Being a baseball fan, I've learned and accepted the appeal rule, but I still wonder why it exists. The umpires make calls on everything...except this. Perhaps it's a cover for not seeing and not knowing whether he tagged properly? If the fielding team "appeals" to the umpire and he puts out the "safe" sign it basically means the call on the field stands and the runner is safe, not "I'm confirming that I saw him legally tag"? Now that I think about it, they decided to do the same thing with a check swing. Is there another sport where a referee knows (or he thinks he knows) something has happened that hasn't been called correctly but is not allowed to point it out until an official appeal to him has been made?
It's pretty clear what's happened here. The rules of the game have evolved to a level of complexity where we need a way to quickly and definitively resolve. or prolong, complex disputes. We need to send in the lawyers. Each manager would have a legal advisor in the dug out. The Chief of the Umpires would also have designated counsel. In between the bullpens there would be an appeals court. Teams would vie to get the best lawyers and eventually a lawyers draft would be established. The Dodgers of course would retain the entire Supreme Court, except for one seat. That would go to Ohtani who would reiterate that when he said he can do everything, he meant everything. The Angels would retain the entire faculty of Harvard Law School and still lose every case, because they are the Angels. Aaron Judge would assert he should resolve every dispute, because he's the only one who really is a Judge.
Something I hope that Joe touches on at JoBB: from where did he learn his joyous outlook on baseball. As a child growing up in Cleveland, it can't come from those highly successful clubs in any sport. Some of the early columns had - as Joe admits - more than their share of snark and venom. But now his writing and speaking on podcasts and the one time I heard him live just drips with positivity and hope. Joy one could almost say.
Was it through long association with Buck, a fountain of joy? Marriage, children, professional success, something(s) else?
Here’s the most glorious thing about that play: no one knew what was going on, not the play-by-play guys (on the Toronto feed at any rate, not the crowd, not the players. Who knew? Max Scherzer! That’s who! Because he was on the Diamondbacks for that 2009 game, and he remembers it like it was yesterday!
Does it matter how many players leave the field? If the third baseman was already in foul territory but touching the bag on the appeal, does that count? What about the catcher?
First, it wasn’t Wong. Wong was erased on Vlad’s throw to 2B. So it was the batter (Sogard) on 1st, and Seigler on 3rd. IF VLAD HAD CAUGHT the line drive, it would have been impossible for Sogard to be on 1st, right? So how does he not know that?? And Seigler ran on THAT ball too, so he would have been doubled off 2nd. So HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that neither player would think that there are 2 outs?? Mind-boggling.
And I think Seigler even said today that the 3rd base coach told him there was 1 out. So why did you run? Everybody else was acting like there were two outs! Good Grief!!
This is definitely a Kathleen question, and not a Joe one. Is there a Joy of Baseball RSS feed? Could you reply with a direct link for it? I'm not sure if it's yet available on all podcatchers, and I'd like to make sure I can get it for the one I use. Thanks.
I knew this rule, but I wonder why the doubling off of Wong at first isn’t treated analogous to a force, so that the timing of the runner crossing the plate doesn’t matter. If a batter grounds out to end the inning, it doesn’t matter if a runner crosses the plate before the ball gets to first. This play is similar in my mind because you only have to tag the base instead of the runner. I suppose it is wrong to think this way because this type of play is treated as a timing issue but I’m curious why.
I’m still gobsmacked by so many players forgetting the number of outs. I was watching it on NESN last night and caught a glimpse of Wong rounding second without the tag-up at first (didn’t catch the non-tag-up at third until we got 10 minutes of umpires talking to managers interspersed with dozens of replays). My initial thought was TOOBLAN on Wong, but it was really a mass-LAN situation.
Stuff like that is rare, but it happens. A college national championship was won in 1990 partially because of a game winning touchdown scored during the season on a 5th down. It fooled both teams, the announcers, all the officials and many fans despite a time stoppage as the team spiked the ball on 4th down before the extra play. (Which should have ended the game - which I yelled at my TV in vain) Basically the entire stadium was fooled by one guy on the chain gang that forgot to flip the down number over after one of the plays.
I think the ruling was correct and that the "fourth out" rule is correct. The thing that is wrong is the appeal play. One should have to "appeal" when the umpires make a bad judgment. The second the play is dead and the runner can't go back and tag up, the umpire should signal that he is out (in fact, the play should be dead for him leaving the basepath). If the umpire misses it for some reason, sure, there's always room for appeal.
From another outlet, there was a quote from Max Scherzer that he'd seen this before. They didn't know how that was possible. If it happened to the D'Backs in 2009, that explains it.
Right, on the Blue Jays broadcast, the announcers said that someone went and asked Max Scherzer - while he was in the dugout!? - if he had ever seen anything like this before and he said yes, exactly this. Today I learned that it was because he was there in 2009!
I absolutely love that sports’ original replay - the appeal - takes precedence over video review.
My understanding from all this is that you can request a replay of an appeal if you think the decision is incorrect, but you must legally request the appeal for be eligible for that replay.
The funny thing about the people who thought there were two outs is this.
The Red Sox had two base runners before the ground out to Vladdy
The Red Sox still had two base runners AFTER the ground out to Vladdy
Who, exactly, did all these people think had made the two outs?
Guest. George Will.
Being a baseball fan, I've learned and accepted the appeal rule, but I still wonder why it exists. The umpires make calls on everything...except this. Perhaps it's a cover for not seeing and not knowing whether he tagged properly? If the fielding team "appeals" to the umpire and he puts out the "safe" sign it basically means the call on the field stands and the runner is safe, not "I'm confirming that I saw him legally tag"? Now that I think about it, they decided to do the same thing with a check swing. Is there another sport where a referee knows (or he thinks he knows) something has happened that hasn't been called correctly but is not allowed to point it out until an official appeal to him has been made?
The way you describe this makes it sound like union negotiated laziness.
"Yes, we agree to call the game, but not ALL of it! Unless you ask nicely."
It's pretty clear what's happened here. The rules of the game have evolved to a level of complexity where we need a way to quickly and definitively resolve. or prolong, complex disputes. We need to send in the lawyers. Each manager would have a legal advisor in the dug out. The Chief of the Umpires would also have designated counsel. In between the bullpens there would be an appeals court. Teams would vie to get the best lawyers and eventually a lawyers draft would be established. The Dodgers of course would retain the entire Supreme Court, except for one seat. That would go to Ohtani who would reiterate that when he said he can do everything, he meant everything. The Angels would retain the entire faculty of Harvard Law School and still lose every case, because they are the Angels. Aaron Judge would assert he should resolve every dispute, because he's the only one who really is a Judge.
Something I hope that Joe touches on at JoBB: from where did he learn his joyous outlook on baseball. As a child growing up in Cleveland, it can't come from those highly successful clubs in any sport. Some of the early columns had - as Joe admits - more than their share of snark and venom. But now his writing and speaking on podcasts and the one time I heard him live just drips with positivity and hope. Joy one could almost say.
Was it through long association with Buck, a fountain of joy? Marriage, children, professional success, something(s) else?
Here’s the most glorious thing about that play: no one knew what was going on, not the play-by-play guys (on the Toronto feed at any rate, not the crowd, not the players. Who knew? Max Scherzer! That’s who! Because he was on the Diamondbacks for that 2009 game, and he remembers it like it was yesterday!
Does it matter how many players leave the field? If the third baseman was already in foul territory but touching the bag on the appeal, does that count? What about the catcher?
First, it wasn’t Wong. Wong was erased on Vlad’s throw to 2B. So it was the batter (Sogard) on 1st, and Seigler on 3rd. IF VLAD HAD CAUGHT the line drive, it would have been impossible for Sogard to be on 1st, right? So how does he not know that?? And Seigler ran on THAT ball too, so he would have been doubled off 2nd. So HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that neither player would think that there are 2 outs?? Mind-boggling.
And I think Seigler even said today that the 3rd base coach told him there was 1 out. So why did you run? Everybody else was acting like there were two outs! Good Grief!!
This is definitely a Kathleen question, and not a Joe one. Is there a Joy of Baseball RSS feed? Could you reply with a direct link for it? I'm not sure if it's yet available on all podcatchers, and I'd like to make sure I can get it for the one I use. Thanks.
I knew this rule, but I wonder why the doubling off of Wong at first isn’t treated analogous to a force, so that the timing of the runner crossing the plate doesn’t matter. If a batter grounds out to end the inning, it doesn’t matter if a runner crosses the plate before the ball gets to first. This play is similar in my mind because you only have to tag the base instead of the runner. I suppose it is wrong to think this way because this type of play is treated as a timing issue but I’m curious why.
if you don’t understand why seigler spells his name that way… perhaps you could ask barbra streisand 🤷♂️
I’m still gobsmacked by so many players forgetting the number of outs. I was watching it on NESN last night and caught a glimpse of Wong rounding second without the tag-up at first (didn’t catch the non-tag-up at third until we got 10 minutes of umpires talking to managers interspersed with dozens of replays). My initial thought was TOOBLAN on Wong, but it was really a mass-LAN situation.
Stuff like that is rare, but it happens. A college national championship was won in 1990 partially because of a game winning touchdown scored during the season on a 5th down. It fooled both teams, the announcers, all the officials and many fans despite a time stoppage as the team spiked the ball on 4th down before the extra play. (Which should have ended the game - which I yelled at my TV in vain) Basically the entire stadium was fooled by one guy on the chain gang that forgot to flip the down number over after one of the plays.
I'm afraid that I'm going to be a heretic again.
I think the ruling was correct and that the "fourth out" rule is correct. The thing that is wrong is the appeal play. One should have to "appeal" when the umpires make a bad judgment. The second the play is dead and the runner can't go back and tag up, the umpire should signal that he is out (in fact, the play should be dead for him leaving the basepath). If the umpire misses it for some reason, sure, there's always room for appeal.
From another outlet, there was a quote from Max Scherzer that he'd seen this before. They didn't know how that was possible. If it happened to the D'Backs in 2009, that explains it.
Right, on the Blue Jays broadcast, the announcers said that someone went and asked Max Scherzer - while he was in the dugout!? - if he had ever seen anything like this before and he said yes, exactly this. Today I learned that it was because he was there in 2009!
I absolutely love that sports’ original replay - the appeal - takes precedence over video review.
My understanding from all this is that you can request a replay of an appeal if you think the decision is incorrect, but you must legally request the appeal for be eligible for that replay.