Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Auggie

(31,172 posts)
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 02:41 PM Apr 2014

MLB defines/clarifies transfer rule

NEW YORK - Major League Baseball is making it simple again. Catch the ball, get an out.

When baseball instituted the instant replay rules, it essentially changed the definition of a catch when a fielder was trying to turn a double play, saying that the player had to not only catch the ball, but maintain control of it as he removed the ball (transferred it) to throw it. Now, the league has gone back to the original definition that the fielder gets one out if he makes the catch, even if he drops the ball when trying to transfer for a throw.

The play was in the spotlight Thursday night when Dustin Pedroia was awarded an error after dropping the ball on transfer while trying to turn a double play against the Yankees. Brett Gardner was called safe on the play, but replay showed Pedroia made the original catch and therefore should have gotten one out.

"There is no requirement that the fielder successfully remove the ball from his glove in order for it to be ruled a catch," MLB said in a statement Friday.

LINK: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10839416/mlb-clarifies-transfer-rule-saying-infielders-complete-control-ball-double-play-forceouts

They needed to do this

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MLB defines/clarifies transfer rule (Original Post) Auggie Apr 2014 OP
Abandon the instant replay pscot Apr 2014 #1
Hear, Hear! El Supremo Apr 2014 #2
BULL! Get rid of the DH first, and then we can talk. madinmaryland Apr 2014 #5
.... El Supremo Apr 2014 #8
I watched the movie tonite that caused trumad to leave DU... madinmaryland Apr 2014 #9
I just want to get the calls right Auggie Apr 2014 #3
It's not needed and it slows the game down pscot Apr 2014 #4
I'd rather get the call right ... Auggie Apr 2014 #6
The Boston Globe looked into it. pscot Apr 2014 #7
Huh? ProfessorGAC Apr 2014 #10
No, I'm not ... Auggie Apr 2014 #11

pscot

(21,024 posts)
1. Abandon the instant replay
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 02:44 PM
Apr 2014

and let the umps call the games as they've done successfully for the last 150 years. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

Auggie

(31,172 posts)
3. I just want to get the calls right
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 04:48 PM
Apr 2014

and if that requires instant replay, fine.

Since implementation, I've seen it work more times than not.

pscot

(21,024 posts)
4. It's not needed and it slows the game down
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 05:27 PM
Apr 2014

even more. Games are running 3 hours and more now. Twenty-five years ago a 2 hour game was considered long. Three hours is flagrant fan abuse.

Auggie

(31,172 posts)
6. I'd rather get the call right ...
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 07:32 PM
Apr 2014

what's not working is that the replay umpire is located in New York when one could make the call onsite, at the ballpark. That would be a lot quicker.

I remember the Athletics had many games go over three hours in 1989.

pscot

(21,024 posts)
7. The Boston Globe looked into it.
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 09:03 PM
Apr 2014

Watch a game from 1969, as the Globe did, and there is no walkup music. There is no preening (and there are no batting gloves). The look-at-me showmanship doesn’t exist.

It is like watching a current game on 1.5 speed, which makes sense, because the 1969 game, a complete-game win for Orioles pitcher Mike Cuellar, took just 2 hours, 21 minutes to play. There are still mound conferences. Trainers still come out to look at hit batsmen. It just all happens faster.

It’s not that the batters stay in the box after every pitch. But they do after some of them. The twitches — where they exist — consist mostly of a few kicks of the dirt, a few swings of the bat. When he walks to the plate, Carl Yastrzemski rubs a little dirt on his palms. That’s all.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/06/08/why-baseball-games-
takelong/wikaeRMGatBDGDefpbFE1H/story.html

Things changed with all the new stadiums and all the new tricks designed to extract money from the fans. The longer they can keep us in place, the more money we'll spend. OTOH, maybe Scully is right and it's all about the Velcro.

ProfessorGAC

(65,054 posts)
10. Huh?
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:58 AM
Apr 2014

You're blaming something that has only been going on for 4 weeks for the longer games?
The long games have been a problem for 20 years, not 4 weeks.
Besides, managers arguing with umpires to actually not change anything takes time too.
I need WAY more time and data to support that replay is taking any more time than manager/umpire arguments.

Auggie

(31,172 posts)
11. No, I'm not ...
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 12:32 PM
Apr 2014

pscot is pointing the finger at replay for the cause behind even longer games. I'm not debating that. I said that if replays were reviewed at the ballpark by an on-site dedicated replay official, they would happen more quickly.

And I'll reiterate: just get the call right. If that tacks on 4 to 8 minutes per game, fine.

For anyone hoping for a return to speedier games, forget about it. That ship sailed in the 1980s. There's no conspiracy to "milk fans." The game has evolved … and managing styles have changed.

Old facts (2010), but facts none-the-less (link at bottom):

The average time to complete a nine-inning game in the 1970s -- not including on-field delays -- was two hours and 30 minutes. That increased to an average of 2:57 in the 10-year span from 2000-09. Through Thursday (2010), this year's league average was 2:51, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.

In the playoffs, game times have been longer. Last season, nine-inning regular-season games lasted an average of 2:52, while in the postseason, that number jumped to 3:30, according to STATS LLC.

SNIP

"The games have become longer, in part because of good baseball," said journalist George Will, a Pulitzer Prize winner who has written two best-selling baseball books and is also part of Selig's 14-member committee.

"The running game has made a bit of a comeback, there's more throwing over to first base; teams ... understand that batters going deeper into the count will wear down the starting pitcher and get into the other team's middle relief sooner. These are all good baseball reasons, but there are also other reasons. Particularly, too much time between pitches, which is sometimes a fault of the pitcher and sometimes a fault of the batters stepping out of the batter's box."

SNIP

Because (Yankees-Red Sox) games are so often on national TV -- leading to longer commercial breaks -- and because their games frequently come down to the wire and many of their hitters are patient, taking more pitches than most teams, the average time for Yankees-Red Sox games has been longer than the league average by at least seven minutes -- and up to 40 minutes -- every year since 2000.

SNIP

Last season (2009), according to Elias, the Yankees were first in pitches seen by batters with 25,066, and the Red Sox were second at 25,005. The league average was 23,894.

LINK: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100613&content_id=11167658&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb


There you go:

Better baseball

Batters working the count

More pitching changes

Longer commercial breaks between innings

And ... replay.






Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Sports»MLB defines/clarifies tra...