A question about the "no passing the runner" rule

[glenn__davis]

I don't think any of the replays are conclusive at all one way or other. What was interesting to me was when Longoria got to second, he had a look on his face that was either frustration at Zobrist for not getting a better read, or was saying "Oh crap I just screwed up." Not sure which.

[SerenityNow]

Really? Then you must have seen something that no one else has seen. A replay that definitively shows that Longoria passed Zobrist. I saw the replay from the CF camera as well.

So the real question is, was there a second spitter or not?

[primetime]

Really? Then you must have seen something that no one else has seen. A replay that definitively shows that Longoria passed Zobrist. I saw the replay from the CF camera as well.

For the umpire that's about 15 feet or so away from the players, it's an easy call.

Also, and this is just from an anecdotal point of view....do you think an umpire would make a call like this unless it was a no doubter? It's a strange and rarely occurring situation, in the most critical part of the game and I think that the umps would err on the side of no call if there was any question.

At the end of the day, whatever. It's a matter of perspective. Obviously, none of us were at field level and/or had a perfect angle of the 2 runners, so what do we really know? The umps were on top of it and made a definitive call.

[primetime]

So the real question is, was there a second spitter or not?

Roger McDowell?

[DrungoHazewood]

Also, and this is just from an anecdotal point of view....do you think an umpire would make a call like this unless it was a no doubter? It's a strange and rarely occurring situation, in the most critical part of the game and I think that the umps would err on the side of no call if there was any question.

Umpires are taught to make a decision on the spot, and make it definitive. In the split second something happened the ump reacted and made a call. There was no contemplation or weighing of factors or erring on the side of caution. He thought he saw something, and he called it, as umps do 100 times a game. But sometimes that ends up with a wrong call, or even a spectacularly wrong call.

I haven't seen a definitive replay on this one, but of course the ump could have messed it up. From the pine tar game to Merkle's boner to to Sam Rice's "catch" and last year's middle-of-the-outfield-infield-fly umps have made much more bizarre/inexplicable/wrong rulings on rare and odd plays than yesterday.

[primetime]

LOL. Of course not. Umpires have shown us over and over again that they are infallible.

The "he wouldn't have called it unless it was the right call" is about as funny an argument as I've seen so far.

You don't think the ump who ruined Galaragga's no hitter a few years ago was right on top of the play and made a definitive call? That was a "black and white" play. This is a somewhat subjective play. All video is inconclusive even though we don't have a definitive angle. Do I trust that the ump had a perfect angle and made the right call? No and no.

I watched the replay again on At Bat, the 1st base ump is actually about 5 feet from Zobrist.

And did I call the umps infallible? No.

This isn't a bang-bang call at 1st base, which umps see a zillion times and can be prone to miss for whatever reason; familiarity breeds contempt, human error because they're on autopilot, whatever.

My assertion is that this is an unusual circumstance and an unsual call to make at a crucial juncture of the game; meaning that it would've been significantly easier for the ump to NOT make it. I don't see an ump sticking his neck out to make a call like this in this situation if it didn't look clear TO HIM.

You don't feel that way...c'est la vie but glad I could give you a laugh.

[sevastras]

The way that I always understood the rule was if you draw straight lines from base to base and if in this case Longoria is further along this imaginary line than Zobrist, he is out. I have thought that even if Longoria is further away from second because of the big turn, if he is further up the imaginary line he is out.

............................................................................L

.............................................................................Z

_____________________________________________

Technically Zobrist is closer to the bag, but Longoria is further up the line in my crude attempt at a drawing.

[primetime]

Umpires are taught to make a decision on the spot, and make it definitive. In the split second something happened the ump reacted and made a call. There was no contemplation or weighing of factors or erring on the side of caution. He thought he saw something, and he called it, as umps do 100 times a game. But sometimes that ends up with a wrong call, or even a spectacularly wrong call.

I haven't seen a definitive replay on this one, but of course the ump could have messed it up. From the pine tar game to Merkle's boner to to Sam Rice's "catch" and last year's middle-of-the-outfield-infield-fly umps have made much more bizarre/inexplicable/wrong rulings on rare and odd plays than yesterday.

I hear you and it's a very good point. Maybe I'm looking at this too deeply.

At this point, maybe we stole one, maybe we didn't but it went our way.

[primetime]

Umpires are taught to make a decision on the spot, and make it definitive. In the split second something happened the ump reacted and made a call. There was no contemplation or weighing of factors or erring on the side of caution. He thought he saw something, and he called it, as umps do 100 times a game. But sometimes that ends up with a wrong call, or even a spectacularly wrong call.

I haven't seen a definitive replay on this one, but of course the ump could have messed it up. From the pine tar game to Merkle's boner to to Sam Rice's "catch" and last year's middle-of-the-outfield-infield-fly umps have made much more bizarre/inexplicable/wrong rulings on rare and odd plays than yesterday.

I hear you and it's a very good point. Maybe I'm looking at this too deeply.

At this point, maybe we stole one, maybe we didn't but it went our way.

[El Gordo]

This is the best view I've been able to find. It occurs during the interview with Lou when Rosenthal asks him about the play. For just a second it looks from this angle that Longoria might have edged past Zobrist, just before he pulls up.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=26016753&topic_id=7417714

[hoosiers]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130404&content_id=43913254&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

I look at this video from about Longoria's fifth step from 1B to his eighth or ninth and think he is farther from the 1B line than Zobrist. This appears to be a 15-30 foot span that takes place in the video using the Tamp feed around the 50 second to 52 second spot and around 2:23 to 2:25 in the Os feed. The umpire appears to be perfectly positioned to make the call.

Note one area of deception is that Zobrist changes his angle into 2B from a direct one to pivoting toward RF to make the turn to 3B - this pivot slows his speed away from the 1B line.

Not saying it is 100% obvious or conclusive, but it appears the ump made the correct call.

[Frobby]

I find this whole senetence to be in conflict. If it's not obvious or conclusive then how can it appear that the ump made the right call? Furthermore, as I've said over and over again, the ump shouldn't make that call unless it is obvious and conclusive. I watched at both parts (50-52) and (2:23-) and still don't think he passed him. I'll agree that it's not conclusive. Disagree on the rest.

The ump makes the call if it's his best judgment that the rule was violated. There's no "obvious and conclusive" requirement. But what does that have to do with whether the video is "obvious and conclusive?" The ump wasn't looking at the video, and had a different (I'd say, better) angle from which to make a judgment than is presented on the video. So, the ump could have thought it was "obvious and conclusive" (not that this is required) based on his viewpoint even if the video wasn't "obvious and conclusive." And, there's no inconsistency between saying that the video isn't 100% obvious and conclusive, and saying it "appears" than the ump made the right call.

Please understand, I'm only arguing the logic of hoosiers' post, not making a statement about whether the call was correct or not.

[hoosiers]

I find this whole senetence to be in conflict. If it's not obvious or conclusive then how can it appear that the ump made the right call? Furthermore, as I've said over and over again, the ump shouldn't make that call unless it is obvious and conclusive. I watched at both parts (50-52) and (2:23-) and still don't think he passed him. I'll agree that it's not conclusive. Disagree on the rest.

I don't see where anything is I wrote is in conflict. The only reason this appears close (or inconclusive) IMO is because of the angles of the cameras. A better camera angle, or someone's time/GPS study of the play, might easily show Longoria to be 1-3 feet in front of Zobrist.

I would bet $100 that Longoria passed Zobrist with confidence just based on the videos in the link, but not would bet my life.

FWIW, the umpire is right there. The umpire is right where I would place a camera.