50 thoughts on “October 13, 2017: Oh, Slo Mo, No”

  1. I like the suggestion that being safe at a base is being vertically above it; i.e. once you've reached safely, as long as your body stays over it, you're safe. That still makes replay useful to see who "made it there first" and if you overslide, but once you reach, you have possession. This would also reduce injuries as players would feel less like they need to slide head first.

      1. I'm not in favor of the "neighborhood" call -- if you want to turn the DP at second, you should be touching the base when you have possession of the ball. I don't have a good answer regarding the potential for injury, though. That said, last night's call should have been a DP -- that slide looks pretty stupid if there was no defender where he was, as it was not "base-centric".

        1. I was also not in favor of the neighborhood call. I understand that forcing a fielder to record an out may put them in some jeopardy of injury, so I think the matter is better incentivized by severe penalties for runners who try to break up the DP with a late slide: immediate ejection from the game for the runner, an out recorded at second and an automatic out for the batter-runner, with an unappealable suspension of varying length determined by injury to the fielder and the ordinal number of rule infractions by the runner breaking up the DP. If the fielder’s okay, the runner’s out three games (1st offense), six games (2nd offense), twelve games (3rd offense), etc; or if the fielder is injured, the runner’s out for two weeks (1st infraction), four weeks (2nd infraction), two months (3rd infraction), etc.

          1. I'm not in favor of stiff penalties based on strict judgement calls like that, not without some sort of boundaries set. If they did something like with home plate -- the baserunner has the inside of the diamond and the defender has the outside, which means overslides are taboo, then you have a modicum of basis to work from.

            1. My thinking is that, with strict, unappealable penalties laid out up front, it removes the possibility that the runner thinks he might get away with an agressive slide. Defining areas around the bag for fielders & runners at second is pretty tricky because it’s the only station where every area is within the field of play, and typically there aren’t chalklines to clearly signal those zones. That’s not to say they couldn’t paint zones in that area, but rather to say that it’s hard to assign a fielder operating within fair territory a zone out of which he may not stray in pursuit of an out.

              1. oh, he can stray where he wants, but if it's within the diamond, he's fair game. I see the restriction more on the baserunner. His goal should be the base and nothing more.

    1. I’m not so sure I’m on board. Umpires have always had the ability to call a player out at a base for losing possession of it; replay simply provides a better look at whether it happened (and can go either way, as it could establish a player maintained possession when the ump thought he saw the opposite). We can quibble about how much agency a player has over miniscule changes in possession/non-possession, but that wasn’t what happened last night. Lobatón was out because he executed his portion of that play poorly; his fundamentals were lacking in a high-stakes moment. The umpire’s delayed call suggests he was aware that Lobatón might’ve not stayed in contact with the bag, but ultimately ruled in the runner’s favor because he clearly arrived ahead of the tag. I think that’s the right way to handle that call, knowing Maddon could challenge it.

      Changing the definition of being safe in some vertical zone above the bag (after having touched it, of course) means needing to define for how long, or how far above the bag is in the zone, or determining whether personal momentum or some other force was carrying a player out of that zone. There are only two points on the field a baserunner can blow through freely without being tagged out for non-possession: first base (provided the batter turns into foul territory) and home, where he becomes a baserunner no longer. Changing that to include the other bases is a pretty profound difference in baserunning that is in direct conflict with a century-plus of play. Before concluding replay is creating a problem in solving another, more glaring problem, I think there needs to be more emphasis on players executing approaches to the bag properly, not to mention utilizing tactics like hook slides at second instead of going straight to the bag, head- or feet-first.

      1. Yeah all of your points are very fair. And even with this replay, good base stealers are still very successful (e.g. Buxton, who only got caught once and that was an overslide I think, not one of these we're talking about).

        I was also cranky because the game had already taken 19 hours at that point and it got slowed down even more. Using ninja cameras isn't very fun viewing.

      2. I didn't actually see the play at 2nd. I think that happened before I got home from work.

        I do agree that there are things that MLB could do to better protect middle infielders short of returning to the neighborhood call.

        My main beef is with excessive use of Instant Replay and with the picayune enforcement that it allows for (e.g., the pickoff at first in the bottom of the 8th). If you have to stitch together and synch two different camera angles and do slo-mo to determine an overrule, I'm not in favor.

        1. In contrast, I'm all in on using camera angles, etc. as tools for evaluating and training umpires.

        2. What plays deserve stitching & syncing camera angles? Should they not do this with home run reviews of balls hit down the line or off the top of the wall?

          1. I guess I am not a big fan of the NFL-ization of officiating. While there are some things that are pretty black-and-white, if you have to employ a bunch of technology to identify the angstrom-width difference to make a call, then I'm kind of challenged. There is nothing more important to the game than the balls and strikes calls. We joke about "robo umps" for that, but I don't think any of us are all that serious. We just want better training and consistency.

            The pickoff at first last night in the bottom of the eighth required the stitching-and-synching for the tv audience to see clear evidence that the tag was on when the foot came off the bag. I didn't like that call for rooting interests, but I mostly didn't like it because it was kind of ridiculous. If I'm gonna get a pickoff call at first, I either want it pretty clear at normal speed, or I want it Hrbek'd.

            1. I'm serious about robo-umps. I think they're getting accurate and quick enough to go mainstream. If the ump wants showtime, he'll have to get it some other way.

            2. What Rhu_Ru said. I'm absolutely serious about it. The only thing I don't know is how good the technology is right now. If it's better than the human umpires, I can't think of a good reason not to use it.

            3. So, the Wild game last night showed a nice solution on this issue. The league felt that coaches were asking for too many replays to review offsides on scoring plays. Was killing the game. So, new rule this year is if you challenge the non-offsides on call on a scoring play, and lose the challenge, you are assessed a minor penalty. Last night the Black Hawks challenged the call on the Wild second goal (to make it 2-1) and lost the challenge. They are assessed a minor penalty and the Wild score on a power play to make it 3-1. Take that Black Hawk fans!!

              This will stop teams from challenging so much on microscopically close plays. This should be done in all sports to keep the games flowing.

                  1. Now we are talking! Penalty box! Play defense short-handed for the team in the field! Automatic out for the team at bat!

                    1. also, a penalty box with a clock. Then enforce a pitch clock. Batters would stay in the box.

                      So many problems solved.

                    2. Oh, the snark. My point is that video replay has gotten out of control. Especially when you are at a game in person, the stoppages are almost unbearable. I know I am in the minority on this, but I think we need less challenges, less replays, less technology decided the the game. Just my humble opinion.

                    3. I've already stated my guardedness against replay challenges, so you won't get pushback from me. But snark? I'm the scorpion. It is in my nature.

                    4. Yes, I was laughing when I read the snarky responses this morning. I left myself a bit open on that comment. Reminds me of growing up with 4 smart ass brothers (who I do love dearly). Always had to be on guard!

                    5. I think the technology is fine, it's the implementation that's the problem. For the most part, if you just had a video reviewer in the booth and they couldn't firmly recommend an overturned call in a short amount of time, just move on. Having the replay option is nice if there is something glaringly obvious (like, for instance, in soccer when a ref sends off the wrong player, or some douchebag stomped someone while the ref wasn't looking) but it doesn't need to be used to make changes on super close calls.

    1. The NFL has enough problems, so I don't feel the need to blame it for what one idiot fan does. Of course, this clearly would not have happened at a game in L.A. There is no such thing as obstructed view there.

      1. I've been to two pro games in my life: Raiders vs. Vikes at the Coliseum, and Rams vs. Vikes at the Big A -- the several fights in the stands at the Coliseum were far more attention getting than the game on the field ~1/2 mile away from most seats.

        1. I've been to four (four and a half if you include the Nebraska/Gopher game at the Hump in 1983) and never seen a fight in the stands. But then...two were 49ers games in Candlestick (maybe there would be a fight over Merlot), one was a Chargers game (dude, fighting would harsh my mellow), and one was a Redskins/Cowboys monday night game in 1987 (Hogs everywhere!).

    2. This video represents exactly why I ditched my Vikings season tickets after 10 years (8 years ago). I saw at least 15 similar situations during the 50 or so games I went to at the Dome. Packer fan fighting Viking fan or vice versa. Both Viking and opposition fans instigators. Taking my kids to a game to watch a blood bath in the stands suh-hucked! Also, the beer vendors serving 2 jerks in front of me every week who were so plowed, they could not even stand. Yet, kept getting served over and over. I have seen over service at Twins, Wild and Timberwolves games, but rarely see anything close to the battles in the stands I saw at Vikings games.

      1. what is it with sports spectacles and over-indulgence? I go to actually watch the games, not to get drunk on horrible, way-overpriced beer.

        1. It's all about the mighty dollar. The NFL, and it's team owners, will never reduce the flow of overpriced booze to these idiots. I do agree a bit with some who feel it is the buyers responsibility, but when people are half passed out and still getting served, I think the proprietor has tremendous responsibility to cut them off. Not just for the liability and safety concerns, but also for the enjoyment of other patrons who spend thousands of dollars to attend the games.

    3. The NFL could likely improve its fan experience by separating fans into home/away support and at least not allowing opposing team colors in those sections.

  2. A FB friend offered the fol,owing thought:

    'Shudder' SelectShow
  3. Welp, I think this pushes me over the edge of the fence I was sitting on and I have to get an Athletic subscription.

    1. If you're a Cleveland Indians fan, they have 2.5 writers and it's worth it. I think Travis Sawchik is a contributor, hence half credit. Russo is still pumping out 5+ a week. The Twins have two articles since October 1, and one of them is from Rosenthal about the WC loss (other is Warne on Molitor extension).

      I hope Robson is fulltime.

    2. Yup, this might be what pushes me over the top too. I'd like to see more Twins coverage as well to cinch the deal.

Comments are closed.