Dave Martinez Accuses Elly De La Cruz of Illegal Bat, De La Cruz Gets Revenge - What The Rules Say

Nationals manager Dave Martinez accused Reds 3B Elly De La Cruz of an illegal bat in the 2nd inning, spurring Crew Chief Adrian Johnson's call to Replay HQ and HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott's order to remove a data device. De La Cruz got revenge later on with a home run. Here's the rule. Article: www.closecalls...
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Discord: / discord
Although Official Baseball Rule 3.02 describes a legal bat (and what alterations potentially could make it illegal), OBR 6.03(a)(5) concerning batter illegal action is the meat of the illegal bat issue.
It delineates what exactly makes a bat illegal-namely, that it 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."
De La Cruz appeared to have a Blast Cap data collection device on the knob of his bat, which is used to collect statistics information-the sabermetric measures like bat speed that we've come to expect from baseball.
Martinez wasn't having any of it and had umpires order it removed in the 2nd inning, resulting in a De La Cruz strikeout.
In the 5th though, De La Cruz returned to the plate with the Blast Cap back on his bat knob...knowing full well that pursuant to OBR 6.03(a)(5) and the corresponding umpire manual Interpretation, Martinez was unable to request another illegal bat inspection for the remainder of the game.

[@sebbohnivlac]

An inspection request should be a challenge. You're challenging that the equipment is legal. If you're correct, you keep your challenge. If you're wrong, you lose it.

[@LindsayImber1]

This seems fair and logical to me.

[@route2070]

But did anyone tell Martinez that it's allowed? Also 1 request per game? If everyone on a team uses an illegal bat, the manager can say something once? If that's allowed that needs to be on the book.

[@muadhib001]

That's how it works in hockey more or less. The party that is wrong gets a 2 min penalty

[@ericblair5731]

Nothing wrong with that, but we should note that the bat seemingly failed the first inspection. The Umpire told the batter to remove the item from the bat. And then promptly forgot about his prior ruling and failed to enforce the rules on De La Cruz's second at bat?!?

[@HeinousAnus95]

@@ericblair5731 they got the ruling back from mlb before his next at bat. It was approved by mlb before the start of the season. So he was allowed to use it all along.

[@Gigitygoo55]

This happened a couple of years ago to Nick Castellanos when he was a red. His bat was chipped and umps inspected it and told him just not to use it anymore. So he gave it to a kid 😊

[@sportsloverbaseball]

I remember. The Cardinals asked after he hit a grand slam 😂

[@ChristianClayton2000]

@@sportsloverbaseballso do I. 😂

[@sportsloverbaseball]

@@ChristianClayton2000 I’m not sure if I remember cause I’m a cubs fan or if I just remember. Either way, I will never forget lmao.

[@legalizeweed3830]

I remember that. He was on a hot streak. But he said he was fine with not using it anymore.

[@rj7411]

Love the humor you insert into these goofy manager challenges. Well done Lindsay!

[@clevelandohiofan]

"Interpretation 69 nicely states..." I see what you did there 😂

[@1969EType]

So, the Commissioner has approved use of the Blast Cap? But, the umpires don’t know about this “approval”? Why is the Commissioner approving exceptions to the rules and not informing the umpires? I do not understand when allegedly “professional” leagues struggle with their rule changes like this…

[@HonkyTonkHellraiser]

Umpires know the rules but refuse to enforce them

[@J.C...]

Omg. BFD. Why? Because it slipped through the cracks. Or those umps missed the notice that went out. It could be literally ANY REASON. This is inconsequential to the game so it's no big deal that they don't know. How do you know it's not on the player/team to inform the umps that he had it ok'd by the commissioner? Right. You don't. So it could be the players fault the umps don't know. Or the managers fault. You can't just assume it was on the commissioner to tell every umpire about the exemption. Even then, the commissioner likely has an assistant/secretary and that would be passed on to them to do. So how do you know the assistant didn't forget? How do you know he didn't tell them all/send out a notice of exemptions on Day 1 and they just forgot since the beginning of the season? Exactly. You don't. GTFO of here with the whole "I wanna find anything to be mad about" nonsense. You don't even know WHO to be mad at 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@transcendkira]

Because it wasn't an exception to the rule, which even the umpires recognised by not calling out or ejecting De La Cruz. The team likely sought approval for whether it was by the rules, which was confirmed by the Commissioner, and then by the umpires on field when they didn't take real action.

[@michaelfalkner1186]

The other problem with this is, to my understanding of what Lindsay said, this Blast Cap actually is measuring stuff that is in vogue in MLB and does not apparently enhance De La Cruz in any manner.

[@falcon1378]

@@michaelfalkner1186that’s all it does lol. It shows bat-speed and other statistics that would have to be estimated instead of pure facts. Stuff a player would be able to reflect on when in training. If anything, it would be a disadvantage due to weight being further back on the bat, but it basically weights nothing.

[@airamee103006]

The umpire stated after the game that at the time of the original request to inspect bat it was taking abit long to get the answer from New York. Said that that was in the decision of just having him take it off in which he did with no argument. By the time he was up again they had gotten the answer and he was approved before even starting his MLB career

[@bettycogswell9851]

Glad he got justice. Especially since other players have the same thing. Love how he stole 2nd, 3rd, and home bases a week ago. Legend.

[@DjBriteLite]

Elly is def one of my fav young players at the moment

[@magicizaproblem]

De La Cruz reminds me of acuna to the extent of what opposing teams will do for an advantage

[@whatthefunkwasithinking7645]

It wasn't an illegal bat, it was the umpires not knowing the rules

[@philipdileo3750]

MLB can’t get out of its own way. They seem to get everything wrong all the time.

[@williamfitzpatrick4533]

Maybe all the money MLB made in the partnership with FTX, they can have classes on how to manage baseball.

[@rgarrison1819]

Yeah, They have a Huge Gambling Deal with Fan Duel !!!,But Ban The Hit King from Baseball and The Hall for Betting on His Team to Win!!!, MLB and It's Commissioner and Executives are The Biggest Hypocrites in All of Professional Sports!!!!

[@Wuhan_Batman]

So wait.. They told him to remove it and the next time he came to bat he had it back on? Am I missing something here? How/Why was he allowed to have it on the 2nd time.

[@smithscullyx]

I think the rule is that a bat can only be checked once per game so he could put it back on for the next at bat and no one could ask to check.

[@ericblair5731]

@@smithscullyx Which is just absurd. Especially as the OBR rules clearly contemplate that there may be multiple challenges on a single bat: Rule 3.02(c) Comment: If pine tar extends past the 18-inch limitation, then the umpire, on his own initiative or if alerted by the opposing team, shall order the batter to use a different bat. The batter may use the bat later in the game only if the excess substance is removed. ***If no objections are raised prior to a bat’s use***, then a violation of Rule 3.02(c) on that play does not nullify any action or play on the field and no protests of such play shall be allowed. For there to be prior objections about a bat, there have to be multiple objection***S***. So the policy of limiting the number of manager requested bat inspections is at odds with the rules which clearly contemplate a scenario where bats are inspected multiple times and harsher penalties applied if it has excess pine tar on the second inspection.

[@stephenbeck7222]

League office called the umpires back and told them it was legal. If the umps thought it was still illegal then they could do their own inspection.

[@HeinousAnus95]

The umps got word back from the league that it had been preapproved before the season began. The reds tried to tell the umps that exavt thing but removed the cap for the first at bat till the league reached word to the umos

[@RobertSmith-qu7wd]

If you are going to challenge a bat, you wait until after the at-bat so you can possibly take away a hit. If the batter gets out anyway you save the challenge for later in the game when it might matter more.

[@ericblair5731]

Agreed. This is manager 101, and its real simple to remember. If you think a batter is illegal in some fashion (out of order/corked bat/etc..) you wait until AFTER he gets a hit. If it isn't an important hit (a single with two outs and nobody on) you ignore it, but if he gets a home run, you challenge BEFORE the next pitch is thrown. If you are correct, you erase the home run and get the player tossed. So it doesn't make any sense that Martinez would be requesting an inspection of the bat prior to the first pitch. More likely Martinez assumed the bat was legal, and just wanted to ask the umpire "Maybe, I missed a memo, but are blast caps approved for use in games". The conversation should have ended with the Umpire saying "I don't know, do you want us to inspect the bat?" "Not right now, but maybe later." It seems the Umpire is at fault here for approaching the other team and initiating a pseudo-inspection which likely wasn't requested by the opposing team. We know it wasn't a real inspection because there are only two outcomes from a real inspection: (a) bat is legal is, or (b) bat is illegal and player is ejected. We somehow got (c) player has to remove the blast cap for the first at bat, but puts it back on for his next at bat.

[@lee399]

Baseball gamesmanship on the part of Martinez. Not the best timing, as others have said. MLB treats EVERYTHING like it's nursery school nowadays (including new rules like ghost runner, pitchcom, no collisions etc...) , so the umps didn't know, and didn't know where to find the rule. So then they make a half baked ruling, only to have to reverse it the next at bat. 🤔🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️ Manfred has a real dumpster fire of a circus that HE CREATED.

[@danhenderson7010]

It is a mystery why Martinez would care about this little data device being on the bat. I'd like to hear his explanation. If it was just an effort to get De La Cruz ejected, then that HR does seem like poetic justice!

[@1969EType]

De La Cruz is so hot right now…the Nationals are hot, too…because their team is a dumpster fire. Since the Lerners are unable to sell the team and Rizzo is unable to properly construct an MLB roster, Martinez is left with cheap parlor tricks to get the opposition players ejected because his squad can’t compete otherwise.

[@zgaviation6481]

Davey knows he’s on the hot seat either this year or shortly after. He’s trying anything to win.

[@HonkyTonkHellraiser]

Because it's against the rules. I would have done the same thing and once this device is "allowed" what's next

[@MaximumPower01]

@@HonkyTonkHellraiser the device has already been approved by the league, even prior to the game. This was just a desperate move by a bad manager trying to get De la cruz ejected. Absolutely pathetic tbh.

[@garyawallace1]

He just had 4 hits the prior game. He was assuming there had to be something wrong.

[@teetstreats5682]

You do a good job!

[@julianandygumbsVI]

Greatest Big League Introduction EVER!!!

[@jeb5137]

You've missed a lot of info: 1: the device itself wasn't actually on the bad, it's the grip alone that De la Cruz uses in games 2: De la Cruz has been approved to use the grip, the umpires didn't know this, and the reviewers, who the umpires contacted for additional info, didn't know this 3: the reason he had it back on at his next at bat is the reviewers got in touch with more people and later confirmed he is approved to use the grip (as long as the device isn't it there), they relayed this info to the umpires, who also relayed it to Bell, thus why he had it back on the rest of the game So there was no data collection device, and he wasn't being sneaky about putting it back on. It would have been stupid to put it back on then POINT IT OUT if it was deemed illegal.

[@munch606]

This comment needs to be pinned to the top or something. Everyone in the comments is confused because - for some reason, maybe to get comments - the video left out this very pertinent information.📌

[@sergiotarin5739]

So what was the device on the knob?

[@munch606]

@@sergiotarin5739 just the silicone cover for the smart device, no smart device in it. Elly just likes the way it feels so MLB said it was fine.

[@writz2]

The simplest penalty would be loss of replay challenges for a bat or foreign substance check request that fails to find anything. If the strike/ball challenge makes its way up to the major league level, you could also lose those.

[@MyBiPolarBearMax]

ok but if it was approved, why did they tell him to remove it? And then, after he removed it why was he allowed to put it back on later? How can it not be legal for one at bat to have and then fine the next one?

[@ericblair5731]

It reminds me Beltre getting ejected for not being in the on deck circle. The ejection was arguably warranted for not listening to instructions and rather flippantly moving the rubber mat... but they never moved the circle back to its proper place!! If there is a rule it should be enforced consistently, if there isn't a rule there is nothing to enforce.

[@HeinousAnus95]

Just so you know he came up to bat with it the second time because the league made contact with the umps and relayed the info that the blast cap was preapproved by mlb before de la cruz ever played in an mlb game. It is an empty piece of silicone that he is superstitious about using. The umps told him he could resume using it in the 4th or 5th inning. He hadnt broken and rules to begin with

[@mrthingy9072]

I read further along in the text you showed about modified bats and the rule said something to the effect that "in the umpire's judgement, has been altered or tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual reaction on the baseball." A Sabermetrics condom on the handle end of the bat isn't going to cause that.

[@carlfrye1566]

A bigger diameter handle can definately give a batter a better grip but I thought baseball had rules for that kind of thing, like barrel size, etc.

[@jst3w670]

How does the subsequent at bat not fall under failure to obey the umpire? This seems akin to the "pitcher, go wash your hands" stuff from earlier in the season.

[@ericblair5731]

The only way I can square this is to say that Martinez never requested an inspection. Martinez asked a rules clarification question: "Are blast caps now allowed in games?" The officials didn't know the answer to that question, and Martinez did NOT ask for an inspection at that time (which is what a good manager does, you don't challenge an illegal batter until he gets a big hit). The Umpire then (improperly) told De La Cruz that his bat might be inspected by the other team if he left the blast cap on, and advised him that it was probably a good idea to remove the blast cap if he wasn't certain. By the time De La Cruz had gotten his home run, either Martinez decided it wasn't worth pursuing given the game situation, or had been convinced the bat was legal.

[@HeinousAnus95]

The umps made contact with the league and the cap had alresdy been pre approved by mlb before the start of the season. No rules were broken to begin with

[@MikeBHR]

"... tampered with in such a way to improve..." As popular as statistics are, these devices are likely to become common. MLB should just conduct the engineering tests to see if they do improve the bat or not, and just outright allow them or not.

[@jeffrapier947]

In hockey, a failed inspection results in a bench minor delay of game for the requesting team. Send a guy to the box for two minutes.

[@bunpeishiratori5849]

Back when the Flyers were winning Stanley Cups, their coach Fred Shero was a master at getting illegal stick penalties on opposing players. He would generally wait til late in the game at a strategic moment to request it. But here’s the thing. If he was wrong, all he had to do was pay the league a fine. Something like a hundred bucks. He absolutely abused the rule, which is what prompted the rule change whereby a failed challenge would result in a two minute penalty. As a result, you hardly see challenges anymore, certainly not the extent there was back in the seventies.

[@tedball8677]

_Very_ well said and thank you for the detailed view. Concur that the opponent coach making a claim or inspection call should -- if unsuccessful -- have a consequence of some kind. You mentioned hockey as an example of a consequence for an unsuccessful attempt. NFL also: a coach can ask for a review of certain plays by tossing his red flag. If successful, the call is overturned. If unsuccessful, his team loses a time out.

[@LuisLopez-hy1bx]

Great explanation 😁

[@arinerm1331]

I've been a Braves fan for more years than I care to admit, and I've been a huge fan of Ronald Acuña, Jr., since he came up. From the off he showed that he was going to be a superstar, and this year he's the front-runner for NL MVP. De La Cruz will unseat him quickly. The Reds would be wise to offer him a 10-year, $65 million deal right now, because that will be a **BARGAIN** when he reaches free agency.

[@joebrown9204]

He's Soon to be the Highest paid in MLB ..

[@grantg610]

He was allowed to use it because the umpire hadn’t actually been told by New York whether he could or could not use it but they needed to get the game moving. They later got the answer from New York that it was approved…or at least that was the umpires reasoning after the game

[@ericblair5731]

The penalty for an illegal bat is ejection of the player and nullification of their acts in the game. So removing the offending item and seeking clarification doesn't make a lot of sense in that context. I don't see this as a formal "challenge" to the bat being illegal, but rather a manager seeking clarification: "Is he allowed to have things attached to the bat?"

[@grantg610]

@@ericblair5731 it was his first at bat of the game so he hadn’t used it but I understand going to the batters box could also be illegal however the umps where not sure what it was so they weren’t going to eject him when they didn’t know what it was. That wouldn’t make any sense at all

[@ericblair5731]

@@grantg610 The definition of "use of the bat" is covered in "6.03(a)(5) Comment:" A batter shall be deemed to have used or attempted to use an illegal bat if he brings such a bat into the batter’s box De La Cruz attempted to use the bat when he entered the batters box. Once a pitch is thrown the "attempted use" becomes "use". Overall very little of this makes sense if you assume that Martinez asked for an inspection. You generally want to defer checking if a batter is legal (e.g. out of order/modified bat) until after the at-bat, because penalties can include nullifying the results of the play and might turn a grand slam into an out. But assuming arguendo, that Martinez requested an inspection there are only three outcomes of that inspection: 1. The bat is legal. -- No action 2. The bat is illegal but not "altered or tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor" -- the rules are a bit ambiguous here as 6.03(a)(5) doesn't apply, but 3.02(c) does. 3. The bat is illegal and altered with. -- Reversal of the outcome of the play to an out. Ejection of the player. Further sanctions are possible. We know that the outcome of the review was NOT (3) as there was no ejection, but it wasn't (1) either as they told him to remove the device, so it must have been (2). Which means we look at 3.02(c) rule which is all about pine tar to improve grip. It is about pine tar, but its the only thing we have to guide us. Pine tar improves grip, but not the distance factor, so 6.03(a)(5) would seemingly never apply if you slathered the bat in pine tar. Despite that 3.02(c) contemplates the same penalties: "grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game". Make of that what you will. The first time De La Cruz stepped up and his bat was inspected, there is nothing to nullify and the comment dictates what to do: "order the batter to use a different bat. The batter may use the bat later in the game only if the excess substance is removed." That seems to be what happened here, the Umpire ruled it illegal and ordered its removal. The second time De La Cruz stepped up to bat with the cap on the only thing we can rely on might be the inverse of the following: " If no objections are raised prior to a bat’s use, then a violation of Rule 3.02(c) on that play does not nullify any action or play on the field and no protests of such play shall be allowed." So in my mind the home run should have been negated. ------------ You seem to be suggesting that on the first inspection the Umpire just didn't make a ruling. De La Cruz proactively offered to remove the item and the Umpire said: "the rest of the bat is fine, so lets play." That isn't acceptable. The Umpire needs to make a ruling on the bat that was presented to him. It is required so that the second part of the comment can go through. The batter can't just swap or alter the bat to bring it into compliance, because allowing that allows exactly what we saw here.

[@grantg610]

@@ericblair5731 like I said I understand that even going to the box would be illegal with it, if it was against the rules. But you’re arguing that you don’t think Martinez requested the inspection when he said that he requested the inspection. The umps didn’t know if it was legal or not, the reds said that MLB had approved it and the umps couldn’t get an answer from New York in a timely fashion. So you think he should have been ejected at that point solely because the umps couldn’t get a timely response from New York? That would result in a protest from Cincinnati and Cincinnati would have likely won that protest so that would have been an even worse result for baseball than just saying don’t use it for now. I watched the game prior to the second at bat (technically prior to India’s second at bat who was one spot in front of EDLC) the crew chief went over and told Martinez that it was legal to use that cover and that is why he was going to use it going forward in the game. It wasn’t because he wasn’t allowed to ask for inspection again it was because he was told it was legal to use

[@grantg610]

@@ericblair5731 the home run that happened 3 innings later should have been negated because he was legally using something that mlb has approved for him since 2021 because the umps didn’t know that mlb had approved it? That is possibly one of the most outlandish takes I’ve heard in this situation so far

[@jiangjia99]

where i can get one?

[@aduncaroo]

Martinez bat inspection wasn’t failed, so if there was a penalty it wouldn’t apply. He was correct that the bat had something that wasn’t normally legal on it. If the commissioner’s office pre-approved that, how is Martinez supposed to just know exactly?

[@mikecumbo7531]

I agree, put out an email with the revision.

[@1969EType]

We must never forget that MLB like all pro sports is not a competition, it’s an entertainment platform no better or worse than WWE. They make decisions based on what is most profitable and never what is equitable to players and or fans.

[@mikecumbo7531]

@@1969EType I don’t think Congress would grant an antitrust exemption to the WWE.

[@frankiethegiantschnauzer]

Maybe he should have questioned it during the first at bat of the first game in the series instead of waiting the day after De La Cruz went 4 for 4.

[@Scott9002ca]

I have a diamond kinetics sensor receptor built into the knob on some of my bats. I use it in the cage and tee practice. I have a dummy that goes in for when I’m not using it. I think I’m going to try it in my beer league again. I always find my swings are so much slower when facing live pitching.

[@robertrichards2934]

So in reverse if the umpires wrong do they get fined?

[@bigk2080]

Great advertisement for the blast knob.

[@vincenthuying98]

With his recent commentary on the runner to first interference, by deliberately running inside the line to first base, Davey Martinez was on point. Here, he’s out of his league. Whatever the rules say on illegal bats, a knob at the end of the bat can’t do anything for improvement of the batting action. However, the measurements of the slugging can become an important aspect of batting practice. If alone for the level of interest it can garner for fans and spectators. Next, it will play a definite part in slugging training and improvement. Cheerio

[@penguin44ca]

Love your vids. Earned my sub. But don't work yourself exhausted. Quality over quantity!

[@grantg610]

Lindsay you might have missed that prior to India’s second at bat (india was one spot in front of EDLC) the crew chief went over to Martinez and told him that New York informed him that that cover was legal, so even if Martinez could challenge it again, he was already told that it was legal. Great video though

[@laplanta]

Forgot to mention why he was able to use it again?

[@pamsuepmnos2371]

How about for Davey each time he calls for an inspection if there's no ejection the next runner that would reach is called out for not running in the basepath

[@TheVCRTimeMachine]

I think the "Improve the distance" or "unusual action on the baseball" in the rule did not apply in this case, which is why he was probably not automatically called out nor ejected. New York probably told him it had to be removed until they could investigate and make a decision. The data knob was back on the bat later, because New York cleared up the misunderstanding.

[@ryanburnham1932]

The Umpires asked him to remove it the first at bat (regardless of if it was pre-approved or not, but the Nationals should have been notified as such and been allowed to have one of their players to have it too); for the subsequent at-bats the home plate Umpire should have said, "we already told you that you cannot have this on your bat" and ejected both the player and manager. If the crew did not feel that that additional part made the bat illegal why did they have him remove it during the first at bat? This is a very grey area of the rulebook, but if both teams agree to have these items attached to some, or all, of the bats no team gets an advantage; but if only one team is given the option then the Umpires should not allow them for that game and when I batter makes it known he had one (assuming they hadn't seen it) nullify that at bat. Overall this is just a bad look for MLB, regardless of how you look at it.

[@johannesney2132]

That is also where I am confused. Either it is legal or not and if the crew decides he is not allowed to bat with the cap in the first at bat, the same should apply for the second at bat. However the crew did manage to not turn this situation into a complete mess and kept everyone calm, good job on that! An ejection here would have just completely opened up hell. I personally don't understand why De La Cruz had to take the cap off in the first place though.

[@HeinousAnus95]

Just so you know he came up to bat with it the second time because the league made contact with the umps and relayed the info that the blast cap was preapproved by mlb before de la cruz ever played in an mlb game. It is an empty piece of silicone that he is superstitious about using. The umps told him he could resume using it in the 4th or 5th inning. He hadnt broken and rules to begin with

[@ryanburnham1932]

@@HeinousAnus95 if it is pre-approved that is a failure of the MLB to communicate that to umpires and opposing teams. Further if it is just a superstitious piece of empty silicone it should not have been approved as it is a modification to the bat and while the taunting was not directly towards any Nationals player it was taunting. If I have a favorite team it would be the Reds due to my memories of attending games with my late Grandfather, but I have say their player was in the wrong here. Lastly, why wasn't he allowed to put it back on at the first at-bat after the the Crew Chief conferred with the League Office, and why did he take some many extra practice swings without it if it wasn't changing the weight balance or feel of the grip?

[@joeyunger6460]

And of course, Martinez complained about his "pimping" his 456 home run after the game. Dinosaurs gonna act like dinosaurs...

[@U9Daddy]

All well and good, but the pointing at the end is going to get him plunked in the near future. If the Commish had declared it legal, there should have been a memo to the umpires, so they didnt look like they didnt know what they were doing.

[@HeinousAnus95]

Did you watch the end of the video? He pointed at his own dugout. Not taunting at all

[@poisonpotato1]

But he didnt fail the request. The rules say you cant have it. If theres going to be tech in the game go all in, if not then don't. Dont half ass it by saying pitchers and catchers can use Pitchcom, but no tech for batting team, and no tech for umpires unless its very specific replay rules. Either let all groups use it or get rid of it

[@CediEntertainment]

In many sports it takes to long to adjust rules.

[@tendyedits1272]

I know you’re just reading the rules and comparing , but in the last probably 10 years I don’t think the NHL has had a stick check.

[@JoeyD_AU98]

Martinez should have pulled a Billy Martin and have the bat inspected after a homerun (the pine tar game)

[@jeffreyhall5586]

now you're talking. good call

[@chaos-fk6fs]

Baseball is destroying itself on so many levels

[@kaleljoseph9729]

Illegal bat call😂, these managers can't find a way to win, now they invent absurd things

[@alexjamesbaker]

Why should the managers be penalized for asking the umpires to do their job? They shouldn't have to ask for the illegal equipment to not be allowed. Why aren't they looking for illegal bats every time?

[@DTSK371]

Great Video

[@rjstegbauer]

I don't understand why *I* would be punished if I asked for an inspection, but it was not sustained.

[@dereksimmons5877]

I don't get it... If he's forced to take it off the first time through, how can he come back with it? Isn't then the second time through the umpire's job to notice it so that the Nats manager doesn't need a second challenge? Personally I think allowing them might give hitters the edge they need to be competitive again, maybe even mark a return of contact hitting. But then you can't make him take it off the first time!? Is the only reason there is a discrepancy because they got word the commissioner approved it?

[@HeinousAnus95]

Just so you know he came up to bat with it the second time because the league made contact with the umps and relayed the info that the blast cap was preapproved by mlb before de la cruz ever played in an mlb game. It is an empty piece of silicone that he is superstitious about using. The umps told him he could resume using it in the 4th or 5th inning. He hadnt broken and rules to begin with

[@rockhenry-yy3vr]

Why are batters even allowed to wear sticky gloves????? Mantle, Mays, Cobb, Kaline, etc, etc, etc, NEVER USED GLOVES, and they were great hitters.

[@garygemmell3488]

The penalty in hockey is a two minute minor for illegal equipment on the stick challenge. The penalty for a failed inspection is a two minute minor bench penalty that must be served by a player, other than the goalie, who was on the ice when the challenge was made. The penalty Martinez wanted was an ejection of De la Cruz for an illegal bat. The penalty should mirror that of ice hockey. Martinez should be sent to the showers. BTW, Martinez is morphing into a pathetic clown before our very eyes. He's damn near as bad as "Ten Percent" Boone. You just have to love how De la Cruz pointed to the blast cap after blasting that pitch to the seats. Chew on that one, Davey.

[@user-me5zx5nk8t]

He should have pulled a sharpie out his back pocket, sign the bat, then flip it towards the Nats dugout after that homer😂

[@CGCampbellJr]

I have to completely disagree with you. When De La Cruz batted with the cap on, he was going against the rules. Want to get baseball into the current century, change the rules. The rules say no cap, then no cap, Martinez was correct.

[@HeinousAnus95]

L take. Youre wrong. The cap was approved by mlb before de la cruz ever played a major league game. Just so you know he came up to bat with it the second time because the league made contact with the umps and relayed the info that the blast cap was preapproved by mlb before de la cruz ever played in an mlb game. It is an empty piece of silicone that he is superstitious about using. The umps told him he could resume using it in the 4th or 5th inning. He hadnt broken and rules to begin with

[@hsproyaya]

These should not be allowed. What happened to “no electronics” these could easily be manipulated to sign the batter.

[@toddphipps5496]

Every week, Martinez is highlighted, here and in other videos, over one thing or another! I get the "fire up the team" antics ejections, everyone is so adamant about...but this is starting to show its tail and teeth. He made a fool out of himself by requesting the bat be checked. Martinez knows how bush this is? I'm not siding with either player, manager, or team, but trying to get into this kid's head with some bs like this, tells me all I ever want to know about this losing manager, and just how low he will go, no matter how bush league Martinez really is! We all know this game will humble you, and although the homerun probably didn't humble Martinez, I'm sure it's still in his head, right now? The Nats should have fired him, immediately after the game. He's embarrassed himself, his team, his organization, and his career.

[@btb2019]

How can the one time per game limit be enforced but not the player ejection clause of the rule. It is because of this that Elly is able to come to the plate with what this crew determined as an illegal bat on a subsequent plate appearance and there is no recourse for that action.

[@stephenbeck7222]

The umps can do their own inspection. The video left out that the league office got back to the umps and told them he was approved for use of the piece as long as no electronic device was inside (like he does for practice).

[@HeinousAnus95]

Just so you know he came up to bat with it the second time because the league made contact with the umps and relayed the info that the blast cap was preapproved by mlb before de la cruz ever played in an mlb game. It is an empty piece of silicone that he is superstitious about using. The umps told him he could resume using it in the 4th or 5th inning. He hadnt broken and rules to begin with

[@angelotodaro1475]

I don’t understand your characterization of the challenge as “stupid”. There is clearly something very unusual about his bat - unusual enough to have required a waiver from the Commissioner. What is “stupid” is that the Commissioner failed to notify this umpiring crew that a waiver had been issued. This failure led to a long and unnecessary delay of the game, the very thing this Commissioner has pledged to combat!

[@alexjamesbaker]

Rules are rules. If he can't use it than he should be kicked out according to the rule. If it's been approved then what are we even doing here?

[@Alboalt]

Why'd the commissioner approve this? The rules say the bat "shall be one piece of solid wood." Nothing there about allowing you to stick things on it.

[@HeinousAnus95]

So why were rubber grips allowed years ago? Or pine tar? Or paint on bats?

[@donaldthomas7470]

Wow he is intimidated of this Youngman’s gift , Keep doing what you do CRUZ !!! GOD HAS YOU COVERED !!!!

[@CincyRaz]

Great breakdown. He was clearly trying to ger De La Cruz ejected. Ticky tack bullshit.

[@williamhazlett6724]

wait but if he was told to remove it then used it later in the game that should be illegal that be like using a corked bat and told you cant use it then later in the game you use it anyways same thing according to the rule right ?

[@Crispy44652]

MLB came back and said that the device was completely legal and he could use it in further at bats.

[@AMGTT]

It’s not illegal

[@ab5879]

Isn't only logical that if the challenged bat was ruled illegal on said challenge by the umpires, that they also should have ruled the bat illegal on the home run later in the game without challenge from the coach and been on hyper alert?

[@roberthudson1959]

The device was removed pending clarification from NY, not declared illegal. That clarification took place between the two at-bats

[@ab5879]

@@roberthudson1959 thanks for the explanation!

[@nickgappmayer5939]

A couple years ago in hockey they made if you are wrong on any challenge. You get a penalty lol.

[@j.t.joseph7623]

I think after the astros cheating scandal the opposing team wanted to make sure the guy was not cheating. The thing he took off might’ve contained a cheating device (assuming the opposing team didn’t know mlb already approved it)

[@snoopyloftis]

The manager gets a 3 game suspension and a fine that goes to MLB chairty for a failed equipment inspection.

[@aaronm3416]

Fines from being wrong on an inspection is also stupidity 😅 See we can have biased opinions too

[@dyskover]

De La Cruz is hilarious and spectacular!

[@jacobholst9099]

Commentary is stupid and probably hasn’t played the game long enough to know baseball is more of a mental game than any sport. If nothing else this is one competing manager trying to get a young hot hitter mentally out of an a-bat. I love this sequence and the young man won.

[@Fizban321]

Maybe this is where a coach’s challenge usage comes into play. Beyond that, any other “penalty” would in my opinion be superfluous or overbearing.

[@priceright8963]

A manager not having anything to lose by trying to induce a ten-game suspension? That needs to be fixed. I'm for ejecting the manager, but awarding an automatic ball or a base would make him a lot more careful. I thought the same for a pitcher inspection was bad.

[@ericblair5731]

Lindsey is all wrong about the 10 game suspension. That's only going to occur if they determine the bat is altered to make it hit better (e.g. corked). At most here they tell him to remove the device from the knob. Where things got screwed up is the umpire seemingly allowing the player to ignore a prior instruction to remove the device.

[@kendog52361]

As for a penalty for the "challenging Ump", maybe tie it to the overall Challenge System, of if you don't have any Challenges available, then you can't request a bat inspection, outside of a "Crew Chief's Review" which is completely up to the Crew Chief, I think. If you do have a challenge available, then you basically offer it as collateral, if you "win" the challenge, you keep your normal challenge, but if you lose, you lose that challenge offered as collateral. To be clear, it isn't a replay, going to New York, but it's offering one of your challenges as "collateral" for your bat inspection request.

[@seanprahphet]

It's not part of a stick(wood only} i would agree, those elements added to a swing are not legit.... in my opinion

[@kchillin3117]

They just hating on Elly 😂.

[@andrewreuter7650]

Yes! These manager requests for sticky stuff or bats that turn up nothing need a penalty. Would prevent these head games from managers if they lose an out next inning

[@loyevangelists]

So you're faulting the Nationals manager for calling for an inspection of a bat that was to him, suspect? According to the rules he is entitled to this. I don't understand why you would fault him for doing what he or any baseball manager is entitled to do per the rules. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I am neither a Nationals fan nor a Reds fan, I am just trying to understand why you would fault him for this.

[@californialove3732]

My understanding is that De La Cruz had his bat cap approved by the league prior to the season opener. Martinez is a cry baby and De La Cruz got the ultimate revenge. Gotta love it!

[@neal3489]

Dunno if the managers need to be punished for a failed inspection, when it fails they look like fools which is bad enough imo, like when Showalter accused Musgrove of using illegal substances.

[@JaZzure79]

Does the rubber knob also dampen vibrations on a struck ball?

[@almostfm]

From what it looks like, the rubber is just to hold the thing in place.

[@HonkyTonkHellraiser]

There's way more to it. It's just the beginning

[@HeinousAnus95]

​@@HonkyTonkHellraiseryes. Its a huge conspiracy that everyone is in on! Go back to qanon

[@EXPERTISE]

I think it's interesting, because it's almost like choking up without choking up, no?

[@HeinousAnus95]

Its below the knob so it shouldnt even touch his hands. Probably just superstitious about it

[@Schooletto1776]

The data tracker wasn’t actually in the rubber casing. It was just the casing by itself on the knob of the bat. Which makes Martinez’s inspection request even more laughable. Lol

[@sergiotarin5739]

I’ve never seen a protrusion at the end of a bat knob before. What was that?

[@jasongillum5763]

something your mom was...also gonna ask for an inspection of

[@crosstraffic]

Senile Davey's antics are becoming very tired.

[@stephenj9470]

If he really thought this would work (it could have), why not do what Shildt did against Castellanos--wait for the HR (or hit), and then request the bat be checked. Good managers know you don't bring something like that up until after the other team benefits; like the batting out of order challenge.

[@supercarpilot8670]

great point!

[@chefantoniowooten6779]

It wasn’t even a competitive game we may sweet them

[@terryjohnson4391]

I don’t think that end of the bat has anything to do with actually hitting the baseball anyway ,, the other team is jealous that he plays for the reds and not the nationals…lol

[@Matthew6418]

The reds announcers arent your typical know nothing announcers. They usually have some idea of what is going on and why it's happening. I'm sure it came from either the dugout or one of their people that the bat was pre approved.

[@contrast6140]

I feel like if someone is given the permission from the league to use something extra on the bat, all umpires should be aware of it. I don’t think De La Cruz or Davey is in the wrong there because De La Cruz was allowed to use it and Davey was never told that De La Cruz could use it. If the umpires were told about it, then it would’ve never had to of been a big deal because the umpires would just be able to tell Davey that De La Cruz is allowed to use it and the game carries on.

[@iggy3836]

I love your videos, but honestly, your breakdown of this just made the whole situation more confusing. Why did they enforce the bat being “illegal”, with him having to take it off on the first AB, to then not eject him which allowed him to use the “illegal” bat at his next AB because you can’t challenge the bat again?!?! Also, you seem to be blaming Davey here for calling for an inspection when the blast cap is allowed because of a commissioner’s exemption. Are these exemptions player based? Are they posted somewhere? Clearly the umpires didn’t know so why is Davey expected to know?

[@iggy3836]

Just saw a quote from the crew chief that said the league office needed time to investigate and they weren’t going to hold the game. They got confirmation before his second AB. So what would have happened had they came back and said it was illegal, so then he should have been tossed to start? You can’t put a game under protest anymore. This seems to be a very poorly handled situation by MLB. It literally took them 30+ minutes to decide if something was illegal or not?!?!

[@HeinousAnus95]

Just so you know he came up to bat with it the second time because the league made contact with the umps and relayed the info that the blast cap was preapproved by mlb before de la cruz ever played in an mlb game. It is an empty piece of silicone that he is superstitious about using. The umps told him he could resume using it in the 4th or 5th inning. He hadnt broken and rules to begin with

[@AustinBazar-kr1kx]

Penalty should be loss of a challenge, or if your out of challenges then the other team gains an extra one

[@r.a.contrerasma8578]

Rulebook update, anyone?

[@Rabbi_D]

If the player risks ejection if the manager gets the call correct, the manager should be ejected when they get that call wrong

[@jocosot]

Why would there be a penalty for the manager for requesting an inspection? Do we want MLB to discourage legitimate questioning of equipment violations? I get that managers will use the inspections to "psych out" players/teams, but you have a maintain a proper channel for challenging legitimate violations of the rule.

[@ericblair5731]

The only reason to want fewer inspections is because the Umpires are terrible at doing things quickly and orderly. My wife officiates field hockey and they are required by rule to inspect all sticks before the game begins. As a result they make stick inspection efficient. So efficient that most fans don't realize it is even happening. The teams line up to shake hands and the officials walk the line inspecting uniforms and sticks. Inspecting a baseball bat with a blast cap should only take a few seconds. You look at it, you see the blast cap, and you make your determination, and you tell the player. They don't need to have a 5 minute conversation with both benches. Just make your ruling and move on.

[@jocosot]

@@ericblair5731 I get your point. I do. But, I think the pressure to get it right is what makes the rulings take a few minutes. Putting myself in the ump's shoes....... yeah, I'd take my time.

[@Stopalot29]

I believe the punishment should be equal. If the accused batter has an illegal bat and can get ejected, then the Manager asking for the inspection should be ejected if it is proved to be a legal bat. I just don't like the idea that you can accuse/request things that may result in others being punished without any repercussions if proved false.

[@ericblair5731]

Your interpretation is very harsh towards Martinez and I don't think it is warranted. I suspect Martinez was seeking clarification, and his conduct seems much more sportsmanlike than you are giving him credit for. Two things every manager should know are when to challenge illegal bats, and when to challenge after batting out of order. For both you only want to make these challenges AFTER the offense gets a hit. It makes no difference to me if you bat out of order with a metal bat if the pitcher records a strike-out. I'll take the out thank you very much. So if Martinez was actually challenging the legality of the bat he would have waited until AFTER De La Cruz hit his home run, and at that point he would challenge the equipment where he might no only nullify the home run, but also get De La Cruz ejected. Furthermore, if Martinez is challenging the bat itself, then the Umpires must make a determination and if the bat is illegally altered they must eject the batter with the improper equipment and impound the bat for inspection. They cannot simply say: "I dunno, maybe" and then ask the player to remove the blast cap for one at bat, but then let them use it at the next at bat. That would be entirely improper. By approaching the umpires before hand it seems to me that he suspected the equipment was legal, but wanted to confirm with the Umpires. I imagine the conversation went something like this: Martinez: I see he has one of those blast caps. Did I miss a memo? Are we now allowed to use those in actual games? Umpire: I'm not sure, but I can ask the other team ..... Umpire: Do you have written permission to use those in game. De La Cruz: Not on hand, but we could have someone print it out. Umpire: Unless you have written permission on hand, you should probably take that off the bat. Just in case. There is no official challenge or inspection of the bat going on here. I think this is still improper of the officials, but to a lesser degree perhaps. I would prefer a simpler exchange: Martinez: I see he has one of those blast caps. Did I miss a memo? Are we now allowed to use those in actual games? Umpire: I'm not sure. Are you asking us to inspect the bat, I'm sure we could call NY for an answer. Martinez: Not right now, but maybe latter.

[@dubsont1de]

to me it seems like the umpire gets to examine the bat and determine if it has been altered in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. anyone with a brain could look at the device and see that isnt the case, its just a manager attempting to dig up some antiquated rule that hasnt been updated in an attempt to replace a great batter with someone who isnt as good for maybe 4 out of the 40 plate appearances the team will have during this 1 out of 170 games this season. i understand being "competitive" but this is definitely a "letter of the law vs spirit of the law" situation.

[@frankiethegiantschnauzer]

The penalty will be getting swept by the Reds for the entire 2023 season. It would be hilarious if every Reds hitter went to the plate today with rubbers on their knobs.