MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox)

[BT]

Holy.

Fuck.

[Kid]

There's no chance that MLB will reverse the call (at least not to make it a perfect game - there's a slight chance that they could do something in between like call it an error to make it a no hitter). You can't have Selig overturning a call on the field now unless you're OK with that in every game. What happens the next time a bad call actually impacts the outcome of a game? Is MLB going to say that we only overturn calls when they <i>don't</i> decide a game?

It's a shame for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that Jim Joyce has been thought of as one of the best umpires in baseball.

Audio of Joyce's press conference

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=99658:date=Jun 2 2010, 08:30 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 2 2010, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99656:date=Jun 2 2010, 08:25 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 2 2010, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plays like this happen all the time, though... that's the thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do. Isn't that a problem?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm fully in your camp now.

Maybe the can get the play krausened?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=99685:date=Jun 3 2010, 12:19 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jun 3 2010, 12:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99658:date=Jun 2 2010, 08:30 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 2 2010, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99656:date=Jun 2 2010, 08:25 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 2 2010, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plays like this happen all the time, though... that's the thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do. Isn't that a problem?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm fully in your camp now.

Maybe the can get the play krausened?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

[rok]

What if MLB implements a new rule where if and only if the ump and Commissioner both agree to reverse a bad call, then it is official. I could see certain instances where there would not be agreement between both parties, or maybe I'm being naive.

[Destined]

<!--quoteo(post=99720:date=Jun 3 2010, 07:48 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 3 2010, 07:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->What if MLB implements a new rule where if and only if the ump and Commissioner both agree to reverse a bad call, then it is official. I could see certain instances where there would not be agreement between both parties, or maybe I'm being naive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only works for calls that would end a game. What if it involved more than one runner, how are you going to juggle that?

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=99727:date=Jun 3 2010, 10:20 AM:name=Destined)-->QUOTE (Destined @ Jun 3 2010, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99720:date=Jun 3 2010, 07:48 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jun 3 2010, 07:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->What if MLB implements a new rule where if and only if the ump and Commissioner both agree to reverse a bad call, then it is official. I could see certain instances where there would not be agreement between both parties, or maybe I'm being naive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only works for calls that would end a game. What if it involved more than one runner, how are you going to juggle that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it was kind of implied that it would have to be for game-ending plays such as this. You can't reverse everything that happens afterward especially if the final outcome of a game changes after that point. That would be highly controversial and messy.

Anyway, instant replay needs to be expanded, even if it is only used for close plays at every base, but not for debating balls and strikes. The time has come.

[leonardsipes]

The umps should have head sets. Then an ump who did not get a good view, could discreetly ask for help. Another ump or umps, could also say if they think an ump blew a call, without having to let on to the teams and crowd.

[The Dude]

<!--quoteo(post=99741:date=Jun 3 2010, 11:47 AM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jun 3 2010, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The umps should have head sets. Then an ump who did not get a good view, could discreetly ask for help. Another ump or umps, could also say if they think an ump blew a call, without having to let on to the teams and crowd.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

or they could just huddle up and talk... but that would make too much sense.

[Kid]

<!--quoteo(post=99746:date=Jun 3 2010, 01:16 PM:name=The Dude)-->QUOTE (The Dude @ Jun 3 2010, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99741:date=Jun 3 2010, 11:47 AM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Jun 3 2010, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The umps should have head sets. Then an ump who did not get a good view, could discreetly ask for help. Another ump or umps, could also say if they think an ump blew a call, without having to let on to the teams and crowd.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

or they could just huddle up and talk... but that would make too much sense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't huddle up and talk about whether the other umpires agree or disagree with a play at first base when the first base umpire has a clear view of the play. That doesn't make sense. You're then allowing umpires who have a worse view of the play to overrule the umpire with the best view.

[bz]

I don't believe that there would be a precedent set if they reversed that call. The Indians were down 0-3. They only had one base runner when the last out was called (not enough to win or tie), and they lose if Joyce makes the right call. Either way it's a loss for the Indians. So Selig could make a rule that states a play reversal can only take place when the reversal will not effect the outcome of the game, ie the winner of the game won't change. That wouldn't set a precedent and would only come into play with instances like this. Heck, he could even make that rule, correct the mistake, and then reverse the rule afterwards.

[Coach]

I expect, and hope, that Selig does nothing.

[rok]

I just read that the call stands. No surprise really.

[Kid]

<!--quoteo(post=99756:date=Jun 3 2010, 02:43 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jun 3 2010, 02:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't believe that there would be a precedent set if they reversed that call. The Indians were down 0-3. They only had one base runner when the last out was called (not enough to win or tie), and they lose if Joyce makes the right call. Either way it's a loss for the Indians. So Selig could make a rule that states a play reversal can only take place when the reversal will not effect the outcome of the game, ie the winner of the game won't change. That wouldn't set a precedent and would only come into play with instances like this. Heck, he could even make that rule, correct the mistake, and then reverse the rule afterwards.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And so you'd have it so that only meaningless calls can be overturned? I don't think that makes sense. If you were going to allow only certain calls be overturned, wouldn't you do the opposite (i.e. allow the Commissioner to reverse calls when they changed the outcome of the game to keep the wrong team from winning)?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=99658:date=Jun 2 2010, 09:30 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 2 2010, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99656:date=Jun 2 2010, 08:25 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 2 2010, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plays like this happen all the time, though... that's the thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do. Isn't that a problem?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So... you're saying there should be instant replay review of all close calls at a base? That's fine if that's your position, I'm just curious. For me - that's way too much review and time.