Screw the NYC Review Crew and Blowasavio

[hi8is]

While interesting, is this really the place for that?

Yawn.

[caulfield12]

While interesting, is this really the place for that?

 

 

Haha, not really....if we really wanted to have a "slam" argument, it could be about the Shephard Smith/Robin Williams "coward" comments....actually, I didn't even notice it was from Fox until now

 

at any rate, I think it kind of goes together a bit, simply because of Harrelson's comments today about wearing a skirt as a catcher and then the idea that there are "women's sports" and sports like baseball girls shouldn't play in the minds of some

 

 

[IlliniKrush]

When they implemented the rule, I called it stupid and I still do. Instant Replay and this rule change are both awful.

You have to have some sort of rule in there for obstruction, otherwise, in theory, a catcher could block the guy for as long as it took to get the ball, and the runner couldn't do anything. It's just poorly written and interpreted.

 

Instant replay is actually pretty good. Perfect? No. But if we went back to the old way of zero replay, people would be flipping out more on these calls that are missed and nothing can happen. We've had what, 40% overturned with an average length of under 2:00? That's a ton. And no, the don't go 50/50 throughout the year on blown calls. Stop the manager stalling - you come out, it's challenged immediately - and we'll be in better shape. Fix the obstruction rule a bit, and it'll be a lot cleaner.

[caulfield12]

Question: Do you have any further understanding of this rule after this?

 

Answer: I don’t think anybody has an understanding of this rule. Apparently they’re interpreting this thing extremely black and white with no context of the play -- infield, outfield, base runner, where he’s at. If you go by the black and white rule, I guess they got it right. But you also have to put into context, I could go on for a while, I’m set up inside, jammed the crap out of this guy. It’s a dribbler to first. I’ve got a bat flying behind me. I realize where the ball is -- OK, Jose’s about to come home, and I just looked at it. So I had two seconds to get from behind home plate, catch a ball and make a tag, and I’m supposed to be able to make sure I don’t block the plate, catch a ball and make a tag, all within two seconds on an infield dribbler. It’s just not realistic. If it’s an outfield throw it’s one thing. I think most people are getting that. When you’re talking about such a short time period there, on a play like that, it just doesn’t make any sense. And that had no impact on Blanco being able to score. It’s one thing if he makes contact with me before I have the ball, but that wasn’t the case. He was still seven-plus feet away. It had no impact on him whatsoever.

 

Q: Did you get the ball in time that you could see how far he was away?

 

A: Yeah. He was at least seven feet by the time I got eyes on him after I caught the ball. This whole rule, that’s not the purpose of the rule. I think that’s the tough thing for people, everybody in baseball, to grasp is the purpose of the rule is to avoid the situation like Posey had. It’s not when a guy is out by 30 feet, Oh, he blocked the plate. Well, that had no impact on that guy being safe or out. And there’s no clarification on that. Where do we draw the line? If a guy rounds third and he’s out by 80 feet, and I’m standing in front of the plate, is he safe? It just doesn’t make any sense.

 

Q: Do the rule penalize teams that makes the play fast?

 

A: Today as an example, yeah. I understand the rule as much as anybody else, which isn’t 100 percent. But you’ve got to put the whole play together. That play is different than a throw from center field. That play is different than I catch and he hits me. When there’s significant distance, it just doesn’t make sense to change a rule on that, and change the outcome, like today’s game, the outcome of a game, drastically.

 

Q: Do you think the interpretation of the rule changes day-to-day from the umpires back at New York at the replay center?

 

A: Every one is different. Every one is an individual play so some have surprised me, some of them haven’t that I have seen on TV. Some of them like today are too literal. Other ones like I said surprised me --- the other day I saw one I would think they would do this one the same. There is some margin there I guess. It’s humans looking at plays and every one’s different like I said. There is going to be a little bit of a variable in every situation. I just don’t think it was used appropriately.

 

Q: Did you hear any further explanations from the umpire (Chris Segal) on the ruling?

 

A: No. Nothing I’ll share.

 

Q: Have you ever seen Robin that upset?

 

A: I knew he would be and the longer that whole thing took I think we all were getting a hunch that it was going that way. I think he’s right. I think if you ask the catchers in this league, first of all no one has the comprehension of what the rule actually is and secondly the majority of us would rather get rid of it if this is how it’s going to be applied.

 

Q: Lost in all that is the way Jose (Quintana) pitched.

 

A: It’s a shame. Today might have been one of his best outings ever. I don’t know what the line ended up but it wasn’t just.

 

Q: Did the wait have an effect on Quintana’s pitching?

 

A: No, not that I saw.

 

Q: It happened so quickly. Would you have had time to react differently if you knew the rule?

 

A: No because I know the basic premise of the rule and I don’t think I could have done anything differently. That’s such a short amount of time. If you put the whole play together. If it’s a fastball away and the guy barrels it up straight to Jose, I see the guy’s coming, that’s different. This is a jam-job, broken bat flying by my head. The hitter is looking back where the bat is going. I realize the ball is in play over there. He’s coming home. ‘Ok, I’ve gotta move up five feet to get into position to make a tag.’ And like I said, this is all in a matter of two seconds. That’s a lot to ask of anybody to have all those things go through your head in addition to catching a ball and making a tag. There’s not enough time to be on top of every aspect of that play.

 

 

www.csnchicago.com (Dan Hayes)

Edited August 14, 2014 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Watching the replay of the play in the Washington game, how the hell is that one safe, and the Sox game out? The catchers are sitting in the exact same line in both of them. Flowers is just another step up the line to make the catch.

 

That is just f***ing terrible.

[caulfield12]

They need someone with some integrity to clean up the game of baseball...Rob Manfred is just Bud's puppet and a shill for the owners.

 

They need another Giamatti or even Fay Vincent, someone who actually cared/cares about the future of the game and not just the profitability of the sport.

 

Fix this rule, the stupid All-Star game home field advantage deal (make it the best record for AL or NL in interleague overall head-to-head of all the games)....or, at the worst, the best record in the regular season between the two teams in the Series...clean up steroids COMPLETELY...speed up the games, enforce the time limits that pitchers have to throw and don't let hitters constantly call time taking 30 seconds in between each pitch like Mike Hargrove.

Edited August 14, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/gif-wh...&ocid=yahoo

 

Ventura now has a GIF that anyone can use as their avatar.

 

And surely he will be getting a fine, as well as his own GIF (take a page out of the Hawk playbook)

 

 

"It's a vague rule and it obviously went against us today," said Ventura, who received his 10th career ejection and third of the year. "You look at the spirit of the rule of what they're trying to do and what it's actually doing, and it's a joke."

 

With runners on the corners and one out, San Francisco's Joe Panik tapped a grounder to first baseman Jose Abreu, who quickly threw home. Pinch-runner Gregor Blanco was plainly thrown out, but Giants manager Bruce Bochy requested the review on the basis that Flowers denied Blanco a sufficiently clear path to the plate as he awaited Abreu's throw.

 

Analysis of video replays backed Bochy. As crew chief Fieldin Culbreth made the "safe" motion after a review of four minutes, 55 seconds, the AT&T Park crowd exploded with cheers and an enraged Ventura sprang from the visitors' dugout, jawing with Culbreth and kicking dirt several times on home plate.

 

Said Flowers, "If you go by the black-and-white rule, I guess they got it right. But you also got to put into context. ... I could go on for a while."

 

Coincidentally, Ventura asked for a play at the plate to be reviewed for the same reason in Tuesday night's 10th inning. In that sequence, Giants catcher Buster Posey tagged out Jordan Danks, who tried to score from third base on an infield grounder. The ruling stood as called.

 

"I know the rule has created a lot of controversy, and they've talked about reviewing it at the end of the season," Bochy said. "But it is a rule. [A catcher] can't block the plate without the ball."

 

www.mlb.com

 

 

 

The play might have been strange, but not unusual. Blanco was the ninth player originally called out at the plate to be ruled safe after the aggrieved team's manager successfully argued that the catcher blocked the plate before he had the ball.

 

This is part of the new catcher-protection rule meant to benefit the hitter, who must be given a clear path to the plate so he need not tackle the catcher.

 

Michael Morse and Adam Duvall started the seventh with singles against Jose Quintana. Blanco was pinch-running for Morse when Joe Panik hit a slow roller to first. Jose Abreu charged the ball and threw home. Blanco slid to the outside of the plate and was tagged.

 

Blanco got up and trotted to the dugout, thinking nothing of it until he heard someone yell, "He was blocking the plate." Bench coach Ron Wotus phoned video review coach Shawon Dunston and got the same opinion, so Bochy used his challenge.

 

As the umps in New York spent 4 minutes, 55 seconds looking at the play, Blanco ran into the clubhouse to conduct his own video review and saw that Flowers' left leg indeed blocked the entirety of the plate. Blanco was thrilled the official eyes agreed.

 

"Oh my God," Blanco said. "That was awesome. I was saying to everybody, 'Whatever it takes to win a ballgame.' We won the game, and everybody is happy about it."

 

www.sfgate.com

Edited August 14, 2014 by caulfield12

[Kyyle23]

With all of the talk about the blocking rule and Ventura in this thread, i think it is time to really appreciate how bad Belisario is.

 

I dont even understand how a guy with movement and velocity like he does is so bad.

[LittleHurt05]

With all of the talk about the blocking rule and Ventura in this thread, i think it is time to really appreciate how bad Belisario is.

 

I dont even understand how a guy with movement and velocity like he does is so bad.

 

I'm never one to be all "DFA that bum, now!", but seriously Rick, DFA THAT BUM NOW!

[Kyyle23]

I'm never one to be all "DFA that bum, now!", but seriously Rick, DFA THAT BUM NOW!

 

yea, me too. I can handle Taylor Thompson or someone else getting lit up like that.

[Dick Allen]

I think the White Sox should have protested the game. Make MLB come out and say the rule was interpreted correctly.

[glangon]

I think the White Sox should have protested the game. Make MLB come out and say the rule was interpreted correctly.

 

I agree. I was surprised to see that the game wasn't played under protest at the end. It would have been the sensible way forward. I wonder if Parent / Ventura had even thought of that as an option with all that went on.

[hogan873]

I think the White Sox should have protested the game. Make MLB come out and say the rule was interpreted correctly.

That was my thought, too. More attention needs to be called to this rule and its interpretation.

[Dick Allen]

I agree. I was surprised to see that the game wasn't played under protest at the end. It would have been the sensible way forward. I wonder if Parent / Ventura had even thought of that as an option with all that went on.

To be frank, I didn't think about the protest until this morning when I was reading how no one really seems to know or interpret the rule correctly. And the White Sox are one of several teams that have been victimized by this. From now on, either send everyone and challenge or protest. Something has to be done.

 

Right now getting caught in a rundown between 3rd and home should mean an automatic run. There is no way they a rundown can be executed without a fielder being in the baseline and therefore "blocking the plate". Just make them throw it home and you should be allowed to score.

[caulfield12]

To be frank, I didn't think about the protest until this morning when I was reading how no one really seems to know or interpret the rule correctly. And the White Sox are one of several teams that have been victimized by this. From now on, either send everyone and challenge or protest. Something has to be done.

 

Right now getting caught in a rundown between 3rd and home should mean an automatic run. There is no way they a rundown can be executed without a fielder being in the baseline and therefore "blocking the plate". Just make them throw it home and you should be allowed to score.

 

Unless the catcher actually catches the throw behind the plate and then DIVES into the runner and across the plate at the last moment to stop him from scoring, which would actually end up causing MORE injuries, not less.

 

It would look like the Byron Buxton concussion incident everytime as catchers and baserunners smashed together at home in an effort to get there first.

 

Seriously...the White Sox have nothing left to play for at this point in the season, they might as well just send the runner everytime and know that there's at least a 50/50 chance he's going to be declared safe in NYC.

 

 

 

[elrockinMT]

When they implemented the rule, I called it stupid and I still do. Instant Replay and this rule change are both awful.

 

I am going to agree with you on both points here. Granted instant replay was welcomed by some and then supported by all those who come out on the winning side of the replay and not so much by those who lose a replay call. I was not a supporter of replay. I think that is an umpire's call period and that's why we have umps and replay takes away the human element of the game, which makes baseball such a unique and wonderful game. The rule on blocking the plate was not well thought out and has not been applied properly in my opinion. Physical contact at home plate between the runner and the catcher has been with the game since probably day one. It is part of the sport.

[southsider2k5]

To be frank, I didn't think about the protest until this morning when I was reading how no one really seems to know or interpret the rule correctly. And the White Sox are one of several teams that have been victimized by this. From now on, either send everyone and challenge or protest. Something has to be done.

 

Right now getting caught in a rundown between 3rd and home should mean an automatic run. There is no way they a rundown can be executed without a fielder being in the baseline and therefore "blocking the plate". Just make them throw it home and you should be allowed to score.

 

The question is, with the new rule, can you protest something that was already decided by MLB? I have no idea.

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

The question is, with the new rule, can you protest something that was already decided by MLB? I have no idea.

I would guess they'd call it a case of umpire judgement, which cannot be the subject of a protest. That might even be written in the rule.

[Dick Allen]

I would guess they'd call it a case of umpire judgement, which cannot be the subject of a protest. That might even be written in the rule.

Obviously judgement calls cannot be protested, but interpretation of the rule can. That is what I would protest. I'm sure it would be a loser, but I bet action would be taken. For Flowers to be blocking the plate IMO the runner would have had to have been impeded, which I saw none of. Also, it is fine for him to block the plate if he had the ball. Since the guy was tagged out before he reached home, that is obvious.

 

I just wonder at what point is standing where Flowers was standing considered blocking the plate? If the guy was at the plate, there is no question he was blocking it, but when does the clock start? When he reaches 3rd? 40 feet from home? No one seems to know. It seems to me standing where Flowers is standing should only be considered blocking the plate, when it affects the runner. Yesterday, it never did.

[southsider2k5]

Obviously judgement calls cannot be protested, but interpretation of the rule can. That is what I would protest. I'm sure it would be a loser, but I bet action would be taken. For Flowers to be blocking the plate IMO the runner would have had to have been impeded, which I saw none of. Also, it is fine for him to block the plate if he had the ball. Since the guy was tagged out before he reached home, that is obvious.

 

I just wonder at what point is standing where Flowers was standing considered blocking the plate? If the guy was at the plate, there is no question he was blocking it, but when does the clock start? When he reaches 3rd? 40 feet from home? No one seems to know. It seems to me standing where Flowers is standing should only be considered blocking the plate, when it affects the runner. Yesterday, it never did.

 

MLB is interpreting the rule, not umpires. So in essence you are appealing to the same people who interpreted the call in the first place. I would be kind of surprised if this was an even that was able to be protested.

 

[caulfield12]

According to the rule, even if the runner's 75-80 feet away and just rounding 3B, he should automatically be awarded home if the catcher's impeding his straight line to home plate (without the ball).

 

Then it gets even more confusing because a play at home was reversed by this same rule when the catcher was merely tagging home plate for a force out, because of the fact he was blocking the plate (which was kind of irrelevant, since it was a force-out)....and yet even with a force play, doesn't the baserunner deserve the right to have a clear path to reach home plate as quickly as possible?

 

 

[Dick Allen]

According to the rule, even if the runner's 75-80 feet away and just rounding 3B, he should automatically be awarded home if the catcher's impeding his straight line to home plate (without the ball).

 

Then it gets even more confusing because a play at home was reversed by this same rule when the catcher was merely tagging home plate for a force out, because of the fact he was blocking the plate (which was kind of irrelevant, since it was a force-out)....and yet even with a force play, doesn't the baserunner deserve the right to have a clear path to reach home plate as quickly as possible?

If that is the rule, you have got to teach guys to get into rundowns between 3rd and home and one throw towards home should get you the run.

[Dick Allen]

MLB is interpreting the rule, not umpires. So in essence you are appealing to the same people who interpreted the call in the first place. I would be kind of surprised if this was an even that was able to be protested.

Replay guys are umpires and they interpreted the rule enough to reverse the call. My point is I am not protesting if he was physically blocking home plate, I would concede that. But why is it considered blocking the plate when a runner isn't present? I am sure the protest would be lost, but I think they have to explain the rules to everyone. Flowers says he knows it better than most and he doesn't understand it.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

Or they're going to have to put a line across the 3B line something like 30 feet from the plate where basically the catcher CAN block the plate unless the runner's in his final 10 yards coming towards home.

 

Even that, it could be tough to call, not unlike offsides in soccer...but it's a start I guess. Highly flawed rule. Some say they just want catchers to get used to the practice of not blocking the plate, and then they'll withdraw the rule again.

 

The thing is, nobody's been really taken out like Buster Posey since that injury in 2011...at least no top-flight catcher.

[Dick Allen]

Or they're going to have to put a line across the 3B line something like 30 feet from the plate where basically the catcher CAN block the plate unless the runner's in his final 10 yards coming towards home.

 

Even that, it could be tough to call, not unlike offsides in soccer...but it's a start I guess. Highly flawed rule. Some say they just want catchers to get used to the practice of not blocking the plate, and then they'll withdraw the rule again.

 

The thing is, nobody's been really taken out like Buster Posey since that injury in 2011...at least no top-flight catcher.

But really, how many collisions at the plate were really close plays? It seems to me the vast majority of them where guys who where out by 20 feet only having one option. Make that an automatic out and ejection and go back to playing how the game was played for over 100 years.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Dick Allen