Did the Umpires Make the Correct Call?

[@mfin0446]

Yeh. Braves fan here, no clue how he wasn't out. The replay took 5 minutes and I was shocked at the safe call.

[@jjyoung986]

Braves fan also and he was easily out.

[@BachBeethovenBerg]

Must have been a makeup call from that infield fly call in shallow left.

[@derrallinder4338]

At full speed in real time, I would probably call safe; however, after watching in slo-mo, I would rule out.

[@ohger1]

Same. Maybe being on the field would have been different though.

[@KennyKleinComedy]

Agreed.

[@RyanRobbins007]

That's why slow motion isn't always appropriate for determining some things.

[@fifiwoof1969]

Base umpire gets to see it once at normal speed. I fine with this safe call.

[@joshnaudi]

This is how it was taught to me when selling it, "He's out (out mechanic), he's out (out mechanic), he was pulling it out(Transfer mechanic), he's still out(out mechanic)" Then get ready for the coach to come out.

[@cheapercharlie]

Out, on the transfer

[@douellette7960]

It could be a catch even though he didn't know where it was in his glove. But it's impossible to know if the ball ever came to a stop in his glove

[@neal5068]

He never possessed the ball

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

This pretty much looks like every other "lost it on the transfer" call I've ever seen, but I think what got him was that it looks like the ball was moving around in his glove, hence the interpretation that he didn't have control of it.

[@lesrankins5025]

We need to see what is going on inside the glove. A view from the opposite direction.

[@nickdastick80]

We need glove cams!

[@joegonzalez1941]

Looks like the umpire is looking directly into the glove,he probably kept seeing the ball move

[@babababad]

The standard that is not satisfied here is voluntary and intentional release, the part Matt reads at 1:55. Usually when a ball is adjudged to have been dropped on the transfer, the glove is clearly open and often the ball at least hits the throwing hand on the way out. I can see why this call stood, but wasn't confirmed, because from this angle, it looks like the ball might have come out before the glove was open, and the angle at which it came out is consistent with it getting flung out from the natural motion of the arm instead of a deliberate release to the hand.

[@larrycopeland2413]

Nice video, especially quoting the appropriate rule. Looked to me like he dropped on the transfer.

[@Durwood71]

The ball easily slid out of his glove in a way he was clearly not expecting, which makes me think he never actually had control of it.

[@jefflewis4]

I think it there was a question whether he had secure possession of the ball. It just wasn't clear enough to overturn the call.

[@Riokaii]

if "ball comes out of the glove unexpectedly" is enough to rule it a no catch, calling it in the transfer is basically impossible and never going to happen, you're clearly logically wrong.

[@007Scubagolf]

The key is the call was “confirmed”, meaning not enough to tell whether 2B had possession and then miffed it on the transfer.

[@douellette7960]

It could still clearly be a catch even though he didn't know where it was in his glove. Also it's impossible to know if the ball ever came to a stop in his glove

[@babababad]

@@007Scubagolf the call stood, was not confirmed

[@donaldhoudek2889]

Absolutely out!

[@RyanRobbins007]

A rule of thumb umpires can use to determine these calls is how the ball falls. In general, a ball dropped on the transfer to throw will squirt behind the fielder as he prepares to throw, while a ball that is just dropped will fall straight down.

[@davidwalls4608]

Even in slow motion there is very little time in which the fielder's foot is in contact with the base. I could only imagine what that split-second must have looked like to the umpire. In slow motion I probably would have called the runner out, but the evidence isn't overwhelming especially since the fielder "drops" the ball further into the webbing during that time.

[@SirTylerGolf]

I would say if anything, him dropping the ball into the pocket helps his case, he has enough control to intentionally make a subtle adjustment so the ball goes down into the pocket

[@gabrielrockman]

When the ball first lands in his glove, it's at the top of the glove. Then well before the transfer, he loosened up his glove to let the ball fall down towards his palm, because he didn't want the ball to fly out of his glove as he brought his glove to the body because it was dangerously close to being a snowcone type of "catch". He tried to let gravity bring the ball closer to his palm before centripetal force pushed it out of the top of his glove, but gravity didn't bring it towards his palm in the way that he had hoped that it would. I think that he never had control of the ball. I don't think that the video evidence is conclusive either direction, so I agree with the umpires that the call stands (rather than being confirmed).

[@mattputnam3659]

This is exactly what I was going to say. It was snowconed, then the ball comes back out that way. Doesn't seem like it was ever in his hand. If it had gone securely into his hand and then lost it on the transfer, it would have come out lower.

[@williamavitt8264]

Those are definitely all words. However, none of them are correct

[@williamavitt8264]

@@pa28cfi 😂😂😂

[@verkuilb]

@@gabrielrockman the only part of what you said which might be wrong is where you said he loosened up his glove to let the ball fall-meaning it was an intentional act. It might have been-but I think it’s more likely that it wasn’t intentional, and that the first contact merely stopped the ball’s forward momentum without ever securing it, and everything after it was an attempt to secure it while also starting the throw. But it really doesn’t matter if it was intentional or not-either way, we’re both right in that he didn’t secure the ball before it left the glove.

[@SirTylerGolf]

I would say that one must has control of the ball in order to attempt to let the ball go into the pocket of his glove

[@ClarinoI]

I suspect the fact that he thought the ball was in the part of the glove to which he brought his right hand indicated to the officials that he didn't have control of the ball when it was in the glove.

[@davidwolfe7145]

Some confusion comes from whether the 2B had his foot on the bag. As he jumps up for the catch, his foot leaves the bag and comes down close to it. At 0:33, from the camera angle, it's difficult to tell if his foot is on the bag or touching it. The umpire would have to watch both the foot and the catch to determine a forced out.

[@christollaksen8442]

Watching the replay in slow motion shows a few things. The umpire is watching the foot of the fielder while also looking for the catch. In slo mo the ball snow cones and is moving inside of the mitt, at the same time the fielders foot if off the bag. While the foot does come down on the bag it is almost impossible to view all of this at full speed, make that assessment and make that call. The umpire sees things that make it appear that the defense did not "clearly" have control or complete the touch of the base. Good call, reviewed and upheld.

[@danbudrich2074]

No question out and I too am a Bravos fan

[@Requinix17]

Definitely out and dropped on the transfer, no question

[@zenpvnk]

I think it's one of those things you have to watch real time... going slo-mo makes it look like he held on to it a while, when in actuality at full speed it pretty much just bounced off his glove. I think the call was right.

[@kcgrizzly1]

He had control of the ball long enough to bring it down to the level of his throwing hand and to bring his hands together. That is way more than a ball bouncing off of his glove; no matter what speed you watch it at. This was 100% on the transfer and the umpire and replay both got it wrong. I can forgive the umpire who only gets one shot at full speed. The replay full on blew it.

[@Agent-o2e]

Hey coach ilove your content

[@terrimcghee6922]

It reminds me of the “football move” rule In the NFL that cost Dez Bryant a TD which may have been a game winner and a trip to the NFC Championship game for my beloved Tony Romo!

[@timrachow-ey9mt]

The problem with slow motion replay is that it distorts time. At first look in real-time I thought it was a catch but the ball does seem to have movement while in the glove. If ump saw that in real-time I understand how he could determine the ball was never secured. I feel this is an example which has merits of the call either way.

[@stevehamman4465]

First, lets look at what a transfer should mean!! Its not from the GLOVE to the hand but , from one hand to the other! The glove was designed to give some cushion to the hand that stopped ball. Was the ball controlled by the hand that stopped the ball or was it just bouncing around in it?

[@JG-df1qd]

In my mind, ball was moving down into the glove after he steps off and told back out the top as he brings the glove to the other hand, in which case he doesn't have full control.

[@darkwitnesslxx]

On the transfer to me would imply that his bare hand was involved, either slipped through his fingers or glanced off his knuckles...something. This ball never touched his bare hand. So either he dropped it because he never had control, or he was attempting to drop into his hand and missed rather thsn grabbing it. If he missed, thsn he didnt know wherevthe ball was located in his glove, which also implies he didnt have control. I wouldnt have over-ruled either.

[@unclejer65]

This is borderline, which is why it was not overturned. The OBR defines a catch as "secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it". The key here is firmly holding it. You could argue that he never had secure possession of the ball and made a deliberate act to remove it from the glove. Very hard call to make in real time.

[@ohger1]

Absolutely lost it on the transfer. If that play was only a force for the third out the ball stays in the glove. EDIT: after listening to the new rule, it sounds like there is no "losing the ball on the transfer" anymore.. You have to have the ball long enough to demonstrate control, but that means no double play if you have to count to - what - three??

[@andrecanis4894]

If you turn the double play without dropping the ball, that should be enough evidence that you had control of the ball. No need to pause.

[@ohger1]

@@andrecanis4894 That's correct, but anytime the ball is lost on the transfer, it's considered a dropped throw is my point.

[@Dave-ig5eq]

❤

[@BrandonLinden]

You have to get both feet on the base and complete a football move before throwing the ball to first.

[@johnboyes2898]

Umpire for amateur ball, looks like a catch and transfer error to me both at real speed and slow-mo. (unless there is an outfield camera that shows the ball never really settling.)

[@TheHENpp]

More proof that instant replay review is not needed. This call apparently would have been the same in any previous season, minus the 5-minute delay. At least in some eras, we would have got an entertaining manager rant out of the deal.

[@babababad]

@@TheHENpp if there's one thing the recent conduct standards have fixed it's discouraging managers who want to make the game about themselves. Once we get the ABS appeal system, and MLB fixes the checked-swing rule, we'll finally be able to move past having to watch these grown toddlers and their little tantrums

[@ericjohannsen]

The ball moving toward the throwing hand is a darn good indication that he was attempting to transfer the ball into said hand.

[@rigby6907]

Yeah, out, and I'm a Braves fan.

[@samuelkawer]

I agree with matt

[@SuzanneWalker-f8h]

When you stated in your explanation that he had firm control of the ball in the webbing his foot was not on the base. I don’t know if this makes a difference or not. If he has to have firm control with his foot on the bag then I can see why they ruled him safe.

[@RadioMattM]

I think the runner is safe. While the ball was held against the glove by inertia, the fielder never actually possessed it. It did not appear that the fielder closed his glove to take control. When he put the glove down to grab the ball, it fell out out of the glove.

[@LastFellowship]

So the fact he steps off the base and THEN while not touching the base he drops it. That would mean even if he didn't drop it the runner would be safe because apparently he was never in full control of the ball.

[@verkuilb]

The umps and replay officials both made the right call. There’s another angle of video which shows it better. The ball hits the glove high in the webbing, but just has its forward momentum stopped, without being secured. It then is loosely falling further into the glove as the fielder is reaching into the glove, but never gets secured prior to popping out of the glove.

[@adamzangara]

Can anyone clarify something for me? IF he was out at 2nd, then runner safe at first, would it have been batter reached on fielder's choice or E4 throwing?

[@doittoit00]

@adamzangara Since an out was recorded and no runners advanced, there would be no error.

[@PhantomofDB]

You can never assume a double play. Would just be a fielders choice, no error.

[@adamzangara]

@@doittoit00 That's right! I knew I was forgetting something. TY

[@bennattj]

Based on that reading, I would say he dropped the ball and the runner is safe. "hold the ball long enough to establish he has complete control". I don't think that's long enough and the way the ball comes out of his glove, looks like it's from the momentum of slapping the ball from up high, trying to bring it down, but he _didn't have control_ so it flew out of his glove and completely missed where he expected it to come out of the glove. Like to me the ball is falling out of the glove from the start of the catch attempt and he never fully gains control. If he doesn't try to make the throw, maybe he keeps his glove closed and stops it from rolling out.

[@bennattj]

He does do a little glove snap when the ball is caught, which to me could indicate he _did_ gain control, or what I would argue, that he shows he's still _trying_ to gain control.

[@fionam3554]

first run thru, I thought safe, but in the slo-mo, I think he had it and started to open his glove to make a fast transfer and lost it. I think the ump here might have been screened by the runner. I can see an initial call of safe, but the replay should have overturned it.

[@Nugsy_SiegeI]

Lost it on the transfer. You can see the ball getting tucked into the glove gaining full possession. He lost it when he opened his glove to pop it into his other hand instead of reaching in and grabbing it, but he completely missed it. His mistake was due to a fundamental error, but the runner was still out regardless.

[@rmelin13231]

Looked like on the transfer to me. BUT was his foot on the bag while he had possession? Hard to tell in this video. Maybe, maybe not.

[@ekujj13]

Looks to me like he lost it not “on the transfer” but while trying to regain his balance. Making me feel like he never had control of the ball. Safe.

[@AlicePearlJam]

If the fielder ended the play without trying to throw to 1st the ball doesn’t come out of his glove. At that point the call would be out. He only loses possession when he brought the glove to his hand.

[@JoeShootsHeScores]

On the transfer

[@joshuaanderson4090]

A very close play. I don't think either call is horribly wrong based on the angle we have. But I probably would have called him out if I were the ump. It's super close.

[@grondhero]

IMHO, he didn't hold the ball long enough and it could be argued that since he didn't have a firm grip on the ball, that's why it slid out and he didn't transfer it. But I haven't watched baseball in years, I just watch clips from you and Jomboy.

[@Mitten4371]

Yea the umpire missed this one because his foot was on the base when he caught the ball and so the runner should be out.

[@mptr1783]

Too much thought process here. Lets pretend this play was at 1st base with 2 outs. Was the runner forced out? Yes. The only reason the "transfer" comes into play is because he tried to get a double play. If the umpire called him out and it was challenged, I dont think they would change that call on review either

[@sauerjoseph]

He's totally out! If he didn't need to throw it, he won't have dropped it. The throw was the only reason he dropped it. Otherwise, he would have had total control of the ball.

[@Steve-bm2zm]

I’ve seen the same play called an out

[@nclaw441]

You could argue that a transfer requires at least that the ball touch the throwing hand as evidence that the ball was actually controlled in the glove.

[@sanborghini]

Hey Matt great channel. I have a question since you’ve been in game for so long. But who’s got the biggest hammer you’ve seen. I’d love to know. Thanks Matt

[@jimward7074]

Blown Call!!!! Easy call!!!! Runner is out!!!!! Ball came out clearly after the play and on the release for throw to 1B!!!!

[@bmack6386]

Safe only bc it was called safe. I am not seeing enough evidence to overturn this call. There is too much motion going on to show he established full control of the ball.

[@HubofLovin]

Looks like he had secure control of the ball to me. from flight to glove. t'was fast, but it was an out.

[@kurtangie86]

Not a Giants fan, but to be fair … the Braves runner at second should have been called out.

[@jaredwright1655]

I think in real time its fine. Slo mo makes things look easier than they really are, but after such a long deliberation what could have confirmed the call?

[@kg4wwn]

I think that the initial call was probably wrong, but reasonably so, and I don't think that there was quite enough evidence to conclusively say it on the review, so it had to stand. I would be flabbergasted if the call were confirmed, but I think it standing is reasonable.

[@shadyparadox]

They're usually too generous with the transfer call in my opinion, but here it looks like a catch.

[@williammaddock9179]

The call on the field is the dominant position. You have to prove, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the call on the field is wrong in order to overturn that call. Clearly the team in New York did not feel they had that level of proof, to overturn the dominant position.

[@JamesDietzel-w6h]

I think the batter should be out, but the very fact that we’re having the conversation means there is no indisputable visible evidence to overturn the call. An out call would have been sustained as well.

[@QXZ_Productions]

The "safe" call in this case is wrong. Fielder had control of the ball while standing on the bag, lost control of ball when transitioning from glove to hand. Umpiring this year's benn iffy in situations like this.

[@chrisschack9716]

I think it was lost on the transfer, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to overturn the call on the field. No way would I call it UPHELD, maybe just stands.

[@rickicarpenter-b3v]

I agree he was out on the transfer.

[@glenm99]

In the NFL that'd be a drop, not a fumble, right? He didn't make a football move with it. I bet the umpire saw that the ball never really stopped moving inside the glove. He snow-cones it, releases pressure a bit to drop the ball into the palm... and there it stays in place relative to the webbing, but only because the glove is accelerating, not because he's got a real grip. The moment the glove slows, out rolls the ball; the lack of control is why it doesn't go into his right hand. The umpire would have a good view of this.

[@markdavis5702]

The ball was secure. Although it was a snow cone catch- it was a catch nonetheless. Should have been out at second.

[@VitoC.]

Easily that's a transfer

[@bjornnilsson1827]

I think they LIKELY got it wrong, but it's not nearly obvious enough that I'd want it overturned on replay. Philosophically I'm pretty much against overturning anything that isn't very clearly a wrong call, and I don't think this meets that standard.

[@DanStaal]

Yeah, I'm with you: The call likely is wrong, but it's questionable. In case of questionable call being reviewed, go with the call on the field.

[@kip2864]

If that's the only angle, it's not possible to confirm how long the ball was in the mitt. The call on the field has to stand.

[@briankeithallen7187]

Obviously, his foot and the ball was in his glove. Then the transfer happened as his foot came off the bag and drop the ball. Therefore, I believe the runner was out.

[@thonatim5321]

I had this exact same play a few years ago. I called the runner out for the "voluntary release". The player was reaching for the ball in the glove but looking at 1B. He dropped the ball just like this player did. No one argued. In this play, I would look to see if the ball was moving around in the glove. It clearly was not moving in the glove. It was secure. Contrary to popular belief, there is no "3 second rule" like they told us in Little League. It is simple did the defense have possession and control at the time of the play? In this case, the answer is YES. The Umpire could not see whether the ball was moving in the glove, so the call was safe on the dropped ball. However, the camera clearly shows the ball was in possession and control.

[@dannylim3318]

The camera does not clearly show the ball was in possession and control. When he catches the ball, we only see the ball for a split second, and it was slightly moving. When he brings the ball down, we lose sight of the ball. The next time we see the ball, we see it rolling out of his glove without the throwing hand touching the ball. So, the ball could have been rolling when we don't see it. If the umpire had called an out, it would have been fine, but this safe decision is equally valid.

[@thonatim5321]

@@dannylim3318 We have to use logic and physics in some instances. The glove was clearly tight (squeeze) on the ball. There was no snow cone. So we have to infer that the ball is not moving. The ball is high in the web which is not normal so when the fielder reach in the glove to get the ball IN THE NORMAL POSITION; the ball was not there (higher in the webbing). So this means the ball was not moving. Same logic as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, did I make a noise?" Physics tells us that every time an atom moves it make noise. So Yes , the tree made a noise. Just like the ball once in a squeezed glove, did not move. I am not sure we know why he called it safe? was the ball moving or involuntary release of the ball? In either case, logic has to save the day. I know, I know, logic is only as good as the people trying to apply it. So I guess MLB uses bottom of the barrel people for replays; that is the most damning tell.

[@tubes-lut]

2 change of directions is possession

[@MarkStoddard]

Please fix your audio, it's very bad. Your loudness is like -21dB and aside from that, it just doesn't sound very good. Aside from that, you're the best baseball commentary on KZbin!

[@joshuaanderson4090]

Fix your speakers or your hearing? His audio sounds fine every time I listen.

[@williamclemens4882]

Fielder's foot was on the bag AND ball was in his glove. He then stepped off the bag and another step backwards. This part of the play is complete. The next part of the play is to go for the double out but that didn't happen because of his mis-transfer of the ball. Unfortunately, this was only evident under slow-mo. Review should have reversed the call.

[@Jlundeen]

Definitely had possession

[@scottmcshannon6821]

when he caught the ball he was extended to over 7 ft in the air, he didnt loose the ball until he brought it down to his waist on the other side of his body. definitely lost on transfer.

[@centurionhomeinspectionsin2253]

Did he have control? Didn’t look like he had a control

[@mikloowl4899]

Easiest solution. Remove the transfer rule so there is no interpretation needed. Either control the ball through the entire action or don't.

[@jagriffin1]

Brings both hands together- what’s that called? Transfer!

[@fifiwoof1969]

Need Lindsay from Close Call Sports to explain the ruling here and Jomboy to lip-read the pitcher.

[@guerro327]

You can clearly see him secure the ball into the pocket of his glove before he moves to transfer.

[@juanitalubrano1805]

Runner is out. Ball was dropped on the transfer. MLB needs to hold the officials accountable for their missed calls. Especially when it’s a game changing play. So many missed calls have changed the outcome of games.

[@af4jm]

the ball came out of the glove before the hand went into the glove, definitely NOT on the transfer, no catch, safe

[@SirTylerGolf]

He clearly had control to me when he opened his glove slightly so it'd fall down into the pocket

[@mickeydeez1024]

Basically the ball was in his glove and came out as he went to grab it and make the throw to first. That’s the exact definition of in the transfer. If he wasn’t trying to make a play to first, then he wouldn’t have dropped the ball.

[@jimmydire8607]

It could have gone either way. I don't think there was any malice behind the call. The review could have gone either way too

[@chris-808]

If he had caught the ball in the air as it was falling out and threw it to first, then it would be an out no question. Just because it fell to the ground instead shouldn't change anything.

[@tweter2]

Even if he lost it on transfer, he lost it within 1-2 seconds and with the same motion of the catch. His feat weren’t even stable for a legitimate transfer claim.

[@jchazchastain4345]

At full speed I can see how it looks like he never had full control. But the replay shows difference. Still don't like the micro-replay.

[@joet5154]

Out, on the transfer

[@jimmeade2976]

Why is there even a transfer rule? Why not make the rule simple? The player must always be in control of the ball, until he physically throws it?

[@BobbySacamano]

I'm gonna lean away from saying 100% a catch, but I'll confidently say it was 99.99999999% a catch. Upon review it should absolutely have been overturned.

[@JOHNDANIELS-i6o]

Out. , ball out on transfer. Bad call , good video.

[@johncaccamo]

Watch the slo-mo. He never has actual total control of the ball in the glove while touching the base. That lack of ever having control is why he dropped it on the transfer. But you need slo-mo to track that, so I would have been fine with a live out call too.

[@crispy6311]

He got it wrong. I was watching the game and I even said Money Mike was out. It was dropped on the transfer.

[@MichaelJohnson-ds7cl]

The ruling was safe, so there has to be overwhelming evidence that he handled the ball cleanly and then dropped it on the transfer, and I just don't see it from that angle.

[@kellyyounker1852]

Runners out, clearly lost it on the transfer to make the throw. After reaching up and making the catch, the umpire was screened by the runner until the next thing he sees is the ball falling to the ground so he made a judgement decision call on something he didn't see.

[@chucksullivan5292]

Was the ball babbling around in the glove

[@RobKandell]

1:26 - That’s ref speak for he caught it. Looked like a catch to me. We’re getting into NFL territory when you start going too deep on that.

[@ApexPro-Chris]

The runner is safe, based on the slow motion, you can see the ball move from the top of the glove to the center of the ball and the ball keeps moving and falls out of the glove. Had the fielder touch it with his transfer hand the runner would be out, but he missed the transfer hand and based on the slow motion the ball is moving and falls out. A lot of the rules in the mlb book say based on the officials interpretation. You have to clearly gain possession of the ball and this fielder did not. This crew isn’t the only people watching the replay. They have the office of officiating on the line. Yes based on what I saw, I going with an out. However based on the rule the runner is safe. We can argue this all day. The fact that an umpire calls strike on a ball clearly outside the strike zone and we can’t stop play for a replay of the pitch we have to go with the umpires interpretation. Wrong or right, it’s over. I watched a video of a retired umpire having a regular person judged balls and strikes from a pitcher. The regular person kept hesitating. The retired ump says you gotta make the decision instantly. I tell you what I would t want at job.