I am intrigued by this call. and I think it shoudl have been rulled dead as the umpire had initially ruled it. Choo did do his normal stiff arm holding the bat out like he normally does , but Russell
did his normal throwing motion back to the pitcher and was interfered.
In a normal baseball motion (Russell throwing back) that gets interfered by a opposing player, it should be ruled dead. If russell
had thrown it back and pitcher drops it or misses it , then it still a
live ball. obviously... But, another player should not be allowed to interfere with a normal baseball move of the opposing player whether its his normal move or not.
I would be interested if any body has different insight. No doubt, this will be discussed ( maybe already has)
I am intrigued by this call. and I think it shoudl have been rulled dead as the umpire had initially ruled it. Choo did do his normal stiff arm holding the bat out like he normally does , but Russell
did his normal throwing motion back to the pitcher and was interfered.
In a normal baseball motion (Russell throwing back) that gets interfered by a opposing player, it should be ruled dead. If russell
had thrown it back and pitcher drops it or misses it , then it still a
live ball. obviously... But, another player should not be allowed to interfere with a normal baseball move of the opposing player whether its his normal move or not.
I would be interested if any body has different insight. No doubt, this will be discussed ( maybe already has)
Under the rules, the call was the right call. Play is live and Choo was in the box and, although his arm was out, he wasn't exactly stretching it across the plate. In fact, it was barely above the plate at all.
The issue comes down to the ump calling timeout. The play should have been dead and that's what, I'm pretty sure, Gibbons was protesting. I've seen football plays before that have been stopped because the ref called time even though he shouldn't have. Dale Scott has admitted that he botched the call.
Now...I don't know if anyone is clear on the rules about reviews but he clearly called timeout and he knew it. However, THAT should not be reviewable...just like in football. Ump/ref calls time. Play ends. No reviews.
The other thing that I'm confused about...and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet (to my knowledge)...Bannister already lost his challenge early in the game, yet he somehow had the umps review this play and another one after that. I think there's something about being able to request that the umps converse with each other but it just seemed to me that every time Bannister said jump, Dale Scott and crew said, "How high?!" And yes...in a game like this...the umps certainly want to make sure that they get each and every call correct. But still...
Under the rules, the call was the right call. Play is live and Choo was in the box and, although his arm was out, he wasn't exactly stretching it across the plate. In fact, it was barely above the plate at all.
The issue comes down to the ump calling timeout. The play should have been dead and that's what, I'm pretty sure, Gibbons was protesting. I've seen football plays before that have been stopped because the ref called time even though he shouldn't have. Dale Scott has admitted that he botched the call.
Now...I don't know if anyone is clear on the rules about reviews but he clearly called timeout and he knew it. However, THAT should not be reviewable...just like in football. Ump/ref calls time. Play ends. No reviews.
The other thing that I'm confused about...and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet (to my knowledge)...Bannister already lost his challenge early in the game, yet he somehow had the umps review this play and another one after that. I think there's something about being able to request that the umps converse with each other but it just seemed to me that every time Bannister said jump, Dale Scott and crew said, "How high?!" And yes...in a game like this...the umps certainly want to make sure that they get each and every call correct. But still...
1. seemed clear to me that the extended arm/bat was also inside the box, looked like the bat was directly over the inside batters box chalk line, and absolutely not over the plate
2. time was not called until odor was maybe twenty feet from home and with no possible way for tor to make a play...the "whistle" in no way affected whether he was going to score
3.the announcers mentioned during the first challenge that there are two challenges per game for each team during the playoffs, rather than just one
4. no question in my mind the call was correct by rule
1. seemed clear to me that the extended arm/bat was also inside the box, looked like the bat was directly over the inside batters box chalk line, and absolutely not over the plate
2. time was not called until odor was maybe twenty feet from home and with no possible way for tor to make a play...the "whistle" in no way affected whether he was going to score
3.the announcers mentioned during the first challenge that there are two challenges per game for each team during the playoffs, rather than just one
4. no question in my mind the call was correct by rule
In response to my own post, I found these quotes from the rule book.
Just as I had suspected...A Club that has exhausted its Manager Challenges may request but cannot insist that the Crew Chief invoke his right to initiate Replay Review.
The other rule I found was...Each Club will receive: (a) two (2) Manager Challenges to start each All- Star Game, postseason game and Divisional or Wild Card tie-breaker game; and (b) one (1) Manager Challenge to start every other game.
In response to my own post, I found these quotes from the rule book.
Just as I had suspected...A Club that has exhausted its Manager Challenges may request but cannot insist that the Crew Chief invoke his right to initiate Replay Review.
The other rule I found was...Each Club will receive: (a) two (2) Manager Challenges to start each All- Star Game, postseason game and Divisional or Wild Card tie-breaker game; and (b) one (1) Manager Challenge to start every other game.
The catcher for Toronto should have stood up to throw the ball back to the pitcher. If he had, we wouldn't be talking about it.
I agree the home plate umpire called time out before the runner scored. Initial call sent him back to 3rd. Time out is time out, but give the runner credit for being alert and scoring on the play.
I can't ever remember seeing a play like this and neither did the umps. They said that there is a rule for it, show me.
The catcher for Toronto should have stood up to throw the ball back to the pitcher. If he had, we wouldn't be talking about it.
I agree the home plate umpire called time out before the runner scored. Initial call sent him back to 3rd. Time out is time out, but give the runner credit for being alert and scoring on the play.
I can't ever remember seeing a play like this and neither did the umps. They said that there is a rule for it, show me.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.