Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

You make the call..


Richard

Recommended Posts

Castro slid directly into the catcher's glove and should have been out. I could understand ruling him safe if the catcher was blocking the plate with his leg, preventing the runner from touching the base but that wasn't this case. 

 

By the way, the rule that prohibits catchers from blocking the plate without the ball isn't new. It's always existed in the rulebook but only recently put into effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very grey area.  Personally, I think if the ump called him out due to blocking the plate.  It was the ump that was in a horrible position to make the call.  If you look at where the ump is standing, or squatting, how the heck could you call a play from there?  If you draw a line continuing the third base line through home plate, he is still on the wrong side of that line.  I don't know if this is on purpose to see if there is blocking the plate or not.  

 

So this is a cop out by the ump.  He couldn't see squat, called blocking the plate.  And because he called blocking the plate, the review has to say yes, because technically the catcher was blocking the plate.  So there was nothing to overturn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think catchers can still get destroyed on a bang-bang play at the plate even with the new rule, for example the throw barely beats the runner and the catcher doesn't have time to brace himself

 

I do like the rule where runners can't go out of their way to initiate contact however, this isn't football and it's not a good or exciting play IMO.  it's just brutality for the sake of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch closely and you'll see Sanchez moves is left foot in front of the plate before he catches the ball. The ump has a clear view of that before repositioning himself to make the call. The runner is safe based on the new rule.

Edited by Lou Spirito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had the ball an eternity before the runner got there. This was flat out a bullshit call. This will stand as an example when they tweak the rule. There was no reasonable way to call him safe. " a path to the plate" should only be valid if the catcher doesn't have the ball. He clearly had the ball waiting for the runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a more detailed explanation. At the last second, Sanchez moved the ball from his glove to his throwing hand. Castro's foot hit the catcher's glove without the ball in it. Therefore he was safe since the catcher blocked the plate without tagging the runner.

 

I noticed on the slo-mo replay that the runner's foot hit an empty mitt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch closely and you'll see Sanchez moves is left foot in front of the plate before he catches the ball. The ump has a clear view of that before repositioning himself to make the call. The runner is safe based on the new rule.

Yep. He is blocking the plate, not with his whole body, but with his leg preventing access at all to home plate. Thus it is is leg that causes the out. If he just had the glove there, he'd have been out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The call was he blocked the plate. Not that he didn't have the ball in the glove. What's next? Are the pitchers going to have to announce what pitch is coming? A path to the plate should not be an issue when the ball is waiting for the runner by ten + feet. It goes against the spirit of the rule. The whole reason for replay is to get the call right. This decision completely ignored that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until recently, you would always see the catcher block the plate with his leg so that the runner couldn't reach the base (which I've always thought was cheating), but that isn't what happened here. The catcher WAS blocking the plate but he also had the glove positioned directly in front of his body.

 

The "new" rule makes sense and ensures that outs at home are just like outs at any other base, but the rule wasn't enforced properly here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would have been a lot easier if they'd simply made the rule "you can't block the plate. Period." That would have been a more drastic change to the game but it would have been easier to understand and apply.

Instead they added this qualifier "if you have the ball you can block the plate" which creates all the confusion.

In this case he was blocking the plate without the ball, but the runner hadnt arrived yet. By the time the runner got there, he did have the ball. That's why it's grey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very grey area.  Personally, I think if the ump called him out due to blocking the plate.  It was the ump that was in a horrible position to make the call.  If you look at where the ump is standing, or squatting, how the heck could you call a play from there?  If you draw a line continuing the third base line through home plate, he is still on the wrong side of that line.  I don't know if this is on purpose to see if there is blocking the plate or not.  

 

So this is a cop out by the ump.  He couldn't see squat, called blocking the plate.  And because he called blocking the plate, the review has to say yes, because technically the catcher was blocking the plate.  So there was nothing to overturn.

The umpire was in the correct position to make this call. 3rd baseline extended slighty up the first side of plate. It is where he is supposed to be (yes, I am an umpire). Personally, I might have been further up the line in fair territory to get a better angle but I do not think his view of the play (blocking the plate) was compramised. BTW, squatting gives him a better angle of the play same as a golfer squatting to read the green.

 

Do I agree with the ruling, no, but the umpires have been instructed by MLB to enforce the rule and, the managers/catchers have been forewarned it is going to be enforced!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...