Worst blown call ever?

[89Hen]

Oh c'mon - surrender in baseball is quitting the play before reaching the base in the belief that you're out

And I stand by my claim.

[JoltinJoe]

BTW, THIS is the worst blown call ever.

It was a bad call, but it was a judgment call, and the ump just judged it wrong. And it ultimately had no impact on the outcome of the series.

MacPhail's call that I cited above is the worst because it was NOT a judgment call; he had the luxury of time; there was established precedent, for years, calling a player out for using a bat with too much pine tar; and he blatantly embarrassed his umpires largely because of a grudge against the Yankees owner.

I would excuse any judgment call, even the worst ones, before I excuse MacPhail, because blown calls are mistakes (and we all make mistakes), while MacPhail threw his umps under the bus for malicious reasons.

[Big McLargehuge]

but it affected a piece of baseball history. this game last nite was just a game in July... no big deal... if it was a playoff game, than perhaps I would feel differently.... Aside from that, I aint convinced the guy was out...

Sorry, but baseball history is secondary to a playoff race.

The Pirates being in a playoff race is baseball history

[89Hen]

The rule book is pretty clear. An illegal bat is, among other things, a bat in which pine tar exceeded 18 inches from the bat handle, and the penalty for using an illegal bat is that the batter is out.

If you don't like the rule, change it. But it was an unconscionable betrayal for MacPhail, the AL president, to throw the umps under the bus like that in such a public fashion.

The funny thing is they never changed the rule. They just ignore it now.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on both accounts. There was no penalty spelled out and now there is actually a note making it very clear that the penalty is NOT an out or ejection.

1.10(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.

[dbackjon]

The rule book is pretty clear. An illegal bat is, among other things, a bat in which pine tar exceeded 18 inches from the bat handle, and the penalty for using an illegal bat is that the batter is out.

If you don't like the rule, change it. But it was an unconscionable betrayal for MacPhail, the AL president, to throw the umps under the bus like that in such a public fashion.

The funny thing is they never changed the rule. They just ignore it now.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on both accounts. There was no penalty spelled out and now there is actually a note making it very clear that the penalty is NOT an out or ejection.

1.10(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.

Burn baby burn

[JoltinJoe]

The rule book is pretty clear. An illegal bat is, among other things, a bat in which pine tar exceeded 18 inches from the bat handle, and the penalty for using an illegal bat is that the batter is out.

If you don't like the rule, change it. But it was an unconscionable betrayal for MacPhail, the AL president, to throw the umps under the bus like that in such a public fashion.

The funny thing is they never changed the rule. They just ignore it now.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on both accounts. There was no penalty spelled out and now there is actually a note making it very clear that the penalty is NOT an out or ejection.

1.10(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.

There absolutely was a penalty spelled out at the time. The umpires correctly applied the rule and the AL president should have backed them up, rather than embarrass them.

They have in fact now changed the rule. I was wrong on that point.

A baseball player may apply pine tar on the gripping end of the bat in order to improve grip. Too much pine tar, however, is illegal: according to Rule 1.10(c) of the Major League Baseball Rulebook, it is not allowed more than 18 inches up from the bottom handle. An infamous example of the rule in execution is the Pine Tar Incident on July 24, 1983, when Kansas City Royals third baseman George Brett was called out after hitting an apparent home run, because after comparing the length of the pine-tar treated area to the width of home plate (17 inches), the umpire determined too much of the bat was covered with pine tar. At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, the penalty for which is that the batter is declared out according to Rule 6.06. Nonetheless, at the time, the out call was challenged and overruled, and the game was resumed on August 6, starting after the now-upheld home run. Rules 1.10 and 6.06 were later changed to reflect the intent of Major League Baseball, as exemplified by the Commissioner's ruling. Rule 1.10 now only requires that the bat be removed from the game if discovered after being used in a game; it no longer necessitates any change to the results of any play which may have taken place. Rule 6.06 refers only to bats that are "altered or tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction on the baseball. This includes, bats that are filled, flat-surfaced, nailed, hollowed, grooved or covered with a substance such as paraffin, wax, etc." It no longer makes any mention of an "illegally batted ball."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_b ... egulations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

There absolutely was a penalty spelled out at the time. The umpires correctly applied the rule and the AL president should have backed them up, rather than embarrass them.

If you're going to use Wiki, then use it for everything...

At the time, MLB Rule 1.10(b) stated: "The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." However, the rule did not indicate any possible penalty for the batter, or even if one was permitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident

Strike two.

[Rob Iola]

Oh c'mon - surrender in baseball is quitting the play before reaching the base in the belief that you're out

And I stand by my claim.

Since we're quoting rules - here's the official MLB rule on "abandoning his effort to touch the next base" ("surrender" is not an MLB rule - it only appears in softball and certain youth leagues):

7.08
Any runner is out when --
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his baseline to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner's baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely; or (2) after touching first base, he leaves the baseline, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base;
Rule 7.08(a) Comment: Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the baseline heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner.
...
PLAY. Runner believing he is called out on a tag at first or third base starts for the dugout and progresses a reasonable distance still indicating by his actions that he is out, shall be declared out for abandoning the bases.

[89Hen]

Since we're quoting rules - here's the official MLB rule on "abandoning his effort to touch the next base" ("surrender" is not an MLB rule - it only appears in softball and certain youth leagues):

I wasn't talking about it as a rule or even literally, maybe that's the confusion. I was saying the runner basically knew he was dead to rights, slid three feet too early and put his hands out to absorb the tag.

To be honest, I've never heard of surrender as a rule.

[JoltinJoe]

There absolutely was a penalty spelled out at the time. The umpires correctly applied the rule and the AL president should have backed them up, rather than embarrass them.

If you're going to use Wiki, then use it for everything...

At the time, MLB Rule 1.10(b) stated: "The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game." However, the rule did not indicate any possible penalty for the batter, or even if one was permitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident

Strike two.

Your wiki cite is wrong and mine is right.

At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, the penalty for which is that the batter is declared out according to Rule 6.06. Nonetheless, at the time, the out call was challenged and overruled, and the game was resumed on August 6, starting after the now-upheld home run. Rules 1.10 and 6.06 were later changed to reflect the intent of Major League Baseball, as exemplified by the Commissioner's ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_b ... egulations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

Your wiki cite is wrong and mine is right.

You said "There absolutely was a penalty spelled out at the time." when clearly there wasn't. They had to use another rule to try to justify their incorrect actions. The ruling was correctly overturned and the rule was made clear based on this correct ruling.

[89Hen]

On top of all this, the Pine Tar Incident was in a regular season game in July and neither the Yankees nor the Royals were in a position to make the playoffs that year. How important was that ruling?

The Jeffrey Maier incident was in the bottom of the 8th in game one of the ALCS. This isn't even close as to which one was worse.

[JoltinJoe]

Your wiki cite is wrong and mine is right.

You said "There absolutely was a penalty spelled out at the time." when clearly there wasn't. They had to use another rule to try to justify their incorrect actions. The ruling was correctly overturned and the rule was made clear based on this correct ruling.

Let's try this again.

At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, the penalty for which is that the batter is declared out according to Rule 6.06. Nonetheless, at the time, the out call was challenged and overruled, and the game was resumed on August 6, starting after the now-upheld home run. Rules 1.10 and 6.06 were later changed to reflect the intent of Major League Baseball, as exemplified by the Commissioner's ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_b ... egulations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules...

By that umpiring crew. Not by MLB. Who's ruling stands in the rule books today?

[89Hen]

Only a Yankees fan could keep this discussion going.

[JoltinJoe]

Only a Yankees fan could keep this discussion going.

Translation: Oops, I was wrong.

BTW, here's a 1983 article from a Kansas City newspaper at the time of the game, which explains the interplay of the various rules in effect at the time (and which proves I was right )

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x1470911292/ ... -about-bat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first rule, 1.10(b) of the "Official Baseball Rules" states that pine tar or other substances may not be applied to the bat's surface more than 18 inches from the end of the handle. "Any such material, including pine tar, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, in the umpire's judgment shall cause the bat to be removed from the game," the rule says.

Rule 6.06(d) says that if such a doctored bat is used, the batter is out and "the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by the league president."

[Gil Dobie]

Refs are part of the game, time to move on, or be like some NDSU fans that carry on about it forever.

[AZGrizFan]

Refs are part of the game, time to move on, or be like some NDSU fans that carry on about it forever.

Hey, JBB and lakesbison, he's talking to you.

[Ivytalk]

Only a Yankees fan could keep this discussion going.

Translation: Oops, I was wrong.

BTW, here's a 1983 article from a Kansas City newspaper at the time of the game, which explains the interplay of the various rules in effect at the time (and which proves I was right )

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x1470911292/ ... -about-bat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first rule, 1.10(b) of the "Official Baseball Rules" states that pine tar or other substances may not be applied to the bat's surface more than 18 inches from the end of the handle. "Any such material, including pine tar, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, in the umpire's judgment shall cause the bat to be removed from the game," the rule says.

Rule 6.06(d) says that if such a doctored bat is used, the batter is out and "the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by the league president."

Well said, Horace Clarke. Or was that Jake Gibbs?

[JoltinJoe]

Translation: Oops, I was wrong.

BTW, here's a 1983 article from a Kansas City newspaper at the time of the game, which explains the interplay of the various rules in effect at the time (and which proves I was right )

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x1470911292/ ... -about-bat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first rule, 1.10(b) of the "Official Baseball Rules" states that pine tar or other substances may not be applied to the bat's surface more than 18 inches from the end of the handle. "Any such material, including pine tar, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, in the umpire's judgment shall cause the bat to be removed from the game," the rule says.

Rule 6.06(d) says that if such a doctored bat is used, the batter is out and "the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by the league president."

Well said, Horace Clarke. Or was that Jake Gibbs?

Maybe Von Hayes a/k/a "Mr. 5-for-1"

[Ivytalk]

Well said, Horace Clarke. Or was that Jake Gibbs?

Maybe Von Hayes a/k/a "Mr. 5-for-1"

Touche, Hector Lopez!

[89Hen]

Only a Yankees fan could keep this discussion going.

Translation: Oops, I was wrong.

BTW, here's a 1983 article from a Kansas City newspaper at the time of the game, which explains the interplay of the various rules in effect at the time (and which proves I was right )

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x1470911292/ ... -about-bat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first rule, 1.10(b) of the "Official Baseball Rules" states that pine tar or other substances may not be applied to the bat's surface more than 18 inches from the end of the handle. "Any such material, including pine tar, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, in the umpire's judgment shall cause the bat to be removed from the game," the rule says.

Rule 6.06(d) says that if such a doctored bat is used, the batter is out and "the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by the league president."

Nope.

Rule 6.06(d) He uses or attempts to use a bat that, in the umpire's judgment, has been altered or tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction on the baseball. This includes, bats that are filled, flat-surfaced, nailed, hollowed, grooved or covered with a substance such as paraffin, wax, etc.
No advancement on the bases will be allowed and any out or outs made during a play shall stand.
In addition to being called out, the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by his League President.

STRIKE THREE, YER OUT!

[JoltinJoe]

Translation: Oops, I was wrong.

BTW, here's a 1983 article from a Kansas City newspaper at the time of the game, which explains the interplay of the various rules in effect at the time (and which proves I was right )

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x1470911292/ ... -about-bat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first rule, 1.10(b) of the "Official Baseball Rules" states that pine tar or other substances may not be applied to the bat's surface more than 18 inches from the end of the handle. "Any such material, including pine tar, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, in the umpire's judgment shall cause the bat to be removed from the game," the rule says.

Rule 6.06(d) says that if such a doctored bat is used, the batter is out and "the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by the league president."

Nope.

Rule 6.06(d) He uses or attempts to use a bat that, in the umpire's judgment, has been altered or tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction on the baseball. This includes, bats that are filled, flat-surfaced, nailed, hollowed, grooved or covered with a substance such as paraffin, wax, etc.
No advancement on the bases will be allowed and any out or outs made during a play shall stand.
In addition to being called out, the player shall be ejected from the game and may be subject to additional penalties as determined by his League President.

STRIKE THREE, YER OUT!

Are you so dense that you don't grasp that the rule has changed since 1983??

At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, the penalty for which is that the batter is declared out according to Rule 6.06. Nonetheless, at the time, the out call was challenged and overruled, and the game was resumed on August 6, starting after the now-upheld home run. Rules 1.10 and 6.06 were later changed to reflect the intent of Major League Baseball, as exemplified by the Commissioner's ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_b ... egulations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andy7171]

I watched it about 10 times....I know that most times the ump gives the defense the call there on a swipe tag, but it appeared to me that he DID actually miss him. Sucks to end a game that way, but I think the ump actually got it right.

This. I think he did miss him, but I think if you can let the ghost tag in a double play slide, this should be an out too.

[dbackjon]

I watched it about 10 times....I know that most times the ump gives the defense the call there on a swipe tag, but it appeared to me that he DID actually miss him. Sucks to end a game that way, but I think the ump actually got it right.

This. I think he did miss him, but I think if you can let the ghost tag in a double play slide, this should be an out too.

Ump and MLB have admitted he blew the call