southsideirish71 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 12:51 PM) Yeah, but part of Cameron's point is that these rules aren't becoming as "basic" anymore, now that we have super slo mo cameras to see details that were never seen before. As he points out, for 100+ years, Lobotan would have been called safe. It's only NOW that we have super detailed camera work that he is ruled out. Cameron is arguing giving the vertical safe zone would actually create results more in line with what we have always seen in the past. Because if you are talking about most BASIC of all, it's almost always been if the runner gets to the bag first, he's safe. Umpires never followed through with the minute details like they have to do via replay. These are calls that were never called before. So if you're a purist, vertical safe zones actually just take away super slo-mo replays changing ridiculously technical plays like that, and return calls to how they were always called. If you are a purist then get rid of the replays and just deal with the human element. That works until a jumbotron HD replay at 80 feet tall shows that X play happened. The point of the replay system is to get things right. So if the human official makes a mistake and technology helps to correct that then technology helps. We cant alter the rules just because technology overrules the human and it adds complexity. Its a slippery slope when you introduce technology and review to any sport. How does one enforce a vertical safe zone. How does an ump who is several feet away determine an invisible barrier above an object. We are talking about a person and their appendages not a football as well. This is not breaking a linear plane. This is an invisible safe zone above a base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 We alter the rules all the time. I watch baseball to see something cool like seeing if a runner's speed can beat a throw to the base. The part where the runner whose speed was so entertaining causes his leg to bounce up 3 inches off the bag for a second so while the defender lazily holds it on top fo him is...not entertaining. It's not like they are sliding 4 feet past the bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Basketball also deals with rules like this that are more obscure for goaltending and it's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 01:51 PM) We alter the rules all the time. I watch baseball to see something cool like seeing if a runner's speed can beat a throw to the base. The part where the runner whose speed was so entertaining causes his leg to bounce up 3 inches off the bag for a second so while the defender lazily holds it on top fo him is...not entertaining. It's not like they are sliding 4 feet past the bag. Why have out of bounds then in football and basketball. I too watch the game to watch athletes do athletic things. I find it annoying when the 90 yard runback gets called back because of a few inches touching the line. I mean its not like he is 4 feet past the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 02:26 PM) Why have out of bounds then in football and basketball. I too watch the game to watch athletes do athletic things. I find it annoying when the 90 yard runback gets called back because of a few inches touching the line. I mean its not like he is 4 feet past the line. And yet both of those sports have compromises to actually being "out of bounds" just as grey as a proposed "vertical safe zone", such as being marked down where you first touch out of bounds, not where you first enter out of bounds. Which is strange right? If you are out of bounds you should be out of bounds, not allowed to travel forward still when you aren't in field of play! This offends my sensibilities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 02:32 PM) And yet both of those sports have compromises to actually being "out of bounds" just as grey as a proposed "vertical safe zone", such as being marked down where you first touch out of bounds, not where you first enter out of bounds. Which is strange right? If you are out of bounds you should be out of bounds, not allowed to travel forward still when you aren't in field of play! This offends my sensibilities! Abolish leadoffs then. Tell him to plant his foot on the base just like its little league. Leadoffs and secondary leads are choices with an implied risk. He doesn't have to take a leadoff. Nothing in the rules tells him he has to. Why have bases at all if you don't have be in contact with it if a tag is applied. Whats the purpose of a base then. Why stand or make contact with it? Why is it required to make contact with it to move to the next base. Why not just do a captain morgan over it when the pitcher tries a pick to first. You know making contact with the inner corner of the base is going to slow down my run to second. So as long as I go over it then that should work as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 If there was an easy way for an umpire to see that a batter had entered a "safe zone" before a tag without it being an elevated, bright white object then I honestly wouldn't care. But for now and previous, an elevated base has worked pretty well, but we found that as we added replay review there are points when a player running at full speed and stopping quickly over an object may be off the bag for a split second causing an out. But we aren't allowed to ever propose any changes because clearly marginal changes like that have never happened. Just like how when a player turning a double play used to just be able to act like they were touching second but never did? And how that ruined baseball (it didn't) despite it being against this supposed hardline that players must touch and remain on a bag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 14, 2017 Author Share Posted October 14, 2017 QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 03:02 PM) Abolish leadoffs then. Tell him to plant his foot on the base just like its little league. Leadoffs and secondary leads are choices with an implied risk. He doesn't have to take a leadoff. Nothing in the rules tells him he has to. Why have bases at all if you don't have be in contact with it if a tag is applied. Whats the purpose of a base then. Why stand or make contact with it? Why is it required to make contact with it to move to the next base. Why not just do a captain morgan over it when the pitcher tries a pick to first. You know making contact with the inner corner of the base is going to slow down my run to second. So as long as I go over it then that should work as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Oct 14, 2017 -> 12:21 AM) lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 This idea is no different than the rule allowing a runner to run through 1st base, which was not always the rule. And it requires judgment in the same way—does the runner intentionally leave the base or not? The reason you would want to alter the rules to let the runner sprint past 1st is because the game is way better that way. So the question I ask is whether it's consistent with the spirit of the game to change the rules in this way? My first instinct is yes, it is totally consistent with the design of the game. It's all about getting to the base before the tag without (when it's not 1st base) running so hard that you go past the base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxforlife05 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Nothing forces him to take a lead off.... I have no idea why this is even a debate. If he’s too slow to properly get back to the bag, maybe he needs to shorten his lead off. Any rule will just encourage bigger lead offs then pitchers are going to spend even more time trying to shorten leads and pick guys off which is bad for watchability of games. Edited October 16, 2017 by soxforlife05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Oct 16, 2017 -> 06:21 AM) Nothing forces him to take a lead off.... I have no idea why this is even a debate. If he’s too slow to properly get back to the bag, maybe he needs to shorten his lead off. Any rule will just encourage bigger lead offs then pitchers are going to spend even more time trying to shorten leads and pick guys off which is bad for watchability of games. How does this rule encourage bigger leadoffs? Or have anything to do with leadoffs in general? The problem wasn't Lobaton's leadoff....he got back to the base in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Oct 16, 2017 -> 06:21 AM) Nothing forces him to take a lead off.... I have no idea why this is even a debate. If he’s too slow to properly get back to the bag, maybe he needs to shorten his lead off. Any rule will just encourage bigger lead offs then pitchers are going to spend even more time trying to shorten leads and pick guys off which is bad for watchability of games. I don't think you understand what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 This is not a good idea. All the runner has to do is maintain contact with the bag. If he chooses to break contact for any reason, he is in play. If players cannot figure out how to stay in contact with a bag through a slide, they should not be rewarded, a popup slide with constant contact to the bag is generally taught in little league. This would also be a disaster to enforce with the different perspectives of umpires and cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Oct 16, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) This is not a good idea. All the runner has to do is maintain contact with the bag. If he chooses to break contact for any reason, he is in play. If players cannot figure out how to stay in contact with a bag through a slide, they should not be rewarded, a popup slide with constant contact to the bag is generally taught in little league. This would also be a disaster to enforce with the different perspectives of umpires and cameras. No runner is "choosing" to break contact, so that's a weird thing to say. And yeah, popup slides occur...and sometimes, the runner's foot loses contact for even 1/8th of an inch. That runner, because of replay technology, may be called out. That's the discussion here, not the freedom to be cavalier or lazy at the base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxforlife05 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Oct 16, 2017 -> 12:18 PM) How does this rule encourage bigger leadoffs? Or have anything to do with leadoffs in general? The problem wasn't Lobaton's leadoff....he got back to the base in time. You have to be mindful of getting back to the bag and staying on it the bigger your leadoff is. That’s part of the risk in taking a leadoff. If you’re going to change that you might as well let runners slide past 2nd or 3rd base on steal attempts or force plays as long as they “touched base” before the ball got there. It’s no different. No reason to make the field rules inconsistent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 18, 2017 Author Share Posted October 18, 2017 QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Oct 17, 2017 -> 02:50 AM) You have to be mindful of getting back to the bag and staying on it the bigger your leadoff is. That’s part of the risk in taking a leadoff. If you’re going to change that you might as well let runners slide past 2nd or 3rd base on steal attempts or force plays as long as they “touched base” before the ball got there. It’s no different. No reason to make the field rules inconsistent How does a bigger or smaller leadoff change the likelihood that your body part will bounce off the bag and break contact on a slide/dive? No one is suggesting a baserunner is able to slide past the bag carelessly. Did you actually read the article or....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 A smaller leadoff means you need less speed and momentum to get back to the bag on time, so you're probably less likely to inadvertently pop off by a fraction of an inch for a fraction of a second. I think Jake's post above makes a pretty good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 19, 2017 Author Share Posted October 19, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 18, 2017 -> 10:36 AM) A smaller leadoff means you need less speed and momentum to get back to the bag on time, so you're probably less likely to inadvertently pop off by a fraction of an inch for a fraction of a second. I think Jake's post above makes a pretty good point. I don't think he does, because a runner is concerned about getting back to the base before he is tagged, not getting back to the base and not breaking contact with the top of the bag as he beats the throw back, which is kind of the point of the controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan2003 Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 I think its worth exploring in a minor league/arizona fall league test case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox1917 Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 18, 2017 -> 11:36 AM) A smaller leadoff means you need less speed and momentum to get back to the bag on time, so you're probably less likely to inadvertently pop off by a fraction of an inch for a fraction of a second. I think Jake's post above makes a pretty good point. Not really. The reason this is being debated is the situations when at a full sprint a players momentum bounces them up off the bag for a half an inch. Even with a huge lead, I've never seen this occur when trying to slide back headfirst to first base (or any other) on a pickoff attempt, because the players momentum isn't going to bounce them when they're not at a full run. What this prevents is the cases when a play happens after running 90 feet (ish) and sliding either head first or feet first and the players body hits the bag and as they slide through it, it bounces up for a brief millisecond. This can happen in head first slides when he comes up onto the bag with his body, feet first slides as a players calf bounces up slightly before his thigh makes contact, or on pop up slides. It is incredibly cheap to call a guy out in those situations and not within the spirit of the game to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 I'm very skeptical someone would be able to make a judgment "okay, at this distance I can probably beat the throw, but I may be coming at too high a speed to consistently make contact with the bag" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.