Dear MLB: Please Fix The Slide Replay
In one of the craziest, weirdest, most bizarre baseball games anyone has ever seen, the Cubs beat the Nationals 9-8 tonight, advancing to the NLCS. The game had everything you could think of and then some: catcher’s interference, RBI strikeouts that maybe shouldn’t have counted, Max Scherzer hitting a batter to force in a run, and Michael Taylor hitting a bomb on a pitch at his eyes. But, unfortunately, the lasting memory of this game might just be that MLB’s replay rule on slides into a base still sucks.
I wish I didn’t have to write this post again. I wrote a very similar piece 367 days ago, when Javier Baez was called out because a slow-motion replay showed his arm disconnected from second base for a fraction of a second. And now, I have to write this post again because tonight, Jose Lobaton’s leg lifted off first base for the briefest of moments, and replay got the Cubs out an 8th-inning, tying-run-at-second situation in a game they won by 1 run.
First, let’s just agree on this point; by the letter of the law, Lobaton probably was out.
After his foot hit the base, it momentarily goes parallel with the bag while Rizzo is applying the tag. The glove appears to be touching Lobaton at the same time he’s not in contact with the base. According to the rules of baseball, he is out.
And yes, Willson Contreras made a great back-pick throw to first base. Lobaton shouldn’t have been that far off the base to begin with. The Cubs catcher made a great play and the Nationals catcher made a poor one. All the credit in the world to Contreras for getting his pitcher out of a bad situation with a great defensive play.
But this strict adherence to the rule has changed baseball for the worse. For the entirety of baseball history, Lobaton would have been called safe, as he initially was tonight, because he beat the throw back to the bag. While defenders of this rule can lean on the fact that this is how the rule has always been written, this is not at all how the rule has been applied. Only since the admission of super-slo-mo, multi-camera-angle replay has allowed us to freeze time and evaluate whether a player touched base continually through his slide has the safe or out determination on this play been a question.
And this play is the exact opposite of what baseball’s product should be. There’s absolutely nothing exciting or entertaining about having shadowy figures in a studio in New York decide whether the physics of a large human being hitting a stationary object caused him to momentarily disconnect the tiniest part of his appendage from the base for the shortest period of time imaginable. The game is about whether guys can hit curveballs, about how athletically they can chase down balls in the gap, about great throws, and yes, exciting dives and slides to try and avoid tags to reach the base before the fielder can apply a tag.
This play isn’t baseball. It’s giant human beings trying to play stupid some form of Twister. Sliding into a base and maintaining perfect contact isn’t some kind of skill players get selected for, and deciding games based on the outcome of these replays takes away from the elite skills competition that these players are actually competing in.
So, here’s the same suggestion I made last year when Baez was called out after nearly getting concussed by Joe Panik. On slides or dives into a base, a player who makes contact with the bag before the tag is applied should be granted a vertical safe zone above the base so that he is still safe even if he is tagged while not physically touching the base so long as it is clear that he is still directly above the bag. If you slide in, your foot hits the base, and the laws of physics force your foot to bounce up an inch off the ground, but your foot is still over the base, then you’re still safe.
Here’s what I wrote last year about how the implementation would work.
Yes, it’s still going to require a judgment call from officials, and we’ll still see plenty of replays on tag plays at second and third base, but instead of looking to see whether the runner kept his hand on the base for every millisecond of the tag, we can now simply look at the position of the players body in relation to the space above the base, a much easier thing to judge. We should get fewer challenges and fewer replays in general, and players who beat the throw to second or third base will be called safe more often.
This rule change would fall entirely within the spirit of the exception at first base as well. Runners there are allowed to overrun the base so long as they turn into foul territory, making it clear they are not trying to advance to the next base. If a player’s body is still completely over second or third base, it remains clear that they are not attempting to advance to third or home. The only reason we don’t allow overruns at second or third is because of the possibility for advancement to the next base, but if it’s clear that advancement isn’t being attempted, the runner should be able to still be called safe regardless of whether he’s touching the base during the entirety of his slide.
Obviously, tonight’s play wasn’t at second or third, so my suggestion from last year would have to be amended to include first base, or else Lobaton would still have been called out. And I stand behind the idea that the entire point of forced contact with the base is to prevent a runner from advancing; when there’s no attempted advancement, all we really care about is whether the runner got to the base before the tag was applied.
These maintain-contact replays aren’t in the spirit of what baseball has always been, how it’s been called, or how the rules have been enforced. For all of baseball history, Jose Lobaton was safe. There’s a reason these calls always have to get overturned on replay; every umpire in the league has been trained to call the runner safe when he gets to the bag before the tag is applied. The only way to call the runner out is to misuse the technology that was put in place to make baseball better.
This isn’t better baseball. This is a technological technicality, and the sooner baseball gets rid of this play, the better the sport will be.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Terrance Gore would never get caught stealing if not for replay and ultra-slo-mo video.
This is also true of Trea Turner… I have only seen him CS on replay review.
Sounds like someone should know what to work on in spring training, then.
Dave- you must never have played the game. Outs are outs. Many of us have tagged a runner out, knew he was out, only to have an ump, probably working the whole game by himself, call the runner safe. Outs are outs.
Wow. 7 other people in here never played the game. Shocking.
Now we’re up to 15 & 22. So much ignorance here for a baseball site.
The site is called fan graphs, there are sites that are much more focused on baseball. I don’t think you did a great job of making your point, perhaps that has something to so with it. I typically do side with the baseball side of the argument but I don’t know what your point is. The dream of replay is that there are no blown calls, but as we see there still are. Perhaps that is what you are saying?
I’ll agree with this, because if outs are outs, then strikes are strikes.
Ball/strike calls involve more missed calls than tag plays on the bases. Give us robot umps.
Does robot umps mean on the bases? I hate the idea of robot umps, but would like to understand the push better.
I played a lot of the game and I am not sure what you mean. Are you just saying blown calls are blown calls? I agree with that. I would get really mad when a call was blown, but what are you going to do? This replay era seems like exactly the same mess. A guy is either out or safe and somebody is mad. We just traded one mess for another.
Sam Cooke said it more simply: Don’t know what a Slide Rule is for.
Dave, I agree with all of this, but did you really have to Amazon link Twister?
I don’t know if Twister is still a thing the kids play with!
“In my day we used to play jacks down at the soda fountain!”
“No one knows what you’re talking about, you idiot! … You know, how you talk to grandmother”
I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ’em. “Gimme five bees for a quarter,” you’d say. Now where were we… oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. I didn’t have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…
The game was essentially decided by the umps not knowing the rules on the fifth inning strikeout of Baez that led to two runs and should have ended the inning. Which should be frustrating for everyone, including Cubs fans, as next time the incompetence may go against them and not for them.
Related: it seems like every year there are playoff games decided by umpires who are paid to know the rules of baseball, not knowing the rules of baseball. Which, of course, probably makes the Lobaton play even more frustrating for Washington fans – the umps know THIS rule to the letter but not the one about Baez hitting Wieter’s face mask? Sheesh.
Good thing my favorite team is always terrible and will never be in a position to have its season ended by umpires being terrible.
umps miss calls, and hopefully we should all understand that.
the egregious error is that this is not reviewable (Fortunately, this is a rule change miles more defensible than an “eh…close enough” non-rule regarding tag plays)
Umps miss calls, but in the age of replay, they need to stop pretending they are so infallible.
I don’t think you can do that job and be empathetic. They have to be decisive. I hate it, but I don’t think they can be cool guys out there and also make tough calls. I don’t get along with umpires at all, but I think that is kind of the way it has to be. We can’t be taking a look at the tape every other play.
Should it matter that Weiters moved into Baez’ swing path to corral the pitch in the dirt?
According to Baker after the game, the explanation he was given was that the umps agreed that Baez had hit Wieters, but that the play being dead and runners not advancing only applies to stolen bases. So, per the umpires’ explanation to Baker, Wieters’ action was irrelevant; the rule simply didn’t apply on that particular instance.
Of course, this is inaccurate. The umpires simply didn’t know the rule Which, hey – me neither (and actually, I’m not sure if the Nationals did either – Baker said he *thought the play should be called dead, but accepted their explanation). I didn’t know watching in real time whether they’d messed up or not, and it isn’t something we see every day (I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen it, to be honest). But then again, I’m not paid to know such things.
That’s the frustration, and the danger – these things can, and will, happen again. And it’d sure be nice if the umpires knew the rulebook, for everyone involved.
You’ve never umped. This was the correct call. Get over it.
More WOW. 6 of you never umped. Super shocking.
15 & 20 of you?? SMH.
And you’ve never mastered basic reading comprehension. Or expressing yourself without coming across as a kumquat. Read it again. Everyone knows and admits that the ruling was correct per the letter of the law. They’re saying the rule itself is a bad one.
You may apologize now, and let this be a lesson for the future.
Dave Cameron: “by the letter of the law, Lobaton was probably out.”
He agrees it was the correct call. He (and everyone else) are saying the rule that the correct call adheres to is not in the spirit of the game.
This is absurd. If he moved into the swing path, Baez would’ve hit him with the swing and catcher’s interference would’ve been called (as it was earlier in the game). Once Baez swung and missed, of course Wieters has a right to try and catch/stop the ball.
Moreover, the rule reads that if the hitter hits the catcher, a strike should be called and the ball is dead. So even if Wieters did move into Baez’s rightful backswing path — as if there was such a thing — the rule says it doesn’t matter.
It’s not absurd. It is a perfectly reasonable observation. A catcher that gets hit with a bat is a two-party transaction, otherwise it is intentional on Baez part, which nobody is saying.
To refute another point, Weiters did not make any effort to catch/stop the ball.
Rule 5.05(a)(2) states that:
“””
(a) The batter becomes a runner when:
…
2) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;
“””
There were two outs (with Heyward at first and Russell at second), so Baez is a runner going for first the moment that he swings and misses and the ball hits the dirt, which happens before his backswing goes around to maybe glance off Wieters’ mask.
The “Rules 6.03(a)(3) and (4) Comment” states (in relation to batter’s interference):
“””
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he
carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judg-
ment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
“””
My interpretation is that the proper ruling would be that the bases are loaded and Baez is at first. Interpreting the rule to say that getting in the way of the bat automagically absolves Wieters of the responsibility of catching the ball and, failing that, completing the play to first doesn’t pass the smell test.
The next batter reached on catcher’s interference and the batter after that had a bases loaded HBP, so Russell and Heyward would’ve scored the exact same two runs either way.
The part of the rulebook that defines a dead ball (5.06(c)) states that when the ball becomes dead “runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out”.
“While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be
run and no runs may be scored, except that runners may advance
one or more bases as the result of acts which occurred while the
ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow,
interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing
field).”
Since Baez is a runner the moment his swing misses and the ball hits the ground, “his base” is first. Getting an inning-ending out from a dead ball during which “no player may be put out” is certainly wishful thinking.
There were runners on first and second. First base was “Heyward’s base.” If “no runners may advance”, and “[the pitch] shall be called a strike,” that means the batter-runner Baez may not advance and therefore must be out on strike three.
No, once Baez becomes a live baserunner, Heyward’s base is second and Russell’s is third. Because if the throw from the catcher goes to those bases, that’s the runner that is put out.
Also, you can’t invent an out out of thin air when there are three live baserunners, and “while the ball is dead no player may be put out”.
A runner’s base is the last base he safely touched. In the batter-runner’s case, his base is home. This is why if on a play at first, the ball is thrown out of play, the batter-runner advances to second; all runners advance two bases from their last safely touched base. No advancement means the runner stays at his base. This is why on the Arod slap play in Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS, Jeter had to go back to first base; he “may not advance.”
IIRC, ARod was called out on batter’s interference for the slap play, which meant that there was no batter becoming a runner to force Jeter up a base. In this case, Baez explicitly didn’t commit batter’s interference and is a live runner.
Note that the batter becoming the runner makes the guys on first and second lose title to their bases.
Regardless, in this case, there are three baserunners that are live because none of them have been put out, and the ball becomes dead (a situation during which, by rule, none of them can be put out). How does that create an automatic out again? Please cite the specific place in the rulebook.
You guys can argue back and forth about an interpretation all day. The fact is, the Nationals were given an explanation that doesn’t line up with the rule book (‘the dead ball only occurs and counts towards baserunners who are stealing bases’). Whatever interpretation you’re bringing to the table is not the one the umpires did. THAT is the issue.
Most people I was reading last night interpreted the rule differently than EL. Maybe they’re wrong and he/she is right! Maybe not. But it’s immaterial, because the umps weren’t even talking about the same rule at all; they were talking about something with stolen bases. We can haggle over how that rule should be interpreted, but the guys who are paid to know in real time weren’t even in the same ballpark as what the rule in question is talking about.
I think the “umpire’s discretion” verbiage is the sticking point. The umpire didn’t call it, and that’s the end of it.
The umpire’s judgement bit is about whether or not the batter intentionally hit the catcher. Presumably doing so on purpose would result in something more drastic than just being put out. It’s not about whether or not the rule should be applied in a larger sense, or whether or not hitting the catcher actually affected the play.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/feature.jsp?feature=call5
The key here from the link above by Da Bear is “before the catcher has securely held the ball.” The umpire must have judged that the unintentional contact occurred AFTER the catcher had the opportunity to catch the ball, and that the intent of the rule was to address that situation, and not to automatically absolve Wieters of his failure to catch the ball. I agree with the umpire in principle, but I would be interested in hearing the official MLB take on the situation. On the other hand, the “before the catcher has securely held the ball” part does not seem to be present in the current rules….interesting.
It’s clear what the ruling was supposed to be. See the link above. It should have been strike 3 inning over.
Unfortunate that the umps allowed the Cubs 2 extra runs there.
Umps don’t allow runs- usually it’s the defense.
Except the ball was through Wieters BEFORE the contact. He had a chance to catch the ball.
Based on your interpretation, any batter would be rewarded with first base on any dropped third strike (where taking first base was an option) where they hit the catcher with the back swing. This rewards an action that is to be discouraged (hitting catcher with the bat). That is a nonsensical outcome and therefore the interpretation must be wrong. Even if that is the corner the imprecise language of the rule book paints them into, no one would ever use this set of rules to come to that conclusion.
No, Rule 6.01 would apply, so if the batter-runner on the DTS clearly hinders the catcher, then the batter-runner is out.
If a batter hits the catcher with the backswing intentionally in the judgement of the umpire, he’s out for batter’s interference.
I think it’s far more nonsensical that a catcher who does one wrong thing by failing to catch the third strike, creating a live baserunner, and then another wrong thing by getting in the way of the backswing (where he’s not supposed to be and crucially without intent by the batter), making it hard to get the baserunner, should be absolved of the responsibility of making a putout.
That it becomes a dead ball at that point prevents the runner from circling the bases if the catcher managed to knock himself out and fail to retrieve the ball and prevents possibly-concussed catchers from needing to continue play (throwing to bases and possibly being run over at home).
This is a good rule to point out with respect to maintaining contact with the base…why can’t the rules simply be interpreted to read that the play is dead the second the baserunner beats the throw/ball back to the bag? Maintaining contact is no longer such a critical aspect of each play and only if the batter is considered to be “advancing” to the next bag would the runner be called out.
There are two ways to look at the idea that the umpires decided the game. One is what you wrote. The other is that the players have a much larger role in this than you are acknowledging. You only lose close games due to umpires if the games are close. If the Nats played better then it wouldn’t have come down to a few fluky plays. I am sure the players get this. If Weiters decides to block balls then the Nats win despite all of the garbage that transpired. That is real baseball that Weiters gets paid to do and didn’t. Harper had chances to tie/break the game open as did many other players. At the end of the day you can blame the scapegoat or accept accountability. I am sure the players go the latter route as the first one doesn’t lead anywhere. I get that the umpires played an unfortunate role in the game, but the Nats put themselves in those positions. They could have won this game if they played better.
I used to coach and I have seen far worse things than this happen on a baseball field. Not once did I ever blame the umpires for losing a game. I have had them literally make up an out in a one-run game with two outs in the last inning with a runner on third, but we shoudln’t have been trailing in the first place…
When this happened during the Rangers – Blue Jays playoff game in 2015, something like this fix was suggested in the comments.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/rougned-odor-slides-around-instant-replay/
This is still a fantastic evolutionary point that the game must concede to contemplate. It’s such a natural interpretation and explanation simultaneously to both generational lines of thought to baseball. I applaud you as always Mr. Cameron
Cricket, whose replay is not a guy in New York, but a guy in the stadium whose review is available to watch and listen to on TV, had a similar problem. A batsman is out if he fails to ground his bat past the line before the bails are knocked off the wicket. But slo-mo replay would show the bat momentarily bouncing off the ground much like Lobaton’s foot off the bag. In the history of the game, this was never an out because no one could ever see it.
So what did cricket do? It changed the rule so it is not out.
We should not be losing to cricket in evolving our game! Look at their silly uniforms. We’re more behind the times than them. Really, baseball, do better.
In pesapallo, with their even sillier uniforms, they did away with elevated bases and just have big areas marked by chalk. If you get there before the throw arrives, you’re safe. Period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8ksgs8gqCM
The world is beating us in so many ways, people.
I understand some of these words…
(@dl80 – I hope this helps. – Serb)
Cricket, is no longer the man in New York, but the man at the stadium was a review of the available view and listen to television, has had a similar problem. Hit is that if he has hit close to times before boxers out of the pool. But in slo-mo Replai show that the butterfly is currently struggling with the Earth, like the leg bag. Lovato in the history of the game, it didn’t happen, because no one can see it.
He has to play cricket? It’s changed the rules, so that this is not the case.
I hate this aspect of replay and I hate that it played such a big role in determining a playoff series. I also don’t concede that the baserunner was out, making it even more infuriating. I still haven’t seen any “clear and convincing evidence”, including the screenshot in this post. The replay looked like he MIGHT have bounced off, but nothing that should’ve overturned the call on the field.
The fix suggested in the article should have been in the rulebook already.
Did you watch the “in-unison” videos after the commercial break? Rizzo held the tag and Lobaton was off the bag. Still doesn’t change the fact that the rule needs changing.
My proposed rule follows (although I’m not convinced this is a problem that needs solving):
On tag plays, safe/out should only be evaluated when the tag is applied. The fielder would need to remove and reapply the tag in order to generate a new safe/out call.
This removes the “airspace” judgment in your proposed rule and is a more moderate adjustment in favor of the runner.
What holes does the commentariat see in this rule? I look forward to fielders furiously jackhammering runners with their gloves on stolen base attempts.
Right away, you could see instances where fielders would wait to tag the runner until he was coming over the base and they thought he might come off the base. I like the “airspace” idea better, though I do like your idea as well.
Sure, but on plays like yesterday’s, you’re talking about a fielder realizing his tag will be late, and then trying to hit a split-second window in time after the runner has contacted the base.
Beyond that, this rule tilts the replay review slightly farther in favor of the runner (if the call on the field was ‘safe’). It’s going to be lower-probability to overturn, so there should be fewer overall challenges of this sort (a pace-of-play improvement!).
Didn’t replay turn this call against the runner ? He’s safe in 2002. This would restore balance if anything, and probably reduce injuries.
The Dodgers just trained their infielders to hold the glove on the runner indefinitely until the play stops and they’re asking for time, and have gotten several of these reviews due to someone coming off the bag and the glove still held firmly against them. In one case, Logan Forsythe literaly hit the runner in the head with his glove because it was the only available body part.
Or just keep tapping the guy, which is technically reapplying.
What if we go even simpler? If there’s a slide, all we should look at is whether he initially touched the bag before being tagged. Period. Doesn’t matter if he overslides the bag or if his foot comes off at all. Because, if a guy is sliding into a base, he obviously has no intention of continuing onto the next base anyway. So why do we care what happens after he’s safe for that split second?
The only situations that I can think of where we should care what happens after the *initial* contact with the base is if another baserunner tries advancing or if there’s a throw to another runner, in which case the slider/runner may plausibly be trying to go for the next base.
I like it, but it turns into a “run through first base” rule. We would need to define a “slide” to something that involves knees or hands touching so people don’t “slide through second” when they were pretty much sprinting
Like Dave pointed out, the only reason that the rule currently requires constant contact with the bag is because the runner could plausibly try to continue onto the next base. And with the running-through-first rule, there’s a way for the runner to clearly signal that’s not his intention. So I think MLB should just come up with rules designed to define situations where the runner is clearly trying to stop at a given base. That seems a lot simpler and clearer than trying to deal with determining whether a guy came a millimeter off the bag for a microsecond.
If a player runs through the bag, then they get tagged out. If you don’t slide, then you can be tagged out. Nobody needs more definitions!
You don’t want dudes basically running to the bag and starting their slide at the last second, going 8-10 past the base. It’s absurd.
I don’t see the real problem with that. I agree that it would look absurd, but it wouldn’t work out anything like that. Sliding at the last second is really dangerous, guys wouldn’t do it due to leg injuries to themselves. I don’t think it would happen as it wouldn’t provide any benefit to the runner either. They would be called out because they would get tagged due to not sliding or being overly concerned with the absurd idea of trying to slide through the bag. Why do you think they would slide so late? Guys have a hard enough time sliding as it is. If you upped the difficulty of sliding into second, lots of guys would hurt themselves.
The one thing that would actually change would be that middle infielders would not stand behind the bag, which they are never supposed to do in the first place. On that note, if runners were encouraged to go through the bag, then the slide rule would probably not need to exist. Middle infielders would simply get outside the bag as they were taught when they were kids.
That is a lot better than what we are currently working with. Allowing runners to come off the bag sounds bad, but we could give them a pass if they silde. Much like the NFL, when you slide you are giving yourself up.
Fielders will just start continuously tap tagging runners instead of applying a continuous tag. Technically, that’s reapplying. It’s a good start, but address the loophole.
If you simply reduce the time of the replay by a lot, then all that frame-by-frame garbage goes away. Managers would be hesitant to challenge as well. As things stand, every tag play is considered for a review and that is the problem. Maybe the process is even OK (I don’t agree), but if they didn’t get so long to find something goofy to look at in the first place, then this would be a much better situation. We are currently incentivizing teams to find flaws in MLB’s newer rules (slide rule too!) and it is really frustrating.
As far as your particular proposal, you do have to keep the tag on them – its important. You always tag them when they are not on the bag and then they touch it when they are out. if a guy actually slides over the bag or doesn’t touch it at all, then that is where a held tag comes in.
Personally, I would just like to see fewer replays. I would love no replays, but that is a pipe dream. If you insist on creating a better rule, the rule should be based on reaching the bag before the tag and not coming off of the bag. Its the coming off the bag that causes problems. You would have to define it as over-sliding the bag and I don’t think you can write that out in legalese, which is the entire problem. We all know what the rule should be (OK, most), but the problem becomes how to you write it.
Love the replay system in general, but I 100% agree here. The milliliter-off-the-bag-for-a-split second-only-visible-through-high-speed-camera out calls are not at all in the spirit of the game.
If you really boil down the rules behind being safe vs. out, it comes down to whether the runner is able to get to a base before the fielders can get the ball to tag him. It’s outrageous that a runner can beat a tag by multiple seconds, but is called out because, while sliding, his front foot comes off the bag a split second before his back foot snags it and holds onto the base.
This is an unintended consequence of an overall good system. If a runner arrives at a base and clearly doesn’t try to advance or overslide, he is safe. I don’t care if the leather on his cleat bent a little bit and kept him off the bag for .0002 seconds, as captured only by a $50,000 high-speed camera that just so happened to be angled perfectly this one time. That’s not baseball.
We want robo-umps, because we want to take human error out of the game. We want reviews, but we do not want them to be perfect. We cannot have both.
Holding the bag is fundamental to the game. One day some neanderthal realized he could shave off some time by sliding instead of trying to stop on a dead run. And players have been holding the tag since before even that new wrinkle. These are world class athletes, (no one is supposed to be able to hit a 100mph fastball to begin with). The slide rule was put in place for a reason. Sliding is dangerous, one of the skills a player should able to do well.
If a player cannot execute this fundamental skill (like going feet first on a pick-off throw, who does that? Wait, no one, now we no why).
The reason there was a review on the Jon Jay slide was because a rule was made to prevent injury. The slide rule. Players adjust to what they are given.
Modifying a fundamental rule to adjust for less skilled players will more then likely lead to unintended consequences. First and foremost, player injury.
That’s not what emarc27 is saying. We want the replay to perfectly show what happened, and the rules adapt to replay.
Are you sure its an overall good system? In my mind, this is 90% of the overturns. Another 5% are the slide rule, which also has problems. The umpires get most plays at first and home correct. At the point where the only thing really happening is this frame-by-frame over-analysis, why is it good? I think HR reviews are fine – they are not rally part of the system IMO.
Something similar ought to be considered for home plate also.
More and more people slide into home with their hands now to make sure they touch home. People will be busting fingers more often – only a matter of time.
This would be true, but catchers can’t block home plate, so it is not like it used to be.
Lobaton’s ankle buckled and his foot bounced off the base because he slid back slightly high and out of control.
The sole reason that he’d have been called safe before replay is because the fat 60ish year old looking at the play is positioned behind first base and not in front of it and thus his view of the foot sliding in is obscured by the first baseman.
You mean, he was safe and Dave’s point stands? Or…what do you mean, actually? You like the way replay is applied? You expect baseball players to slide perfectly and adhere to the base? You don’t know what you’re saying and are just here to troll? The most generous interpretation of what you wrote is that you favor a system where young, svelte umps stand on top of the base, and every slide gets reviewed so Olympic judges can score the slider’s form and artistry. Or maybe you’re being dumb.
Umps make the exact same out call correctly in real time at second base when the runner has poor slide mechanics and skims over the top of the base because he comes in too fast. Because the second base ump has more leeway in positioning himself to see the play so that the fielder isn’t obscuring the runner, he can see the play and make the call.
The mechanics of where the first base ump starts and the responsibilities of looking at fair/foul and checked swings mean that given their nimbleness they have no chance to maneuver into the position to make this call. And that’s the only reason he’d have been safe pre-replay.
So had the ump been skinny and 25 this call wouldn’t have needed review?
I completely agree and it’s the big reason why I’m against replay. We need to be honest with ourselves about the absurd nature about baseball, that players have to be touching a small, 12×12 ‘bag’ or else they can be tagged out. I am pro introducing technology, but I always felt that if the ball beats him, he’s out.
If you’re going to have replay, “technically out” has to be an out. If it is a problem, then MLB needs to change the rule, but asking replay officials to determine airspace on a two dimensional screen seems like a recipe for disaster. Something like a one second safe zone (one second elapsing between initial and re-contact with a base) might make more sense because no judgment would be required. I’d be fine with that rule, but do not believe the current situation is much of a problem. It is not that hard to stay on a base if you learn to slide the right way, and what’s wrong with having a penalty for those who don’t? Baseball is, after all, a game of inches.
I whole-heartedly agree with this concept. Personally, I think 1 second is too long, but a smaller window (say 0.5 or 0.25 seconds) would work well. Runners would be considered safe so long as they re-establish contact within that window.
“Asking replay officials to determine airspace” is exactly the right thing to ask, though. Because the standard is clear and convincing evidence, it’s going to be nearly impossible to overturn this kind of play, as it should be. If the replay official can determine conclusively that someone wasn’t over the top of a bag when tagged, then that player should actually be out, even if called safe. It’s going to be really hard to determine that! This also means it’s going to be a lot rarer that this challenge is made, which in turn is also a good thing.
if you’ll allow me to use the absurd to illustrate a point…at the atomic level, no baserunner ever comes into ‘contact’ with a base because of the electrical fields of the atoms making up the baserunner and the base. The only thing preventing every baserunner from being called out is the resolution of the camera used.
This is an incredibly nerdy comment. I absolutely love it!
Likewise, no glove or ball ever comes into contact with a runner on a fine enough scale, so no one can be tagged out, and since no one can touch home plate, it’s all just an endless 0-0 game…
my son just pointed this out to me as well. just when you start feeling like you were really clever, someone else comes along. well done!
This was my first thought as well. “Safe zone” seems like an overcomplicated fix for an issue that’s simpler to express as *momentary* loss of contact with the bag — that is to say, in terms of time. I don’t even think a hyperspecific time interval needs to be defined in the rulebook; it can just say “momentary” or “near-instantaneous” or something like that. The precise duration can safely be left to the replay umps’ best judgement.
In some respects I preferred it before there was no replay. Umpire blew the call, he blew the call, and everyone moved on. To me the most game-impacting thing about the playoffs so far has been the strike zone, which seems to be all over the place.
I absolutely despise the idea of a “safe zone” above the bag because there’s so much gray area. How high off the bag is too much? How is that measurable? How can you possibly justify to someone that is the most casual of fans that you can be safe even though you were out?
I think a far better solution is to determine that the play is not reviewable. With Dave’s suggestion, teams can still review the play and then we have the umpires determining if the runner was close enough to the bag to still call him safe, and I hate that we’d be turning the play into a judgment call. To make it black and white, just say the play can’t be reviewed or keep everything the way it is now.
Yikes – if you want to fix something in MLB how about returning to an honest competition instead of these obvious manufactured results
i’m not going to ruin baseball, i’m going to fix it
Namaste
If you come off the base, you’re out. Those are the rules. Just like the neighborhood rule at 2nd base, players have to learn to adjust. It’s much easier to determine if a player is on or off the base than it is to determine if a player is in a vertical zone over the base.
The problem is that physics says it is really hard to go hard into a base and not momentarily lose contact.
Then the answer is: don’t lead off from first if you can’t get back.
I completely disagree with Dave’s suggestion. Nothing wrong happened here. In baseball, if a runner is not touching the base, and he’s tagged, he’s out. There’s no grace period or safe zone. It’s a very simple, binary determination. And if the runner can’t get back to the bag because of “physics, he shouldn’t have ever left it.
Yes, there are problems and challenges with replay. But here, replay allows the umpires to correct a clearly-missed call. If we’re going to have replay, this is exactly what it’s for.
What we eventually need to find a way to do is have the “bases” consist of holograms 15 inches on a side and 3 to 5 inches tall (possibly taller; I’d make it a cube 15 inches on a side), and if any part of the runner’s body is inside that area, he’s “touching” the base.
And with lasers you would be able to tell if the runner’s body maintained contact with this virtual space; you wouldn’t even need replay for that portion; only to see when the fielder’s tag was being applied.
I agree with this but also concede that Lobaton wasn’t in contact with the base so, to the letter of the law, he should’ve been out. It’s not just, but it’s legal, so to speak.
My problem with the umps last night is that they seemed to apply the entirely opposite rationale to Jay’s slide at 2nd. The fact that he leg-whipped Murphy is a clear violation of the slide rule. The runner would’ve beaten the throw anyway and so it ultimately didn’t affect the play so I can sort of see why the replay officials decided it didn’t matter; play on. But then on Lobaton’s play they had the opportunity to do exactly the same thing and chose to follow the letter of the law instead. It’s completely inconsistent with how they handled a similar play just a couple innings earlier.
If umps are going to apply the letter of the law, they should do it the entire game. If they are going to be more subjective to do what is “just,” then do that the entire game. You can’t have 1 application in the 6th inning and another one in the 8th.
The umpires have been entirely consistent in making sure the team that would get the highest ratings in the NLCS won this series. That’s their job, I’m guessing.
Let me guess: distraught Nationals fan?
This argument is posited almost every year.
Weird how this didn’t apply to the ALCS though.
I mean its not a bad idea but it does seem to add a lot of judgement to the call. Plus it needs fleshed out to cover some situations. For instance does the vertical zone still exists if a runner leaves it for any amount of time?
“does the vertical zone still exists if a runner leaves it for any amount of time”
Good question. The answer would be no, that’s an out.
I wanted the Nats to win as well
Damn it!!! Getting old sucks! Fell asleep before all this happened. So can’t comment on who owns what base after a dropped third strike, etc. But I do NOT want to enlarge the area of the base to include some un-determined space above it. If you’re on the base, you’re safe. If you’re off the base, you are out!!! It’s a simple rule. No interpretation needed.
So then we start arguing over interpreting if a player was over the vertical area or not? No thank you.
Yup. The proposed solution sounds to me like a cure worse than the disease. “Over the vertical area or not?” is much fuzzier than “touching the base or not?” and is going to produce replays and arguments that are even more contentious and agonizing. Going in that direction only takes us into deeper muck.
I agree.
I don’t particularly like these calls right now, but the proposed fix here from Dave Cameron seems just as bad if not worse than the current situation.
As you say, we’d then be arguing over whether part of the runner’s foot or hand stayed over the bag or all of it moved inches away from the “vertical area”. FWIW, on the play in question are we sure that Lobaton’s foot stayed over the bag and didn’t also move off it slightly to the side?
It’s also easy to foresee a situation where the “vertical area” leads to a runner being called safe on a play where the runner bounces up 6 inches to a foot over the bag. That play leads to a similar complaint of “for all of baseball history, that was an out, but now it’s not because he doesn’t need to keep contact with the bag.”
To use an analogy from another sport, this situation strikes me as similar to “what is a catch?” in football, where there are some edge cases that people are going to criticize under any set of codified rules.
Also, and it’s not really important to the conversation/article. But I think you can turn left after running past first base. I believe the rule is intended to keep a player from using the overrun to attempt to advance without losing ownership of first base. If you turn left but do not make an attempt to advance you are allowed back to first base. I’ll let you all quote and interpret the rule. But I believe turning left doesn’t automatically make you lose ownership of first base.
I can’t agree with this in any way. Technology is only ever going to improve, and eventually the base itself will tell you if the runner was touching it. The ability to make these close calls is never going to go back to “well he was close enough”. No one even wants that.
Technically out is out. Getting the calls right is the only thing that matters.
Maintain contact plays are absolutely “within the spirit of the game”, that’s why fielders have been holding tags on runners after they slide into a base for over a century… and will continue to do so.
Whining that a player who was out… shouldn’t have been? Because of an instantaneous judgement call? That has no place in baseball.
Exactly, I agree with you. It feels odd to be the dissenting opinion on this matter. But hey, that’s part of baseball and opinions!
On top of the history of maintain contact plays and technology getting better, this still falls on Lobaton making a big mistake. He’s the one who did the awkward slide instead of diving. He slid with enough force with his foot that it buckled off of the bag and was wisely reviewed by Maddon.
If Lobaton doesn’t want to get picked off then don’t take unnecessary risks in huge situations. Contreras also takes a risk, albeit small, of throwing the ball away when throwing to 1st, but it paid off here. Lobaton, like many other ballplayers, is getting paid enough that you’d think they’d practice their base running and how to properly get back to and stay on the bag.
To beat the horse further, what would happen if the play were reversed?
If the Umpire had called Loboton OUT for coming off the bag and replays showed that he was wrong… would this same conversation take place? I highly doubt it. Who would be writing an article today about how replay shouldn’t have been allowed to be used to determine he actually did stay on the base?
It just doesn’t seem like a very honest conversation. The umpires definitely screwed up the Baez play, but getting things like this Loboton play correct is exactly what we all wanted replay for.
The problem with the ‘vertical plane’ idea is that sometimes the runner touches the side of the base first, and if he’s tagged after he touches the side but before he gets over the base, he would be out by this wording, which is also against the spirit of the rule. It might also turn out that some runners may think that they can get over the base fastest by making a wild leap over the base at the last second, without even trying to touch it (or even next to the base, to make a tag more difficult, waving an arm over the base at the last second). It seems to me better to have a rule saying once you’ve touched the base, you’re safe as long as you don’t make any effort to advance, and that you apply to diving back to a base on a pickoff attempt.
The ‘for all of history’ basis is weak. That said, taking up this issue is certainly valid.
But you’re overcomplicating the solution. They simply have to remove the replay decision for ‘remaining in contact.’ In other words, the replay for a base tag play has to be limited to the initial out/safe determination and not what happens after that… yes there are some egregious over-slides and such but there must be a de minimus factor applied to those.
Thoughts:
1. Ron Darling — who has been generally poor in this series — immediately called out that Lobaton came off of the bag. Darling is about 300 feet away in the press box, maybe 50 or 60 feet in the air, appears to have a generally below-average awareness rating, and he saw it in real time.
2. The umpire was in wonderful position (I mean this seriously — he did a great job of getting right behind Rizzo — but his view of the play is still blocked. Isn’t replay’s entire purpose to provide extra eyes that see things the umpires missed?
3. Javy was out last year against the Giants because he slid into second base too aggressively and couldn’t keep his body on the bag (well, really because he didn’t run out of the box, but that’s not the point of this discussion). If Javy would’ve had a better slide, he would’ve been able to hold the bag with his hand. The entire job of a baserunner is to get to a bag and stay on it. It’s among the first things that we teach preschoolers about baseball: if you come off of the bag, you’ll be out if they tag you with the ball. So simple. So should a baserunner be safe for reaching the bag first but doing so in such a wild way that they can’t hold on? No. Basestealers have adjusted their slides to account for this, perfecting the “reach with your hand and drag with your leg” slide to hold the base the entire time. Good. If you can’t stay on the bag, what you’re doing is probably unjustifiably risky.
4. The idea of an air zone over the bag is far less precise than the current regime of on/off. Creating gray areas is generally a poor choice in my book. Watch the Lobaton play. Was some of his body in the air zone over the bag? Absent a drone flying over each base at all times, how would you ever see that? (To be clear: I am not proposing the use of drones over each base. Yuck.)
Exactly, it is not a black and white decision about the definition of “above the base” means. Are talking about the entire hand/leg, just any part of it, just the part where the tag was applied? This will just lead to more reviews about the gray areas of this new rule and lots of judgement calls that people will complain about because we will never have the straight down view, even with drones the player making the tag will probably block that view half the time anyways.
No idea what your beef is with Darling; as to “awareness rating,” he’s correctly predicted complicated pitch sequences at least a dozen times during the 5-game series and often guessed their outcomes, too.
Reading the comments from last year’s Baez article, seems most people blamed Baez for a “bad slide”. Why the change of collective heart?
Dave, I like the idea but have one question/concern.
How would you apply the rule if a player performs a pop-up slide in which they go feet first and then transition to standing as a part of the slide? Runners sometimes pop-up too far/fast and sort of jump off of the bag for a second.
Technically they would be in the base Halo and be safe under your rule I think, but unlike the Lobaton situation, the runner intentionally slid in a way that made put them in a position to potentially advance another base.
Is that runner out? Do you think a rule clarification is needed to deal with this scenario?
This is meant to be a serious question: why do we even have bases at all? Why can’t every base be a flat plate like home plate is? Then you wouldn’t have to worry about the base causing a foot to pop up or players (as Trout did this year) getting injured because of how they slid into the bag.
There’s got to be an easier way to do this.
Why have baseballs? Or bats?
Why don’t we just let them sit and tear apart blades of grass for 3 hours?
It’s right there in the name of the sport
In (American) football, you get a penalty if you’re so brazen as to try to kick the ball with your foot (unless the offense is lined up in one of a few specific formations associated with a kick).
Don’t forget the drop kick! – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_kick#NFL
And, at the risk of being a bit pedantic, a punt doesn’t require any sort of specific formation. The player punting the ball just needs to be behind the line of scrimmage. We do occasionally see punts by QB’s as a surprise tactic on 3rd down when the offense has a crazily long 3rd down to try to convert.
But, yes, there are quite a few situations where kicking the ball is illegal.
I understand your ire at plays that can’t be detected with the human eye being reversed and I don’t disagree. However players have always been out when they over-slid the base at second or third or their leg bounced up and they clearly came off because they didn’t execute a slide properly. Some of the best base runners in the game have been called out because their popup slide resulted in their foot lifting off the base.
The reason we don’t allow over runs at second or third has nothing to do with the runner trying to advance. The runner came off the base and when he’s off the base he can be tagged out. Sliding is one of the skills a player should able to do well. A large number of players today don’t have that skill. Rules cannot be modified to adjust for less skilled players ineptitude.
An imperceptible break with the bag should not be punished. Players who don’t slide properly and come off the base should be out if a tag is applied.
They lowered the mound to adjust for less skilled players ineptitude.
Simple solution: replay is only available to review whether a tag was applied prior to initial contact with the bag
This stuff is also suppressing steals, because a millimeter mistake is going to be reviewed and gcaught on slow mo
I agree. Just want to add that replay calls are supposed to only be overturned is there is obvious evidence to the contrary of the call on the field and if it requires super-slow-motion, magnified, repeated views to make a judgement, then there can’t really be clear and convincing evidence. There should be a 2-minute maximum for replay and if the booth can’t easily see a blown call, the call stands.
Yeah, I basically want replay only for plays that take about 30 seconds. You watch the replay, have the ump say, “oops”, and be done with it. If you have to zoom in and look at the pixels when you time-sync up 3 different camera angles, that’s out of the spirit of the rule.
This kills the hidden ball trick, and would basically mean a runner can barrel through second base with no consequence.
Writing rules is hard.
No it doesn’t, we are talking about replay and not whether or not an umpire can call a guy out in the first place.
I get frustrated watching sports where an umpire/ref blatantly misses a call, but it can’t be challenged.
I can imagine a scenario like that happening here where the umpire blows an obvious call where the runner pops up or overslides the bag and it cannot be challenged due to a technicality in the rules.
What baseball needs is sort of a “Neighborhood” play for runners. If a run beats a tag to the base, and doesn’t over-slide/run the base, they should be immune from being called out during momentary losses of contact with the base.
Is Loboton the only player in the league who dives back in on a pick off play feet first? Like seriously, you stretch out and use your dexterity to avoid the tag and grab the base… no bouncing off! He’s like 35 years and should know better, even if he is a catcher and doesn’t steal bases.
It was suggested last year that they just get a high powered scale installed. Because there are times when a runner’s foot is on, but his soul has left the base.
Have to disagree with “We should get fewer challenges and fewer replays in general”
There is nothing to suggest replays will ever decrease in use. In theory that is true, but I doubt it.
What we need to stop is this stupid unofficial rule where every single team gets 30 seconds to review every single close play and then tell the umpire what they want to do. If you need to look at a replay to decide to use replay then it was not an obviously bad call. Replay should be used for obviously bad calls you can tell with your naked eye.
Here is my idea, if you challenge any play and lose then your player involved in the call has to exit the game. Then managers would think twice about frivolous challenges over 1/8″. Runner slides into second and then lays on the ground for 5 minutes demanding a challenge? Well if you were actually out you are out of the game. That should make them get up and trot back to the dugout. I think you might need to add something like if you lose a challenge in the 9th the pitcher has to exit the game so everyone doesn’t challenge everything on their last at bat, but it doesn’t matter since this will never happen.
They just need to shorten the time a team has to decide on a challenge. Like you said, if it’s so close that they need to check the replay before asking for a challenge, then it’s prob a play that should stand.
But where I’d like to see the technology improve is that umps should have handheld devices to see right away what the right call is on the field, without having to interrupt play for 5 minutes to dial in NY.
They need to ban access to replay in the dugout or clubhouse.
Before deciding if they should change the rule, I’d have to know how easy it is to stay on the bag 100% of the time with a proper slide. It seems to me that this type of play turns into an out a few times a year, out of thousands of slides. The overwhelming majority of the time, the player maintains constant contact with the bag.
Do these situations only arise because of poor sliding technique? If so, then that’s on the player. Learn to slide correctly, and you’re safe. If it’s a matter of physics, where you can’t prevent your foot from coming off the bag a fraction of an inch even with good sliding technique, then they can consider a rule change.
Or even better, make all of the bases flat clearly delineated circles. A baserunner is safe once he breaks the line, out if he’s tagged out first (or for a force out the defender touches inside the line while he has the ball).
This will largely remove collisions from the game, particularly at 2B, it’s an easy standard for safe/not safe calls, it’ll end injuries caused by players’ hitting the bag awkwardly with hands or feet, and no more ticky tack ‘did the player’s toe come .0001 inches off the bag’ reviews.
As annoying as it is that this is part of baseball now, I have a few thoughts.
1. Rules to sports are always changing and changing the way the game is played. Most of these rules are very minor and we don’t notice them. Some if them are transformative, like the forward pass, that completely change the way the game is played.
2. New rules sometimes have unintended consequences. Sometimes these unintended consequences need fixed, sometimes they don’t.
3. Most people here will advocate for some sort of automated strike zone to be more technically accurate calls on the field.
4. It feels like there are several people who are arguing for the game to be less technically correct.
Quite honestly, I prefer things to have some minor errors in them. The table that is unique because a woodworking error that give it character is something I would prefer to some mass produced, perfectly looking table.
I don’t mind if Umpires/referee’s mess up every now and then. I don’t mind if 90% of pitches are called accurately, most of the time the missed ones are close, and we notice the ones that are crazy wrong, and those are the ones that should be focused on.
Oh, for God’s sake . . . Was he touching the damn bag or not? If not, and the tag is on, then he’s out. Period. The main point is: what the hell is a back-up catcher doing taking such a big lead off of first when second base is occupied and Willson Contraras is catching for the other team? On replay, if you’re in for a penny, you’re in for a pound–and the right call was made in the end.
You guys talking about replacing the bases, etc., need to find some other hobbies and get out of the house more.
“You guys talking about replacing the bases, etc., need to find some other hobbies and get out of the house more.”
You say this like we are analyzing this too much, but the argument here is: treating baseball like it demands the aura of seriousness and precision of brain surgery is making the game less fun. Who is really over-analyzing, the people saying ‘don’t let this nonsense slow the game down’ or the people who want slow motion replays from 100 angles to determine if an atom came between a players foot and the base?
Agreed, this is all a non issue if Lobaton has his head in the game, but it’s not just about this play. Replays that demand a meaningless level of precision from what is, in the end, a zero stakes piece of entertainment, make the game worse and not better.
I think that’s exactly right, OddBall. There’s always going to be tension between trying to get every call right (i.e., preventing the next Denkinger moment) and trying to keep the game flowing smoothly and entertaining (i.e., preventing what Mike Pesca has called “forensic videography”). Wherever you stake your claim on that continuum, something is going to give. Of course, you can come up with new rules, like the one Dave proposed, that keep the game both fair and entertaining, but I do wonder, as others have here, if you’re not just introducing another kind of nit-picking. Perhaps this tension is, to some degree, inherent in the game – in other words, every time you solve one of these problems you introduce another.
I agree that this is a problem, and wish that these plays would lead to the players being safe. I just don’t know if the alternative Dave has offered is any better. Making this a judgement call could lead to a lot of unintended consequences itself, such as the over-application of such a judgement rule.
Downvoting for the username…
downvoting out of spite
Downvoting out of the belief that’s what Nick Punto would do.
amen.
Different rule change suggestion: just change the rule so that the safe/out determination is made at the instance the fielder first applies the tag to the baserunner. For a subsequent determination, the fielder would have to completely disengage the glove from the runner, and reapply the tag.
i.e. – no continuous tags.
Also, gets rid of issues where the fielder slightly pushes the runner off the bag, and avoids having to adjudicate imaginary space.
This sounds good, but smart fielders will just start doing a “tap tap tap” tag, which is not continuous, but sort of is.
OMG, NO. Now that we can get calls right, the players need to be more precise. Contreras made a great throw and Rizzo held the tag; Lobaton screwed up 4 different things on that play. Why should MLB change a rule to reward Lobaton and punish Contreras/Rizzo? He’s out, and the umps (eventually) made the right call. Frustrating for the Nats, I am sure, but it was absolutely the right call. Let’s not try to make rulings less precise.
Precisely. I think the reaction to this rule is because (1) replays are boring and (2) it significantly moves our honed-over-the-years intuition about risk/reward on attempts to advance a base.
For (1): Fix the replay system, not the rules. Take a cue from hockey – a replay official is watching the game and if they see a blown call, they call down to the ice to reverse it. The clock is re-set and play resumes. Baseball is slow enough that a fast replay official can probably beat the next pitch. Maybe you hate that idea, but whatever – the point is to fix the problem, not the symptom.
For (2): Players have already adjusted, especially on stolen bases. You probably see runners advance slightly less because a close call is fractionally more likely to result in an out, and that results in fractionally fewer runs per year. At the same time, Mitch Moreland tried to score from 2nd on a grounder to deep short. Sooo….?
Those aren’t the only objections. Another objection is that the use of replay in this cases has fundamentally changed the nature of this play. As Dave states, ” For the entirety of baseball history, Lobaton would have been called safe,” Why not tweak the wording of the rule, so that remains the case. As a bonus we eliminate a number of fastidious replay reviews.
I agree. Why should Jose Lobaton have to be a better slider than Ty Cobb ?
Because cameras weren’t invented to prevent ty cobb from stabbing people with his feet on his way into a base.
I think those are fair points, but I disagree with the conclusions you’re inferring.
Regarding the relevance to baseball history, I believe it to be more of a departure from tradition if we suddenly have cases where a player can be safe while not touching a base. It’s not like there haven’t been plays in the past where an ump made the correct call when a fielder makes a good tag on a runner taking a too-aggressive slide that pops them off the bag – vertically. If they are 1″ off hte bag is that too far? 6″? 12″? Those replay reviews sound more like the NFL’s “is it a catch?” circus and I want no part of that. The rule as-is has the advantage of being clear, simple to even the layman, and enforceable without debate (nobody is debating whether lobaton was out under the current rule – he clearly was).
Regarding reducing replays – I agree, that is a major problem that needs to be addressed. I don’t think changing this rule is the way to do it, and is looking only at this isolated incident. There are many other rules where a 5th umpire in the booth could quickly and easily call down to the field and overturn a play without any of the challenge dance we get today.
And under Dave Cameron’s proposed rule change, a player who bounces up 6 inches to a foot over the bag would be called safe due to the “vertical area”, when for the entirety of baseball history he would have been out if the umpire had correctly noticed that he was over the bag but not on it.
And, if coming off 1 inch over the bag should be changed to be safe, why not 1 inch to the side of the bag also?
I don’t particularly like these replay calls, but the proposed fixes to them have just as many problems in my opinion.
And, as others have said, we do know that runners sometimes – I’d even say often – slide into a bag while remaining in continuous contact with it. So I don’t see that it’s an impossible skill, but rather one that some players don’t have.
This statement from the article is not true, “every umpire in the league has been trained to call the runner safe when he gets to the bag before the tag is applied”. Runners would get called out for coming off the base before there was replay, even occasionally if lifting above the base, but only when coming off the base was more obvious and the umpire could see it with the naked eye. Infielders have been trained for decades to maintain the tag. I also get frustrated by these calls but I think the rule would be written exactly as it is now if replay and automated officiating existed at the inception of baseball but we would just be more used to these calls.
I’d prefer to keep it simple regarding contact or not. Tagged and off the bag? You’re out.
However, I’m open to a different type of bag, more of a return to softer ones of yesteryear. Not sure why the base has to be a hard plastic/rubber/whatever that has no give and deflects fast-moving players. I feel like the base could be more “baggish”, have a little give and prevent the 1 inch deflections more often.
I’m open to thoughtful disagreements on this, but what about a return to softer bases of years gone by?
this
this
Sounds right, and I’m sure Bryce Harper wants a base change, but then why did they change it to begin with ?
Not that I ever believed there was a curse, but the past three years should be proof enough that it’s over. When you make the playoffs enough, things even out and calls go your way.
Late to the party here, but Dave, what would you do about the hidden ball trick? I agree with your take here, and did when I saw it last year, but it’d be a shame (though largely inconsequential) to never see the hidden ball trick again.
My modest proposal: make the bases a little softer. Once upon a time, the “bags” used to resemble, well, bags. Nowadays they’re these hard pills with very little give, which make it a lot easier for a foot or a hand to come skidding off briefly. Soften the bases, provide them with some more give, and baserunners will be able to maintain contact more reliably.
As a bonus, the less-hard bases will be less likely to make you turn your ankle grotesquely on contact, as happened to Edwin Encarnacion in Game Two of the Indians/Yankees ALDS. (My rooting interest was with New York, but geez louise, I don’t want to see that happening, to Edwin or anyone.)
You don’t have to turn the bases into beanbags, but a little change could do some real good.
I heartily agree. If u have ever stepped on a MLB base, you’d be left thinking, ‘how do they not brake their ankles on this.’
It’s basically a hide covered spring, slick as ice with cleats on. And I don’t mean coiled bed springs, I mean curved metal cross members.
Ugh. I get replay is boring, but stop trying to blame physics. The entire point of sports is that it’s amazing to watch these players seemingly bend physics to their will.
Physics says it’s really freakin’ hard to hit a ball thrown at 98mph with 8inches of horizontal movement towards your hands. But nobody wants to ban Kenley Jansen’s cutter vs RHB “because physics”
I would very much like to ban Kenley Jansen’s cutter for the next week and a half. Otherwise, this is a good post.
maddon will
Can we just chuck instant replay? Teams are averaging <50% on getting calls overturned and that is with the benefit of getting to look at a replay first. That tells me its not being used for egregious mistakes, its being used more like gambling, "maybe we'll get lucky on this one." Is it really improving our enjoyment of the game? And for those who argue that its so important to get the calls 100% correct, well, are we there yet? Doesn't seem so. Life is imperfect.
That means 50% of the calls were bad calls. Keep replay.
Hey, why not get rid of the foul lines and let the “entertaining” human element decide those too ?
While we’re at it, can we also please automate the strike zone? I’m sick of seeing poorly called balls and strikes (Indians vs Yankees) decide playoff games. The official strike zone says nothing about how the catcher catches the baseball.
Yes. Amazing how many luddites here are perfectly happy with bad or rigged outcomes.
Players just need to learn to slide better. If going back to the base is causing you to lift up, perhaps take a shorter lead where you can go back to the bag slower and less likely to have your foot pop up.
I think replay should be a remedy for obviously missed calls. No one is looking for perfection. If you can’t reverse a call after viewing replays at full speed the call should stand.
Didn’t see this before I posted the same thing. I agree completely.
It is possible to slide into a base and remain in contact. Some might even call it a baseball skill. One that Lobatin might be wise to work on.
Sorry Dave try again
This. All day.
Not this. I guarantee you Lou Brock, Ty Cobb and Rickey Henderson weren’t perfect at this and got a few freebies despite their lack of “skill”. There’s no way Lobaton is called out in 1975, which means that the “skill” of Lobaton was good enough for the first 150 years of the game.
I would argue there were possibly as many close plays that may have been called out, as they were safe, so it is possible, even probable that it all worked out in the end. The history of baseball is full of close plays, many of which were called wrongly because the human eye isn’t the best designed eye.
4 bad calls that go against one team twice and another twice is not “working out in the end”.
Some calls change championships.
Did it “work out in the end” for the 1985 Cardinals ?
( Please don’t say “yes … in 2006” ).
Just get rid of bags and replace them with base areas, which extend to the heavens.
Myself and millions of others have been taught since little league to make sure you stay on the base. I don’t think this replay needs fixed. Players should have to stay on the base at all times while being tagged. Even calling him “technically” out is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
You say this, but if Lobaton made this exact same slide in Little League, he would have been called safe by this ump.
What he did was good enough for what they taught in little league.
Little League doesn’t have the technology to determine the correct call. They are also typically umpired by 1-2 people instead of 4, making it harder for umpires to actually make the correct call to begin with.
I am grateful that the technology we have today allows calls to be made correctly, instead of always relying on potential innocent human mistakes. I am somewhat surprised at the level of conversation with this. Seems pretty simple to me. His foot was, in fact, off of the base while being applied a tag.
I sure hope MLB can get this constant contact with the base stuff worked out so they can start to apply this technology to pitchers remaining in contact with the pitching rubber through release of the ball to the plate…
the balk will rise again!
It’s fascinating how you can see this, but the league waits until after multiple controversies to address them.
Which reminds me, did they ever rule on the “Carter Capps” ?
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-has-clarified-its-carter-capps-position/
Thanks. Our long national nightmare is over.
My post from the Baez article last year:
“I’m an advocate of the “air space rule”, which is that during a slide, once you have touched the base, as long as a part of your body is touching or occupying the air space above the bag, you are technically on the base. Replay is good enough to determine this by now.”
( -2 votes )
Thanks, Dave. I feel better.
My other idea was tassels. Still works if you ask me.
Personally I thought the umpires did all the right things throughout the game.
100% agreed that the replay makes baserunning/tag-out plays decidedly worse. Especially when the issue in question is “did the runner overslide/lose contact with the base”.
Baseball is best when people take big leads and run the bases aggressively. The worst part of the instant replay system is that it discourages fast players from running full-tilt.
I’m hard-core on this issue – I think you should be allowed to overslide the base entirely. If a guy is so fast that he slides past third base making a mad dash for a triple, do you really want to have a rule in place that requires him to slow down?
We already have overslide/over-run rules in place for 1st and home – just apply them to the other two bases! Heck, allow base stealers to run clear past 2nd/3rd, just like 1B, if that increases base-stealing, and motivates teams to put Terrance Gore types on their roster. MOAR BASERUNNING!
I have always thought that reply review should be at full speed only. Watch as many replays and angles as you want, but only at full speed. If you can’t detect what happened at full speed with certainty, let the on-field result stand.
I think there can be a balance. Line calls are different than base/tag calls ( clearer angles, fewer variables ).
The issue is the definition of “momentary.”
I think all calls to review plays should be made from the dugout by managers without having had the opportunity to hear from someone who has already reviewed the play. That would solve a lot of this kind of thing.
Are we even sure an “air space” rule would even apply here? It looked to me as if his foot slid off the bag and sideways rather than straight up, therefore he wouldn’t be in the area directly over the bag, and still out by that rule application.
He would be safe and it’s not the point.
Fangraphs is the LAST place I thought I would see a blatant disregard for the actual rules of baseball.
Advocating for a rule change isn’t blatant disregard for the rules.
Luddites are a spiteful group.
Instead of the bases being placed ON the ground, place them IN the ground with only the top 1/8 of an inch or so above the ground so as to give both the baserunners and infielders a sense as to the location of the base.
Baserunners would be less likely to pop off the bag since they would easily slide through the base yet could cover the base with any body part (arms, torso, legs) during the slide. If they are tagged at any time when not in contact with the base, they are out. Forget the “air space” concept.
Also, a reduction of hand, feet, and ankle injuries would be a great by-product.
I’m late with this, but I just read 182 comments and no one talked about one important point. Sometimes on this play, when the fielder holds the tag in the hopes the runner comes off the bag, it looks like the fielder is pushing the hand or leg away from the bag. Anyone besides me remember the Kent Hrbek/Ron Gant play in the ’87 series? Anyway, replay doesn’t help much with this. Dave’s idea would preclude this situation. My other comment isn’t new; what the hell was Lobotron thinking? There is NO EXCUSE for getting picked off. That cannot happen!
Here is how replay should be used in sports. Someone in a booth takes one look at it in real time. If the call was not obviously wrong it stands. Game on. No slomo. No watching it again and again. No frame by frame.
Just watch it again if there was possibly some egregious error. if there was not, move on.
I don’t think we need a rule change at all. I just think that all calls should be made without slow-motion. The game is played in real time and space by human beings, so decisions should only be made in real time and space without the aid of machines that can see minute distances undistinguishable by the human eye in real time and space.
Why do we need foul lines ? A paint machine is ok, but not a video machine ?
Sorry, but in a binary system, I have no patience for the moans of “but he was just BARELY out!!!” Nor do I see any practical rule change for this particular type of event that would not raise twice as many problems as it solves.
I am happy to see us looking at instant replay with a critical eye. I have been saying that this is a bad use of replay for years with little support. MLB hastily rolled out replay and they didn’t do a good job of it. If they are going to keep it, then they need to overhaul it.
It is interesting to watch the progressive narrative play out: New idea gets implemented -> People get excited and blindly support it -> Critical analysis takes place -> Progress happens. Lots of people are still in phase two, but phase three is under way and should lead to phase four if MLB is competent, which I am uncertain of. The irony is all of the games that were decided under this faulty process. If things ever get straightened out, then those teams that were wronged just lose. Once the rule gets implemented correctly, then MLB may be in a better place, but as we are discussing here – the state of the game is currently worse in regards to calls on bases. Progress for the sake of progress is celebrated, but more complex than many folks like to pretend. Some progress is blindly stepping down the wrong path.
Replay is good. Just because the league is slow to adapt, doesn’t make replay bad. Bad calls that replay corrects help the game.
I simply don’t agree. Lobaton was out. Is out. Should be out.
Totally agree! BTW I am an umpire and when I see that happen I “ignore” it. Shhhh When a player is microscopically up and over the base that’s bull.
you aren’t a good ump. quit. follow the rules.
NEIGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
If his foot isn’t on the bag and he gets tagged, he’s out. That’s how the basepaths and getting tagged out works. Lobaton didn’t have his foot on the bag, and Rizzo tagged him, so he’s out. That’s how baseball works. Technicalities are how rules works, he is technically out, so he’s out. Slow-motion replays are the best way to see if a player is safe or out at any given moment. Saying “this is how we’ve always done it” has never been a good argument.
Who is arguing that he wasn’t out ?