A question about the "no passing the runner" rule

[Ohfan67]

Such a weird play. I think the ump had a good angle, but based on the replays it looks like a bad call. BUT...I thought it was strange that the umpire made such a fast, emphatic call and that the runner didn't go nuts. This might be a situation where the camera angle makes it impossible to see just what happened. I know the offset camera angle from center field certainly makes it hard to accurately see strikes and balls and often makes strikes look like balls and vice-versa. Definitely a weird play and I would be really steamed if it had been called on Orioles...but willing to believe that the umpire had a much better view than the replays give us.

[El Gordo]

So what you are saying is that the ump had a bad angle? Yessssss! Thank you!

Yeah if that is where he made the call. It was as good an angle as he could get, but the call was much too marginal. One reason why we should have replay.

[Frobby]

Yeah if that is where he made the call. It was as good an angle as he could get, but the call was much too marginal. One reason why we should have replay.

Replay wouldn't have been clear enough to overturn that call IMO, assuming MLB would follow the NFL rule that you need "clear visual evidence" that the call on the field was wrong.

[elextrano8]

Thanks for not answering it again.

And yes, it does have a bearing on the argument. The fact is that it was far from clear that Longoria passed Zobrist. Unless it was clear, it's a call that just shouldn't be made. We'd all be going crazy if it happened against the O's.

Sorry it wasn't clear enough; I thought "I am often irrational in my Orioles fandom" was making it clear that I'd be pissed if the call went the other way, but I guess not. I'm still unclear what that proves about whether or not Longoria passed Zobrist.

It may well have been a horrible call, but until I see a better angle (or at least, the umpire who made the call's view) I have no evidence to come to such a conclusion.

Edit: by "went the other way" I mean if the situations were reversed - I had no idea they were even close as the game was going on, so if the umpire hadn't made the call I wouldn't have even noticed.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

So what you are saying is that the ump had a bad angle? Yessssss! Thank you!

No matter the angle, the umpire was literally 8' away from the play. You don't need superhuman depth perception to see who is winning a race when you're standing that close. The best shots we have are taken at a large angle over 200' away or directly behind the runners.

Could it be a bad call? Sure. Can I say emphatically that is was? No. Bottom line, I'm with Frobby, I'd be more angry at Longoria for making it that close to begin with. There is no advantage for him staring at the ball in that situation. 50% of his attention needed to be on Zobrist.

[CSB Jack]

Thanks for not answering it again.

And yes, it does have a bearing on the argument. The fact is that it was far from clear that Longoria passed Zobrist. Unless it was clear, it's a call that just shouldn't be made. We'd all be going crazy if it happened against the O's.

I'll answer the question. If it was the Orioles that were on the wrong end of this play I would probably be trying to rationalize that the ump shouldn't have made the call if he wasn't sure, and would be claiming that the video replays were inconclusive. However, I would also have been upset at the batter for even giving the umpire the chance to make that call by even being that close.

As for whether or not the umpire should make that call unless it was clear, if in the umpire's mind it WAS clear then he HAS to make that call. They do that all the time, they make the calls as they see them as they happen in real time. This isn't like basketball or football where there is a lot of discretion on whether or not to call something when you could often make calls on every play. This was a case where something sure looked out of the ordinary and the umpire made the call as he saw it. If he hadn't made the call he'd have gotten quite an argument from Showalter and the Orioles.

To turn the question back around the other way, if the umpire did NOT make that call and Showalter, Wieters, Johnson, and Davis - the manager and the players closest to the play - all were arguing strongly that they saw it and Longoria, in their mind, definitely crossed planes with Zobrist would you sanguinely accept that the umpire shouldn't call it because it's not clear on any replay angle available?

[Hallas]

So what you are saying is that the ump had a bad angle? Yessssss! Thank you!

I think it's impossible to have a good angle on the play unless there's an ump in the press box or a blimp. There isn't a single on-field angle that wouldn't have distortions that the ump would have to figure out.

As you said, in these situations the start and end points are 2-dimensional planes that are parallel, so the shortest distance to reach that plane is usually the definition you go by. And there's no real way to ascertain that without a birds-eye view.

[CSB Jack]

Absolutely would accept it if he did not make the call and the O's argued he should have. The replays, IMO, do not support the idea that Longoria passed Zobrist. Hey! I don't mind getting calls. I just like to think I'm objective enough to know it it's the right call or not. When Reimold walked in the 9th last night, the 2-2 pitch was borderline low but according to the pitchtracker it barley touched the bottom of the zone. The Umps NEVER call that pitch a strike. In fact, they rarely call many strikes at the lower end of the pitchtracker zone strikes. The Rays announcer (Brian Anderson) complained it was a strike. I thought he was being a homer in that case. I'm not trying to be anti-Oriole. Just calling the plays the way I see them and trying to be objective, which I feel like, many on here are not being. Does it take away from the win, that we could a big break on that call? Not for me. Sometimes you get the breaks and sometimes the other guys get the breaks. Let's just acknowledge that it was a break.

Absolutely it was a break, and a big one. Even bigger is that the hit stayed in the ballpark. But even if it had been a HR, the Orioles still would have had a one run lead. To be sure, it's much better for the Orioles to have Longoria called out on what was a play that was far from certain than any other option that could have happened on that play.

[blid]

Imagine an intersecting line that is perpendicular to the base path. If the lead runner is behind that line and the trailing runner is in front of it, then he would have passed the runner.

[TonySoprano]

It was karma for Steve Irwin

[Sport Foo]

I am not sure how I felt about this call, looking at the angles its hard to say Longoria passed him, but its also hard to say he didn't. The shortest path of travel from A to B is a straight line, and Zobrist was running a straight line, Longoria was not. I believe at the Arc Zobrist was closer to second but he was also closer to first, so does that mean he was passed or not?

It is so tough, and I don't believe it was a bad call, but I believe not matter how he called it someone else could challenge it. So maybe if the ump stood in the infield grass and looked at Zobrist with his line of vision heading towards right field, did any part of his body cover Longoria running behind him? If so maybe that is how the call was made.

Who knows? ... Just glad we won.

[CSB Jack]

Not a terrible call. It was too close for it to be terrible either way. I'm pretty sure Longoria passed him about 15 feet before second base, before slowing up. That is, if you were to draw lines perpendicular to the line between 1st and 2nd base that go through each player, the line that went through Longoria was closer to second than the line through Zobrist about 15 feet before second.

This is the best description I have seen of how I believe the rule should be interpreted. Although the point at which the umpire made the call was well before within 15 feet of second base. From what I have seen of pictures and replay there isn't an angle I've seen that would allow me to say that Longoria looks to me to have passed Zobrist. However, it is clear from the reaction of the players on both teams that it was certainly close enough to raise the possibility. On the TB feed the announcers even commented on it as the play was developing, though once it was called they did not think it should have been called because they did not think it was clear that the passing had taken place.

[blid]

Sometimes you get video evidence that an ump blew a call. This isn't one of those times because we don't have a good angle ourselves. It was a close play, and from the TV angle it did not look like Longoria quite passed him, but it wasn't a conclusive angle. So while there are many times you can say an ump got a call wrong, here you can only speculate that it was wrong. Even if you're angry, you have to admit if the umpire was sure he saw it, he may know better than you do.

[SrMeowMeow]

Well, RZNJ, you are definitely right that this board and the state of Florida would be on fire right now if that had happened to us, but I feel like you kind of provoked people into it. This makes me feel...morally ambiguous, and hungry.

Looks like a blown call to me. If it had not been made, I can't imagine anyone saying "OMG Longoria should have been out" because this situation never happens and it didn't look at all like Longoria passed Zobrist.

Mmm...pepperoncini!

[elextrano8]

This is the best description I have seen of how I believe the rule should be interpreted. Although the point at which the umpire made the call was well before within 15 feet of second base. From what I have seen of pictures and replay there isn't an angle I've seen that would allow me to say that Longoria looks to me to have passed Zobrist. However, it is clear from the reaction of the players on both teams that it was certainly close enough to raise the possibility. On the TB feed the announcers even commented on it as the play was developing, though once it was called they did not think it should have been called because they did not think it was clear that the passing had taken place.

I'll second you on the interpretation of the rule. Given how rarely it happens and how obscure the rule is, I doubt that the umpire would have made the call unless he were certain that Longoria had passed Zobrist. That is not saying the call was correct or it was clear enough for the umpire to truly make a determination. I'm saying that we don't have adequate information to determine either way. I have yet to see a replay or a view that clearly slowed Longoria passing Zobrist. I will be more than willing to concede that it was a bad call if it proves to be such, but as I've said repeatedly, I've yet to see an angle that proves it for me, and until then I won't condemn the call as terrible.