Weird play in KC/Detroit game

[HaloMilliVanilli]

1-1 game, bottom of the 6th.  One out.  KC has a runner on second and third.

 

KC hitter lines out to Kinsler at second for out number two.  Kinsler tries to throw to the shortstop covering to beat the runner trying to get back to second and throws the ball away.  Runner who was on third scores on the wild throw and runner on second advances to third.  Right?

 

Not right.  Detroit appealed that the runner on third didn't tag up to score from third and was called out after the replay.  I've never seen this happen before and to be honest, the outcome surprised me.  The runner on third simply froze on the line-out to second, then took a couple of strides back toward the bag but took off once the wild throw occurred.  Had Kinsler simply caught the liner and the runner tried to score on that play (and didn't return to the bag), I'd get it.  But the fielder then making a throw to another base that gets away, and the runner not being able to advance without returning to the bag surprised me.

 

Anyone else see this?

[Biergott]

Always have to tag up on a ball hit in the air.

[Troll Daddy]

No brainer ... ump was correct.

[HaloMilliVanilli]

So when is the "fly-ball" part of the play over?  If the fielder catches the ball, throws it back to the infield, and then the infielder walks it to the pitcher and drops it in the pitchers glove.....and then the pitcher wheels and throws toward third and sends it down the left field line.....all while the runner never touches the bag, the runner can't legally score?

[YESWECAN]

Interesting and understandable BUT once Kinsler threw the ball away I think his catch was history and runner should have been able to advance.

Wish I had the rulebook interpretation.

Definitely unusual.

[ukyah]

it's not that unusual. it's actually a very basic play. the error has nothing to do with it. on a fly ball catch any runner must tag up before advancing. end of story. the simple fact is that the runner on 3rd got confused in the excitement of the moment.

[mancini79]

What's more odd is that the play was not reviewable. While the umps were talking it over, the Royals showed the replay on the video board. The umps looked up and saw the replay then over turned the call.

[OregonLAA]

They never even appealed the play, so it shouldn't have been an out. You can't get an out if you don't throw it to the bag. Doesn't make any sense

[Chimi]

The Tigers did appeal the play. The Tigers threw the ball to 3rd and the umpire said safe. That's what triggered the challenge from the Tigers.

This is a really bad situation for MLB because the umpires did something they weren't allowed to do and it turned out to greatly affect the game as it removed the run that ended up being a difference.

[Mad5577]

Bad for MLB, it end in a one run game, it was the right call but it was a no viewable play. That's like if u reverse a ball/strike call. That doesn't look so good, two teams fighting for division

[Troll Daddy]

The Tigers did appeal the play by throwing the ball to third base and then it became reviewable.

The system worked and the right call was made.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Troll Daddy

[Jeff Fletcher]

The Tigers did appeal the play and then it became reviewable.

No. Plays don't become reviewable. They either are or they aren't. A timing play is not reviewable. Period.

The problem was once the umps got on the headsets the folks who run the scoreboard showed the replay, as they are supposed to do during a review. Only the umps were told they can't review it. But up on the scoreboard... Oops. Can't unsee that.

Quite a mess. Could have been avoided if the ump had told Ausmus right off the bat "no that's not reviewable. Go sit down."

Of course then the wrong call would have stood.

[ukyah]

i want the right calls made. other than that i don't care.

[Troll Daddy]

No. Plays don't become reviewable. They either are or they aren't. A timing play is not reviewable. Period.

The problem was once the umps got on the headsets the folks who run the scoreboard showed the replay, as they are supposed to do during a review. Only the umps were told they can't review it. But up on the scoreboard... Oops. Can't unsee that.

Quite a mess. Could have been avoided if the ump had told Ausmus right off the bat "no that's not reviewable. Go sit down."

Of course then the wrong call would have stood.

Good points ... but was it really a timing play? The player left the bag before the ball was hit. He scored on a errant throw. He forgot to tag up which was a base running mistake. Base running plays are reviewable I thought? Edited September 21, 2014 by Troll Daddy

[HaloMagic]

Why wouldn't you have to tag up just because the ball was thrown away?

[mancini79]

Good points ... but was it really a timing play? The player left the bag before the ball was hit. He scored on a errant throw. He forgot to tag up which was a base running mistake. Base running plays are reviewable I thought?

Tagging up on a fly out is a timing play, regardless of what transpired after the catch. If a player doesn't tag up correctly, it' always a baserunning mistake. Therefore not all base running plays are reviewable.

[mulwin444]

Another "weird" moment was when Yost pinch hit for Josh Willingham and .370 OBP/power with Ibanez 2nd and 3rd, two outs, bottom of the 9th, and playoffs on the line. Results were as predictable as you might imagine. Truly a WTF moment

[disarcina]

That play was no reviewable -- which is really a dumb MLB rule because if ANY play should be reviewable it should be a tag up play to see if a guy left the bag early -- that's one of the toughest calls an ump can make -- especially when there's two or more guys on base and a lot of things going on --

 

but here -- PEREZ had to go back and tag the bag before advancing and he did not.......the umps initially said he did tag up -- the play was NOT reviewable........the jumbotron (and this game was AT KC's Kauffman Stadium) showed the re-play which clearly showed that KC catcher (the runner) Perez did NOT go back and tag up..........what are umps to do on a NON- REVIEWABLE play which has now been shown on the Jumbotron so now every one in the park and everyone on TV knows the umps initial call is blatantly WRONG.

 

Umps did the right thing and GOT IT RIGHT, called Perez out, upheld the appeal to third using the Jumbotron re-play to do so on a NON-REVIEWABLE play.

 

Hey, let's give some credit to KC here and the scoreboard/ Jumbotron operators there -- they didn't need to show that re-play, they control the Jumbotron, they could have reviewed it first and said, YIKES! this hurts us -- let's NOT show it -- there used to be sort of an unwritten (and IMO dumb unwritten rule) rule that close calls/ plays by umps would NOT be shown on the Jumbotron. Used to drive me nuts but the theory was you don't want to show up the umpire and incite the crowd..........

 

here KC showed the re-play, it had consequences for them (in a key game for them) but they did the right thing. KUDOS to KC.........one wonders if things were reversed and if this game were in Detroit and they showed the re-play or if the re-play benefitted KC and they showed it........one wonders how that would have played out...........

[Jeff Fletcher]

All timing plays are baserunning plays. That's what timing means. Timing between a runner and a fielder.

And the reason they aren't reviewable is that you often can't see the timing on one shot. If you need two angles at once, you are relying on the technology to be synchronized, and I guess they found that sometimes it's not.

[Troll Daddy]

All timing plays are baserunning plays. That's what timing means. Timing between a runner and a fielder.

And the reason they aren't reviewable is that you often can't see the timing on one shot. If you need two angles at once, you are relying on the technology to be synchronized, and I guess they found that sometimes it's not.

I have to disagree with you on this . The runner was never at the base waiting for the ball to be caught. He was on his way back to the base after it was caught. This was NOT a timing play but a base running mistake .

[disarcina]

yes -- it was a base running mistake more than a timing play --- HOWEVER -- there's a lot going on and the ump got it wrong -- Perez did not go back and tag the bag at third before advancing -- he needed to do so and didn't.........the Tigers made the correct move in appealing the play at third and the ump just got it wrong.......

 

the play is NOT reviewable.

 

the Jumbotron clearly showed that Perez never went back and 'touched up' at third as required by the rule.

 

I give credit to KC for showing the play on the Jumbotron in such a critical, key game for them and to the umps for making sure at the end of the day - they got it right.

[disarcina]

I still think that your more typical 'tagging up to score or advance on a fly ball' play should be reviewable.

 

I think the re-play from different angles with the technology they have today is more accurate than the ump's call on what is always a split second timing situation........

 

if any play should be reviewable its the play where the runner tags up to advance on a fly ball..........

[Jeff Fletcher]

You're playing a semantics game.

Timing play is any play in which you can't leave the base before a catch has been made. That's what he did. He left the base before a catch was made. Whether he would have just kept running home or stopped and took a step back (as he did) or stopped and done a cartwheel is all irrelevant.

He left the base before the catch was made.