- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stop making the “the play was non reviewable “ argument.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 10:41 am to Number2
Posted on 5/26/24 at 10:41 am to Number2
How did the SC coach argue the specifics of the catcher when there is absolutely no way he could have seen it himself?
If the catcher really did do it then why in the moment did the Umps call him initially out.
Option for the Overturn:
1) They called it incorrectly because they didn’t know the rules and they changed it because of the new rule knowledge.
Problem with this is they are completely incompetent for not knowing the rules and if they didn’t know the rule at the time how did they know what to look for.
2) They knew the rule, but they had to confer on the right call.
Problem with this is they made the judgement call and waiting until the SC coach argued/challenged them on it. How do you change a judgement call way after the fact without having video review?
If the catcher really did do it then why in the moment did the Umps call him initially out.
Option for the Overturn:
1) They called it incorrectly because they didn’t know the rules and they changed it because of the new rule knowledge.
Problem with this is they are completely incompetent for not knowing the rules and if they didn’t know the rule at the time how did they know what to look for.
2) They knew the rule, but they had to confer on the right call.
Problem with this is they made the judgement call and waiting until the SC coach argued/challenged them on it. How do you change a judgement call way after the fact without having video review?
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 10:42 am
1
Posted on 5/26/24 at 10:44 am to 1609tiger
Any play which results in a run being scored or not should be reviewable
Posted on 5/26/24 at 11:31 am to 1609tiger
quote:
Every play is “reviewable”. Umps can get together and change a call. It’s VIDEO review that’s not allowed.
From the NCAA baseball rule book (emphasis added in bold):
quote:
APPENDIX E: GETTING THE CALL RIGHT
Getting the Call Right without the use of video review
Section 1: Following are general guidelines for this policy:
a. NCAA rule 3-6-g states, “No umpire shall criticize or interfere with another umpire’s decision, unless asked by the one making it; however, if there is a misinterpretation of a rule, it should be brought to the umpire-in-chief.” Therefore, except in special situations such as those outlined in the next paragraph, the umpire making the call must be the one to seek assistance of a partner.
. . .
f. Judgement calls, which have traditionally not been subject to reversal, include steal and other tag plays (except if the ball is dropped without the umpire’s knowledge, as discussed above); force plays (when the ball is not dropped and the foot is not pulled); balls and strikes (other than check swings). This practice shall continue. Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems.
Overall, umpires are urged to seek help on reversible plays in which they may have erred by not seeing a crucial element of the play. Such meetings, while necessary, should be infrequent and not become a substitute for umpires seeking proper angles, exercising sound judgement and having the conviction to stay with a call the umpire believes was properly made.
The idea that every play can be “reviewed” by the umpires, after a call is made on the field, is not true. The rule book clearly says that certain judgement calls should not be subject to reversal. Again, this is a section about umpire conferences without the use of video review.
Furthermore, the next page of the rule book (Getting the Call Right with the use of video review) lists the specific circumstances that are eligible for overturn with video evidence:
quote:
13. Catcher’s interference with the batter’s swing except on a squeeze play or steal of home.
The NCAA thought that this specific play was such a judgment call that they felt the need to specifically disqualify it from review, even with video evidence. I don’t think it’s a stretch, then, to say it should also fall under E.1.f. which says steal and other tag plays cannot be overturned on the field. Note that tag plays can be overturned with video review. Meaning the standards for calls that can be overturned on the field are actually more stringent than the standards for calls that can be reversed through video review.
Why would it be OK for a plate umpire to change his mind from memory 10 minutes later (or another umpire 90+ feet away to overturn) if the NCAA felt that even video evidence wasn’t good enough?
Posted on 5/26/24 at 11:35 am to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Option for the Overturn:
1) They called it incorrectly because they didn’t know the rules and they changed it because of the new rule knowledge.
Problem with this is they are completely incompetent for not knowing the rules and if they didn’t know the rule at the time how did they know what to look for.
2) They knew the rule, but they had to confer on the right call.
Problem with this is they made the judgement call and waiting until the SC coach argued/challenged them on it. How do you change a judgement call way after the fact without having video review?
I think this is a very succinct summary of the argument in my mind. Based on the rules for overturning calls made on the field without video review, it has to be one of these two things.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 11:49 am to DaBike
quote:
I want the SEC to show teams where the catcher should have been positioned.
Yes - since this was such a 'nuanced' play - how about using the video as an EXAMPLE of "what not to do" -
CERTAINLY since it shows stuff that is so difficult to interpret that it takes all the umps in Hoover, together with all the Bama grads in Alabama EIGHTEEN MINUTES to decipher - this should be a DIRE WARNING to all other catchers
DO NOT DO THIS!!!
Posted on 5/26/24 at 11:57 am to 1609tiger
quote:
Umps can get together and change a call.
That's not a "Review". A review necessarily involves video. There is no other kind of review. So when people say it is not renewable, they are necessarily talking about one which involves videos and there's no other kind.
This exercise in pedantry ignores the fact that you have improperly broadened the definition of a review to include something that is by rule, not a review (ie, refs getting together to make the ruling).
So everyone is correct to say that the play is not reviewable.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:05 pm to kobsa
quote:
That’s not what the SC coach said in his press conference. He said they saw a similar play in another game where that rule came up so when his runner was called out, he thought he’d bring up to ump for consideration. The steal home wasn’t purposefully done by the coach to use that rule.
LOL
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:08 pm to TackySweater
I’m willing to give the SC head coach far less credit than you are. I would find it quite stupid of a HC to risk a go ahead run on a high-risk play like that then reliant upon an obscure rule you hope the umps will rule in your favor? That’s not naive, that’s delusional.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:10 pm to DaBike
quote:
I want the SEC to show teams where the catcher should have been positioned.
I never heard the SEC say the call was accurate, simply that it was a judgement call that couldn't be reviewed.
Either way, time to move on. To misquote Les Miles: “We've got a championship game to play, and we're excited for the opportunity of our damn strong baseball team to play in it.”
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:12 pm to 1609tiger
quote:
Every play is “reviewable”.
Are you really this clueless? Everyone knows the phrase "the play is nonreviewable" means the play is not allowed to be video-reviewed. All plays are subject to discussion by the umps and reversal as a result. They did that on the play in question to reverse the out-at-home call, incorrectly in my opinion.
Give it a rest.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:14 pm to Shiftyplus1
quote:
I want the SEC to explain how a catcher is supposed to realize what is happening, catch a 90 MPH pitch, and remember exactly how to position his body the exact right way in the highly rare situation when a base runner is stealing home.
The SEC doesn't owe you that explanation. It's not a "highly rare situation" for a runner to try to steal home and there are several ways to handle it.
Option 1 - The pitcher steps off the rubber and throws home. This is not a pitch and the catcher can do whatever he wants.
Option 2 - The pitcher pitches as Herring did and the catcher stays back to receive the ball as normal, then makes the play on the runner.
Yesterday's events should have been ok b/c Neal didn't step on the plate and the batter didn't swing at the pitch. The ump messed up the call. I know people think that Neal handled it "perfectly" b/c it should have been an out. With the privilege of hindsight, Neal should have stayed back to catch the ball, and then tag out the runner. He had the time to do all of that. I am not shitting on Neal. He basically had no time to react and it should have been enough the way things played out. Had the ump not fricked the call, we wouldn't have thought twice about it.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:16 pm to kobsa
An out called by the ump at home plate is an OUT. The umpire knew the rule like the SC coach as it came up earlier in the week. To be persuaded afterwards (much later) to change his bang bang call is flat out wrong. SEC sports is number 1 and it is shame the SEC is at rock bottom regarding officiating.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:16 pm to emanresu
quote:
This exercise in pedantry ignores the fact that you have improperly broadened the definition of a review to include something that is by rule, not a review (ie, refs getting together to make the ruling).
The Rant could give lessons in pedantry, present company exclu...actually, I can be pretty bad about it.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:19 pm to 1609tiger
Semantics, when people refer to “reviewable” they are usually talking about video.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:23 pm to mdomingue
quote:
All plays are subject to discussion by the umps and reversal as a result.
There are non-reversible calls though, and I think it’s reasonable to say that this call should not have been reversible unless the plate ump didn’t know the rule (unlikely, IMO). And as someone else said - if he didn’t know the rule at the time he made the out call, how possibly be certain there was catcher’s interference after the fact?
The one scenario for reversal I can think of that would make sense is if the plate ump saw catcher’s interference initially but didn’t think it applied for some reason (maybe the batter stepping out of box) and then realized that they had misapplied the rule because of that.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:49 pm to kobsa
quote:
I would find it quite stupid of a HC to risk a go ahead run on a high-risk play like that then reliant upon an obscure rule you hope the umps will rule in your favor
true dat - he ought to be fired and/or shunned by his players if this is his approach to trying to tie a game with 2 out in the top of the 9th inning,
Posted on 5/26/24 at 12:56 pm to HEtiger
quote:PERIOD!!!
An out called by the ump at home plate is an OUT.
The ump emphatically raised a closed fist - that is universal "OUT" sign
and I THINK they are suppose to ACTUALLY SEE SOMETHING to make that ruling not just gesturing as a time filler to see if someone else has a 'better idea."
The only way to MORALLY justify the ruling the UMP-GROUP+OPPOSITION COACH made would be to disqualify that home play umpire!!
Posted on 5/26/24 at 1:05 pm to ChineseBandit58
The reversal is just so weird in the situation. If they needed to confer it should have been more immediate like a check swing.
Posted on 5/26/24 at 2:05 pm to 1609tiger
It was reviewable, cause they reversed their call on the field….they called the runner out
This post was edited on 5/26/24 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 5/26/24 at 2:14 pm to kobsa
quote:
That’s not what the SC coach said in his press conference. He said they saw a similar play in another game where that rule came up so when his runner was called out, he thought he’d bring up to ump for consideration. The steal home wasn’t purposefully done by the coach to use that rule.
Yeah, he just routinely called an attempted straight steal of home. Happens every game.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News