus on home plate despite the ball still being in play?
Please don’t criticize the umps if you have literally no idea what they do...
@@rickhaavisto9023 You assume too much, sir. I do know what they do. I also see what you're doing. You're deflecting. I'm not suggesting that he ignore his training. He made a mistake. Don't cover it up. It only makes it worse for the profession and diminishes the already low respect that fans have for umpires. It's a tough job. The point stands that he shouldn't have doubled down on the appeal when he knew he didn't see Moncada touch the plate. It's very simple.
Jeff Cota Dude...he HAS to rule on the appeal...he wasn’t watching because he was watching the ball like he is supposed to.
He has to make a call for it to even go to replay. He ruled safe, because he didn’t see it...
You want him to rule it an out? Even though he didn’t see it?
Z
Because it's dumb that you're allowed to appeal by Heaven your picture throw a lob pass over the plate special now's days of Replay you should only have the 20 seconds and that's it it's a dumb rule but it was the right call