Something like “a call of ‘safe’ shall not be reversed on video review on the basis of a momentary or incidental loss of contact with the base where the runner establishes contact with the base before the tag is applied and maintains body position over and near to the base through the duration of his slide.” That exact wording may have problems, but you just need something that gets the point across and gives the umpire discretion not to have to call the runner out.
2 Likes
You would write the rule to say that X amount of inches directly above the bag is safe after the point of contact
1 Like
So that introduces whole new levels of complexity, ambiguity, interpretation, and inconsistency, not to mention you’re suggesting to purposely not get the call correct. What’s the point of replay again?
1 Like
I am absolutely suggesting they decide to get the call wrong. The right call is annoying as shit.
An “airspace” rule like doyce’s would also be fine, but trying to make things exact under the rule (e.g. by defining a height) introduces its own set of problems.
2 Likes
I get your point, but in my mind, it’s not unimaginable that that play could be taken out of replay’s purview. It’s just a different animal to me, not at all like “did the throw beat him,” “did his hand get under the tag” or other instances where replay clearly sets things straight that should be set straight.
Then again I ask…what’s the point of replay if not to get the call correct? I get as annoyed as you about ticky tack plays like this, and I wish they didn’t make those calls, but I’m not willing to add even MORE arbitrary enforcement and arguments because of it. Not every play is going to be overwhelmingly obvious, and extremely close plays come part and parcel of a replay system. Adding additional gray areas is not going to sooth your annoyance nor is it going to eliminate close plays.
So how do you do that? Tell managers that they can challenge, but the ump may come back and say “after initial review, I’ve decided I’m not going to allow you to challenge now because it was really, really close”? This is the down side of replay…if you want to be able to overturn the obvious mistakes, you’re going to have to allow overturning the really close plays too. To arbitrarily draw a line between “obvious” and “ticky tack” and then ask umpires to judge that is disaster looking for a place to happen.
The point of replay is generally to get the calls right. Getting the call right is usually preferable to getting it wrong. This is the rare case where the opposite is true. So a good solution is to keep replay generally but make a rule where this kind of play doesn’t get reversed, however you want to word it.
Baseball is full of subjective calls, and for the most part, they’re fine. This is another place where some subjectivity would help.
I think the notion is redefining what safe is in those scenarios.
Tag beats you? Yer out.
Tagged while hovering over the bag after touching it? Safe.
Slide past the bag and get tagged? Out.
2 Likes
And you think that’s going to lead to less subjectivity and fewer complaints?
Like the strike zone?
In the sense that if you called a perfect rulebook strike zone it’d lead to some calls that piss people off because they’ve historically been called the other way, sure.
For practical purposes, loosening the rules on slide tags should lead to fewer replay reviews because managers would have less reason to challenge (and wouldn’t want to risk losing a challenge when the call goes against them). For the plays that still get challenged, sure there’s more subjectivity.
No.
I think that plays where runners would have been called safe for the 100+years before replay would go back to being called safe.
Besides, the defense gets the neighborhood play. That’s a huge advantage. Balance it out.
Or don’t.
I’m not that worked up about it.
Having nothing to do with the replay “debate”, the 2B tag is what pulled Nimmo’s right hand off the bag. That’s not an out in any universe. Stupid replay umps were focused on the wrong thing.
So you think making an arbitrary standard of say 2 inches above the bag is going to prevent managers from saying his foot was 2.1 inches off the bag…and you think umpires should be able to make that judgement clearly, convincingly, and without argument on that 0.1 inch? They miss pitches two ball widths (5 inches) inside/outside the strike zone that is 17 inches wide, and you think they’re going to be able to judge fractions of an inch?
Because there were no bad calls 100+ years ago?
Look, I hate that call too. I’m just saying if you’re gonna have replay, you have to have replay. You can’t pick and chose when to overturn a call because you’re annoyed by getting the result correct. That’s just an insane way to look at it, IMO.
No, no.
I think you’ve outed yourself as a microtagger.
Sicko.
1 Like
That’s why I suggested a subjective standard based on bag contact rather than an objective standard tied to a given distance off the bag. Yes, if the ump has discretion to say the loss of contact was incidental, fleeting, ephemeral, whatever words you want to use, the manager has less reason to challenge the play.
I submit that if the runner takes to the bases in one of those huge bearpaw oven mitts then he forfeits his two inches of ephemeral airspace.
I think we can all agree that’s a reasonable modification.
1 Like
“Microtagger”. I think we’ve found a new entry to the Funk & Wagner’s. If there was still such a thing.
1 Like