Why is it ALWAYS the umpire's fault when the teams don't know the rules and then screw it up? And the announcers do not have a clue.

@superadam2112

Жыл бұрын

It’s an obscure rule that has only ever been called a handful of times in history.

@johncurley8486

Жыл бұрын

They awarded a run to a player who didn’t tag up, that was in violation of the rules

@umpinmass

Жыл бұрын

@@johncurley8486 If a runner misses the plate and is not appealed, does his run score? Of course. But he violated the rules by failing to touch the plate. There is no violation until the runner is appealed.

@californiajai

Жыл бұрын

Well, simply due to the fact that Umpires are paid to enforce the rules, thus they must know the rules!

The announcers were horrific in this situation. Spreading more misinformation and complaining that the fans take and then fill comments like these with complaints. The umpires nailed the call. The third baseman should know that the runner on third left early, that's one of his responsibilities and he should have explicitly stepped on the bag to make that appeal first before appealing the other runner. Even if it doesn't matter in this situation make it clear and explicit what you are going for to the umpire. Who knows what was in the third baseman's head as he randomly stepped on the base after tagging the runner without saying anything. Considering the third baseman just sat on the ground for a minute after catching the throw makes it clear that he didn't notice any runners leaving early and just heard his teammates yelling "Tag him!". The rule is complicated but not very hard and the Nationals messed up appeal rules twice, by not appealing a missed base before that in the first place that would have been a free out, and by their players being unaware and not knowing the rules costing them a run. The rule is perfectly fine. An appeal has to be a clear separate effort. Make a blatant step onto the base while looking at the umpire, say who you're appealing. Then tag the runner. The third baseman had no clue what he was doing and none of the announcers had a clue about anything aside from spreading BS and false outrage for everyone to think is the truth.

@MyBiPolarBearMax

2 жыл бұрын

Fyi the radio team nailed it. Charlie and Dave are the best in the business.

@danielcorreard3746

2 жыл бұрын

it seem to me that the umps weren't too hot either

@rayray4192

2 жыл бұрын

Brilliant post! Juxtapose this poor understanding of the rules with hall of fame shortstop Derek Jeter who did it right. Tom Hallion had a mic on when #2 looked at him as he stepped on second base and said,” Runner missed base.” Hallion said,” Which runner?” Mr. Jeter said,” First runner by.” Mr. Hallion said,” Safe,” and signaled safe. Jeter then said,” Second runner by.” as he stepped on second base again. Hallion again said,”’Safe,” as he signaled safe. Jeter didn’t get an out but he knew how to appeal. You can view his plaque at a museum in a small village in upstate New York.

@rayray4192

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielcorreard3746 umpires were perfect. You are ignorant

@joecommenter1332

2 жыл бұрын

I am not a big fan of any rule that requires you to appeal to the umpire to get it enforced.

Remember NFL Ref Ed Hochuli? He was so good at explaining the intricacies of a ruling. Too bad Wegner here didn't do that; it was a perfect opportunity missed. This is hopefully where the evolution of the mics go: explaining a ruling and also announcing who gets ejected.

@jeredratliff7726

2 жыл бұрын

Agree completely. I am hopeful this will improve in years to come as baseball umpires are just this year “broadcasting” to their stadiums. Which means none of them had practice - much less developed training - in announcing protocol.

@bradstone1332

Жыл бұрын

They just gotta get used to being mic’d up and the good explanation will come

@rayray4192

Жыл бұрын

Mark Wegner is doing what the league has instructed him to do. He did not fail. An explanation of a fourth out appeal during a game would not be understood and would take time.

@superadam2112

Жыл бұрын

We all know who got the hook. Not needed

I've been watching baseball for 60 years and have never seen this exact play. I'll bet not one in a hundred players, much less fans, would have known the right solution.

@bobh6728

2 жыл бұрын

Announcers should not comment on rules and have an expert that they can go to.

@AEMoreira81

2 жыл бұрын

It has happened at least twice before, in 1989 and 2009. In 2009, the Dodgers came out of the dugout to say the run should be awarded after all the D’Backs had left fair territory. In 1989, Larry Barnett did it automatically and explained it to the media after the game.

@nickpoole583

Жыл бұрын

Rare occurrence yes. Knowing the right way to play it? They should. It’s like if a runner in a force out try’s to get in a run down to allow another runner to score, everyone would be scream step on second. This one isn’t nearly that obvious but they should still know take the force out not the tag out, it makes a difference.

@rayray4192

Жыл бұрын

@@nickpoole583 no run can ever score when a force out is the third out, or the third out is at first base before the batter/ runner has touched first base.

@nickpoole583

Жыл бұрын

Yes. That’s the point …. If you opt not to take the force out you allow the opportunity for a runner to score.

Lindsay provided expert analysis. It’s a timing play. R-3 touched home plate before the third out was recorded. Run scores unless a legal appeal is made for a forth out which negates the run. Once the incompetent Nats. left the infield the opportunity to appeal was lost. Umpire perfection and perfect analysis by C.C.S.

@charlesbarber5157

Жыл бұрын

So question if the mats tag the bag first and then the runner at that point the run doesn’t count because that is their first appeal. If they tag the runner prior to the bag the run scores because the run cross prior to tag being made?

@greenmanofkent

5 ай бұрын

@@charlesbarber5157 No. In this case the Nats must touch 3rd, AND clearly indicate to the umpire which runner's actions they are appealing, i.e. R3. Physically tagging R2 is obvious, but this is where the timing comes into play. R3 had crossed the plate prior to R2 being tagged. The run scores unless the Nats explicitly appeal that play (they didn't) or all infielders have left the field of play which they did. The run counts.

Wow those Nationals announcers are brutal. Not knowing the rule is one thing, but falsely accusing the umpires of mismanaging the situation and even advocating the Nationals protest the game (MLB no longer even allows protests anymore) is inexcusable.

@mbdg6810

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@TeranRealtor

2 ай бұрын

I wonder if those announcers ever corrected themselves to their audience - either later during this game, or even the next game?

Great clip with explanations thanks - subscribed.

Great job standing their ground. I will always give the umpires credit when they get it right, especially on obscure rules.

@tmlms1313

2 жыл бұрын

@Damian No, the defense didn't properly appeal to get R3 out nullifying the run. The umpires can't tell them "hey make sure you appeal R3 too before you leave the field" Not their fault the defense is stupid and left without getting the 4th out.

@jeredratliff7726

2 жыл бұрын

@Damian part of what you said is correct, but since they could have appealed 2 plays they would get to declare which of those plays they wanted to be the 3rd out IF THEY STAYED ON THE FIELD. Once they left the field then the tag of R2 is the 3rd out, and since R3 crossed the plate before this tag, his run counts. This is what the umpires ruled and they are correct.

@DaddyHell

Жыл бұрын

@Damian you are clearly a very biased Nats fan. If you watch the video you will actually understand why you sound just like the announcers.

@nickpoole583

Жыл бұрын

@@jeredratliff7726 at what point would they be given the option to declare which out they wanted to keep? Because as far as I see they were never given that option. Or what should the D done different to get it outcome they wanted? He steps on the base and seem insistent on that as to say “I’m tagging him and stepping on the base to get R3 out. I’m getting them all out.” At that point what else should the 3rd baseman have done to obtain the option in the 4th out rule?

@jeredratliff7726

Жыл бұрын

@@nickpoole583 understandable questions as this is a confusing scenario. From my understanding - which I think aligns with the rulebook - the outs are recorded in the order they are made by the defense. The fielder doesn't get to make both outs and then declare 'a fiat' which order he wants them in. The 'declaration' is made based on the order the outs are made. This is a weird scenario because well over 99% of the time you are just looking for 3 outs and the order of them does not matter. But since the 3rd out was not a force-out, this left open the possibility of a 'timing play,' where a run can score on the same play during which the 3rd out is made. The runner was tagged for the 3rd out, which means that R3 (the runner who began the play at 3rd base) could only be declared out by appeal. The defense subsequently lost the ability to appeal this out when they left the field. My perception is that they left the field as a way of persuading the outcome of the play but it actually cost them the opporutnunity to appeal this rare 4th out situatino. If - instead of tagging R2 - the 3rd baseman had stepped on 3rd base first, R3 would have been the 3rd out, and none of this would have ensued. In other words, to prevent the run in this case a 4th out is needed **by appeal**. It can only be made by appeal because the inning is otherwise over when the 3rd out is made. The rules allow for an appeal following a 3rd out made by means other than force out. The only reason the run is possibly allowed is because it crossed the plate before the 3rd out. A 3rd out by force out negates any runs on the play, but this 3rd out was the tag of R2 who was then standing on 3rd.

This whole situation and analysis is fascinating.

Announcers don't know the rules ????? Tell me it isn't so ! . . . Great Explanation

@francissager3133

2 жыл бұрын

Granted this isn't a Mets broadcast, but both three Mets' TV and radio broadcast teams generally do a good job of getting the rules right. #InHowieGaryKeithRonAndDometimesWayneITrust

@randychase305

2 жыл бұрын

Announcers don't get 24 hours to get a statement from MLB to make a video, like this cunned stunt does.

@francissager3133

2 жыл бұрын

@@randychase305 good commentators should know the rules of the game they're commentating on.

This is clearer than the other explanations I've seen; thanks.

Holy crap that's a clusterfuck. Thanks for your hard work explaining that one Lindsay.

Not touching a base is beyond anything I can fathom a player doing. It is like not knowing where your house is.

@TeranRealtor

2 ай бұрын

We see NBA players travel ALL THE TIME. To me, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Commentators everywhere: confidently wrong about the rules of the game Lin: "I'm about to end this man's whole career."

@williamknudson8414

20 күн бұрын

Not just confidently wrong, but also throwing the umpires under the bus.

The manager should have known that if his defense leaves the field, he can't make the appeal.

To some commenters here (especially YOU Damian) who keep saying the umpire made a bad call (or lack thereof), let's remember again that verbiage that an appeal has to be clear and unmistakable. Even if the incidental foot on the bag immediately after tagging the runner was the fielder's way of appealing, it obviously was not clear and unmistakable. Do you know why? Because the umpire did not call the runner out on this unclear and non-appeal. The umpire didn't miss anything. He didn't get it wrong. He simply made no call, which means the appeal was not clear and unmistakable to him; ergo, it wasn't an appeal at all. Do you know what WAS actually VERY CLEAR and unmistakable? The umpire clearly pointing to the tagged runner and declaring him out. At that point, it should have been clear and unmistakable to the fielder that his appeal (if he was even really did intend to appeal in the first place) was not valid, and he should at that point have made a clear and deliberate step on the bag and declare his appeal to the umpire. It's as easy as that. The fielder blew this play, not the umpire. What's more, given that most players in the league probably have no idea that this rule exists, you can still make the case that the fielder didn't know the rule and was confused by the situation, and only stepped on the bag after making the tag because A. his momentum was carrying him in that direction, and / or B. he wanted to make sure the runner he was tagging was really out. Saying he was trying to appeal is giving the fielder a massive benefit of the doubt, and even if he was trying to appeal, he didn't do so clearly and unmistakably. Correct call on the field all the way.

I love the format of these videos because the situational commentary almost makes it sound sarcastic. "Nope, not reviewable" has the same energy as "You idiot."

@rayray4192

Жыл бұрын

They are idiots. Arrogance and ignorance simultaneously. Toxic

If the fielder who stepped on 3rd at the time of the tag on R2, said he wanted to also appeal R3 then it would be done correctly.

@metzilla

2 жыл бұрын

ding ding ding, ... we have a winner! :) YOU HAVE TO DECLARE WHAT YOU'RE APPEALING! PERIOD.

@MyBiPolarBearMax

2 жыл бұрын

@@metzilla incorrect, you do not have to verbally do it and if intentionally stepping on the base (you dont accidentally step half on half off) just in case after the tag doesnt constitute an unmistakable desire to appeal, nothing does. No one has been able to tell me why he intentionally stepped on the base AFTER the tag if not to appeal yet.

@metzilla

2 жыл бұрын

@@MyBiPolarBearMax ...OK

@metzilla

2 жыл бұрын

@@MyBiPolarBearMax here's another video the compares 2 different appeal play situations. Watch at 1:02 thru 1:15 and pay attention/comprehend what's being said, it just confirms what I've been saying on this thread. If this doesn't help, then, well that's on you .. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKGuyZN_oci9ZNI.html

@MyBiPolarBearMax

2 жыл бұрын

@@metzilla i wanted to clarify that you dont have to “declare” what you’re appealing (verbally) and you’d be very hard pressed to actually find a case where the appeal was ever verbal. Its always through the actions of the fielder except for some reason in this case

Sooooo 1. Batter out on caught line drive (second out of the inning) 2. R2 who left his base early is out on the tag by the third baseman (as an appeal) (third out of the inning) 3. R3 who left his base early scores even though he didn't properly tag up (because there was no proper appeal) (and because he crossed home plate before third out).

I think people are getting mixed up by what an "appeal" is. Tagging a runner who did not tag up at his base on a caught line drive or fly ball is an out by rule. There is no appeal happening. Now if the runner makes it to his next bag safely (and is called safe by the ump) after leaving his previous bag early and then the defense tags him while he is standing on his new bag, he is safe. However, the defense now needs to make an appeal to the ump at the base the runner vacated by, before the next pitch, having the pitcher throw the ball to that bag. That initiates the appeal process and the ump will make the call of out (he left early) or safe (he did not). Now, if the runner was not tagged while standing on his new base, he is still out because he is now doubled off of his old base by the appeal throw going to that base. However, if he was not tagged at any point between the play ending and the defense appealing and he realizes he did not tag up he can still retreat to his previous bag and will be safe if he is either not tagged or beats the throw there (but it will be a force-out, he does not need to be tagged). So at 10:18 when the 3rd baseman tags the runner he looks at the ump for the out signal. Because the runner had obviously left 2nd before the catch was made, the umpire correctly made the out call. NO APPEAL WAS MADE. TAGGING A RUNNER FOR AN OUT IS NOT AN APPEAL. Now if the ump had called the runner safe, then the defense would make an official appeal to the 2nd base ump to ask if he left early, which the 2nd base ump would confirm and the runner would be out at that time. Then when the 3rd baseman touches third (which happens a split second later) the ump never makes an out or safe call for the runner that left 3rd, as the inning ended with the runner on 3rd being called out. The 3rd baseman should have realized this when the ump specifically pointed at the runner and signaled "out" and made no other official call. At that point the players needed to get back to their positions and make an official appeal (the only one of the inning and the only one needed) too the 3rd base ump who would have confirmed the runner left early, that the bag was touched, and that the runner is out, now the 4th out of the inning, and that the run did not score. Therefore there would have been 4 outs in one inning to prevent the run from scoring. 3 outs was not enough.

@eboyce24

Ай бұрын

That's interesting, because if its an out by rule, then no appeal is necessary for the apparent signal the ump made. Adrianza looking to the umpire for an appeal while standing on third would be the most logical signal of intent (besides Bell throwing to third rather than second). Edit - your comment isn't technically correct. Per 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;

I'm 100% sure the 3rd baseman tagging the runner and stepping (prolonged with multiple steps up and down) on third base while looking at the umpire is unmistakable for trying to get whatever runner out. (And staying on the base) It's the same as the 2 runners on one base. The umpire has to clearly be ready to watch both runner feet and when the tags are applied. Also, with the forth out rule, the ball is not dead.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. And Shelton ran on the field during live play causing commotion. He had to be arguing it hit the ground. If anything this distracted the umps from noticing that the nats did appeal. Just can’t see anyway justifying a run here given the situation.

@mattharden5069

2 жыл бұрын

The issue is timing. He tagged the runner prior to stepping on the base. Had he stepped on the bag first, there would be no issue.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattharden5069 it doesn’t matter. The umps said he never stepped on the base. It’s impossible to think oh no, don’t tag the runner, tag the base. Especially when nobody knows if it was even caught or not

@samcohoon

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattharden5069 Doesn't matter. The ball is not dead due to the fourth out rule. The runner has to tag (they went over this on the previous play they review in the video) and he is clear out with that appeal. I don't know what close calls sports is looking at. The 3rd baseman is looking at the ump with a tag on the runner and his foot on the bag for a prolong period and an up and down motion with his foot.

@darkarima

2 жыл бұрын

"Oopsie, he just accidentally stepped on the base so it doesn't count. That's not clear." If it's not an appeal then what purpose did it serve for the fielder to step on the base, which required getting up in the runner's personal space, while pointedly looking at the umpire and keeping his foot on the base? It was clearly deliberate. The umpire's brain fart doesn't make it an accident.

You got to give Dave Martinez a lot of credit, I am shocked someone didnt get tossed lol

@rayray4192

Жыл бұрын

Martin doesn’t know the rules. He gets no credit.

"Line drive was ruled caught; batter is out. By tagging the runner, Minnesota appealed that the runner left 2nd before the catch. Runner was ruled out. Since Minnesota failed to properly appeal the runner leaving 3rd early before leaving the field, they lose the ability to appeal. The run scores."

They need to fix the announcing by the umpire to the crowd -- if the crowd doesn't understand, you need to explain further. As this video shows, there were many elements to this play, but the only announcement was about whether they have to appeal before leaving the field (#4 in Lindsay's list).

This is one of those plays that seems like a made up situation that no one would actually believe would ever happen. And I feel so bad for these umpires because these announcers that don't understand the rules are bashing them when they don't know what they're talking about.

The manner in which the fielder placed his foot on the bag looks incredibly intentional, not just how he happened to step. I'd rule that a valid appeal, however I can see the argument against it.

@brianlampl3321

2 жыл бұрын

This where CCS is off base ( no pun intended). The third baseman knows the result of tagging the runner and stepping on the base is a triple play. That’s where we see this particular play most often. The umpire judgement is that it’s not intentional enough to be considered an appeal. Let’s have another example where the appeal wasn’t intentional enough. I’d think you be hard pressed to find one over the last 10 years. IMHO bad judgement call by 3rd base umpire.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. It’s like the umpires ignored the fact he stepped on the base for 5 secs after making the tag. The ump should have signaled 2 outs, and it looked like he might have. I think they were all distracted by Shelton running on the field. Technically he ran on the field during live play not even giving them a chance to hear what was going on. The umps messed this up bad. Shelton should get a suspension imo cause he’s the reason for all the commotion.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianlampl3321 it’s horrible. Considering they are all trying to figure out if it was even caught. The nats should have challenged whether or not he caught the ball, and say while reviewing it, check and see cause u missed the appeal. If they say they can’t challenge it cause they are too late, explain why it’s ok for the opposing manager to storm the field during “live” play. All they had to do was get together and ask whether or not he touched the bag intentionally and he did. Besides this play, suwsinki earlier should have been out, and the home plate ump missed all kinds of balls and strikes. It’s time for robo umps.

@mph7282

2 жыл бұрын

@@santaclause3487 you cannot challenge whether or not the ball was caught. Catches on the infield are not reviewable. However…I agree that it sure looked like the third baseman was appealing R3 as well. I thought that was obvious from the first live replay, before any commentary. We don’t know if he said anything to the umpire, but it sure looks exactly like what he’d had done had their not been R2.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

@@mph7282 ok, so that makes sense why Shelton ran out, he was saying it hit the ground. How they got a run out of it is wild. Combine this and the home plate umps performance I can’t see it being any worse. Anybody justifying the call is a goon imo.

The worst thing about baseball's replay/review system is that it just doesn't follow common sense. Baseball has always been too "but the rules say..." focused. It was clear that the runners were out and no one should have scored and the umps should have been able to make that call without the Nats appealing

@Fire5485

2 жыл бұрын

Yes!!! This!!

@craigdupree1687

2 жыл бұрын

This sounds good in practice, and maybe with TV workable. But many times this will go un-missed at least at younger ages because the focus is usually on the ball. The only people that don't do that are the umpires, because the each umpire has a base (or bases if there are less than 4 umpires) they are watching. It's going to be a much bigger mess to try to unwind a situation where a bunch of stuff has played out on the field when the umpire is the only one that saw someone miss the bag. I mean do you immediately call it? Do you wait until a bunch of runs score, and then step and say, "oh no, actually that runner over there was out." Either way you are probably going to generate controversy. Actually even with TV it might be missed. This just helped because all the focus was on one tight spot on the field.

@craigdupree1687

2 жыл бұрын

If you don't believe me about TV, there is a great video you can find on this channel about announcers explaining the umpires because each umpire is focused on the base, but the announcers have the advantage because they see the whole field, except that they miss the very obvious obstruction happening right in front of them.

@alanhess9306

Жыл бұрын

According to the rules, that is not how it works.

@eboyce24

Ай бұрын

According to the rules: 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play; Adrianza clearly intended to step on third, which would only indicate an appeal as there was no force. In that sense, it would negate the restriction on appeals made after leaving the field because it was made before they left the field.

As long as one foot’s on the base and you go towards 1st can you legally go to 3rd or have to touch it even if your foot’s already on the base

Shouldn't the umpires explain the play? They're mic'd up but only announce the rules check

@Niel2760

2 жыл бұрын

You might be right but how the hell do you explain it concisely? I doubt many fans would understand even if they did.

@davidlocke3477

2 жыл бұрын

Ed Hochuli managed to do it in football, so follow his example. A minute long explanation of what the ruling is would be better than no explanation.

@Niel2760

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidlocke3477 lol I’m not sure many people would want umpires to follow his example. He got blasted for loving the sound of his own voice.

@davidlocke3477

2 жыл бұрын

He was (is?) also a lawyer, so it's no surprise that he liked to talk that much.

@Niel2760

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidlocke3477 I loved Guns but he wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea.

Literally all of this could have been avoided if the third baseman had ignored R2 and stepped on B3 deliberately. Unambiguously appealing R3, third out, no run counts.

@sfan2767

2 жыл бұрын

The 4th out rule makes the ignoring R2 irrelevant. He did step on the base deliberately, but the umpire later told him he didn't see that...

@AEMoreira81

2 жыл бұрын

@@sfan2767 - 3B has to make that explicitly clear and say something like: I think he failed to retouch third base.

@kevpotts

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean “unambiguously appealing r3”? Why did he need to appeal? He stepped on b3 before r3 tagged back up. So r3 should be out. Did the umpires call him safe incorrectly at home and that’s why the nats needed to appeal? So this is all just umpire error that the nats didn’t argue about correctly?

@TDohertyProductions

2 жыл бұрын

@@sfan2767 Yea, there shouldn't need to be an appeal, if the umpires were competent they would have just called it a 4th out immediately and there would be no story.

@alanhess9306

Жыл бұрын

@@TDohertyProductions No, they would not have called R3 out unless the appeal of R3 was unmistakable. All F-5 needed to do was tell the umpire he was appealing R3 leaving early.

9:15 The timing of calling the ruling brutal when Davy Martinez comes out, considering a year later, he would call the ruling of the Astros not being out of the baseline brutal

The Nats had to have the tag the base at 3rd, despite not being entitled to hoke? Also, if part of the Nats went to the dugout, but two players remain on the field, can they appeal the play?

Another cute comment made by the announcers is the one said “put it in protest.” Sorry guys, you can no longer put a game into protest.

Josh Bell's face was almost permanently like that in Pittsburgh.

Is there any previous instance of the fourth out rule that can be referenced to?

@LindsayImber1

2 жыл бұрын

A very similar play to this one occurred in 2009 and the defense failed to appeal the fourth out in that one, too. www.closecallsports.com/2014/01/uefl-series-baseball-rules-in-real.html

@AEMoreira81

2 жыл бұрын

This kind of play has happened at least twice before…in 1989 and 2009. Like this, those involved time plays.

@McClimber234

Жыл бұрын

There are a few 4th out videos

I can't blame the announcers for being confused. I'm still confused.

@mbosschaart

2 жыл бұрын

Announcers are confused regardless. But yeah, its a tiny bit confusing for the regular viewer. Especially when the announcers are clueless and pile on bullshit rule after bullshit rule.

@linollieum3742

2 жыл бұрын

There's a difference between confused, spreading information, and being angry homers saying to protest the game (protests are for rules that are applied incorrectly, not for disagreeing with an existing rule. But everyone wants to protest any game where they're angry about a call)

I love listening to commentators who clearly have no idea whats happening try and explain whats going on lol

So much of this would be resolved as far as the broadcast is concerned, if broadcasters had access to rules experts like they do in the NFL and NHL. I don’t expect broadcasters to understand every little nuance of the rules, but they’re obviously guessing here and they’re not very good at it. Having access to a retired umpire as a rules expert (or access to close call sports) would be outstanding.

It is amazing that the announcers and managers think the umpires don’t know the rules. The umpires miss a lot of judgement calls, but very few rules. The announcers probably get paid a lot more than umpires, so maybe they should go to classes to learn the rules that they get paid to comment on.

Who's on first!? >LOL This was absolutely confusing.

Sooo.... Holding the ball and stepping on the bag for 5 seconds isn't unmistakable enough? If there were no outs it clearly would have been a triple play.... Does the player have to shout "hey ump, give me the other one too"? What if he can't use his voice for some reason? Does he need to take two steps away and then take a giant step back onto the bag to show he's tagging off R3?

What I don't get is this. The appeal has to be made during a live ball. The third out was registered, how can the ball be live (to make an appeal valid) with the defensive team still on the field?

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

As I understand it from the wording of the 4th out rule, the appeal has to be made before the pitcher and all infielders leave the fair territory. Based on that I'd suggest the ball is still live until then. The dead ball law doesn't list 3 outs as one of the reasons the ball goes dead, so it doesn't disagree. The ball may even stay technically live between innings from my reading. Edit: if it IS dead, though, the correct procedure is to ask the umpire for the ball, take your positions and appeal as normal. This can even be done after the game is theoretically over, for example because someone got excited and missed a base in a walkoff home run.

So, basically, if 3B, tags the runner for out 3, he needs to also alert the 3BUmp that, I am also appealing R3 by stepping on the base, then they get to choose which out sticks? Had he touched 3rd first, and not tagged R2 at all, would that have sufficed?

@alanhess9306

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, he needed to appeal R3, not R2.

@linollieum3742

2 жыл бұрын

YES. Tag the out you want. Step on third alone. Do separate appeals for two players, not to mention the fielder didn't seem to know what he was trying to do anyways since he didn't do anything until he realized people were yelling at him to tag the runner.

@alanhess9306

2 жыл бұрын

@Damian Wrong, Stepping on the bag without making it clear what he was appealing is nothing. All F-5 needed to do was to tell the umpire he was also appealing R3 leaving early. He didn't do that. An appeal must be obvious and unmistakable.

@alanhess9306

Жыл бұрын

@Damian The umpire was correct. While verbal appeals are not required, the rule does require the defense to make it clear and unmistakable who they are appealing. Your belief that it was clear and unmistakable is nothing more than your opinion, which means nothing. If the umpire genuinely missed the tag of the base, all F-5 needed to do was tell the umpire that he was appealing R3 leaving early. He could still have made the appeal after R2 was called out, but instead the defense left the field, making a further appeal invalid. The defense screwed up, not the umpires.

@alanhess9306

Жыл бұрын

@Damian The umpire may not have realized initially that F-5 stepping on the base was the intention to appeal. But that that does not negate the fact that the fielder could have gotten the umpire's attention by saying "I'm appealing R3 left early" or something to that effect. F-5 obviously didn't understand he could get the fourth out.

To the comments saying touching 3rd baseman touching 3rd was meant to be the unmistakable appeal. Then way did he not make it clear to the umpire when the umpire didn't make any motion for that. Clearly the umpire didn't see it as unmistakable so the third baseman should have made it even more clear. The only reason he wouldn't have waited till the umpire called R3 out was that he didn't know the rules. I'm not blaming him, this rule and play are weird as hell, but at the end of the day if he wanted the appeal on R3 he should have stayed there till he got an answer

@metzilla

2 жыл бұрын

YES! Why didn't F5 just say " Hey, R3 left early too! (while touching the bag)" ...boom, .... there it is, that's all it takes. With more than one runner, you must declare!

@linollieum3742

2 жыл бұрын

@@metzilla That or at least make two distinctly separate tagging motions and see if you get two out calls. It's up to the fielder to know that the runner at his base left early and that that's the priority out that he has to ensure he gets by stepping clearly on the base while NOT doing a tag first and at the same time.

@AEMoreira81

2 жыл бұрын

That isn’t an appeal on R3. That’s an appeal on R2. If the 3B had stepped on third before tagging the runner, he has to tell the umpire: I think he failed to retouch third. The umpire can then rule on that and the run would not count for touching a base. Is leaving early reviewable?

@MyBiPolarBearMax

2 жыл бұрын

Everyone is putting the onus on the fielder but no one can tell me WHY he would *intentionally* touch third AFTER tagging the runner if not to add in that you’re lodging an appeal on r3? he probably didnt know the run would count and when the ump doesnt signal out for tagging the base hes thinking “okay theres three outs already, that didnt matter” but it doesnt change the fact that he intentionally, *unmistakbly* touched third in case he needed to for r3.

@metzilla

2 жыл бұрын

@Damian kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKGuyZN_oci9ZNI.html

Great job by the umpire crew

I love Lindsay.

It doesn't matter if it goes out of play? Does that mean we now have beer league softball rules for homeruns? No need to run the bases, it went out of play. Come back to the dugout and have another beer! You earned it!

Per the rules, what constitutes the team being “off the field” as referenced here? Is a team considered to have left the field when the first player takes one step into the dugout? Or when the last player takes the last step into the dugout? Or some arbitrary moment in between?

@taustin266

2 жыл бұрын

This was addressed in the video. The rule book states that the defense has left the field when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory.

@mikes805

2 жыл бұрын

@@taustin266 Thank you, I must have missed that part. So, that’s when all players have all feet in foul territory. If one person had at least one foot in fair territory, they have not yet all left the field?

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikes805 well it shouldn’t t even apply here for a couple reasons. Cause they appealed by stepping on the base for 5 secs after the tag. And say if that didn’t count, Shelton ran in the field arguing it wasn’t caught technically during live play cause the inning was completely over. So the nats were to wait for his argument to be over before the appeal again? I think that’s what Martinez should have argued after.

@bosser15

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikes805 in most plays, at least one player is already standing in foul territory (the catcher at a minimum).

@danmertz92

2 жыл бұрын

@@santaclause3487 agreed. The tagging of R2 ended the inning, and before they left the field, the tagging of 3rd base was the “4th out appeal”.

Since the runner left the field of play wouldn't the appeal at third be stepping on the base or do they need to tag the runner that left the field?

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

Stepping on the base is sufficient as far as tagging goes, but it also has to unmistakably be an appeal, not just something done on principle. Here I suspect he was confused so just stepped on the bag, but that's not enough. He needs to somehow indicate he's appealing R3 specifically. I'd be ok with the umpire considering it an appeal and ruling as such, but the fact it's possible to not be sure leads to this, which is correct by rule.

@FoxtasticGaming

2 жыл бұрын

@@vonskyme9133 So basically what the MLB is saying is that you have to spoon-feed your intentions to ump. Because stepping on a base and standing there isn't blatant enough for the third base ump

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

@@FoxtasticGaming that's the rule, yes. You may not like it, but it is (and always has been) the rule.

@FoxtasticGaming

2 жыл бұрын

@@vonskyme9133 but since each ump has its interpretation of the rule. Then that means the rule isn't clear enough even for the umpire. Some need a little some need a sign with flashing lights.

Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly. Let's suppose there is a runner on first with nobody out. A fly ball is caught, but the runner goes on contact and does not tag. If the fielding team just throws the ball to the pitcher who pitches to the next batter, and they do not tag first base, the inning continues with the runner on second and one out effectively as if the runner stole second before the play.

I'm ok w/ the ruling, but not sold on 3B not making an unmistakable appeal. It's obvious that he purposely stepped on the base; he didn't do it accidentally. Does he have to make a verbal appeal at that point? But the crew needed to explain what happened beyond leaving the field. That's why they have the mics.

@FirstBitewithDan

2 жыл бұрын

No, it's not obvious. He stepped on the base following his tag of the runner standing on third. The focus of the fielder was OBVIOUSLY on the runner he was tagging, not making an appeal on the runner that scored that left early. You can't "accidentally appeal". This call was 100% correct. Don't be swayed by a terrible broadcast.

@closethockeyfan5284

2 жыл бұрын

@@FirstBitewithDan No, the fielder wouldn't have tagged the runner standing on the base if he wasn't playing the catch, and he likewise wouldn't have touched the base for any reason other than to appeal the lack of tagging up--there was no R1 in this situation. Both plays were 100% in line with playing the catch. Fourth out was touching third, which as Lin explained the Nationals could elect to take precedence over the tag of R2 to negate the run. Ump was so focused on calling Park out that he neglected the additional appeal of Suwinski.

@FirstBitewithDan

2 жыл бұрын

@@closethockeyfan5284 That's utterly ludicrous! Now we're trying to read the fielder's mind, which is impossible, but that said, the manner in which he tagged the runner and then his momentum carried him towards the base implied that he wasn't really sure what he was doing because of the unusual situation. There's no doubt here that the fielder was NOT trying to make an appeal on the runner; if by some unusual chance he was, his actions didn't signify his intentions. AGAIN, we have a good call here. Case closed.

@closethockeyfan5284

2 жыл бұрын

@@FirstBitewithDan Sorry, but that just doesn't align with the facts. The only uncertainty came from the soft call of catch on the batted ball. The appeals were both made correctly, and your logic falls apart because if he was so confused, then how does the tag appeal count as such either? No, this was a blatant fourth out appeal. The only ones who clearly didn't know what they were doing were the umpires, otherwise there would be no rules check and no 10-plus minute debacle. I love umpires.as one who's been there and had my share of tough calls. I will largely defend them. But they blew this one.

@FirstBitewithDan

2 жыл бұрын

@@closethockeyfan5284 Since there's not any real way of knowing what was going on inside the fielder's head, we can't err to the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Simply running to the base doesn't constitute an appeal. Stepping on the base and pointing towards home saying "THAT runner is who I want out, he left early" or something to that effect would have made more sense. Even supposing his mindset was "I'll tag the runner and then tag the base for the appeal", his actions didn't coincide with that logic. It would have been no trouble at all for him to point and say "He left early" but he didn't, and since you can't accidently back your way into an appeal, there's no other logical call except this one.

Can you cover the Braves 1 out, turned into a triple play, reviewed back to a double play in last night's game vs the Phillies?

Clearly, there need to be more rules in order to clarify these rulings, that seems like the obvious solution.

12:00 You DO NOT need to appeal for the runner on third base, that is up to the umpires to determine whether the run should count or not which at the time of the play they did not reward Pittsburgh the run. Think about it like this, just because you step on Home plate doesn't mean you automatically score. It's up to the umpire's interpretation and acknowledgement if the run is valid. Which it definitely couldn't have been because the runner clearly left early.

I wonder how many other rules we were taught in little league are more complex than we were led to believe.

@rayray4192

2 жыл бұрын

When a run scores is an interesting study. This was a timing play. Did R-3 touch home plate or pass by home plate before R-2 was tagged on the appeal? If the third out is recorded before a runner scores the run is not allowed. Whenever the third out is made at first base before the batter/ runner touches first no run can ever score.

@rayray4192

2 жыл бұрын

Here’s another timing play. 1 out, R-1& R-3. Ground ball to first baseman who steps on first base for our #2, and then throws to second where R-1 must be tagged to be out because he is no longer forced out. If a speedy R-3 touches home before R-1 is tagged out the run scores. It’s a timing play.

@rayray4192

2 жыл бұрын

Had a throw from a catcher lodge in a runner’s helmet last week. The rule is immediate dead ball. I’d runner is attempting to advance he’s awarded his advance base. If not, he’s protected into his retreat base. In this case play R-2 was diving into second base on a back pick from the catcher. It’s a lodged ball in player’s uniform or equipment in a throw.

@garygemmell3488

Жыл бұрын

Actually they are not that complex. The get complex when people start to believe the myths that have sprouted up around the actual rules. In baseball the focus is usually what is happening with the ball. In this play if you simply follow what is happening with the ball and apply the rules (which are clear) as things happen IN ORDER it becomes simple. This is what the umpires did and what looked complicated to everyone else is simply a matter of applying the rules in the order the situations presented themselves

@alanhess9306

Жыл бұрын

@@rayray4192 It's called a time play, not a timing play.

The umpires got this right. However I really, really wish they would use their microphone to explain what is going on. This is an incredibly unique situation and I wouldn't expect the average fan or the average broadcaster to understand what is going on. As much as it annoys Lindsay that broadcasters don't know the intricacies of all of the baseball rules, I understand that broadcasters are not hired based on their complete knowledge of 5.09(c). It would have helped so much if after their initial huddle the umpires got on the microphone and said the following "the ruling on the field is that the runner from third scored before the third baseman tagged the runner from 2nd base. And since the Nationals did not appeal that the runner from third left the base early before leaving the field - the run scores". On another note - I enjoy watching these breakdowns of complicated and confusing plays on this channel - but boy oh boy am I tired of listening to the smugness that comes from Lindsay. Every time that an announcer says something wrong she can't wait to pounce with her aura of smugness and superiority. She comes across just like that umpire you run in to sometimes that can't wait to tell you about some arcane rule that they know about and you don't. And instead of just teaching you about the rule she has to make you feel like an idiot at the same time.

@alanhess9306

2 жыл бұрын

Nonsense. Lindsay was totally correct and posted the appropriate rules. The Nats and their announcers were totally clueless. The "fan base" is dumber because of the idiot announcers.

@joekuhn5608

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. I don't need to hear "The ruling on the field is overturned" for something simple like a tag on a steal attempt or a close play at 1st. That's just a waste of time. If you're gonna give the umps microphones, use them to explain weird stuff like this, not the piddly stuff.

@bernier42

2 жыл бұрын

I get it. I think she’s being smug because the broadcasters were being arrogant (and incorrectly so) with the umpiring crew, and she was trying to defend them.

@mbdg6810

2 жыл бұрын

Yes agreed.

@r.a.contrerasma8578

2 жыл бұрын

Most announcers are really ignorant in instances like this. They don't help. Lindsey does. Give her credit! I Umps get more flak than credit also for getting it right. Very few of these announcers could ump.

I think I understand everything here . . . except WHY either the tag or stepping on the base were labeled as appeals and not just the actions of the play. Did I miss time out being called? I'm a year late but just discovered all these awesome videos so I might just be left wondering . . .

If the third baseman had stepped on the bag first before tagging the runner, would the run have counted anyways because he crossed the plate first ?

@bernier42

2 жыл бұрын

If the third baseman made it clear he was appealing R3 first, R3 would be out and no run would count. R2 would be irrelevant at that point. Amazing how this all could have been avoided.

The announcers' running commentary is fascinating.

It is unfortunate that so many broadcasters are ignorant of the rules.

tl;dr, so sorry if this has already been asked/covered: I'm not understanding why an appeal is even part of the conversation, and here's my understanding of the situation: The play starts with one out, Park on 2nd (R2) and Suwinski on 3rd (R3). Hayes lines out for out #2, as called on the field by the 1st base umpire. R2 & R3 are now at their own risk, but need to tag up before they advance up or risk being put out prior to returning to their respective bases (unless, of course, the fielding team allows them to advance without making the effort to put them out). The moment Adrianza tags R2 (who is on 3rd base), he's out, for the 3rd out of the inning, and whatever happens with R3 doesn't matter, because the inning is over. If R3 had tagged up AND scored PRIOR to R2 being put out, THEN the run should count as he would have scored legally prior to the 3rd out. Am I making sense at all? It just feels like there was a fundamental error on the part of the umpires here. I look forward to replies!

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

The failire to tag up does not inherently prevent a runner advancing. It is quite legal to be on first, not tag up after the batter is caught, round the bases while failing to touch second or third and then jump clear over home plate, and unless the defense appeals one of your many baserunning infractions you will be awarded the run. It may or may not be a good rule, but it is the current one. In this case, because he crossed home before R2 was out for not tagging up (which is an appeal and thus a time play, not a force) he has legally scored unless the defense appeals against him specifically.

@ericwinegarner8928

2 жыл бұрын

@@vonskyme9133 Right, I kind of forgot the umpire crew's passive responsibility regarding baserunners. Basically, it's the defensive team's responsibility to call out of a runner fails to tag up or misses a base (on appeal), and the umpire's job to confirm that. I really think that should change. The players are there to play a game, not enforce the rules. If an umpire sees a baserunning infraction, they should call it out in the moment, much like they do for interference.

@eboyce24

Ай бұрын

Looks good to me. The only issue is whether R2 was tagged before R3 crossed home, in which case the inning would end before the run scores. In this case, the appeal at third should have been the question of whether R3 left early OR whether the tag on R2 preceded R3 scoring. Neither of those appeals apparently happened. The Nats left the field before the umpires made their determination of whether the run scored, but Adrianza had technically made the appeal at third before he left, with the umpire walking away after signalling the out on R2, leaving all other appeals unanswered. Adrianza remained on third as the umpire walked away, twisting his foot on the bag as the runner also left, and the Nats cleared the field as the umps conferred. On the play, the first base umpire signalled the line out for the second out, and the third base umpire signalled the tag out for the third out, but none of the umps registered the appeal that Adrianza made by staring at the umpire while standing on the base after the throw to third. Edit - 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;

Only the pirates could be involved in a play like this

If he'd just stepped on third before he tagged the runner, it would have been moot. He wouldn't have even needed to tag the runner.

More baseball fans should follow this channel.

@alanhess9306

Жыл бұрын

Baseball fans should also pay attention when the rule is explained.

That last pitch btw was a strike btw. Mostly a good video but you sound like the Announcers a few times. Talking about things like they were wrong when the pirates broadcast had it spot on.

This isn’t me trying to say the umpires are wrong. I understand the fourth out appeal didn’t happen. I also understand umpires deserve a heck of a lot more credit for what they do, knowing all these rules and getting paid a small fraction of all these players and coaches that SHOULD know the rules but don’t. However, is it possible for the home plate or third base umpire to just say (while the first play is live) that the runner doesn’t score because he didn’t tag?

Great explanation! Announcers sometime are so clueless. Even Bob Walk got fooled on this one. I would have LOVED to heard Steve Blass thoughts on this

How is tagging a base after the runner leaves early on a caught fly ball considered an appeal? I've never seen that play called an appeal before. Catch the ball throw to either 2nd or 3rd first and have a triple play. Double play if there was already an out before play.

@eboyce24

Ай бұрын

Me neither, but apparently all such plays are technically "appeals". Usually you don't have to do anything besides step on the base to indicate the "appeal" and the umpire signals the out. Edit- on "bang bang" plays like on fly outs where a runner may or may not have left early, then it typically goes into a more formal appeal process, but still the team has to stand on the bag with the ball and look to the umpire for them to make a decision.

One thing, everything is done the umpires could convey to everyone what happened and the ruling as is done in other sports.

@AEMoreira81

2 жыл бұрын

With microphones new for this season, that was a missed opportunity.

Thanks for giving it a shot, but I still have no idea what happened. I understand that it has to do with the appeal, but Adrianza stepped on the base. Is that not how the appeal works?

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

Not entirely. Stepping on the base is part of the requirement, but the other part is that it must be unmistakably an appeal. In a different hypothetical of two runners both passing the base you'd need to explicitly state which. If the first missed and you said the second, safe (you can, of course, appeal both but they must be clearly separate appeals). In this case the unpires felt the base touch was not enough to appeal R3 specifically, probably because he's holding the tag on R2 for that appeal the entire time.

@eboyce24

Ай бұрын

The rule is an unmistakeable action to differentiate from incidental contact. Adrianza clearly indicated the intent to step on the base, while staring at the ump. That should indicate an appeal, and when the Nats argued an appeal at third was made, it should have been reviewed in New York if the umpires missed the fact that Adrianza was on the bag to signify the appeal. I expect coming back onto the field was to address the fact that the umpires claimed they never saw the appeal, whereas technically Adrianza did make multiple potential appeals (whether the tag preceded any run by R3, or whether R3 left early) before leaving the field. The umpires apparently ruled that no appeal happened at all, nor could be made, despite the ball being thrown to third and Adrianza stepping on third which can only indicate an appeal as there was no force out. Edit - 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;

Where's the Robo Ump bros at? You're going to need to update the software to deal with this play 😭

Spectacular explanation, great job!

Also caught the announcers saying the nationals should put the game under protest. That isn't a thing anymore either.

What if he threw to 2nd for 3rd out ,runner scores without appeal also,no.

This was a great video. Thank you. There are zero issues with the umpiring here, they got it right on a very confusing play that they don’t have access to replay. I’m a little bit smarter now thanks to you guys. Thanks again

@sfan2767

2 жыл бұрын

Adriannza (F5) "said the third-base umpire told me he didn’t see me when I touched the base, so that’s why I think they made that call". Whether or not that was an appeal is a debatable point, but either way the umpire did not do a perfect job if he missed the fact that a fielder stepped on a base that was relevant to the play.

@rickhaavisto9023

2 жыл бұрын

@@sfan2767 No, it isnt relevant because it wasnt an unmistakable appeal

@rickhaavisto9023

2 жыл бұрын

@Damian No, “stepping on the bag” doesn’t stop the run from scoring. The appeal needs to be unmistakable.

@rickhaavisto9023

2 жыл бұрын

@Damian I can easily make the argument that stepping on the base was his momentum carried over after the tag was applied. If I can easily make that argument, then it isn’t unmistakable.

@eboyce24

Жыл бұрын

@@rickhaavisto9023 i can easily make the argument that he tagged the runner to keep him on the base and stop his own momentum. Why was the tag obvious but him stutter-stepping to indicate separate actions (rather than tagging and touching simultaneously), placing his foot on the bag, and spinning his foot around on the base after the first appeal result and revalidating with the ump not obvious? Both Adrianza and Bell looked at the lead runner before getting the ball over to third. In any other play, doing that and intentionally putting your foot on the base and keeping it there would be sufficient, because multiple appeals can be made simultaneously. The ump's post-game explanation goes into their focus on the order of the events, and yet by rule the order of the appeals doesn't matter, nor does the issue of the Nats leaving the field (with both the pre-exit and post-exit demonstration of intent). The only thing that matters is whether the player makes an unmistakable appeal, which according to the Nats they certainly did (but only realized the umps had not validated it after the umps huddled about whether it was a catch at all and said a run scored), and according to the umps they claimed they didn't see the appeal at all and couldn't review because the third base umpire "didn't see him on the base" according to various Nats players and Martinez relaying umpire commentary, despite him being quite visible on the base for an extended period of time.

If the third basemen, after tagging the runner, steps on 3rd and points to the runner that crossed home, would that have been the 4th out?

@eboyce24

Ай бұрын

Maybe, maybe not. The umps could have construed that as being an appeal of whether the tag on R2 was before R3 crossed home, which it clearly wasn't, but it would have still allowed the run to score because the only appeal that would prevent the run is the appeal on R3 leaving early. 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;

How do you appeal a game ending home run with the runner missing the base (since the ball wont be put back in play).

@Renegade605

2 жыл бұрын

The defense indicates to the umpire that they wish to appeal the play. The umpire will give the defense a ball. All defensive players take their positions. The umpire calls play. The pitcher steps off the rubber and throws to the base (or runs to it). The player holding the ball steps on the base and says that the runner missed the bag. Bang. The runner is out and the run is nullified.

@bkembley

2 жыл бұрын

The catcher asks for a ball, I give it to him, he steps on the plate and says the guy missed it, and I call him out. I've done it--twice.

It all makes sense, but this still leaves me scratching my head: If there had been no outs at the time, the third base umpire would have called both R2 and R3 out on the play, because the identical actions of the third baseman would have been clear and unmistakeable for a triple play but not for a double play.

@bernier42

2 жыл бұрын

If the play happened exactly as it did IRL, it still would have been ambiguous whether F5 was appealing R3. But in that situation, F5 would have made it quite obvious that he was appealing both R2 and R3, as there weren’t three outs yet. If it had all gone down the same way as IRL, Washington would have appealed R3 before the next pitch, and R3 would have been out. Because the defence would have still been on the field.

Broadcaster: “ I have no idea what’s going on.” A man with no idea what’s happening pronounces judgment upon an mlb umpire crew.

Here’s a hypothetical question unrelated to this game but I would love to hear everyone’s opinions… Visiting pitcher has a perfect game for nine innings but his team is also shut out. They don’t score in the top of the 10th and in the bottom of the tenth they put the ghost runner on second base. He scores on two deep fly outs, the pitcher loses the game while pitching a perfect game. Or is it perfect?

@rapperguy98

2 жыл бұрын

I don't believe so because earlier this season the Pirates beat the Reds 1-0 without getting a hit and that game is not considered a no-hitter for the Reds pitcher.

@mph7282

2 жыл бұрын

MLB and Elias Sports Bureau, official stat keeper for MLB, clarified this earlier this year. Yes, the pitcher is still credited with a perfect game because he pitched a complete game of at least nine innings and did not allow a batter to reach base. Therefore, it’s possible to pitch a a perfect game and lose. This is a change from the previous definition of a perfect game which requires, among other things, a “complete game victory”.

@mph7282

2 жыл бұрын

@@rapperguy98 A no-hitter requires pitching at least nine innings. Being the home team, the Pirates did not bat in the 9th, so the Reds pitcher only threw eight innings, which does not qualify as a no-hitter.

All the information was there before they huddled. I would have liked the umpires, before getting together, to completely give the initial ruling. BR out on catch, R2 out on appeal, but R3 scores since it's a time play. That way Washington can see, before leaving the field, hey, something's wrong here! Especially since I felt F5 did touch the base with some purpose and it's a judgement as to whether he did so with enough purpose to trigger the 4th out on R3. Even though, Nationals should have stayed on the field while the umpires were huddled and that's on them.

@ericwildfong

2 жыл бұрын

We didn't see in the video but presumably there was a signal from either PU or U1 on the catch and then only one signal from U3 about R2 being out. Is that not a complete initial ruling?

@markthompson2874

2 жыл бұрын

@@ericwildfong a signal that the run scored on the timing play.

@ericwildfong

2 жыл бұрын

@@markthompson2874 Fair. Though we don't get to see PU in the clips we can likely assume there would of been a signal at least if the run didn't score. Often times there won't be a call unless there's a play being made on the runner at home. If you start getting umpires waving their arms/hands around for every little thing it's gonna look like a circus and everyone's gonna get more confused. The idea of the get-together is to go over what was called on the field initially and make changes if necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't do that if they haven't already made the initial ruling (and thus the initial signals)

@linollieum3742

2 жыл бұрын

In general if the umpires are getting together to discuss a play, which they did pretty quickly on such a questionable play, you should stay on the field. Either they'll say "three outs" and you can head off anyways, or they'll reverse the call and you'll have to send your entire team back out from the dugout, or you'll get a situation like this where if you had just waited or realized what you had just done by knowing the rules, you could have fixed it.

@markthompson2874

2 жыл бұрын

@@linollieum3742 I guess my point is that run scoring seems like it was an afterthought or a changed call. Either way, it wasn't information the defense had. I wonder if 9.01c could be invoked to allow the defense back on the field in conjunction with their powers to set things right after a changed call.

Kevin Frandsen (the one who is wrong about everything) is so annoying. I'm glad he's not on the Phillies radio anymore. Although Michael Bourn makes him sounds like a genius

Two chances at an appeal and both were missed! YIKES! How do you forget that a caught line drive is a time play for a double play? There is no force. Also, you can’t go to replay since all the Nationals players left fair territory, and an appeal is required before a challenge.

Can’t blame the broadcasters, they are as confused as the players are LOL.

So, in effect, the 3rd-base ump made two, maybe three, incorrect calls: he called R1 safe at home and scoring (even though R1 failed to tag up and then left the field of play) when initially he should have signaled nothing and he missed the appeal move by the third baseman. Or what am I seeing wrong?

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

The appeal is not unmistakable, in my mind, and thus not validly made (although I admit it's arguable). If no appeal is made the runner scoring is the correct call, tagup or no tagup.

@TCizauskas

2 жыл бұрын

@@vonskyme9133 Open for debate I'll grant you, but do you disagree that the umps missed the non-tag-ups AND that the 3rd-base ump should have not signaled the run scoring until the play was dead?

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

@@TCizauskas I'm not sure on the scoring signal (edit: actually, on rewatching I can't see any run scoring signal while live, but run scoring signals are required on time plays - no idea on live or dead requirements. What timestamp do you see one?), but I do disagree on the non tagups. They saw them, but they literally aren't allowed to do anything about them without an appeal. A batter who leaves first, never tags up, rounds all bases without touching any of them, including home plate, has legitimately scored under the rules unless the defense appeals the baserunning infractions. The rule may or may not be fair or make a lot of sense, but that is the current rule.

How can the run score without tagging up?

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

Basically, you don't have to tag up to score, it's just that if you don't do so you can be out on appeal. You also don't have to step on the bases as you round them, but if the defense appeals to the umpires for the violation you'll be out. An umpire seeing it won't (and according to the rules CAN'T) call it on his own initiative.

@transcendkira

2 жыл бұрын

@@vonskyme9133 oh, so the tag after a rules infraction isn't so much a tag out itself but a type of appeal for the previous rules infraction? So if such an appeal is never made, the infraction is ignored and anything that came after (such as a score) stays valid like in this play.

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

@@transcendkira yep, that's it exactly. Sometimes it leads to bad results like this one, but it's correct to the letter of the rules.

@msittig

2 жыл бұрын

@@vonskyme9133 That's wild, why leave "appealing" to the teams, seems like enforcing rules should be the umpires' job. MLB should take a look at that.

@ot63

2 жыл бұрын

@@msittig I agree. This is something that doesn't happen in any other sport.

Great video. Thank you. Nats announcers sound like such tools.

@stockvaluedotcom

2 жыл бұрын

In their defense, they had to fill. I expect their producer was frantically looking up rules, asking folks in the press box, whatever, to try to figure it out. Such a rare play.

@loduca16

2 жыл бұрын

@@stockvaluedotcom 100%. Being able to spend hours pouring through the rule book to make this kind of video is not even remotely close to having to discuss it live. The actual umpires in the video were also having a bit of trouble themselves.

@alanhess9306

Жыл бұрын

@@stockvaluedotcom They should educate themselves instead of guessing what the rules are. If they don't know the rules they should keep their big mouths shut.

scoring a run on a triple play, pretty fancy

I'm not sure how you can construe Adrianza staring after the lead runner, immediately looking to the umpire for the appeal, running to the bag, tagging a runner standing on the bag, stepping on the bag, keeping your foot on the bag, getting one appeal, turning and looking back to the thrower (who also looked to the lead runner before throwing to third) while keeping your foot on the bag, after having already glanced at the lead runner, keeping the tag and your foot applied while glancing back at the umpire who has already started walking off despite the fielder still standing on the bag clearly indicating his movement is intentional and not a "wierd little leg stretch" or "a superstitious OCD motion" or "just liking to feel rubber under the cleats sometimes", waiting there after the initial single appeal is granted but (apparently, in retrospect) the second appeal being denied, is "incidentally putting your foot on the bag and insufficient to represent an appeal"... which the Nats only find out isn't granted when the umpires, independently of the initial appeal(s), indicate that the run scores. If the stare and standing directly ON THE BASE with someone else present on it, twisting your foot to indicate that the contact is intentional, believing your appeal for the lead runner is denied, and then confronting umpires about the nature of the appeals only to be told that you can't appeal something (that you believe you've already appealed) after leaving the field despite the very rule you cited indicating the fielder's choice of simultaneous 4th out appeals to get the better one (which probably is what confused Adrianza since he did indicate an appeal to the lead runner in multiple ways), is still "incidental, unclear appeal" despite both runners leaving well before the ball was caught and anyone can see that, which would explain literally any action taken by anyone on the field during that sequence, then i don't know what to tell you. Bell threw to third. That should be your first indication of intent, since the runner from 2nd was practically on *third and so threw behind the runner so as to not hit him...and he knew he had caught it so it wasn't going to be a tag out. Bell throws to third, Adrianza stands on third while ensuring the runner doesn't go anywhere. There was additional footage of Bell seemingly calling for a separate appeal or at least adding additional commentary after the initial appeal verdict while still on the field, but that was apparently wholly ignored, and the umpires began waving the rest of the umpire crew onto the field as to indicate a review process. I couldn't tell where Bell was pointing but someone said he was pointing at a fielder on 2nd who was waiting there for another appeal, but Adrianza indicated they already had 3 outs, and didn't get the 4th. Adrianza later said that the umpire eventually told him he didn't see him standing on the base despite him clearly standing on the base. Clearly his actions were "mistakeable" but only from the outcome. You can't appeal an appeal, so what else is Adrianza supposed to do, besides sit down on the base and refuse to leave, or say, in the thick of it, "sir, are you absolutely sure you don't want to give me the out since i don't know when the runner crossed home exactly or even whether you've ruled the catch a catch? I'm standing on the bag. See? This is me--standing on the bag. Notice me doing this? I'm not sure which out i can get here, which is why i am staring into your soul and both standing on the bag and applying the tag simultaneously and you have a clear view of all of it...as opposed to the guy who threw the ball to third presumably to get the appeal since otherwise he would have looked to second for the force out. You saw me stare at the lead runner, then at you, then tag the base, right? I'm glad you gave us the one out...which isn't what we're looking for exactly unless that's your ruling, but i mean, you're the ump. I know we can't appeal appeals, right? I figure i'll get the better of the two outs...right? That's how this works, even after we leave the field, since i'm pretty sure if you don't think he left early this will get sent to the tape anyway. I respect you too much to show you up. There are rules, you know?"

@wyssmaster

Жыл бұрын

Holy shit you're so mad lol All Adrianza had to do was step on the base and either point to the lead runner, or tell the umpire "he left third base early," and the run doesn't score. Looking at the umpire isn't obviously an appeal for R3 when you're also tagging R2; it looks like he's confirming that the umpire is calling R2 out. "B-b-b-b-but he stepped on the bag! What else does he need to do?!?" Literally anything to call attention to his apparent intentions.

@eboyce24

Жыл бұрын

@@wyssmaster uh huh.

It is super hard because the umpire declares THREE outs and everyone knows that after three outs the inning is over. They don't realize that they appealed the runner going from 2nd to 3rd so that runner is the one that is the out and is now the third out BUT to get the runner from 3rd to home out they need to appeal him to negate the run but it doesn't make sense to anyone because they can't comprehend a FOURTH out is required. All the third baseman needed to do after he tagged out the runner was point to the runner crossing the plate as he touched the base and the umpire would have granted the fourth out to negate the run. For a second I thought the coach was running on the field to tell the third baseman to appeal which would be another huge no-no but he was just confused as everyone else. It is a hard rule to understand but as soon as I saw what happened the FOURTH OUT lightbulb went off in my head and I just knew it was going to be chaos.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

The fact he tagged runner, then stepped on the base for 5 secs was more than good enough for an appeal. Whether he meant to do it or not, just simply stepping on 3rd base was enough, that’s how u appeal this. And to say they ran off the field so they can’t appeal makes no sense cause Shelton ran on the field immediately causing commotion about whatever, the umps could have allowed them to appeal again. And he didn’t inadvertently step on the bag, he clearly stepped on it for 5 secs.

@mikemontgomery1152

2 жыл бұрын

Does the home plate umpire signal the run before or after the Nats leave the field? If he doesn’t, there’s no reason for the Nats to stay on the field. They don’t know there’s an appeal to be made until after the ump signals that the run counts.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikemontgomery1152 after. Shelton ran in the field immediately causing confusion.

@swoosh1428

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, F5 intentionally stepped on third. What needed to be clear was that step was appealing R3 not tagging up. It is nuanced here because A) there was R2 on that base and F5 clearly tags him while on the base so that appeal was clear. B) that appeal was the 3rd out so the uninformed defense did not make a second appeal on R3. Betcha Showalters team woulda gotten it right.

@bosser15

2 жыл бұрын

@@swoosh1428 if you really believe that the glove tag was the intended “appeal” by the third baseman, then the scoring runner was already out because the third baseman’s foot was on the bag. The play is still going on with two outs when his foot touched the bag. Or, you can argue that the glove tag was the third out, in which case the foot on the bag was the appeal to have the scoring runner ruled out (the “fourth out”).

Okay, so then someone explain this to me...seriously. Why are there a situations that constitute automatic outs (runners passing) and some that require appeals? While the appeal rules do seem to be much clearer in the book than they are understood by players, managers, and broadcasters, it does feel like we can create a system that is much more concrete where legal tags of the player or base make the out automatic and are not subject to appeal (except like normal where the umpire determined the incorrect thing to have happened and they confer or we go to replay). Is there a reason appeals are a thing or are they just antiquated holdovers from cricket?

@linollieum3742

2 жыл бұрын

The idea is that the base is a "safe" location. If you leave the base, you are in danger of being put out, but you have the chance to advance or return. It's not an automatic out because you are entirely allowed to leave the base any time you want, you just risk your safety. On the other hand, passing runners is a specific rules violation that is not allowed in any way and even if you wanted to change it to an appeal play, all appeal plays are runners missing a specific base or leaving a specific base too early, meaning that every appeal play revolves around a specific base. Missing that base puts the runner's status in danger to an aware defense, but they must either tag the runner who is in danger anywhere on the basepaths or field, or tag the specific base that they were not safe on because they missed it or left too early from it. Runners also have the opportunity to return to retouch any base they missed or left from too early, because that in itself is not an illegal action. Runners passing each other would have no location to appeal, especially if one were the batter-runner, and is not an allowed action in baseball, thus why it is an automatic out, unlike leaving the base too early, which is entirely legal, just risks your safety and you can be put out as a result. And why is it a problem? Even in little league players are coached to watch your base as the runner goes by to make sure they touch it or tag up properly. The coaches also watch for it from the dugout and call it out, and you're taught to make explicit, clear appeals to the umpire. Why not have this basic aspect of baseball to require players to PAY ATTENTION to their immediate surroundings, know the rules, and reward them if they do and do the appeal properly, which isn't hard. For dead ball, step off, throw to the base. For live ball, make a clear tag for each out, ideally in the order that you want them. It's a complicated situation to have two appeals at the same base, but it's not hard to make two separate tagging motions, one to step on the base for an appeal, then one to tag the runner for an appeal and that's what they should have done, make two separate appeals.

@KevinQuinn81

2 жыл бұрын

@@linollieum3742 This all makes a lot of sense. And I completely agree that the appeal process and the fact that there are few automatic outs should be more explicitly trained at the younger levels. I always like looking at ways to make the rules better if they can be but this may have just been one of those strange ones that just happen.

It’s a ground rule double. You are given second. He is on second. He is standing on second. Then he tagged him instead of touching the bag. Which means the the run scores

@trickydown6969

2 жыл бұрын

But how does the run from third score if he left third before the catch?

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

@@trickydown6969 failing to tag up doesn't actually prevent you from advancing, unless the defense appeals the baserunning infraction.

He didn’t inadvertently step on the base tho, he stepped on it for 5 secs and starred at the ump. They are saying the 3b has to step on the base and explain the rules to the umps? And Shelton ran on the field causing commotion before the players left. Is there a rule allowing the manager to come out in the middle of live play? The umps messed this up bad.

@noahdecoteau6381

2 жыл бұрын

Clearly you didn't listen to the video. Simply stepping on the base doesn't make it an appeal

@jackjon7763

2 жыл бұрын

@@noahdecoteau6381 especially when there is a runner standing on the bag during a live play

@noahdecoteau6381

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackjon7763 and he's holding the tag on the runner the entire time. Stepping on the base does nothing

I always thought that appealing a base on a no retouch was a "force" out. So, if I am wrong, it wouldn't have made a difference if Bell threw to 2nd base and appealed there to save the run?

@AEMoreira81

2 жыл бұрын

No difference. You have to appeal retouching third.

@vonskyme9133

2 жыл бұрын

A force play is only the case when a runner is forced to advance, not return. (The rulebook, as clearly worded as ever, defines it as 'a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner').

@eboyce24

Ай бұрын

If the ball had reached second base before R3 had crossed home, the run would not have counted. Bell saw the lead runner (R3) and threw to third, with Adrianza both tagging and holding the runner and standing on third. However, the only appeal that was registered was the tag on R2 while R2 was standing on third, after the run scored, resulting in the run counting. By rule, however: 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play; If the appeal was registered, it would be the third out by the preceding (lead) runner, and R3 would be out, with no run scored.

IF only he stepped on third before tagging the runner.

Sorry, I have a different take here on the "unmistakable" question. Appeals for not tagging up are rarely accompanied by words or any verbal indication, so it would be perfectly reasonable to deem Adrianza stepping on 3rd base AND tagging R2 as 2 separate appeals, both resulting in outs. Especially since @10:34, after the tag and the out call, he steps on the bag quite intentionally. And @10:50, the "think about it this way" is backwards, IMO. The opposition committed a rules infraction. That run that was awarded is a run that was not scored by a runner legally advancing to home. To claim that Adrianza stepping on 3rd base AFTER ALSO tagging the runner was not "unmistakable" enough (i.e. an ultimate standard) is rewarding the defence (WITH A RUN!) despite illegal action. The benefit of the doubt needs to go to the non-offending team. In this case, Adrianza did enough in my opinion to unmistakably make 2 legal appeals. The lack of clarity in U3's out call may be to blame for Washington believing their appealS had been properly acknowledged. When Wegner counted the run, that's when they realized that what they intended was not received as such. But the intent, in my opinion, was clear and unmistakable. This run should not have been awarded.

@santaclause3487

2 жыл бұрын

And… Shelton ran on the field before the nats left distracting everybody. Technically it was live play. U couldn’t have said it better. But if u watched this game and saw what the home plate ump was calling balls and strikes this mess up really wouldn’t surprise u as much as it should have. If there was ever a reason to allow a team to appeal a result it would have to be this. And another thing, wtf is inadvertently a word used in this rule? Like how can u inadvertently step on a base with the ball to appeal?

@rmelin13231

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly how I see it also. Let's see how many teams accept a "free" run on a similar play in the future.

@ericwildfong

2 жыл бұрын

You mean the pointing at the runner and the 1 out signal from the ump wasn't clear it was R2 that was out? How's U3 supposed to know that it wasn't just the 3rd basmans momentum from going to tag R2 that made him step on 3rd? R3 crossed before the 3rd out which wasn't a force out so without a proper appeal, again no signal from U3 indicating 2 outs, the run should score by rule. The defence failed to call the offence on a rule violation much like not calling someone on not saying Uno when they're down to one card in Uno.

@Pathfinder76

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Any reasonable human being would see the third baseman’s intent to step on third base.

@FactsMatter

2 жыл бұрын

@@ericwildfong I even included timestamps for my claims. I don’t know what else I could do… you want to see what you want to see. The evidence is different.

On this day, baseball baseballed. And it baseballed hard.

The 3rd base umpire missed the runner on 3rd leaving early. He got the call right on the 2nd base runner but not the 3rd base runner

@McClimber234

Жыл бұрын

Umps got it all correct. Nats didn't make a correct appeal for runner that scored. The video explained it all.

Of course the ground rule double would have been appealed and Suwinski called out. He still has to touch the base.

I'm confused... The correct action for the batter is to tag R2 to put him out, then to tag the base to put R3 out. He did so, so both runners should be out and unable to score. I still don't understand why the run scores due to a rule about an appeal. That's just bizarre to me.

@brandonfrancey5592

Жыл бұрын

There was already 1 out. The batter hit into a line drive which was caught. That was the second out. Both runners left early not realizing the ball was caught. The ball was thrown to 3rd and dropped. In that time the runner on 3rd scored and the runner on 2nd move to 3rd. The fielder tagged the runner now on 3rd base for the 3rd out. What the fielder should have done is either touched the base first before tagging the runner, or after tagging the runner, got the attention of the ump, point to the bag and step on the base with intent.

@Fire5485

Жыл бұрын

@@brandonfrancey5592 I understand all of that. The fact remains, from the video the fielder clearly makes 2 separate actions, first to tag the runner, then the bag. It was clearly his intent to appeal both runners. But because he didn't say something extra to the umpire, a runner who left early from the base is allowed to score? That's absurd to me.

@brandonfrancey5592

Жыл бұрын

@@Fire5485 Doesn't matter. The moment he tagged the runner, the inning was over. 3 outs. If there were none out it would have been, line drive, tag, base. 3 outs, no run. Stepping on the base with 3 outs is irrelevent because the inning is over. The point of the appeal is to say to an ump, hey, we have 4 outs here. We want this runner to be the 3rd out that ends the inning. Also keep in mind, not tagging up isn't illegal. If the other team doesn't catch you and the next play happens, it counts. So reconstruct the inning with the runner on 3rd tagging up. Line drive, 2nd out. Runner on 3rd tags and scores. Runner on 2nd goes to third and is tagged out. Inning over.

@Fire5485

Жыл бұрын

@@brandonfrancey5592 stepping on the base with 3 outs is the proper method for executing an appeal on R3, so it is most certainly not irrelevant. That's exactly what the fielder did, therefore the run shouldn't count.

@Fire5485

Жыл бұрын

@@davej3781 I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm just frustrated that it relies on the umpire "accepting" the appeal. Why is it not reviewable that "hey, the fielder did actually tag the base and appeal R3 in addition to R2"? I get the rule, I'm just frustrated that a run counted due to a stupid technicality that, in my opinion, should be fixed.