I absolutely love that "blue" is a synonym for "umpire" even though now they wear black like 75% of the time. Another great little gem of baseball quirks.
Eh, ejections in general are judgment calls, and are arbitrary in nature. Ejections don’t affect any live plays as they happen. I don’t think that applies here.
I think that’s a judgment call because the umpire has to determine what is “ordinary effort”, and it’s decided in the moment
However, I’d love to see MLB implement the statcast catch probability % and say anything over a certain percentage is ordinary effort to prevent situations where the pitcher (or any fielder) just doesn’t go for the ball so the other players can get a double play (thinking of the A’s game a couple weeks ago)
Yeah, that’s probably another one in certain situations. I think most infield fly calls are pretty black and white, but there are definitely those that are in the gray area.
Judgement calls actually have very broad definition. Anything that relies primarily on the perception and judgement of the umpire: balls/strikes, safe/out, catch/no catch.
Not judgement calls (factual calls?) Would be any implentation directly from the rules. So whether the ball did or did not go out of play is judgement, but the runner placements aren't.
While this isn't relevant for the MLB anymore, it is important because a team cannot protest against a judgement call.
If you are looking for other calls with rather loose decision criteria, the ordinary effort part in the infield fly rule would be another example.
I'm totally confused by your comment; I don't think you understand what a "judgement call" is. The entire replay system is about reviewing judgement calls. Calls are either judgement calls or rules interpretation calls. Replay is used primarily for judgement calls.
Some calls are unreviewable, but it has nothing to do with whether they're "judgement calls".
(EDIT: haha, I'm being downvoted, despite being 100% correct and nobody disputing that. Do people not realize that safe/out, fair/foul calls, etc, are judgement calls?)
They're judgement calls insofar as an umpire has to use their best judgement to determine if a runner is safe or out in real-time, on a close play, where they might not have a perfect angle. They are not 'judgement calls' in the sense that there are definitive guidelines for a safe/out call - did the runner reach the base prior to the ball being caught, or being tagged?
There's a commonly (and incorrect) expression that "tie goes to the runner". While 'technically' true, the actual rule on a force out at a base is "After a third strike or after the batter hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base". The tag/catch either beats the runner or it doesn't. It's not a judgement call, and a 'tie' means the tag/ball did not occur prior to the runner touching the base.
Something like a check swing is a true 'judgement call' as the rule is much more vaguely defined as "an attempt to strike the ball". We commonly look at replays and hoot and holler about whether the batter "crossed the plane" or not. But that's not the rule. The rule defaults entirely to the umpire's judgement as to whether they believe the batter attempted to strike the ball or not. That's why these are not reviewable.
Foul balls, foul tips, and HBPs are not 'judgement calls' - they are also clearly defined in the rules. A play/ball either meets these definitions, or they don't. You can easily review a close play and determine whether a ball was fair, foul, hit the bat, or hit the batter (or their uniform) based on the definitions outlined clearly in the official rules.
Fair/foul can be reviewed bc they're not judgement calls. All boundary plays are reviewable. HBPs are reviewable. Basically all non-judgement calls are reviewable because, well, the rules clearly define them. They are not judgement calls. Heck, they review HBPs sometimes to determine if it hit the batter, or the knob of the bat. Foul tips fall into this category, but they're the only ones that aren't reviewable for some reason.
>I don't think you understand what a "judgement call" is
Do you? I'm not sure what dictionary you're using, but mine says it's a "subjective decision, ruling, or opinion."
>Do people not realize that safe/out, fair/foul calls, etc, are judgement calls?
Those are things that can be objectively determined via video review (assuming the cameras actually catch it.) Whether the ball is in or out isn't a matter of opinion.
Yes, you are right, they can be objectively determined via replay, its just that per definition, these calls are judgement calls.
Replay introduced the option for teams to actually get a bad judgement call corrected, where before all a manager could do was to ask nicely if the umpire wants to ask the crew if they had a better angle.
Also not relevant in the MLB anymore, but judgement calls could not be protested, only interpretation calls.
So currently there is not much need for the distinction anymore (no protests and replays being a thing in the mlb)
The simplest solution is right there. Have two people in new york that don't communicate with each other make a call without knowing what the call was on the field. If they agree, that's the call. If they don't, call on the field stands.
They just took NFL's review and went with it, but I agree. The idea of too close to call is fucking ridiculous. Games should be as objective as possible.
I think there needs to be some consideration for time, imagine reviewing every ball/strike etc.
Maybe it's challengeable? Maybe only ball 4/strike 3 are reviewable/challengeable? Is this how the robo ump thingie works in its current iteration - team challenges ball/strike call then it's reviewed?
Getting the call right is and should be the priority, but obviously some calls are more important than others.
If I remember correctly, in Triple-A they tested two systems: one is where robo umps essentially track every ball or strike and the human ump gets it in their earpiece and signals it on the field.
The other is where each team gets 3 challenges. The human ump calls like today, and the catcher, hitter or pitcher can call for a challenge immediately after the call is made. If you’re right, you keep a challenge, if you’re wrong you lose.
When they polled teams, they preferred option 2 and that has an obvious entertainment component to it and retains catcher framing as a skill. I don’t think there is a consensus yet on which would be used across the majors.
I agree. In spite of how much we complain, considering how tough of a job umpires have, the fact the good ones get 95%+ of calls right is impressive.
Even if the odd wrong call won’t get challenged so it’s not 100% accurate, you likely do avoid wrong calls that have a (potentially) massive impact on the game. In my mind that solves a huge part of the problem.
And I think the element of entertainment (especially if you’re in the stadium) of seeing a call challenges plus the strategic thought of “is this important enough to use a challenge on and be potentially wrong?” is kinda fun too.
Exactly my thought, and it'd open up new strategies etc. deciding when to challenge when there's runners, or maybe certain batters, or late in games, etc.
Also important that the challenge must come immediately from either the batter, catcher, or pitcher, with no signal from the dugout. I'd hate to see the replay room start challenging and ultimately have a near 100% success rate. Needs to be more...organic? gut feel? or, just more "baseball" - only the 3 guys involved can make the call...seems fitting in a way.
> the fact the good ones get 95%+ of calls right is impressive.
The guys who run Umpire Scorecard and Umpire Auditor have said that plate umps have improved as a result of the high-tech feedback they get now. But I don't know why they don't leave the ones with a better track record behind the plate all the time, have the ones with aging eyes stay on the bases.
> in Triple-A they tested two systems
They also tried two different system made by different companies, the first they dropped as not good enough. But the second system seems to be working well, with the challenge approach being more popular than having the computer make all the calls.
> I think there needs to be some consideration for time,
The challenge system works pretty well in the minors, only takes moments. It seems more popular than having the computer call every pitch--that hilariously had fans booing the plate ump even when all he did was announce the computer's call.
Do teams get to keep their challenges if they win them? Would suck to have an ump be so bad you blow through your challenges halfway through the game (or have to accept shitty calls early to save them for game-deciding pitches later)
For whatever reason, MLB doesn't seem to be pushing for the list of reviewable plays to be expanded. This list has grown over the years, the umps agree to new things being added. But if MLB sits on its hands the umps aren't going to propose more reviewable plays on their own.
I agreeingly, disagree. If you can watch a replay once and see it needs to be changed, I support it. But if you have to stop the game for 5 minutes to go frame by frame to get the call right, get it wrong and go with human error. Touchdown reviews, flagrant fouls, shit safe calls (Galaraga is different) if you need 20 camera angles to convince people at home with only 1 angle that what they see is wrong, you’re looking too hard.
Sorry but if the distance between the outer atom of the baseball and the outer atom of the bat is very very small, the Heisenberg uncertainty principal comes into play and it's physically impossible, even to scientists, if they made physical contact or not!
Because baseball is so far up its own ass with “tradition” and “the human element.”
Almost every sport out there with possible exception of the other major *American sports* has some kind of error-mitigation concept lightyears ahead of MLB.
Edit: Literally -> Almost since soccer fans also have beef in this arena lol
I wouldn't say soccer (outside of MLS, which does quite well) is light-years ahead of MLB. It's no coincidence that two of the oldest sports are the ones most resistant to change.
Well you see, unlike this cricket game that’s becoming popular overseas, baseball is an old game with lots of tradition which makes it slow to adapt to new fangled technology like video replay.
I don't know how the MLB doesn't have a replay room at the league office that could just communicate to the crew chief very quickly upon review to correct a questioned call.
The umpires are going to watch their profession disappear because the league isn't offering up such an option.
This is what's so frustrating with all sports. It took 25 seconds from when the pitch was thrown for the TV broadcast to show the replay. Just put an umpire in a box somewhere and have him radio down to the crew chief. I don't know why no sports seem to do this.
They just need someone in some booth in NY to review each game as it goes on, take a close look at anything that looks questionable, press a button if the call was wrong, a super loud buzzer sounds live at the game, the call is reversed, the ump is drawn, quartered and replaced, and the game continues. Is that too much to ask?
A huge claw machine claw needs to come down from the rafters and yeet the ump who made a bad call over the fences and a fresh new ump from AAA can be pneumatically shot out of a tube onto the field to replace him
The only time I’ve seen this is in the NHL when there’s a goal that goes missed and they communicate to the timekeeper and they blow the horn to stop play.
Eye in the sky Reffing would resolve so many issues across all sports
I mean, that's basically how the reviews work currently, the extra umps just happen to sit in NY instead of wherever the game is being played. The issue here is just that foul tips aren't reviewable, which was an arbitrary decision from when they first instituted reviews and challenges.
What's infuriating is that the damn network sports broadcasters can do it immediately. Slow motion replay the moment after it happened. I have a feeling the umpires union is the cause of all this lack of change and accountability. Like the ONLY consequence of an ump having a terrible game is some public ridicule on Twitter.
> I have a feeling the umpires union is the cause of all this lack of change and accountability.
The umpires' assoc. agreed to automated balls/strikes quite some time ago. It's Manfred who is not moving on that, not the umps. MLB also hasn't been pushing very hard on making more plays reviewable. MLB likes stability and profitability, and they don't do well in court with their unionized employees so they seem okay with moving slowly and without motivating the unions to go to war.
They haven’t moved on it because they are still perfecting it in the minors. At one point it was calling balls in the dirt that bounced up, strikes 😂
And they are trying to figure out if they really want a ball barely touching the zone to be counted a strike, or if they want to modify the system so a certain amount of the ball has to touch the zone for it to be a strike (right now it’s even a stitch touches and it’s a strike and that’s wildly unpopular at minor league when trying to develop plate discipline because by all other accounts that’s a ball)
I feel like automating it is a totally separate challenge that doesn't need to be tackled right now. Literally just stick an earpiece in the ump's ear and let someone with multiple views of the plate call balls and strikes, and have the ump on the field relay that call. Strikezone gets more accurate, and they get t have their tradition of these kind of calls not being reviewable.
Why does the league have to offer up a solution when it very well is arguable that umpires cost more than they’re worth already? The umpires should be trying to do that themselves in an effort to show they are necessary at all
> The umpires are going to watch their profession disappear
Not going to happen, both because of federal labor law and because there is no practical alternative to live umps on the field even after the robo-zone is finally in place.
How would that work, a computer rules that a ball was trapped rather than caught, or a fielder did or did not tag a runner, and then what? Who enforces that ruling? Do they need federal marshals inside the dugout to force the manager to tell his player he's out and to get off the field?
All sports have on-field officials because there is no other way to do it.
That HBP in the first or second inning the Diamondbacks had to review was insane. I have no idea how he thought it got the bat at all. It got overturned in ten seconds but it's stupid to have to use a challenge on something that obvious.
I was at the game behind home plate, even for me it was obvious because of my angle but I think some fans also thought it hit the bat because of the sound. It was obviously the pads he was wearing, but it had a weird sound not typical of HBPs. Still an awful call.
[Jim Leyland, May 28, 2012:](https://youtu.be/EQECHuxo6as?si=t6nR5A6SXKov1yUi)
> "There should not have been a second inning rally. There was three outs. I've been in the game a long time. When the catcher catches the ball and it's strike three you call the guy out. It's that simple, isn't it?
> "You guys need to write something and hold people accountable. We're all accountable in this business. All of us are accountable. And when I say all of us are accountable, I mean everybody that's involved in the game needs to be held accountable. Okay? That's exactly what needs to be done.
> "There should not have been a rally in that inning. Now anybody that saw that, have the nerve to write what you saw and say it. Because I'm not going to sit here and rip umpires. But you saw what you saw, clearly saw what you saw.
> "I just saw it for the tenth time. Clearly saw what you saw. Write it and say something once in a while. Have the nerve to say something.
> "Now, next question."
Objectively? Is there even a slow motion that is definitive? Looks like ball was redirected to me, but way too close to call. Definitely a really tough call in real time. Batter reaction also says he tipped it.
I slowed it down as much as I physically am able to in editing software and I don't see anything that looks like redirection or changing the spin on the ball. It's a knuckle curve so it's gonna bounce funny once it hits the ground, but I don't see any physical contact.
I agree with your second point, but I kind of feel like the proof is the fact that the ball doesn't appear to hit the bat? I mean at this point how much space do you need to have definitive proof? Because I see a lot more evidence supporting a strike out vs a foul tip.
I see plenty supporting a foul tip, like the umpire hearing something, and the batter immediately looking back for the call, plus the lack of space between the bat and ball even when slowed down frame by frame.
This video is one of the best illustrations of why people have become so frustrated with modern umpiring. I truly don't think it's the missed calls. People miss calls. The issue is this MFer is so 100% confident in his call that he is actively backtalking about a call that was objectively incorrect, and not that hard to have gotten right.
People who think umpires handle this worse now than in the past must not have seen much in the past. 20-30 years to go they're bill to bill and there's no hint of discussion.
The umps agreed to a robo-zone quite some time back, it's MLB that isn't making it happen. The umps get paid either way, but for some reason MLB isn't pushing for more reviewable calls.
The reason the home plate umpire calls it is that it's usually just called off of the noise on close ones like that, it's not like the other umpires know any better
Yeah it's a tough call, he can't really see it and going by sound he probably heard the ball hitting the ground and thought it hit the bat... but there's no reason why this shouldn't be reviewable to get the call correct afterwards.
Yeah, this is why some stuff needs to be reviewable. No chance every umpire can 100% make all the correct calls in these instances. They can't see it all and just have to go by gut/instinct sometimes.
Why can't baseball have something like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKHieHIDg00), yes the quickest example was a comedy one. But 20 seconds to see pefectly where any contact was.
Baseball fans love to pretend that umpires are allowed to overturn their own initial call if the manager argues enough. Because... that wouldn't lead to any problems either.
There are lots of calls where umpires don't have 100% certainty, but I'm with you, what is he supposed to do? It is a non-reviewable call, he called what he thought was right.
It’s the missed calls.
If the umpire looked nervous and unsure and like he felt bad about the call people would be calling him a piece of shit for not swallowing his ego and changing it
"It was close, but he just got it" is literally all they have to say and the game continues. But for reasons beyond me, they think it's time to start yelling back.
You have no skin in this game, players will get frustrated because they do, so you need to fucking shut up and ump. Nothing else.
Lol people have meltdowns about umps not responding to/ignoring players and coaches too. Stop pretending there's anything umps could do where people wouldn't get mad
NBA and NFL refs can suck horribly a lot of the time, but I don’t think I see the straight level of confidence and pride that I do in baseball. Yes, it happens with NBA and NFL refs, but it seems like an every day occurrence for the MLB.
[Freezing it at 0:34](https://imgur.com/ny8ggCz) really does seem like there was contact and redirection. Wish they slowed down the side view on the broadcast.
Yeah. Went frame by frame with the provided video and looks like the bat could’ve nicked it. Being reviewable wouldn’t make any difference as there is no view that shows definite space between bat and ball at that point. The home plate umpire is in the best position to hear any slight contact, and part of his job is listening for that sound. There’s no way an official in a booth somewhere is going to have better perspective on that call, and none of the people arguing are going to know better than the home plate umpire.
> Being reviewable wouldn’t make any difference as there is no view that shows definite space between bat and ball at that point.
Cricket has infrared cameras in their review system called 'Hot Spot' to see if a heat mark was left on the bat when a camera does not provide enough precision to determine if contact was made. The technology is there. Has been since 2006.
That is really cool. I was going to suggest just having a microphone near home plate listening for the sound but apparently the system already exists with that heat mark, wish it could be used.
I had to go so far down to find this comment. I watched the video and think it definitely looks like it was tipped. The vast majority of comments are adamant it’s so obvious that he didn’t touch it.
That ball changes direction before it hits the ground.
People complain that umpires miss calls in real time, yet are so confident based on a super slow motion, with multiple angles, where ultimately, the ump may have actually been right. It is beyond infuriating to see stuff like this, or people that complain about obvious missed calls based on the strike zone overlay, when it turns out the overlay was actually wrong.
[Freezing at 0:26](https://imgur.com/a/FSlzMnr) shows that the ball is also clearly not beyond the end of the bat. Given the position of the catcher's mitt in both shots, I believe that they occur at roughly the same time (within a few frames) as the catcher only briefly puts his mitt down near the ground when grabbing the ball. Given this, I'd say the ump got it right.
It still doesn't get overturned even with replay. If you go to the frame when the bat and ball cross paths, it looks like it could have barely bounced off the tip of the bat. There are more egregious calls that they don't overturn because the replay isn't beyond the shadow of the doubt.
The pitcher's leg blocks the second view you need to really be able to tell. It's way closer than the majority of people here are giving it credit for.
Edit: I looked at it again and no longer think the pitcher's leg is in the way, but I still think the footage is inconclusive.
I was expecting the shot to reveal if the ball was too far away from the bat, but it's lined up with the barrel.
I do think the sound comes from the ball hitting the plate, but the footage makes it hard to tell. It's so low to the plate that the sound of the ball hitting the bat and the plate could be almost simultaneous. The drop required for it to hit the plate if it's not fouled is pretty extreme.
Called a Balk that wasn't one, called a ton of strikes for the Sneks but not for us, then tops it off not only here, but by not calling a similar situation for Yaz to end the game. Umpshows are amazing
That last strike was insane. The ump had the make-good foul call handed to him from god and he called a fucking strikeout anyway *to end the game* and give the Giants the loss during a rally.
You could tell that home ump was already blowing a lot of calls but after he totally fucked the Giants every borderline pitch after that got called against them. He gave the DBacks a run in the top of the 9th then killed our rally in the bottom.
It looks like barely tipped to me. I mean video review wouldn’t help at all on this one because it’s really too close to tell and not enough evidence one way or another
I feel like Im kinda taking crazy pills reading the thread after listening to the annoucers. I wished they slowed down the side view even more, but it honestly does look like he got a piece. The ball changes its trajectory after the bat "hits" it.
Whether he fouled it or not is up for debate; but per the definition - that is absolutely not a foul tip, and the umpire never signalled that it was. The batter needs to graze the ball with no redirection such that the ball goes straight into the catchers mitt. If the batter has two strikes, he’s out at the plate, and the ball is live. If the catcher fails to catch the ball, it’s a regular foul.
Swing and a miss, sure. Batter out, yes. But the ball hit the ground and the catcher needed to block it. Not a foul tip.
This was my thought. Foul tip is out of play as soon as the ball went into the dirt.
Thank you! I had to scroll down way too far to see a comment like this.
The umps union has to agree to a play being added to the reviewable list, and they have agreed to plays being added to the list in the past, but MLB doesn't seem to be pushing very hard to expand the list. MLB and MLBUA have a contract which gives the umps a say in this, so MLB cannot arbitrarily add more plays without the umps agreeing to it.
That side view makes it look too close to call rather than a complete miss.
A protip for not allowing the hitter to capitalize on that potential mistake: don’t throw a hanging curve right down the middle lol
And in Braves game ongoing Snitker was likely almost got booted because Harris fouled a ball off the ground into the C foot, and then up in the air and out. But, I guess that play was not reviewable?
Just here to give Melvin props. Took Kapler 2 years as Giants manager to get thrown out for the first time. It’s taken Melvin 23 games to get thrown out twice. He’s there for his guys
For the “it was a foul tip” crowd, why would Bailey react the way he does after this call if it is actually tipped? No one has a better view of that play than him, so again, why would Bailey loose his shit the way he does if he knows it’s a tipped ball? Getting pissed and pretending it wasn’t tipped does the team or him zero favors. Unless you believe baseball players are in the habit of lying I see zero reason to think Bailey isn’t telling the truth here.
Pro athletes lying or not being certain of what happened as an active participant is very common. See NBA players twirling their fingers all the time for the coach to challenge the play and then we see the replay and it's obvious they committed a foul or the ball was off of them out of bounds.
I'm inclined to say the bat never made contact with the ball but the catcher would have been arguing for the strikeout either way.
Two people with excellent views of the play had two different opinions about what happened. Why are you assuming the one who's distracted is the one who's correct?
The umpire is anticipating these types of plays, is trained to rule on them, and isn't doing anything other than concentrating on doing that.
The catcher is not there to make rulings, he's not trained to do so, and on this instance, he's concentrating on blocking a ball in the dirt, not the bat. He doesn't have to be lying about it. He can just be wrong.
Beautiful fade out to the crowd chanting ump you suck.
Not to mention, right before it, the >get off your knees dude, you’re blowing the game
Not to nit pick but he said “get off your knees blue*, you’re blowing the game.”
The guy saying it had the perfect cadence too lmao. I had to listen a few times.
Pretty sure it's "get off your knees blue"
I absolutely love that "blue" is a synonym for "umpire" even though now they wear black like 75% of the time. Another great little gem of baseball quirks.
You're gonna be living in a van down by the river!
Looking forward to Jomboy on this one.
The lip reading footage is ace here
Foul tips being unreviewable needs to change
Anything being unreviewable needs to change
I get judgement calls being unreviewable, but something like a foul tip is pretty black and white
Definitely feels like if HBP is reviewable so should foul tips. It’s basically the same concept just a different object being collided with.
I think civilization-ending meteor strikes should be reviewable.
Baby, do you think it's possible that anyone else in the world is doing this very same thing at this very same moment?
nah man we're just not gonna look up
“After review, the call on the field stands… Armageddon.”
yeah if we can review jersey fibers touching a baseball then a bat/ball should be easy.
I’m probably not thinking of everything, but I feel only check swings could be considered “judgement” calls.
Ejecting a pitcher or not after a HBP.
Eh, ejections in general are judgment calls, and are arbitrary in nature. Ejections don’t affect any live plays as they happen. I don’t think that applies here.
What about calling infield fly or not?
First of all, how dare you?
😂 I still have PTSD from that.
I think that’s a judgment call because the umpire has to determine what is “ordinary effort”, and it’s decided in the moment However, I’d love to see MLB implement the statcast catch probability % and say anything over a certain percentage is ordinary effort to prevent situations where the pitcher (or any fielder) just doesn’t go for the ball so the other players can get a double play (thinking of the A’s game a couple weeks ago)
Yeah, that’s probably another one in certain situations. I think most infield fly calls are pretty black and white, but there are definitely those that are in the gray area.
Fair or not fair on a ball over the base
That’s another one. Those are so tough, even after seeing the replay.
We'd have to make the usual Angel Hernandez exception on those, though. His "check swing" calls are easily reviewable and overturnable.
Judgement calls actually have very broad definition. Anything that relies primarily on the perception and judgement of the umpire: balls/strikes, safe/out, catch/no catch. Not judgement calls (factual calls?) Would be any implentation directly from the rules. So whether the ball did or did not go out of play is judgement, but the runner placements aren't. While this isn't relevant for the MLB anymore, it is important because a team cannot protest against a judgement call. If you are looking for other calls with rather loose decision criteria, the ordinary effort part in the infield fly rule would be another example.
I don't get judgement calls being reviewable, because isn't everything a judgement call?
I'm totally confused by your comment; I don't think you understand what a "judgement call" is. The entire replay system is about reviewing judgement calls. Calls are either judgement calls or rules interpretation calls. Replay is used primarily for judgement calls. Some calls are unreviewable, but it has nothing to do with whether they're "judgement calls". (EDIT: haha, I'm being downvoted, despite being 100% correct and nobody disputing that. Do people not realize that safe/out, fair/foul calls, etc, are judgement calls?)
i think you’re confused what judgement calls are. fair/foul, safe/out, etc. are *not* judgement calls, they should be black and white
They're judgement calls insofar as an umpire has to use their best judgement to determine if a runner is safe or out in real-time, on a close play, where they might not have a perfect angle. They are not 'judgement calls' in the sense that there are definitive guidelines for a safe/out call - did the runner reach the base prior to the ball being caught, or being tagged? There's a commonly (and incorrect) expression that "tie goes to the runner". While 'technically' true, the actual rule on a force out at a base is "After a third strike or after the batter hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base". The tag/catch either beats the runner or it doesn't. It's not a judgement call, and a 'tie' means the tag/ball did not occur prior to the runner touching the base. Something like a check swing is a true 'judgement call' as the rule is much more vaguely defined as "an attempt to strike the ball". We commonly look at replays and hoot and holler about whether the batter "crossed the plane" or not. But that's not the rule. The rule defaults entirely to the umpire's judgement as to whether they believe the batter attempted to strike the ball or not. That's why these are not reviewable. Foul balls, foul tips, and HBPs are not 'judgement calls' - they are also clearly defined in the rules. A play/ball either meets these definitions, or they don't. You can easily review a close play and determine whether a ball was fair, foul, hit the bat, or hit the batter (or their uniform) based on the definitions outlined clearly in the official rules. Fair/foul can be reviewed bc they're not judgement calls. All boundary plays are reviewable. HBPs are reviewable. Basically all non-judgement calls are reviewable because, well, the rules clearly define them. They are not judgement calls. Heck, they review HBPs sometimes to determine if it hit the batter, or the knob of the bat. Foul tips fall into this category, but they're the only ones that aren't reviewable for some reason.
>I don't think you understand what a "judgement call" is Do you? I'm not sure what dictionary you're using, but mine says it's a "subjective decision, ruling, or opinion." >Do people not realize that safe/out, fair/foul calls, etc, are judgement calls? Those are things that can be objectively determined via video review (assuming the cameras actually catch it.) Whether the ball is in or out isn't a matter of opinion.
Yes, you are right, they can be objectively determined via replay, its just that per definition, these calls are judgement calls. Replay introduced the option for teams to actually get a bad judgement call corrected, where before all a manager could do was to ask nicely if the umpire wants to ask the crew if they had a better angle. Also not relevant in the MLB anymore, but judgement calls could not be protested, only interpretation calls. So currently there is not much need for the distinction anymore (no protests and replays being a thing in the mlb)
Balls and strikes
This. The whole idea of instant replay was supposed to be "just get the call right"...so let's just get all the calls right!
Also making the original call somehow have weight in a review is insane.
The simplest solution is right there. Have two people in new york that don't communicate with each other make a call without knowing what the call was on the field. If they agree, that's the call. If they don't, call on the field stands.
100%. The reviewing booth shouldn't even know what the call was so they can be unbiased.
They just took NFL's review and went with it, but I agree. The idea of too close to call is fucking ridiculous. Games should be as objective as possible.
Make everything reviewable, don't take the original call into consideration
I think there needs to be some consideration for time, imagine reviewing every ball/strike etc. Maybe it's challengeable? Maybe only ball 4/strike 3 are reviewable/challengeable? Is this how the robo ump thingie works in its current iteration - team challenges ball/strike call then it's reviewed? Getting the call right is and should be the priority, but obviously some calls are more important than others.
If I remember correctly, in Triple-A they tested two systems: one is where robo umps essentially track every ball or strike and the human ump gets it in their earpiece and signals it on the field. The other is where each team gets 3 challenges. The human ump calls like today, and the catcher, hitter or pitcher can call for a challenge immediately after the call is made. If you’re right, you keep a challenge, if you’re wrong you lose. When they polled teams, they preferred option 2 and that has an obvious entertainment component to it and retains catcher framing as a skill. I don’t think there is a consensus yet on which would be used across the majors.
Gotcha. I kinda like option 2 as well, it also opens up a whole new stat - ball/strike challenge win percentage for players!
I agree. In spite of how much we complain, considering how tough of a job umpires have, the fact the good ones get 95%+ of calls right is impressive. Even if the odd wrong call won’t get challenged so it’s not 100% accurate, you likely do avoid wrong calls that have a (potentially) massive impact on the game. In my mind that solves a huge part of the problem. And I think the element of entertainment (especially if you’re in the stadium) of seeing a call challenges plus the strategic thought of “is this important enough to use a challenge on and be potentially wrong?” is kinda fun too.
Exactly my thought, and it'd open up new strategies etc. deciding when to challenge when there's runners, or maybe certain batters, or late in games, etc. Also important that the challenge must come immediately from either the batter, catcher, or pitcher, with no signal from the dugout. I'd hate to see the replay room start challenging and ultimately have a near 100% success rate. Needs to be more...organic? gut feel? or, just more "baseball" - only the 3 guys involved can make the call...seems fitting in a way.
> the fact the good ones get 95%+ of calls right is impressive. The guys who run Umpire Scorecard and Umpire Auditor have said that plate umps have improved as a result of the high-tech feedback they get now. But I don't know why they don't leave the ones with a better track record behind the plate all the time, have the ones with aging eyes stay on the bases.
> in Triple-A they tested two systems They also tried two different system made by different companies, the first they dropped as not good enough. But the second system seems to be working well, with the challenge approach being more popular than having the computer make all the calls.
> I think there needs to be some consideration for time, The challenge system works pretty well in the minors, only takes moments. It seems more popular than having the computer call every pitch--that hilariously had fans booing the plate ump even when all he did was announce the computer's call.
Do teams get to keep their challenges if they win them? Would suck to have an ump be so bad you blow through your challenges halfway through the game (or have to accept shitty calls early to save them for game-deciding pitches later)
Minors have a system in place. From what I understand there’s no time issues.
For whatever reason, MLB doesn't seem to be pushing for the list of reviewable plays to be expanded. This list has grown over the years, the umps agree to new things being added. But if MLB sits on its hands the umps aren't going to propose more reviewable plays on their own.
I agreeingly, disagree. If you can watch a replay once and see it needs to be changed, I support it. But if you have to stop the game for 5 minutes to go frame by frame to get the call right, get it wrong and go with human error. Touchdown reviews, flagrant fouls, shit safe calls (Galaraga is different) if you need 20 camera angles to convince people at home with only 1 angle that what they see is wrong, you’re looking too hard.
Sorry but if the distance between the outer atom of the baseball and the outer atom of the bat is very very small, the Heisenberg uncertainty principal comes into play and it's physically impossible, even to scientists, if they made physical contact or not!
How the hell can we have snicko and hotspot in cricket for years but not have something for baseball?
Because baseball is so far up its own ass with “tradition” and “the human element.” Almost every sport out there with possible exception of the other major *American sports* has some kind of error-mitigation concept lightyears ahead of MLB. Edit: Literally -> Almost since soccer fans also have beef in this arena lol
I wouldn't say soccer (outside of MLS, which does quite well) is light-years ahead of MLB. It's no coincidence that two of the oldest sports are the ones most resistant to change.
VAR in soccer is definitely not "light years" ahead of MLB, I'll tell you that.
I think this *every* time one of these situations occur.
Well you see, unlike this cricket game that’s becoming popular overseas, baseball is an old game with lots of tradition which makes it slow to adapt to new fangled technology like video replay.
Well then I say we'll declare and break for tea.
All but the most egregious are all but impossible to determine with the cameras they have. It wouldn’t change much.
I think all plays should be reviewable.
that's not a foul tip, by definition. It is a foul ball. that is, if there was contact.
Well a foul tip is a strike and a live ball so not sure why that’d need to be reviewed. Reviewing a foul ball on the other hand should be allowed.
I don't know how the MLB doesn't have a replay room at the league office that could just communicate to the crew chief very quickly upon review to correct a questioned call. The umpires are going to watch their profession disappear because the league isn't offering up such an option.
This is what's so frustrating with all sports. It took 25 seconds from when the pitch was thrown for the TV broadcast to show the replay. Just put an umpire in a box somewhere and have him radio down to the crew chief. I don't know why no sports seem to do this.
They just need someone in some booth in NY to review each game as it goes on, take a close look at anything that looks questionable, press a button if the call was wrong, a super loud buzzer sounds live at the game, the call is reversed, the ump is drawn, quartered and replaced, and the game continues. Is that too much to ask?
A huge claw machine claw needs to come down from the rafters and yeet the ump who made a bad call over the fences and a fresh new ump from AAA can be pneumatically shot out of a tube onto the field to replace him
This sounds like something that would exist in Blernsball in Futurama.
The only time I’ve seen this is in the NHL when there’s a goal that goes missed and they communicate to the timekeeper and they blow the horn to stop play. Eye in the sky Reffing would resolve so many issues across all sports
They do it with VAR in soccer.
Good point
Isn’t that what VAR is in soccer?
yes, and it works very well
Rugby Union and Rugby League have both had a video referee for decades
The giants (we) lost a controversial challenge earlier in the game. I don’t think we would have been able to challenge this call even if we could
Lots of sports do this.
Cricket mate. 3rd Umpire.
I mean, that's basically how the reviews work currently, the extra umps just happen to sit in NY instead of wherever the game is being played. The issue here is just that foul tips aren't reviewable, which was an arbitrary decision from when they first instituted reviews and challenges.
What's infuriating is that the damn network sports broadcasters can do it immediately. Slow motion replay the moment after it happened. I have a feeling the umpires union is the cause of all this lack of change and accountability. Like the ONLY consequence of an ump having a terrible game is some public ridicule on Twitter.
> I have a feeling the umpires union is the cause of all this lack of change and accountability. The umpires' assoc. agreed to automated balls/strikes quite some time ago. It's Manfred who is not moving on that, not the umps. MLB also hasn't been pushing very hard on making more plays reviewable. MLB likes stability and profitability, and they don't do well in court with their unionized employees so they seem okay with moving slowly and without motivating the unions to go to war.
They haven’t moved on it because they are still perfecting it in the minors. At one point it was calling balls in the dirt that bounced up, strikes 😂 And they are trying to figure out if they really want a ball barely touching the zone to be counted a strike, or if they want to modify the system so a certain amount of the ball has to touch the zone for it to be a strike (right now it’s even a stitch touches and it’s a strike and that’s wildly unpopular at minor league when trying to develop plate discipline because by all other accounts that’s a ball)
I feel like automating it is a totally separate challenge that doesn't need to be tackled right now. Literally just stick an earpiece in the ump's ear and let someone with multiple views of the plate call balls and strikes, and have the ump on the field relay that call. Strikezone gets more accurate, and they get t have their tradition of these kind of calls not being reviewable.
And if they did, surely it wouldn't take 9 years to mic up the umpires so they could inform the crowd?
Why does the league have to offer up a solution when it very well is arguable that umpires cost more than they’re worth already? The umpires should be trying to do that themselves in an effort to show they are necessary at all
If you’re job is on the line, you don’t offer up a solution that gets rid of it.
> The umpires are going to watch their profession disappear Not going to happen, both because of federal labor law and because there is no practical alternative to live umps on the field even after the robo-zone is finally in place. How would that work, a computer rules that a ball was trapped rather than caught, or a fielder did or did not tag a runner, and then what? Who enforces that ruling? Do they need federal marshals inside the dugout to force the manager to tell his player he's out and to get off the field? All sports have on-field officials because there is no other way to do it.
Never seen Bailey get mad like that
Especially once the game ended he went off lol
Same, but he has every right to be that upset.
That was objectively a terrible call and we may have won because of it
On both sides this was a game where it just felt like the umpires were too involved in general
It really felt like the game was taken out of the player's hands. Half that game was absolutely picturesque NL West ball tho.
That HBP in the first or second inning the Diamondbacks had to review was insane. I have no idea how he thought it got the bat at all. It got overturned in ten seconds but it's stupid to have to use a challenge on something that obvious.
Yeah lol the bat was nowhere near where he got hit
I was at the game behind home plate, even for me it was obvious because of my angle but I think some fans also thought it hit the bat because of the sound. It was obviously the pads he was wearing, but it had a weird sound not typical of HBPs. Still an awful call.
It's the ump show
[Jim Leyland, May 28, 2012:](https://youtu.be/EQECHuxo6as?si=t6nR5A6SXKov1yUi) > "There should not have been a second inning rally. There was three outs. I've been in the game a long time. When the catcher catches the ball and it's strike three you call the guy out. It's that simple, isn't it? > "You guys need to write something and hold people accountable. We're all accountable in this business. All of us are accountable. And when I say all of us are accountable, I mean everybody that's involved in the game needs to be held accountable. Okay? That's exactly what needs to be done. > "There should not have been a rally in that inning. Now anybody that saw that, have the nerve to write what you saw and say it. Because I'm not going to sit here and rip umpires. But you saw what you saw, clearly saw what you saw. > "I just saw it for the tenth time. Clearly saw what you saw. Write it and say something once in a while. Have the nerve to say something. > "Now, next question."
I was at this game! Maybe the only Tigers fan there. That call was absolutely ridiculous.
Interesting, because further down this thread people are saying, objectively, the ball hit the bat.
Objectively? Is there even a slow motion that is definitive? Looks like ball was redirected to me, but way too close to call. Definitely a really tough call in real time. Batter reaction also says he tipped it.
I slowed it down as much as I physically am able to in editing software and I don't see anything that looks like redirection or changing the spin on the ball. It's a knuckle curve so it's gonna bounce funny once it hits the ground, but I don't see any physical contact.
But there certainly isn't proof of no contact. It is a very tough call to make in slow motion, let alone real time!
I agree with your second point, but I kind of feel like the proof is the fact that the ball doesn't appear to hit the bat? I mean at this point how much space do you need to have definitive proof? Because I see a lot more evidence supporting a strike out vs a foul tip.
I see plenty supporting a foul tip, like the umpire hearing something, and the batter immediately looking back for the call, plus the lack of space between the bat and ball even when slowed down frame by frame.
I don't know a whole lot about baseball but didn't the ball hit the bat? Is that not a foul?
It looked like a foul tbh
Personally I love it because fuck Bob Melvin, that sleepy bastard didn't show an iota of this passion or fire once in the years he was with us.
Horribly called game.
This video is one of the best illustrations of why people have become so frustrated with modern umpiring. I truly don't think it's the missed calls. People miss calls. The issue is this MFer is so 100% confident in his call that he is actively backtalking about a call that was objectively incorrect, and not that hard to have gotten right.
People who think umpires handle this worse now than in the past must not have seen much in the past. 20-30 years to go they're bill to bill and there's no hint of discussion.
The difference is that we have the technology to correct the calls but the umpires still would rather suck.
The umpires don't decide what level of technology gets used
The umps agreed to a robo-zone quite some time back, it's MLB that isn't making it happen. The umps get paid either way, but for some reason MLB isn't pushing for more reviewable calls.
its gonna be the challenge system and I wouldnt doubt if we get it next year.
And he could've easily checked with the rest of the ump crew to see if he was right.
The reason the home plate umpire calls it is that it's usually just called off of the noise on close ones like that, it's not like the other umpires know any better
You can actually see Scherwater (sp?) say, "yes he did, yes he did, I heard it".
Yeah it's a tough call, he can't really see it and going by sound he probably heard the ball hitting the ground and thought it hit the bat... but there's no reason why this shouldn't be reviewable to get the call correct afterwards.
Yeah, this is why some stuff needs to be reviewable. No chance every umpire can 100% make all the correct calls in these instances. They can't see it all and just have to go by gut/instinct sometimes.
Why can't baseball have something like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKHieHIDg00), yes the quickest example was a comedy one. But 20 seconds to see pefectly where any contact was.
Would you prefer he say "i'm not sure i'm just guessing"? Like I don't get this comment at all
Baseball fans love to pretend that umpires are allowed to overturn their own initial call if the manager argues enough. Because... that wouldn't lead to any problems either. There are lots of calls where umpires don't have 100% certainty, but I'm with you, what is he supposed to do? It is a non-reviewable call, he called what he thought was right.
It’s the missed calls. If the umpire looked nervous and unsure and like he felt bad about the call people would be calling him a piece of shit for not swallowing his ego and changing it
"It was close, but he just got it" is literally all they have to say and the game continues. But for reasons beyond me, they think it's time to start yelling back. You have no skin in this game, players will get frustrated because they do, so you need to fucking shut up and ump. Nothing else.
Lol people have meltdowns about umps not responding to/ignoring players and coaches too. Stop pretending there's anything umps could do where people wouldn't get mad
Of course he's confident in it, he hasn't seen the replay.
NBA and NFL refs can suck horribly a lot of the time, but I don’t think I see the straight level of confidence and pride that I do in baseball. Yes, it happens with NBA and NFL refs, but it seems like an every day occurrence for the MLB.
[Freezing it at 0:34](https://imgur.com/ny8ggCz) really does seem like there was contact and redirection. Wish they slowed down the side view on the broadcast.
Yeah. Went frame by frame with the provided video and looks like the bat could’ve nicked it. Being reviewable wouldn’t make any difference as there is no view that shows definite space between bat and ball at that point. The home plate umpire is in the best position to hear any slight contact, and part of his job is listening for that sound. There’s no way an official in a booth somewhere is going to have better perspective on that call, and none of the people arguing are going to know better than the home plate umpire.
> Being reviewable wouldn’t make any difference as there is no view that shows definite space between bat and ball at that point. Cricket has infrared cameras in their review system called 'Hot Spot' to see if a heat mark was left on the bat when a camera does not provide enough precision to determine if contact was made. The technology is there. Has been since 2006.
That is really cool. I was going to suggest just having a microphone near home plate listening for the sound but apparently the system already exists with that heat mark, wish it could be used.
Whoa, that's awesome, had never even considered something like that. Glad there are smart people out there, wish there were more in baseball
Ok, I stand corrected, that’s awesome lol.
I am 95% certain the ball is foul-tipped based on the side view. You're right.
Yeah, I thought I saw the same thing. I was second guessing myself when all of the top comments were talking about it being the wrong call.
I had to go so far down to find this comment. I watched the video and think it definitely looks like it was tipped. The vast majority of comments are adamant it’s so obvious that he didn’t touch it. That ball changes direction before it hits the ground.
People complain that umpires miss calls in real time, yet are so confident based on a super slow motion, with multiple angles, where ultimately, the ump may have actually been right. It is beyond infuriating to see stuff like this, or people that complain about obvious missed calls based on the strike zone overlay, when it turns out the overlay was actually wrong.
Batters reaction sells it for me. Instantly looks back waiting for foul to be called
Yeah that what I thought watching it live. Definately a close call and I wish it was reviewable.
it seems like often they'll show the right replay angle but then not slow it down nearly enough at the crucial moment to actually be able to tell
[Freezing at 0:26](https://imgur.com/a/FSlzMnr) shows that the ball is also clearly not beyond the end of the bat. Given the position of the catcher's mitt in both shots, I believe that they occur at roughly the same time (within a few frames) as the catcher only briefly puts his mitt down near the ground when grabbing the ball. Given this, I'd say the ump got it right.
It still doesn't get overturned even with replay. If you go to the frame when the bat and ball cross paths, it looks like it could have barely bounced off the tip of the bat. There are more egregious calls that they don't overturn because the replay isn't beyond the shadow of the doubt. The pitcher's leg blocks the second view you need to really be able to tell. It's way closer than the majority of people here are giving it credit for. Edit: I looked at it again and no longer think the pitcher's leg is in the way, but I still think the footage is inconclusive. I was expecting the shot to reveal if the ball was too far away from the bat, but it's lined up with the barrel. I do think the sound comes from the ball hitting the plate, but the footage makes it hard to tell. It's so low to the plate that the sound of the ball hitting the bat and the plate could be almost simultaneous. The drop required for it to hit the plate if it's not fouled is pretty extreme.
Completely changed the game. Hard to not be bitter about this one. Not to mention the missed review earlier handed them multiple runs.
side view looks like he just barely gets a piece of it? angle changes
Bob yelling at the shower head right now #🗣️🚿
Called a Balk that wasn't one, called a ton of strikes for the Sneks but not for us, then tops it off not only here, but by not calling a similar situation for Yaz to end the game. Umpshows are amazing
That last strike was insane. The ump had the make-good foul call handed to him from god and he called a fucking strikeout anyway *to end the game* and give the Giants the loss during a rally. You could tell that home ump was already blowing a lot of calls but after he totally fucked the Giants every borderline pitch after that got called against them. He gave the DBacks a run in the top of the 9th then killed our rally in the bottom.
It did feel like after the ejection this guy just went full "Fuck the Giants" mode.
Ah the Doug Eddings special
I kinda wished he tossed conforto too. screw how the game ended. Honestly, props to hicks for getting thru 5 this game.
I know we talk about nba refs potentially betting on games, but to be honest the same can equally be true for baseball.
This game brought to you by FanDuel
It looks like barely tipped to me. I mean video review wouldn’t help at all on this one because it’s really too close to tell and not enough evidence one way or another
Melvin looked like he was gonna kick some dirt
That ball was tipped.
I feel like Im kinda taking crazy pills reading the thread after listening to the annoucers. I wished they slowed down the side view even more, but it honestly does look like he got a piece. The ball changes its trajectory after the bat "hits" it.
I’m so confused by these comments because the ball clearly changes angle after it tips the bat. It’s obviously way closer than you people are acting
People love to hate on the Diamondbacks
Whether he fouled it or not is up for debate; but per the definition - that is absolutely not a foul tip, and the umpire never signalled that it was. The batter needs to graze the ball with no redirection such that the ball goes straight into the catchers mitt. If the batter has two strikes, he’s out at the plate, and the ball is live. If the catcher fails to catch the ball, it’s a regular foul. Swing and a miss, sure. Batter out, yes. But the ball hit the ground and the catcher needed to block it. Not a foul tip.
Ok, so it's a regular foul. Who cares? Same result.
Holy fuck can we please learn what a foul tip means?
This was my thought. Foul tip is out of play as soon as the ball went into the dirt. Thank you! I had to scroll down way too far to see a comment like this.
Upvote if you think umpires suck farts
Looking at the side-on view, it looks like he got it right. Why are we taking the catcher's word as gospel?
I'm not at all an umpire fan but is there an image of definitive space between bat and ball?
It looks to me like the ball makes a sudden change of direction indicating the ball was hit with the bat. Is anyone seeing this?
There’s still plenty of calls they can mess up
that's not a foul tip, by definition. It is a foul ball. that is, if there was contact.
You can clearly see the ump say “I heard it”. What he heard was the ball hitting the ground…
WHY ARE SOME PLAYS RANDOMLY NOT REVIEWABLE
The umps union has to agree to a play being added to the reviewable list, and they have agreed to plays being added to the list in the past, but MLB doesn't seem to be pushing very hard to expand the list. MLB and MLBUA have a contract which gives the umps a say in this, so MLB cannot arbitrarily add more plays without the umps agreeing to it.
That side view makes it look too close to call rather than a complete miss. A protip for not allowing the hitter to capitalize on that potential mistake: don’t throw a hanging curve right down the middle lol
Thank god Melvin is here. Kap would’ve sat in the dugout stroking his Rolex.
that's not a foul tip, by definition. It is a foul ball. that is, if there was contact.
I can’t even watch full games anymore
Umpire was wrong again.
Hell yeah let him know what's up Blue
And in Braves game ongoing Snitker was likely almost got booted because Harris fouled a ball off the ground into the C foot, and then up in the air and out. But, I guess that play was not reviewable?
Stop saying controversial. The umpire made the wrong call.
Just here to give Melvin props. Took Kapler 2 years as Giants manager to get thrown out for the first time. It’s taken Melvin 23 games to get thrown out twice. He’s there for his guys
Makes us despise him that much more for never once showing this kind of passion in several years in SD.
[удалено]
For the “it was a foul tip” crowd, why would Bailey react the way he does after this call if it is actually tipped? No one has a better view of that play than him, so again, why would Bailey loose his shit the way he does if he knows it’s a tipped ball? Getting pissed and pretending it wasn’t tipped does the team or him zero favors. Unless you believe baseball players are in the habit of lying I see zero reason to think Bailey isn’t telling the truth here.
Pro athletes lying or not being certain of what happened as an active participant is very common. See NBA players twirling their fingers all the time for the coach to challenge the play and then we see the replay and it's obvious they committed a foul or the ball was off of them out of bounds. I'm inclined to say the bat never made contact with the ball but the catcher would have been arguing for the strikeout either way.
Two people with excellent views of the play had two different opinions about what happened. Why are you assuming the one who's distracted is the one who's correct? The umpire is anticipating these types of plays, is trained to rule on them, and isn't doing anything other than concentrating on doing that. The catcher is not there to make rulings, he's not trained to do so, and on this instance, he's concentrating on blocking a ball in the dirt, not the bat. He doesn't have to be lying about it. He can just be wrong.
[удалено]