E51 - Buck Showalter Ejected Arguing Umpires' Interference No-Call on Ground Ball to Lindor at 2nd

[@rj7411]

Loved this honest analysis of this fiasco. Thanks CCS.

[@michaelfalkner1186]

Which, the direct ejection, or the fact we've now had 50 and it was May 9th for #50? (I know what you meant, but the disrespect at this point is becoming a real problem.)

[@DarthPicarat]

Like, whats the point of replay if it cant do anything about something soooooooooooo obvious ?

[@Nexility_]

This is my favorite channel on KZbin. I learn something new all the time; for example, the rules explanation was great but the critique of umpire positioning can't be found anywhere else. Amazing work.

[@lenstemberger1515]

The problem with staying in B position is it makes it harder to see the runner touch the base - particularly the timing of a foot hitting the base vs a tag on the runner. To me the bigger problem is why is this not reviewable?

[@vincentwendt720]

It's really a no-win situation then. I guess when umpires are being trained they have to decide what's more important, seeing safe or out at the expense of seeing potential interference; or seeing potential interference at the expense of potentially seeing whether the runner is safe or out.

[@jamesoliver6625]

@@vincentwendt720 It would be no-win except when they are paid $235K as rookie umpires, it doesn't float for me. Maybe a duffer calling travel ball in his 60s, you can easily let it slide, but not the premier baseball leagues in the world.

[@ericwildfong]

@@jamesoliver6625 How does how much someone's paid have any bearing on whether or not they have to prioritize safe/out over potential interference because of physical limitations? If MLB would just expand the number of things coaches could challenge (while keeping the limit on number of challenges) then managers would have to think if they really wanted to use like their only challenge on a potential interference call or whatever. But they probably want to "protect the umpires judgement" or some crap, which I can understand, but at the same time, let them challenge and the "penalty" for a bad challenge is they lose their challenge, at least then you can get the call right. Doesn't the NFL have a system like that??

[@jamesoliver6625]

@@ericwildfong It’s the same as being able to pitch a ball at the highest level, or hit a ball at the highest level, or throw, etc. You pay those the most who are required to accurately adjudicate the rules, every time. I for one (72 yo fart) would require that no umpire could be older than the oldest active roster player on opening day in the leagues.

[@rayray4192]

@@jamesoliver6625 you have an unrealistic expectation of perfection. Join us in the real world.

[@joshnaudi]

Great breakdown, great point on the 2b ump left foot slide technique. I've only had the 2 for 1 interference once when a runner ARod'd a second baseman on a line drive to avoid getting doubled up. I agree with Lindsay, good chance to get it on this play.

[@harty3113]

Things like this remind me of the 2004 red Sox Yankees game 7 and how many times the umpires got together to change calls. And they got them all correct after discussing. You would never see that level of competence these days.

[@mptr1783]

and I can name a dozen big plays in history that the old time umpires got together on and still got it wrong.

[@harty3113]

@@mptr1783 you probably can. I'm just talking about that one game though where they got calls right without replay that I don't know how they got right

[@BazarAustin]

Are there any videos of these? I don’t remember anything other than game 6 arod glove slap

[@harty3113]

@@BazarAustin you might be right that it's game 6. It was that, the home run and then something else I don't remember. I thought it was 7 but now that you mention it I think that game was a blowout

[@JerryCobb-p9v]

The batted ball actually hit the runners hand so he should be out for that. So many ways he should be out on this. '

[@beamo1220]

Is that reviewable?

[@mptr1783]

So yes, after I stopped the video at the moment it appeared to hit his hand, Id agree with you. Did you see that when you watched the video at full speed when the video started?

[@toddphipps5496]

Angle over distance. Thank you, you do an excellent job.

[@mptr1783]

to be fair, if the umpire stayed where he was and Lindor fielded it, he may have been in the line of fire on a throw to 1st base. I think the 1st base umpire shouldve had the best view and angle, but just allow replay on this play and we're not discussing the play

[@andrewcuda51]

I don't get why judgement calls aren't reviewable. Why not allow an opportunity for a fresh set of eyes to see a play slowed down? Isn't the objective to get the call right?

[@garyr2017]

Judgement calls are reviewed all the time. Henceforth, the close calls on batter-runner beating the throw at first or not. 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@FactsMatter]

“Henceforth” isn’t the word you’re looking for.

[@garyr2017]

@@FactsMatter Coaches are always reviewing the play in my example. Henceforth, that type of judgement play has a chance of being reviewed. I used the word correctly..originally!

[@mptr1783]

@@garyr2017 I agree with you and would like to know what category this play falls into that doesnt allow video review? I will bet it will be in the reviewable category next year lol

[@roymauler]

The fact that MLB chooses not to let the computer call the balls and strikes is pretty solid evidence that getting the call right is not the top priority of MLB.

[@amantedelcane420]

If that wasn't "willful and deliberate," then nothing is.

[@fifiwoof1969]

Good work Lindsay.

[@vincentwendt720]

I agree. This channel has really given me a lot of insight about umpiring. I can definitely say that it is a lot easier to tell what happen watching at home than it is being out on the field having to make a call, considering the fact that they are several slow motion replays from various angles.

[@KID_JEDI_76]

Wil Myers is trying his best in perfecting Alex Rodriguez's hand slap to make it look innocuous. Almost, Wil! 7.5/10

[@ChrisMeade18]

What do you mean, "almost"? He got away with it completely! He did it way better than A Rod.

[@KID_JEDI_76]

@@ChrisMeade18 lol. True, I thought about the number, though, and I was going to put 9 or 10 out of 10 but I figured people on here would say my Reds homerism is obvious haha

[@897firefly]

Is there a post game analysis and rating kept of bad calls to calls made for each umpire, not just the crew chief? Is it made public?

[@CommonSense823]

And does it mean anything other than who gets post-season assignments? Umpires need to be routinely sent down to the minors until they perform better, just like players. Or fired for poor performance, just like managers.

[@kerrytodd3753]

The bigger question is this…..if we are so damn worried about “getting the call right” then why oh why is this and other plays not reviewable? Same in football, if we look at a play to see if a player say…possessed a ball. And we see a blatant say…facemask penalty, then why don’t we call that in the interest of “getting the call right” hmmmm In this play, the player interfered with the play whether it was hit or thrown…..

[@enigmatically5150]

When this is reviewed later and the mistake is found. How is this addressed with umpires?

[@truthillinois6397]

Runners actions were intentional therefore that should be a double play.

[@mptr1783]

after mulitple reviews Id agree........do you think the umpires wouldve liked to go to replay? Id say 100% yes. Blame MLB for not allowing this play to be reviewable. RIdiculous that is isnt. I do NCAA softball and obstruction and interference plays are reviewable. How can MLB not allow it?

[@mithas1808]

I get why the ump was moving. If there was going to be a double play he would have been in the line for the 2nd to 1st throw. Tough play for 2nd base ump but he obviously missed it.

[@cloudwatcher724]

yes, move out of the way, but don't be sprinting (check out 0:08) to the point where you take yourself out of position to make the initial call on the ground ball.

[@rayray4192]

What? He started in the B position and was never in the way of any throw.

[@benr2149]

Why aren't all plays reviewable

[@HarrySJohnson]

This is tough to see in real time, so I am potentially willing to give U2 a pass. How this is not reviewable is mind-boggling. Outside of balls and strikes (which are coming too), everything ought to be reviewable. Oh to have been a fly on the wall at the meeting where they cherrypicked what would be reviewable and what would not be.

[@bachiggawagga4168]

You know it was probably umps like, Don't review the things we get wrong the most. That could make us look bad

[@justinbowling6382]

@@bachiggawagga4168 Safe/Out calls on the bases are reviewable which are the most common thing missed outside of balls/strikes.

[@teebob21]

@@bachiggawagga4168 Umpires do not write the rules that the MLB Commissioner's Office sets out.

[@bachiggawagga4168]

@@teebob21 ... obviously

[@terrencecitywide]

Lin I’m enjoying new fun out of my baseball addiction because of your work

[@CommonSense823]

If umpires can’t see obvious things like this, they don’t need to be on the field. Call the entire game (balls/strikes, everything) with video. The goal is to get the call correct, right? The human umpires obviously can’t, and they aren’t held accountable for getting it wrong. Just replace them already. The days of umpires “I don’t need to get it right, and you can’t question me” attitudes are coming to a close. The sooner, the better.

[@gridly.todd.h]

I watch most of your vids, but this one is especially good.

[@ilovebrandnewcarpets]

GREAT explanation of the rule! And @3:04 IMHO clearly that' is willful and deliberate. Double play.

[@zyavorx]

Good breakdown although you missed the part that not only was it interference but the BATTED BALL also HIT THE RUNNER FIRST!! So technically there should have been an out call regardless of the umpire discretion for an interference call. Overall its a joke that its not reviewable or able to be challenged when its as blatant as it is, but the mets should have also challenged the runner getting hit by the batted ball.

[@holmj12]

Actually that doesn't apply here since the ball does first touch the fielder. You could also argue that the runner was behind the infielder which makes it not illegal for the ball to hit the runner.

[@nateandamber]

@@holmj12 Ball NEVER touched the fielder. Look at 1:38 - 1:39 and it is clear it was all hand (unless the ball magically went through Wil Myers hand). And you are wrong on your second sentence as well. Sliding behind doesn't negate that the ball hit him. The fielder has to have had an opportunity to make the play. If Myers didn't reach out, Lindor easily makes the play.

[@holmj12]

@@nateandamber sure thanks

[@pointyshineygreentip8718]

Excellent breakdown

[@joewatson6249]

It appears in slow motion the runner bot only deflected the ball but at same time then pulled lindors arm.down so he had no play at all. Should be automatic double play on that alone.

[@garytravis9347]

Even if the runner knocking the glove hand away is missed, I thought runner hit by batted ball (which happened here) was reviewable. Of course I'm probably wrong.

[@VisibilityFoggy]

Ha, if there's one word that does NOT generally describe Buck's style of management, it's "histrionics." The only thing I've ever heard Mets fans get annoyed at with him is the fact that he, himself, never seems to get mad enough lol.

[@toddphipps5496]

True. My thoughts on that subject is that a good manager, picks his battles. Guys like Boone, Mattingly, Renteria, and some other's tend to fly out of the dugout to go off on an Umpire, on a regular basis, tends to lower their credibility because it happens so frequently. Guy's like Buck, Franco, Baker, etc., don't come out to argue as much, on every little questionable call, have more credibility with umpires than the regulars. However, when those manager's do come out, they usually know they're right and are handled a bit different when they approach umpires. This tier of manager's are usually guys that have been in the game for many years. The old, "firing your team up" excuse has become way over used, in my opinion? I don't know if that makes sense or other's agree or not, but that is how I see it? Feel free to share your thoughts on this, if you want? I'm interested in hearing other's take on this observation. God speed!

[@bryanjames1376]

What would the criteria be for a successful protest of this or any other game?

[@ericwildfong]

At this point, the criteria would be for MLB to allow protests again

[@bryanjames1376]

@@ericwildfong fair.

[@rayray4192]

Protests were about a misapplication of a rule; not a judgement call.

[@SkinnyCow.]

I enjoy your vids, you earned a sub today madam !

[@ronpeacock9939]

I think the BU2 missed call trying to get into position... BU1 may not have been paying attention... BU3 would never have seen it and PU was probably in the same boat. I agree, this looked pretty blatant...

[@danielbwroblewski]

I agree, but BU1 is trained to watch the release of the throw to first so he should have been looking at the play and would have had a pretty good angle.

[@mptr1783]

@@danielbwroblewski again, when I watched the play for the first time, I didnt see anything. DId you? I know the Mets announcers didnt . On replay, it was clear. Blame MLB for not having this type of play on the review list. WHy?

[@BF-qt2wp]

Awesome video keep up with a great work and be safe out there. 👍 😀

[@terrytitus5291]

Good analysis,my question is,did Lindor put up much of a protest,him being mad would seem to make it obvious or it happened too fast and he didn't notice. Showalter has probably about the most self control of any manager or Dusty Baker,Dave Roberts can be pretty self controlled too!

[@MrSeezero]

Maybe Lindor wanted to avoid being ejected, too.

[@stephenkasper6081]

It's difficult to see in real time, needs to be a reviewable play

[@cinci4life116]

I'm a Reds fan and i couldn't believe Myers got away with that. That was blatant interference. I was expecting an ejection from that game last night but hough it would come from the balls and strikes. That HP ump was pretty bad for both teams.

[@matthewnickerson3991]

That's clearly interfence . He clearly swings his hand at the glove and ball.

[@43labontepetty]

Clear intentional action to keep Lindor from catching the ball. Absolute double play.

[@douglassepic9030]

I disagree. It appears that the runner was putting up this hand to shield his face and that's when the interference occurred.

[@gradyrm237]

"Inside rimming" Hey now

[@oldguydoesstuff120]

The umpire team on the field should be able to request a review from New York at any time for any reason. It would be fine with me if the 2nd base ump here said he was moving and didn't see the interference and the other umps could fess up to not looking (after all, that wouldn't be their call in the first place.) If the goal is to get the call right, they should be able to call in backup to get the call right. I'm fine with limiting the managers' challenges, but crew chief reviews should be unlimited. (Except perhaps for balls and strikes, as we don't want the games to go back to the 4 hour marathons.) So in my mind, the biggest mistake here is not calling for a crew chief review - whether by rule or by the stubbornness of the crew.

[@austin.draude]

I'm 100% in favor of a ball-strike challenge - check out what they're doing in AAA with the Hawkeye system that tennis uses.

[@mptr1783]

best response Ive read.......theres not a chance that any of these umpires wouldnt have wanted to look at this play again on replay. MLB handcuffed them. You can't make up a call if you don't see something and its cleary that the angle and speed of this play was the reason they missed it. Nobody on this site saw what happened while watching the play happen the first time at full speed

[@oldguydoesstuff120]

@@austin.draude I don't think I'd want a pitch by pitch challenge. I'd rather have a full robo ump for balls and strikes. If you allow challenges, you have to put limits on those challenges, and that will trade one set of problems for another.

[@wintonbrangman7630]

One quick thing they corrected the call for A Rod, but didn’t. A Rod was intentional interference between home and first, he should’ve been called out, the runner closest to the plate should’ve also been called out (Jeter) and the inning over. Thankfully a ground out ended the inning and no harm no foul

[@rayray4192]

Wanna back your statement up with a rule?

[@dodiad]

@@rayray4192 The rule he’s talking about is [6.01(a)(7)] (formerly [7.09(g)]), but it doesn’t apply here because there was no double play involved. The crew in that case got it right: BR is out, runner (Jeter) returns to his base at the time of the pitch. If the interference had been committed “with the obvious intent to break up a double play,” the furthest-advanced runner would be out as well.

[@rayray4192]

@@dodiad when batter interference occurs with a batted ball with the obvious intent to prevent a double play and the umpire does not know who the defense was going to play on the runner closest to home is out as well as the batter- runner. A - Rod interfered with a thrown ball

[@rayray4192]

Correction -cheater A-Rod interfered with a fielder trying to tag him

[@dodiad]

@@rayray4192 You are correct, I overlooked the “batted ball” clause. That’s *two* reasons [6.01(a)(7)] doesn’t apply to the A-Rod play: (1) it wasn’t a batted ball; (2) it wasn’t to break up a double play. As I said, the umpires got it right. I was just answering your question to @wintonbragman7630, about which rule he had in mind. He meant [6.01(a)(7)] ([7.09(g)] at the time), but he was wrong, it didn’t apply to this play.

[@robd1302]

I saw something that said that intentional interference to break up a double play as described is indeed reviewable. Was that ever questioned on the field during this incident?

[@DJTexan]

Ejection wasn’t warranted. I’ve seen bigger gestures by both managers and umpires that didn’t result in ejections. That should’ve been a double play. There is no point of replay if it only covers a small amount of things. This should be reviewable. Also, the modern mechanics are terrible. It’s so annoying how umpires make calls chill/relaxed and position themselves so far away from the plays in past 30 years. When I umpired 1968-90, we were closer to the plays in a 3 and 4 umpire system. Unless this is 2-man, there is no reason for second base umpire to be that far away while making that call. On top of that, by running past second base to shortstop side, you’re obstructing your view of the tag. It’s time for mechanics to be changed again.

[@azsportsguy25]

I don’t know about that one Lindsay. I thought initially the ball hit the guy‘s helmet. As I now watch the play now for a 2nd and 3rd time, the ruling should have been that the runner at 2nd base should’ve been out and the batter should be at first base based on the rule book 6.01a10

[@austin.draude]

Agreed. I'm not buying the double-play argument here... unless his specific intent is to slap the tag on the helmet and immediately throw the ball onto first base, there's no double play coming out of this one. I don't see it.

[@CommonSense823]

@@austin.draude how often do you see people slide with their hands reaching for the glove? Isn’t the point of the slide to get as far from the glove as possible? This was clearly intentional.

[@ChrisMeade18]

​@@austin.draude How are you not buying the double play argument? There was a play to be made on the runner had the runner not interfered with the fielder catching the ball. Isn't there always a possible play on the batter-runner heading to 1st immediately after a play on a runner heading to 2nd? Which part don't you see? The catch turning into a tag? How do you not see that? If the runner wasn't touching the base at the time that he interfered with the batted ball, how can you say there wasn't a possible play on him? The only difficult part of the call here is deciding if the interference was intentional. That I could see going either way. I just don't see what you're saying - that this wasn't a potential double play had there been no interference.

[@moosemcgillicuddy7585]

Boy, Howdy, the refs screw this call up!

[@lastdance2099]

Well, at least Showalter was in the right when he was ejected. That other New York manager gets ejected a lot and he's always in the wrong.

[@jayseaborg3895]

Looked like two possible interferences-one, he prevented Lindor from going for the ball, and two, he appeared hte batted ball hit his hand, in which case he's out anyway.

[@kylesmith4767]

Could this not have been challenged? Or were they out of challenges? That’s a poor missed call umpire moving or not.

[@CybeastID]

Nope. Unreviewable, no recourse.

[@kurtwitten]

How is this not reviewable? If they're going to have review, they need to be able to review anything questionable outside of balls and strikes.

[@CommonSense823]

Review balls and strikes too. Hold umpires accountable

[@mph7282]

It is reviewable.

[@wehkfam5680]

I understand why intentional interference isn't reviewable: there is a certain amount of subjectiveness in determining someone else's unspoken intent. I don't understand why a team can't ask for a review as to whether an opponent ran into a player trying to field a batted ball. Great job explaining the 2 rules at play.

[@Mattywill29]

Perfect analysis of this play...

[@libra3655]

Poor sportsmanship. You have a lead and pull an A Rod, not cool at all

[@delphic464]

This sort of play needs to be reviewable simply due to the intentional nature of the interference. To go further, there should be a penalty from the league for this sort of nonsense. That swipe at the glove was clearly intentional and is a bad look for the game. Some sort of "conduct detrimental to the game" type suspension.

[@tristangarcia6665]

Should be reviewable cuz no way that was accidental.

[@mph7282]

It is reviewable.

[@Jaxdrill]

OH boy number 50 already!? Good grief.

[@mikecumbo7531]

At least it wasn’t a pace of play or strike zone issue.

[@bearcat81]

Once again, here's an example of why not allowing games to be played under protest anymore is a stupid rule change and should be undone. Allowing a game to be played under protest will have ZERO impact on pace of play and could have resolved this because imo this is not a judgment call type of play the interference is blatantly obvious. Hometown reds fan here but this is a bad call by a crew that also had a HP umpire who was very bad in this game too.

[@bluejaysbaseball]

Every call should be reviewable by video replay. Why why why prevent umpires from having every means available to get a call right?

[@mptr1783]

thats a bingo

[@ep4412]

Looks to me that the runner was hit by the ball first, so wouldn’t he be out for being hit by a batted ball? Is that reviewable?

[@bralph82]

This is Arod level

[@chunkb9346]

Should be dead ball, batter and runner out. Obviously a 6. On the interference.

[@michaelsaya4989]

Being a Mets fan myself. You can't call a double play on this because as much as I would have loved that, there was no way they were turning two in that situation. The runner should have been out at second on a force play and runner reaches first.

[@gsandy5235]

It was very willful as it is unnatural for a slider to have his hand that high.

[@TooMuchBSToo]

As a Reds fan, this was clearly interference.

[@mexicoliferodcook9479]

The umpires should be fined as well as the runner who intentionally interfered should be given a game suspension.

[@mptr1783]

maybe chop off his hand also so he cant do it again

[@mexicoliferodcook9479]

@@mptr1783 Even as a Mets fan, that is a little extreme. Funny tho

[@Mox3712]

Umpiring has been absolutely atrocious so far this year - the umps seem to be regressing

[@williamavitt8264]

The runner gets hit by the batted ball before the fielder touches it. He's out

[@mptr1783]

yes, but a full speed nobody saw it. Allow review on this play and its an easy call. Blame MLB for not allowing review on this

[@CommonSense823]

@@mptr1783 Buck saw it from 150 feet away. The four people paid to see it missed it.

[@williamavitt8264]

@MP TR oh, I agree. You can only see it in some angles even on replay. Some angles it looks like the runner swats the ball away, and other angles it looks like he swats the glove. Either way, he's out, either on interference or on being hit by the batted ball before a fielder touches it

[@robfreeman5783]

These breakdowns are far far better than Jomboy's. This is really great content, keep it up.

[@bachiggawagga4168]

They should toss the blind umps from the game

[@jodypresti94]

Os fan here. We miss you Buck

[@patrickhyde6125]

The umpires got this one right. The fielder has no right to be in the baseline attempting to catch the ball, including putting his glove in the baseline or the runner's established basepath. As you quoted the rule, one the fielder has the ball in his possession, he can take the baseline away from the runner BUT NOT UNTIL HE HAS POSSESSION OF THE BALL. The runner has the right to put his hand anywhere in his base path. If the fielder is stupid enough to put his empty glove in the runner's base path, it is fair game for the runner to put his hand anywhere he wants. If the runner put his hand in the fielder's glove while the fielder's glove is not in the runner's base path, then the runner is interfering with the fielder's LEGITIMATE attempt to catch a thrown ball. Frequently, as in this case, a fielder will gamble and be in the runner's base path before the fielder actually gets the ball in his possession, risking that he will have the ball in his possession before the runner gets there - that happens frequently in double play situations - but he does so at his own risk. Get your glove and your body out of the base path until you have possession of the ball or if there is any contact with the runner, even his hand in your glove, you are obstructing the runner. Not only was the fielder's glove in the runner's basepath, but his entire body was in the runner's basepath and in contact with the runner's body. At the moment of contact, that is obstruction and a delayed dead ball. The umpires should have signaled and given the runner another base. If there is contact, it has to be one or the other. Also, you quoted the rule of runner interference, but you neglected and missed the part about an attempted double play. As far as I know this was not an attempted double play, because the fielder was attempting to make the tag, so that interference rule doesn't apply.

[@patrickhyde6125]

I have to correct myself here. As I saw the video it shows a batted ball - squib hit to the third baseman and a throw to the shortstop. That was a deceptive video. Apparently, based upon the conversation this is a batted ground ball - a totally different play - to the second base side of the bag being fielded by the shortstop. According to the rule as quoted, the runner has to give way to the fielder legitimately fielding a batted ball. But the fielder has no right to change the way he is fielding the ball to get a double play when the double play is not available, and the runner only has to give way to the fielder legitimately fielding the ball. That is what is causing the confusion. Here in order to get a double play the shortstop is first on the second base side of the bag, where the second baseman normally would field the ball. Next, the shortstop does not have to go into the runner's bae path to field this ball. He is not only going in the base path, he is going to the outside of the base path after the runner has yielded the base path to him. The shortstop is way outside the normal right to field the ball and after the runner has started his slide is attempting to make the tag - before he has the ball in his possession or glove - to get the double play because otherwise, he can't get the double play. It appears that the fielder is not only in the runner's initial base path, but also past the runner's adjusted base path, he is not there to field the ball. He is there to make the tag and get the double play. this is a hit and run situation as the announcers stated. You cannot assume a double play. And a runner does not have to assume a double play when he yields his base path to a fielder making a legitimate attempt to field a batted ball. You have to give the batted ball the benefit it deserves by being placed where it ended up. The runner does not have to adjust his base path to help the fielder get a double play when it is otherwise not there. the fielder has no right to be in the runner's adjusted base path when he did not have to be to field a batted ball. He was there to attempt the tag, not as a legitimate attempt to field a batted ball. Again it was a bad call, but because of the video not showing the whole play, I initially concluded that for the wrong reason. A fielder can't tag the runner with the ball that he has not yet fielded and therefore is not yet in his possession, when the runner is legitimately in his adjusted base path and already sliding. that is not failing to yield to a fielder legitimately attempting to field a batted ball. If the fielder is in the act of tagging the runner, he is not in the act of fielding the ball. You cannot take the legitimate base path away from a runner to tag him without possession of the ball. That is not fielding the ball.

[@thienvu8120]

Some angles it looks like the ball hit the runner also. I'm confused why this isn't reviewable??

[@jimreed3916]

Me too!

[@mptr1783]

yes, thats the million dollar question...........why wasnt this play reviewable?

[@mahasw777]

Great analysis as usual. Thanks!

[@bsdsooner]

That’s a super easy call and he was looking right at it. Not sure how an MLB ump misses that call. But the good news is he will get a raise and a postseason assignment.

[@jlruiz3895]

Love buck pointing at all 4 umpires and the at his eyes. Beautifully executed by him 😂😂

[@tjbaden]

That was absolutely intentional interference, but the umps have to cover for the quota hire who made the wrong call. Yes, I said it....QUOTA HIRE

[@davidbrooks1724]

That is An out all day long

[@terrencecitywide]

Thanks Lin I love Brian Piccolo

[@kentskor2055]

Why is the runner also out for touching a batted ball before the fielder?

[@mptr1783]

because they obviously didnt see it ..........and neither did you until you replayed it in slow motion lol

[@Plaguez21]

Shocker that the umps got it wrong again.

[@mptr1783]

actually, MLB got it wrong by not allowing them to go to review..........

[@FrankHarmon-c1i]

That is a defensive less runner situation with runner avoiding a collision

[@mkrnp]

As much as I do not follow the NY Mess, the umps blew this.

[@hachadorada]

I can't understand how they screwed this one up.

[@Clothahump1]

Looked deliberate to me. I'd have called the double out.

[@theovrionides7666]

A-Rod anyone

[@MikeQuintana-hk8zt]

Runner should have been called out for putting his hands up to deflect the ball away!

[@TwentyItaliansLS]

Another unreasonable instance of MLB umpires standing behind an obviously bad call. This isn't about "solidarity" or some crap, it's about getting the call RIGHT.

[@davidschantz5363]

Terrible Umpiring.

[@quarantinechill_4530]

i didn’t know MJ was a mets fan

[@Marco-iw8hv]

He didn’t do it on purpose, that’s just how a player’s hand naturally moves when sliding.

[@garygemmell3488]

Why would the 2B umpire move other than pivoting in place to follow the ball? Why? His only responsibility is at second base. It's stupid moves like this that feed the robo ump numbskulls.

[@vincentwendt720]

From listening to the explanation in the video, my guess is it has something to do with his training. I'm not positive though. I definitely think the position he was in caused him to not see the interference.

[@ImReverseGiraffe]

Robo ump isn't for calls on the field. He moved because he was in line with the throw to first and to get a better angle on the runner foot on the bag. This isn't a common occurrence, so they don't set up to watch for this.

[@garygemmell3488]

@@ImReverseGiraffe I very well know that robots aren't for calls on the field. The robo fan bois will still use this. Unless you have some kind of special vision or computer screen, the umpire was never going to be in the way of a throw. The bottom line is that he should have done nothing but pivot as the ball passed him.

[@minaeldiwany3215]

If the ball hits the players in the back that's interference. But on the other hand if it hits the hand that's not interference.

[@chrisdar79]

Horrible call. How no one on the crew sees that is mind boggling. The histrionics excuse for ejecting managers when umpires blow it is absurd. The fact that they won't review it is even more ridiculous.

[@rayray4192]

Thanks for playing, but you are wrong. A blown call doesn’t mean a manager gets to be derisive.

[@1NobleGiant]

It's easy to get calls right on your couch

[@CommonSense823]

@@rayray4192 a blown call has absolutely zero consequences for the umpires. Until that changes, managers and players should have more leeway.

[@CommonSense823]

@@1NobleGiant or in this case, 120feet away from the dugout while four paid umpires all miss it.

[@rayray4192]

@@CommonSense823 you are ignorant. The most important goal and achievement of all umpires is post season assignments. The umpires who make the fewest mistakes are assigned playoff and World Series games. Umpires are better than ever, but humans aren’t visually perfect. No one saw the runner’s hand. It’s an error. Get over it.

[@terrencecitywide]

Some plays are not reviewable? Tell that to Macy’s

[@ezekielsanchez4912]

Slow it down, and you absolutely see that the batted ball hits the runner's hand before the glove. So, interference isn't even the issue. Ball is dead, runner is out for being hit directly by a batted ball. Interference isn't reviewable, but is the batted ball hitting the runner reviewable? I thought it was.

[@CloseCallSports]

A batted ball hitting the runner *is* interference.

[@ezekielsanchez4912]

@@CloseCallSports Good to know. Guess I'll just stick to officiating basketball LOL. Maybe they need to add it to list of reviewable plays. I know we don't want to slow down the game, but this was such a crucial and obvious mistake.

[@bunpeishiratori5849]

I think it’s a stretch to assume a double play there.

[@fiestafire5781]

Hear me out. Maybe the reds runner put his hands up to block the ball from hitting him since he knew the ball was heading toward him and he had to hope the throw that was kinda off got caught or he blocks it himself. And since it's a quick reaction he didn't have time to think of it as a potential interference, even tho it was. I'm just saying I don't think he did it on purpose.

[@FrankHarmon-c1i]

That is a good no call

[@stoytastic]

Should definitely be a double play interference ruling

[@cloudwatcher724]

bottom line: if you are a baseball umpire getting paid six figures to umpire baseball, you DO NOT miss that call. U2 has ONE responsibility on that play: second base. focus and get it RIGHT.

[@critter2]

so money makes you perfect whats your own excuse? Seriously you you didnt notice it right away either without him replaying it over and over and over than you see it

[@ryanvannice7878]

I would expect an umpire to call what he sees and, although it looks like he was blocked from seeing the obvious interference. Had video review been allowed, it would've been easy to get it right.

[@cloudwatcher724]

@@critter2 not saying money makes you perfect. but it should get you darn close. what else could U2 have possibly been looking at other than the ground ball and player interaction, which were happening at the exact same place at the exact same time? the slide into second base isn't relevant yet as the ball hasn't been fielded at the time of the contact. not a difficult call, at any level. john tumpane would not have missed this call.

[@cloudwatcher724]

@@ryanvannice7878 look at 0:08. there is NOTHING between U2 and the play, and the runner's hands are already headed toward the fielder's glove. as is mentioned in the video, i'm not sure why U2 is on a dead sprint AWAY from the play; that was probably his first mistake. but even so, his view of the play is TOTALLY unobstructed.

[@rayray4192]

You are ignorant in regard to the fact that baseball is a game of failure.

[@mptr1783]

Like some have said on here the biggest joke is that this play isnt reviewable. Why? Either have review or don't for eveything. And while we're at it, don't allow the teams to call upstairs and decide. Give them 30 seconds after a play is over to decide whether or not they want to look at it. And then, if wrong, a penalty for delay of game should be implemented. No human being can 100% make this call with certainty........we have review, use it

[@mph7282]

Intentional interference in an attempt to break up a double play IS reviewable.

[@mptr1783]

@@mph7282 so did Buck not challenge that part of the play? If so, why not since so many on here say Buck saw everything clear as day from the dugout lol

[@mph7282]

@@mptr1783 I don’t know if Buck didn’t or tried but wasn’t allowed. Or if he even had a challenge left. But the application of the intentionally breaking up the double play rule is reviewable. So if he had a challenge available, and met all the timing requirements, they should have reviewed that if he asked for it.

[@mptr1783]

@@mph7282 I really wish someone had the correct answer as to why the play didnt go to review then

[@alexandrelambert4923]

Hot take: Crew F is the best crew. I hardly ever see Dreckman or Wegner in these videos. Plus Stu Scheurwater is on this crew! 🇨🇦