Blocking the plate.

[Outlander]

I think it was a request (not a formal challenge) and the umpire accommodated him (so, technically an umpire review) .....as they will almost every time. From what you have provided it does seem clear the umpire review is different than a formal challenge with a broader scope and that all aspects of the play were likely reviewed in this case. Great point, thanks.

Oh, no I thought you were correct originally saying it was a challenge. Maybe I just misread you. But anyways, I think per the rule, the ump has to make the manager burn the challenge. He can only oblige if the manager has no challenges. Maybe there is some grey area...?

[DrungoHazewood]

have never, until now, heard anyone attempt to make the case that runners routinely failed to advance to the next base on a game-ending hit without being subject to being put out in 1908. Can you substantiate that in any way?

From page 215 of the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:

Giant fans always claimed that what Merkle did (he failed to touch second to ceremonially complete the play) was common practice at the time. If, in fact, it was common practice, then the umpire used poor judgment in deciding to commence enforcement of the rule at that particular moment, when the pennant was on the line...

...but would you want to lose the pennant on a rule that hadn't been enforced in twenty years? In the army, or in any fascist state, they have laws against almost everything, rules which are never enforced as long as you behave yourself. Then you make somebody mad, or the captain wakes up on the wrong side of the cot, and whammo. You just broke fifteen laws. Having laws on the books which are not enforced puts every policeman in the robes of a judge, empowered to decide who the guilty are today. In a free society, since the law cannot be arbitrarily or selectively enforced, a statue that is not enforced is not enforceable.

Also, this newspaper article from 1943 claims "every baserunner" did this prior to the Merkle incident. Not sure I believe that...

And the bb-ref Bullpen article on the incident goes so far as to say that Johnny Evers told an ump he was going to insist on him calling it by the rules a few days prior because the practice had become so commonplace.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Oh, no I thought you were correct originally saying it was a challenge. Maybe I just misread you. But anyways, I think per the rule, the ump has to make the manager burn the challenge. He can only oblige if the manager has no challenges. Maybe there is some grey area...?

I don't know for sure. I know on a challenge you are supposed to pick one aspect of the play (i.e tag or blocking) so I was responding to the other poster who questioned this and the quick time of the review. On the broadcast they seemed to indicate it was an umpire review though. As far as I know any such play can be reviewed by the umpire (whether or not the manager has challenges remaining or not). It's at the umpires discretion.

[Number5]

From page 215 of the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:

So, in other words, no, you can't substantiate it. You are quoted something written long after the fact that says that some disgruntled fans of the losing team made some claims? Is that right? I have never, not once, heard of any umpire not ruling that a forced runner need not run to his next base on such a play. Have you? Please do share it if you have. To tell me that some Giants fans were upset and complaining doesn't tell me anything. I certainly didn't need to read your quoted passage to know - for certain - that New York Giants fams in 1908 were upset about that play. Nonetheless, Merkel messed up, not the umpires. The rule was certainly in place in 1908. Please advise of any case where it wasn't properly enforced. Now in 1908, as today, there is no out if neither a live ball play, nor a proper dead ball appeal occurred. If the defense leaves the field prior to either making the play or making a proper appeal, the run stands and the game is over.

[Outlander]

I don't know for sure. I know on a challenge you are supposed to pick one aspect of the play (i.e tag or blocking) so I was responding to the other poster who questioned this and the quick time of the review. On the broadcast they seemed to indicate it was an umpire review though. As far as I know any play can be reviewed by the umpire (whether or not the manager has challenges remaining or not). It's at the umpires discretion.

I posted the rule. It seems to read the ump can't just oblige unless the manager is out of challenges. I don't know about the part where you can only challenge one part of play though. But if the ump looks at review on his own discrepancy, which it seems in this case he can't, he can review all parts of the play.

[DrungoHazewood]

So, in other words, no, you can't substantiate it. You are quoted something written long after the fact that says that some disgruntled fans of the losing team made some claims? Is that right? I have never, not once, heard of any umpire not ruling that a forced runner need not run to his next base on such a play. Have you? Please do share it if you have. To tell me that some Giants fans were upset and complaining doesn't tell me anything. I certainly didn't need to read your quoted passage to know - for certain - that New York Giants fams in 1908 were upset about that play. Nonetheless, Merkel messed up, not the umpires. The rule was certainly in place in 1908. Please advise of any case where it wasn't properly enforced. Now in 1908, as today, there is no out if neither a live ball play, nor a proper dead ball appeal occurred. If the defense leaves the field prior to either making the play or making a proper appeal, the run stands and the game is over.

So... did you see the other two references I added? Including the 2nd one that clearly states that Evers was upset about the rule not being enforced in the September 4th game between the Cubs and Pirates?

Not that I think that'll sway you, your mind was made up before I made the first post.

[OFFNY]

Not if the game is over.

The game was not over.

The same situation happened earlier that season, and the umpire (Hank O'Day) did not call the runner out, because he did not witness whether or not the runner had touched 2nd base.

This time, O'Day DID witness Merkel not touch 2nd base (because of Johnny Evers making him aware of the rule in a previous game against the Pirates.) Therefore, Merkel was correctly called out for leaving the field without touching second base.

It's cut and dry, whether you agree with it or not. The only "controversy" about it was Merkel being held as a lifetime scapegoat for something that many other players had done up until then ...... and have not done since.

[OFFNY]

It absolutely was the right call in 1908, or at any other time in baseball history. You are wrong on this one. The play is called "Merkel's boner" not "the umpire's boner." That an offensive player grabbed the ball and threw it into the stands to prevent Evers from making the play was an additional reason for an out to be called due to interference, although the runner that started at third, being closest to home, would be the runner that would be out if the umpires made the interference call. I have never, until now, heard anyone attempt to make the case that runners routinely failed to advance to the next base on a game-ending hit without being subject to being put out in 1908. Can you substantiate that in any way?

Thank you.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I posted the rule. It seems to read the ump can't just oblige unless the manager is out of challenges. I don't know about the part where you can only challenge one part of play though. But if the ump looks at review on his own discrepancy, which it seems in this case he can't, he can review all parts of the play.

The verbage is tricky. I disagree with the bolded. The umpire can and probably did review it on his own imo.

It's the umpires discretion on that play. "AT ANY TIME" under rule 7.13 as I read what you provided. Whether or not Buck asked him or urged him to do an umpire review or not does not really matter. Key point is it has to be the umpire making the call on his own volition to do the review.

I think the last two sentences of the rule just confuse the matter:

"A Club that has exhausted its Manager Challenges may request but cannot insist that the Crew Chief invoke his right to initiate Replay Review. Except in the case of potential home run calls, the Crew Chief shall not initiate Replay Review of any play or call if the requesting Manager has a Manager Challenge remaining".

There is a difference between a formal and informal request, and again the umpire has sole discretion to review this rule "AT ANY TIME".

That said, I do not know for sure if it was an umpire review or a challenge. I know in the broadcast they seemed to indicate it was an umpire review. Also, from my understanding if you make a formal challenge you must specify what aspect of the play you are challenging (either the tag or blocking, but not both). So if I'm the manager, I'm going to try and urge the umpire to exercise his authority to do an umpire review. From what you provided an umpire review is broader in scope than a managerial challenge.

[ledzepp8]

So... did you see the other two references I added? Including the 2nd one that clearly states that Evers was upset about the rule not being enforced in the September 4th game between the Cubs and Pirates?

Not that I think that'll sway you, your mind was made up before I made the first post.

It seems you're really only trying to argue the play because it was on a walkoff hit. What if there's 2 outs, bottom of the 9th, down by 4, bases loaded and the batter hits a homerun but passes the runner that was on first? Do you not think that an umpire would call the batter out and end the game?

So what's the difference here, the runner didn't go to 2nd like he was supposed to and was called out when the defense got the ball and tagged 2nd.

[Outlander]

The verbage is tricky. I disagree with the bolded. The umpire can and probably did review it on his own imo.

It's the umpires discretion on that play. "AT ANY TIME" under rule 7.13 as I read what you provided. Whether or not Buck asked him or urged him to do an umpire review or not does not really matter. Key point is it has to be the umpire making the call on his own volition to do the review.

I think the last two sentences of the rule just confuse the matter:

"A Club that has exhausted its Manager Challenges may request but cannot insist that the Crew Chief invoke his right to initiate Replay Review. Except in the case of potential home run calls, the Crew Chief shall not initiate Replay Review of any play or call if the requesting Manager has a Manager Challenge remaining".

There is a difference between a formal and informal request, and again the umpire has sole discretion to review this rule "AT ANY TIME".

That said, I do not know for sure if it was an umpire review or a challenge. I know in the broadcast they seemed to indicate it was an umpire review. Also, from my understanding if you make a formal challenge you must specify what aspect of the play you are challenging (either the tag or blocking, but not both). So if I'm the manager, I'm going to try and urge the umpire to exercise his authority to do an umpire review. From what you provided an umpire review is broader in scope than a managerial challenge.

Ok, I gotcha. I believe you are correct on all accounts. Thanks.

[DrungoHazewood]

It seems you're really only trying to argue the play because it was on a walkoff hit. What if there's 2 outs, bottom of the 9th, down by 4, bases loaded and the batter hits a homerun but passes the runner that was on first? Do you not think that an umpire would call the batter out and end the game?

So what's the difference here, the runner didn't go to 2nd like he was supposed to and was called out when the defense got the ball and tagged 2nd.

I'm not at all arguing that Merkle wasn't required to touch second base. I'm not arguing that runners today, or any time in the last 105 years shouldn't have to touch second. All I'm saying is that it appears that prior to this controversy it was common for the rule to not be enforced, and (at least to me) it seems like a crucial game in the middle of the pennant race is an odd time to start enforcing it.

[El Gordo]

It seems you're really only trying to argue the play because it was on a walkoff hit. What if there's 2 outs, bottom of the 9th, down by 4, bases loaded and the batter hits a homerun but passes the runner that was on first? Do you not think that an umpire would call the batter out and end the game?

So what's the difference here, the runner didn't go to 2nd like he was supposed to and was called out when the defense got the ball and tagged 2nd.

It would seem to me that if the runner from 3B scored before the runner was passed on the bases it wouldn't matter.

[Number5]

So... did you see the other two references I added? Including the 2nd one that clearly states that Evers was upset about the rule not being enforced in the September 4th game between the Cubs and Pirates?

Not that I think that'll sway you, your mind was made up before I made the first post.

No, I hadn't seen it. As you can see, my reply was to your original post prior to your edit.

Evers was apparently understandably upset at the umpire in the previous game vs. the Pirates you mentioned for his having not noticed that the runner failed to touch the base. That is an umpire error, and can still happen today. If the umpire doesn't see something, he can't call it on appeal. This happens somewhat regularly in one umpire games. An appeal may occur for a missed base or a runner leaving early on a tag-up play that the umpire simply puts palms down (safe) because he just plain didn't see it. Hard to watch the runner tagging from first while also watching to call catch/no catch and fair/foul on a drive down the left field line.

I had a one-man game last year where, with a runner on second there was a line drive to left center. The center-fielder came racing in and trapped the ball on a short hop. The runner from second was sent home by the third base coach, and was safe on a close play at the plate. The defensive coach came out to me after the play and appealed that the batter/runner had missed first base. Now, my primary focus on that play was catch/no catch, then shifted to the lead runner. I can tell you for certain that there was no catch, and the lead runner was not obstructed by either the shortstop or third baseman, and that he touched third base. I can also tell you for certain that he was safe at the plate, beating the throw and touching the base as he slid. The batter/runner advanced to second base on the throw to the plate. I can tell you that the catcher did not obstruct the runner, and the runner slid properly and did not have his cleats above the knee on his slide. I have absolutely no idea whether or not the batter/runner touched first base. You try to sneak peeks at all the bases as the runners pass, but it really is virtually impossible to always be able to do so. I simply signaled palms down on the appeal.

It sounds like the umpire in the 1908 Cubs-Pirates game really had no other focus and should have been able to read the play, but he simply failed to do so. In any event he could not make an out call without having seen it. Evers was obviously trying to get the umpires to stop being lazy. Good for him. I don't see where the umpire ruled that the runner was not required to touch the next base, only that he hadn't seen that he didn't touch the base, so couldn't call him out. There is a difference. The rule was certainly the same as it is today. In any case, the Merkel call was correct. If the previous umpiring error had been a news item and a topic of conversation at the time, then all the more reason for Merkel to know that he was forced and absolutely must touch second base on that play. The poor umpiring occurred in the Pittsburgh game, not the New York game.

The rule is unambiguous, and is not a matter of my "mind being made up", or your opinion of what rules should have been overlooked a hundred years ago. The New York Giant player that interfered and threw the ball out of play certainly knew than Merkel and blown it and was subject to being put out. So did Evers. So did the umpire.

[Number5]

It would seem to me that if the runner from 3B scored before the runner was passed on the bases it wouldn't matter.

It was a force play.