Sorry to resuscitate this one, but I just saw this video and could not resist:
https://www.facebook.com/Kicks...eos/952298008144927/
.... that poor kid probably turned into a lacrosse player after that.
Originally Posted by JCG:
Sorry to resuscitate this one, but I just saw this video and could not resist:
https://www.facebook.com/Kicks...eos/952298008144927/
The kid couldn't have hit that if he was standing on top of the plate! LOL! Painted the corner, Blue!
The scary thing is that the Little League World Series umps are supposed to be the best of the best.
Originally Posted by JCG:
The scary thing is that the Little League World Series umps are supposed to be the best of the best.
No, ML umpires are supposed to be the best of the best, plus their starting pay is $120K! What does a volunteer LL umpire get?
This may not be quite as bad, but considering the relative differences between the two, IMHO it’s much worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTuFDlyJfso
And how about this one? Not only did the 4 umpires on the field get it wrong, the guys in NY got it wrong as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddncpu9gd84
Originally Posted by Stats4Gnats:
And how about this one? Not only did the 4 umpires on the field get it wrong, the guys in NY got it wrong as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddncpu9gd84
That's not possible. Either the 4 on the field got it right or NY got it right.
Originally Posted by Stats4Gnats:
This may not be quite as bad, but considering the relative differences between the two, IMHO it’s much worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTuFDlyJfso
That's the type of pitch I feel an automated system will pick up as strikes. Nasty if that pitch just nicks the zone. The angle of the video is bad, but I have that pitch much closer than it appears to the zone.
I agree with real green on the strike call. Hard to tell from the angle of the camera, but that could possibly have nicked the zone.
On the second video - horrible, horrible call by the replay officials. Not only was it a horrible call, but it took 6 minutes to make it? Come on man.... There in lies part of the problem with IR. Humans still have to look at the video and interpret, but they take FOREVER to do it. Put a time limit on it, at the least - 1 minute max for review. If you can't decide in 1 minute, the call stands. I know I'll catch some flack about it, but that's the way I feel...
Originally Posted by bballman:
On the second video - horrible, horrible call by the replay officials. Not only was it a horrible call, but it took 6 minutes to make it? Come on man.... There in lies part of the problem with IR. Humans still have to look at the video and interpret, but they take FOREVER to do it. Put a time limit on it, at the least - 1 minute max for review. If you can't decide in 1 minute, the call stands. I know I'll catch some flack about it, but that's the way I feel...
I would argue that the problem in this particular case is with the rule, not IR. Did the throw pull the C across the 3rd base line or did he step over on his own. It's a poorly written rule, and I think it will be changed soon. Most of the IR calls I've seen take less time than a manager coming out to argue.
I do miss some of the nuanced calls, like the SS toe dragging behind the 2nd base to protect himself.
Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:
Originally Posted by bballman:
On the second video - horrible, horrible call by the replay officials. Not only was it a horrible call, but it took 6 minutes to make it? Come on man.... There in lies part of the problem with IR. Humans still have to look at the video and interpret, but they take FOREVER to do it. Put a time limit on it, at the least - 1 minute max for review. If you can't decide in 1 minute, the call stands. I know I'll catch some flack about it, but that's the way I feel...
I would argue that the problem in this particular case is with the rule, not IR. Did the throw pull the C across the 3rd base line or did he step over on his own. It's a poorly written rule, and I think it will be changed soon. Most of the IR calls I've seen take less time than a manager coming out to argue.
I do miss some of the nuanced calls, like the SS toe dragging behind the 2nd base to protect himself.
Is it not true that once the catcher has the ball, he can block the plate? Maybe not, I don't profess to be totally clear on the nuances of the rule. If the catcher CAN block the plate once he has the ball, then I don't even see a violation here. The ball was caught by the catcher while the runner was still 2 or 3 strides up the line.
Originally Posted by real green:
Originally Posted by Stats4Gnats:
Originally Posted by real green:
That's the type of pitch I feel an automated system will pick up as strikes. Nasty if that pitch just nicks the zone. The angle of the video is bad, but I have that pitch much closer than it appears to the zone.
My point in posting that called strike was that it’s easy to point to one specific call that was really bad out of tens of thousands, but that shouldn’t be used to call ALL umpires into question.
If an automated system picked it up as just nicking the zone, it is a strike and I don’t care what it looks like. That’s the whole point of it. Pitches aren’t called because they look like they should be one or the other. They should be called because they ARE one or the other.
This may not be quite as bad, but considering the relative differences between the two, IMHO it’s much worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTuFDlyJfso
That's the type of pitch I feel an automated system will pick up as strikes. Nasty if that pitch just nicks the zone. The angle of the video is bad, but I have that pitch much closer than it appears to the zone.
Originally Posted by real green:
Originally Posted by Stats4Gnats:
And how about this one? Not only did the 4 umpires on the field get it wrong, the guys in NY got it wrong as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddncpu9gd84
That's not possible. Either the 4 on the field got it right or NY got it right.
.. and I'll go against the grain on this one. The first several times I saw this a while back, I agreed that the call was aweful. After seeing it more and more and understanding the new rule where the C cannot set up in the basepath without the ball, I agree with the call. C definitely set up there. Yes, the runner was still a good two to three full strides from the plate but that is when the runner has to decide whether he is sliding inside or outside. In this case, he had no option.
I do agree the rule is worded poorly and needs more adjusting.
Originally Posted by bballman:
Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:
Originally Posted by bballman:
On the second video - horrible, horrible call by the replay officials. Not only was it a horrible call, but it took 6 minutes to make it? Come on man.... There in lies part of the problem with IR. Humans still have to look at the video and interpret, but they take FOREVER to do it. Put a time limit on it, at the least - 1 minute max for review. If you can't decide in 1 minute, the call stands. I know I'll catch some flack about it, but that's the way I feel...
I would argue that the problem in this particular case is with the rule, not IR. Did the throw pull the C across the 3rd base line or did he step over on his own. It's a poorly written rule, and I think it will be changed soon. Most of the IR calls I've seen take less time than a manager coming out to argue.
I do miss some of the nuanced calls, like the SS toe dragging behind the 2nd base to protect himself.
Is it not true that once the catcher has the ball, he can block the plate? Maybe not, I don't profess to be totally clear on the nuances of the rule. If the catcher CAN block the plate once he has the ball, then I don't even see a violation here. The ball was caught by the catcher while the runner was still 2 or 3 strides up the line.
"7.13.2 Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score."
The catcher was clearly straddling the 3rd base line before he had the ball. I think MLB has attempted to make some "clarifications" to the rule to bring in some common sense, but that's easier said than done.
Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:
Originally Posted by bballman:
Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:
Originally Posted by bballman:
On the second video - horrible, horrible call by the replay officials. Not only was it a horrible call, but it took 6 minutes to make it? Come on man.... There in lies part of the problem with IR. Humans still have to look at the video and interpret, but they take FOREVER to do it. Put a time limit on it, at the least - 1 minute max for review. If you can't decide in 1 minute, the call stands. I know I'll catch some flack about it, but that's the way I feel...
I would argue that the problem in this particular case is with the rule, not IR. Did the throw pull the C across the 3rd base line or did he step over on his own. It's a poorly written rule, and I think it will be changed soon. Most of the IR calls I've seen take less time than a manager coming out to argue.
I do miss some of the nuanced calls, like the SS toe dragging behind the 2nd base to protect himself.
Is it not true that once the catcher has the ball, he can block the plate? Maybe not, I don't profess to be totally clear on the nuances of the rule. If the catcher CAN block the plate once he has the ball, then I don't even see a violation here. The ball was caught by the catcher while the runner was still 2 or 3 strides up the line.
"7.13.2 Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score."
The catcher was clearly straddling the 3rd base line before he had the ball. I think MLB has attempted to make some "clarifications" to the rule to bring in some common sense, but that's easier said than done.
OK, but at what point does it become blocking? This catcher moved into the basepath to catch the ball. And the runner was still a considerable distance from the plate when he did so. When he gained possession of the ball, the runner was still at least 2 or 3 strides from the plate. Was he REALLY impeding the runner's path before he had the ball? I guess it's all pretty subjective...
Originally Posted by bballman:
OK, but at what point does it become blocking? This catcher moved into the basepath to catch the ball. And the runner was still a considerable distance from the plate when he did so. When he gained possession of the ball, the runner was still at least 2 or 3 strides from the plate. Was he REALLY impeding the runner's path before he had the ball? I guess it's all pretty subjective...
That's the problem with the way the rule is written. Are you sure that the ball pulled him into the base path, or did he consciously move into the path to catch the ball and block the plate. Too subjective.