Cubs-Mets Ends with Plate Blocking No-Call & Legality of Removing a Helmet - Umpire and Rules Talk 

Do you really think Charlie saw Pete's hand bouncing up off the ground by an inch from that angle? A hand would have clearly passed over home plate from any angle, including from the "key hole" or "window" where the Umpire was. I think he guessed wrong and was redeemed by replay. Better to be lucky than good.

@@baseballfan9848 I’m not that pessimistic. He made a call on a difficult and close play while the stakes were high.. A call that seems to be correct after replay. Sometimes it’s ok to give the umpire some credit. Iim not asking anyone to build the guy a statue.

@@SLC-Smudge42skeptics suck.

@@baseballfan9848skeptics suck.

The memo’s look like baby’s first powerpoint 🤦‍♂️

You're right. The rules are the same but they specifically made the plays at bases non-reviewable

Yes, they can set up completely foul, but they either need to be behind the plate (3rd baseline extended) or so far foul that they grant access to the entire "foul side" (which doesn't actually exist) of home plate. Setting up entirely in fair territory is much more advantageous to the defense, but is not strictly required. Straddling the foul line will almost always result in a call of obstruction for blocking the base path without possession of the ball.

@@teebob21 What part of the rule dictates that?

@@mse326 The part that defines illegal plate blocking, OBR Rule 6.01(i)(2). If you don't do what's specifically illegal, then what you are doing is legal.

Properly worn equipment is considered part of the player's body.

That basically already exists. It's the 3B foul line.

Nobody gaf what you think you’re seen 😂 she just explained it and it isn’t blocking

underrated line for sure!

Safe at 2nd, and make it illegal tomorrow. Like the Kenny Pickett fake slide. Or the Ross Chastain wall ride, Or like making the infield fly rule because someone figured out 100 years ago you can just drop the ball and get 2 outs. If it isn't in the rules, fine,. You did it, you found a loophole after all this time. You deserve it. Then it gets patched out.

I would argue the if he didn't hold onto his helmet he would have gripped second to stay on. Ump called safe probably for that reason.

Tell it to the judge.

@@OffWalrusCargo The ump called him safe because he had never seen it before and didn't know what else to do. The runner was just being lazy by hanging on to his helmet. I would argue that there is no difference between him using the helm (part of his gear as a batter/runner) and the runner wearing a mitten on his hand. Pretty soon those guys will start extending the mittens to gain some "reach" or adapting hooks or some other way to gain a grip on the bag. When you allow changes to the equipment (or the approach to play) used by the players - it opens the possibility of the change being used other than for it's intended use. The new change then has to be further defined, and rules further refined accordingly - then someone will find a loop hole in the definition or the rule (or both) - the rule book gets bigger and the cycle goes on and on. A perfect example is how the "rules of golf" (a simple game - hit a ball into a hole) has turned into an Encyclopedia Britannica that weighs as much as an elephant and they continually have to add "interpretations of the rules". The end result is that no one (including the rules officials) understands the rules without much debate and the pace of play suffers. In the case of baseball, decisions need to be made instantaneously or the course of play (or even the game) is adversely affected. Make a rule/law, someone will figure out how to break , bend , or cheat it to their advantage. Think Houston Astros and garbage cans and men competing as women.. There should be heavy penalties for EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF CHEATING. That is how you curtail it - society has become too accommodating of low moral character.

Baseball is fantastic and entertaining. I go MLB games often. I’m primarily here to be educated.

Alonso should have run in fair territory

Except that almost this exact thing has been called the other way before. Aside from that it’s swell.

Alonso was safe …. His left hand touched the plate just ahead of Amayas tag…. I don’t understand why he was called out!!!… that’s a very very unfair call

@@HectorSandoval-fq4cq You don’t have the umpire’s angle nor the umpire’s authority. He could’ve changed his call but then you’d both be wrong…

By blocking the plate, which is what they have always done. The runners hand came up because there was a foot on the base preventing a safe slide without the runner breaking their fingers, aka the reason the no blocking the base/plate rule exists.

​@@johnthomas1422he had the ball by that point.

@@johnthomas1422 he already had the ball and was tagging him at that point

I thought it might've come back down before he was actually tagged but it was too hard to see for sure

Personally I think he got it back down in time, but definitely not clear enough to overturn the call on the field. Review did its job, and given I'm only 60-40 he's safe I'm certainly not going to say the umpire standing right there was definitively wrong.

Slide feet first and you are safe.

Alonso needs a sliding mitt to slide like that. It's not just for the fast guys

@@dylan456 village idiots slide head first. Rickey Henderson was not a genius.

Yep. Especially when you go watch other channels and they're 180* different from what Lindsay says. What makes it so bad is that everybody that watches Channel X thinks that person is right because they flaunt "previous 1st round draft pick" and it makes people think said person knows what they're talking about when they usually don't.

MLB sent out a memo about the oven mitts by baserunners they have to be under a certain number of inches

@@tmlms1313thanks for the info.

Are spikes not equipment? Just kidding. I'm a Cub fan and I thought he should have been called out, but it was entertaining.

@@srellison561 what was he thinking?

You forgot the word detached that's actually in that statement, which is a world of difference. There are separate rules governing what equipment is legal when it's not detached.

Pete was batting and hit a double. As he began his slide into 2nd his helmet was bouncing and got in his eyes. That's when he grabbed it by the chin guard with his right hand and used it to touch the bag. I immediately said, "Is that legal?" ;-)

@@bytehauler wrong pete i think the original comment is talking about alonso not PCA

@@sahmueI My bad!

If his hand did not 'bounce', he would have been safe....

That sort of common sense approach will still work on the field in NFHS and summer ball baseball and softball, but no longer in NCAA softball. NCAA has defined obstruction as blocking any portion of the leading edge of the base without possession of the ball. Frankly, it's a good rule and it's easy to officiate.

If the throw is errant enough that the fielder must move into an otherwise illegal obstructing position to successfully catch it, like this throw, then the obstruction ("blocking") is ignored. At first I thought this was a quality throw and OBS by the catcher, but the outfield camera angle shows how wide the relay throw was from third base. Legal setup, no OBS when receiving the ball, and the runner was not hindered or impeded prior to F2 being in possession of the ball. The runner failed to clearly touch home plate before the tag was applied. Correct call. Out, no obstruction.

I feel like it's a "only counts when worn as intended" but you're right, they're going to have to limit the length (since I'm now imagining a 90' long Bugs Bunny-style extending mitt that lets them reach second from first).

If a defensive player touches a base on a force out with his cap before a runner reaches a base is the runner out?

​@@rayray4192is it in his head?

​@@rayray4192If the fielder is wearing the hat correctly, yes, the force play has been made. A hat on a head is no different than a shoe on a foot.

@@teebob21 thanks, good analogy.

@@teebob21 it’s inevitable that I’m going to see a pitch hit the sliding glove in the back pocket of a hitter. What do you suggest as a ruling? The sliding gloves piss me off because they delay the game. How in the world did hall of fame players play the game without a sliding glove? Is a sliding glove part of a player’s uniform? I say no. But if a pitcher throws a pitch that far inside I’m not going to pick up the shitty end of the stick defending him.

The review has to clearly show the call is wrong. Obviously, they didn't think it was clear enough to overturn the call on the field.

I believe tie goes to the runner is not the case. From what I understand, in the case that are not able to determine which came first, they go with the call on the field.

@@srellison561there’s been times it does but it’s considered “not enough to overturn”

As long as they’re worn as intended it’s legal…for now. The helmet isn’t because he took it off and used as an extension in an unnatural way.

How did he get the call right? Proper depth, angle, and keeping all of the elements of the play in sight. Even when we are perfectly positioned, sometimes we get blocked from seeing one of the elements, and that's where experience and intuition come in to inform our judgment. We can see the ball beat the runner, the tag was made, and that the runner's hand was over but not touching the plate. Even if we're straight-lined on a part of the play (and there is no evidence that the plate umpire was), we can assume the out was made. If video review overturns it, oh well: we'll learn from it and position better on the next play.

Batter-runners are not required to drop the bat. They are free to carry it all the way around the basepaths if they want to. However, they can't use it cricket-style as an implement to touch the base. The helmet touch should have been ruled an out.

There was no collision on this play, just a clean baseball slide and tag.

Having played 3B, you are just looking to get rid of the relay as fast as possible. Madrigal didn't have time to plant or even look at the catcher before he made the throw. If it were a grounder to 3B trying to get the runner at home, then I could see the placement of the throw as intentional.

Then the written language has to be objective , right? Some rules are horribly written. (I’m just saying in general)

@@mbdg6810 rule books should be written by a technical writer, and yes some are horribly written.

While you may be right, it is not conclusive on replay that the hand got down before the tag. Therefore, the call on the field stands.

You are describing Cricket

I think you meant "foul side", not fair, and you make a good point. However, the rule still states that if the runner is impeded (such as if there is contact) prior to the catcher possessing the ball, then it is obstruction and the runner is awarded home. I don't think there is anything to fix. I don't think this can be gamed in a way that reliably favors the defense.

Properly worn equipment is considered part of the player's body. A helmet in the hand is not properly worn.

How many power hitting 250lbers in history were amazing baserunners? I’ll wait.