The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

This was originally ruled an error breaking up a perfect game.









Then this happened WITH 2 OUTS IN THE NINTH breaking up a no-hitter:









The error call on the first play was changed to a hit call after the game making it a two-hitter.

Following the game, Ortiz officially appealed the scoring decision on the error because he wanted the hit. MLB announced on Wednesday that they have overturned the call, changing the error to a base hit. Darvish's one-hitter is now a two-hitter.

To his credit, Ortiz said he would not have appealed the error had Darvish completed the no-hitter.

The first play was definitely not an error. The only reason it was ruled that way was the no-no.

Deadskins wrote:The first play was definitely not an error. The only reason it was ruled that way was the no-no.

I think I (and my teammate) would have been told one of us should have called for that one in little league. I think the outfielder would typically call off the infielder on that one.

One thing I like about you is that you check the board.

Don't you think one of those 2 major leaguers should have caught that? I'm sure either one would have if the other was not in the area. I see it as an easy error call and am fairly surprised the call was changed.

Heck, had there been men on 1st and 2nd with fewer than 2 outs, an ump may have been tempted to invoke the infield fly rule!

It also seems to me that both players act as if they feel like they blew it.

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:The first play was definitely not an error. The only reason it was ruled that way was the no-no.

I think I (and my teammate) would have been told one of us should have called for that one in little league. I think the outfielder would typically call off the infielder on that one.

One thing I like about you is that you check the board.

Don't you think one of those 2 major leaguers should have caught that? I'm sure either one would have if the other was not in the area. I see it as an easy error call and am fairly surprised the call was changed.

Heck, had there been men on 1st and 2nd with fewer than 2 outs, an ump may have been tempted to invoke the infield fly rule!

It also seems to me that both players act as if they feel like they blew it.

Just because one of them should have caught it (you are correct the outfielder should have called him off), doesn't make it an error. No one touched the ball. Like I said, it would have never been scored an error, had there not been a no-hitter in play.

First of all, it was a judgement call with room for argument.

Deadskins wrote:Just because one of them should have caught it (you are correct the outfielder should have called him off), doesn't make it an error.

I couldn't disagree more. For me (and apparently, for the official scorer at the game) this is precisely why it was an error. Here is the rule he invoked after reviewing the play many times:

Weller cited Rule 10.12, which covers errors in the official scoring rules and includes the comment: "The official scorer shall charge an outfielder with an error if such outfielder allows a fly ball to drop to the ground if, in the official scorer's judgment, at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball."

Deadskins wrote:No one touched the ball.

... which, conversely, does not make it a hit.

Weller watched numerous replays and conferred with Elias Sports Bureau, the sport's longtime record-keeper. He cited MLB rules that a ball doesn't have to be touched to be an error. If a fly ball drops to the ground, the official scorer can charge an error if, in his judgment, the outfielder ''making ordinary effort would have caught'' it.

Deadskins wrote:Like I said, it would have never been scored an error, had there not been a no-hitter in play.

This may be true but is clearly conjecture.

My take on the play is that both fielders erred in thinking the other would make the catch.

My conjecture is that the official scorer followed the letter of the rule and scored the play correctly because he saw an error committed. A ball which should have easily been caught was not because two guys made mistakes. My next conjecture is that MLB reversed the call (at the request of Ortiz) as a matter of non-binding tradition:

It was the proper call according to the rulebook, but not in adherence with normal scoring practices. Usually, balls that fall untouched are ruled hits.

Naturally, MLB does not give a reason for their overturn but everything I've read points to tradition.

I work with a fella who wrote for the Boston Globe covering baseball for several decades. He has a Hall of Fame vote. He has not yet seen the play and is up on the rule and the tradition. He told me he's seen plenty of balls fall untouched that were ruled as errors over the years.

It's a judgement call and a matter of degree. In the view of the official scorer and me, an ordinary effort results in a catch. I'm wondering if he initially gave BOTH guys errors. I would have ... if the rules allow for it.

#shrug

DarthMonk wrote:

It was the proper call according to the rulebook, but not in adherence with normal scoring practices. Usually, balls that fall untouched are ruled hits.

That's what I said. Sure it may happen ocasionally the other way, but the strike zone in the rulebook isn't called in MLB either. If I'm scoring the game (and it's not a no-hitter), it's not an error. 'nuff said.

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

It was the proper call according to the rulebook, but not in adherence with normal scoring practices. Usually, balls that fall untouched are ruled hits.

That's what I said. Sure it may happen ocasionally the other way, but the strike zone in the rulebook isn't called in MLB either. If I'm scoring the game (and it's not a no-hitter), it's not an error. 'nuff said.

Not exactly what you said, but OK. The quote is simply someone else's opinion.

I asked "Is this not an error?" and your opinion is clear.

Back to Hogwash.

You're right, I left out the part about it not being an official rule, but I answered your question using the guidelines of how that play would be traditionally scored. If your question had been about whether a pitch just above the belt being a strike, I would have said it was a ball for the same reasons. It's not what's officially in the rulebook, but it's how it's called in today's game.

THIS is a hit:





The play where dumb and dumber screw up is an error.

I'm still scratching my head a little on this one:

Deadskins wrote:Just because one of them should have caught it (you are correct the outfielder should have called him off), doesn't make it an error.

It's just not enough for me to say "since untouched balls (careful!!) are usually ruled hits, this ball should be too." <---- Not a quote of you but, I think, an accurate summary of your position.

THIS ball





clearly should have been caught, fits the rule perfectly, and this scorer has ruled this way many times without a no-no being an issue. I guess you and I see these kinds of things differently but I gotta tell ya, I had a feeling you'd be the only guy to weigh in and so far, you da man.

This could be one of the longest non-issue threads in history.

I'm ok with scoring it a hit... but only because I think Big Papi is the MAN...

Countertrey wrote:This could be one of the longest non-issue threads in history.

I'm ok with scoring it a hit... but only because I think Big Papi is the MAN...

Mike Axisa CBS Baseball Writer wrote:To his credit, Ortiz said he would not have appealed the error had Darvish completed the no-hitter.

Countertrey (in his sig) wrote:"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

Dewey Bunnell, America also wrote:And Cause never was the reason for the evening
Or the tropic of Sir Galahad.

DarthMonk wrote:

Countertrey wrote:This could be one of the longest non-issue threads in history.

I'm ok with scoring it a hit... but only because I think Big Papi is the MAN...

Mike Axisa CBS Baseball Writer wrote:To his credit, Ortiz said he would not have appealed the error had Darvish completed the no-hitter.

Papi respects the game... he honors the game... but, my favorite was his speech after the Marathon Bombing... "This is OUR F***ing CITY". I'm no fan of Boston, but this dude is just awesome.

Countertrey (in his sig) wrote:"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

and, sometimes your lyric can have a point...

Dewey Bunnell, America also wrote:And Cause never was the reason for the evening
Or the tropic of Sir Galahad.

and, sometimes, ya just gotta jam in something that rhymes!

Pop fly was clearly an error on the 2B, who should have stopped and let the RF take it. Would have been an easy play for the RF.

welch wrote:Pop fly was clearly an error on the 2B, who should have stopped and let the RF take it. Would have been an easy play for the RF.

Only if the RF called him off, brother... I saw no indication that he was called off... so he had to play the ball. I think that was all on the RF... though, technically, it was an E-4... or SHOULD have been... God, why is baseball so friggin nuanced???

I'm still OK with giving Papi the hit, though... because... well... he's Papi. I'm not losing any sleep here.

Countertrey wrote:

welch wrote:Pop fly was clearly an error on the 2B, who should have stopped and let the RF take it. Would have been an easy play for the RF.

Only if the RF called him off, brother... I saw no indication that he was called off... so he had to play the ball. I think that was all on the RF... though, technically, it was an E-4... or SHOULD have been...

I disagree. It's not an E-4 because he was going back and never got to the ball (granted he stopped when he heard/saw the RF coming in). The onus is on the RF because he's coming in and has the play in front of him. Even if the RF wasn't around, then I would still hesitate to call it an error, because it was untouched. I'd go even further to say that, without the RF in the play, it arguably isn't an E-4 even if it glances off his glove, due to the fact that he's going back and had to make an over the shoulder catch. Clearly the RF is at fault on this play, but it is what it is.

DarthMonk wrote:It's just not enough for me to say "since untouched balls (careful!!) are usually ruled hits, this ball should be too." <---- Not a quote of you but, I think, an accurate summary of your position.

THIS ball





clearly should have been caught, fits the rule perfectly, and this scorer has ruled this way many times without a no-no being an issue. I guess you and I see these kinds of things differently but I gotta tell ya, I had a feeling you'd be the only guy to weigh in and so far, you da man.

I guess MLB sees it differently than you do, too.

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

welch wrote:Pop fly was clearly an error on the 2B, who should have stopped and let the RF take it. Would have been an easy play for the RF.

Only if the RF called him off, brother... I saw no indication that he was called off... so he had to play the ball. I think that was all on the RF... though, technically, it was an E-4... or SHOULD have been...

I disagree. It's not an E-4 because he was going back and never got to the ball (granted he stopped when he heard/saw the RF coming in). The onus is on the RF because he's coming in and has the play in front of him. Even if the RF wasn't around, then I would still hesitate to call it an error, because it was untouched. I'd go even further to say that, without the RF in the play, it arguably isn't an E-4 even if it glances off his glove, due to the fact that he's going back and had to make an over the shoulder catch. Clearly the RF is at fault on this play, but it is what it is.

He didn't stop when he heard the RF... he misplayed the ball... therefore, E4. While I don't dispute that the RF SHOULD have called him off, and made the play, he had time, and a sound adjustment puts him in excellent position to make the catch with no real effort. It was "over the shoulder" only because it was misplayed. Misplayed = E4

I hate the games scorekeepers play. Cal Ripkin "broke" the error free streak set by Eddie Brinkman, not because he actually played more error free games in a row... but because he had the good fortune to commit an error very late in his streak while playing at home. Heck, as popular as he was, it probable wouldn't have mattered WHERE he played. I love Cal Ripkin... but that was bogus.

The play in the vid SHOULD have been scored an E4... but wasn't, only because another class player was involved on the offensive end of the bat, and requested a review. I'm done. If you have a need to declare victory, knock yourself out... but

Countertrey wrote:While I don't dispute that the RF SHOULD have called him off, and made the play, he had time, and a sound adjustment puts him in excellent position to make the catch with no real effort. It was "over the shoulder" only because it was misplayed. Misplayed = E4

Agreed. That's where you're wrong, my friend. Here's a scenario: a player hits a high pop, and the outfielder initially thinks it's short and runs in. Then, seeing that the ball is carrying farther, realizes it's going over his head, and starts to head back, but is too late, and the ball falls just past his outstretched glove. Error? Nope. Misplayed? Yes. You can't tell from the video if the wind might have caught the ball, or the lights got in his eyes. Generally speaking, if the ball goes untouched, it's a hit. Are there exceptions? Obviously, but this play wasn't one of those.

Countertrey wrote:The play in the vid SHOULD have been scored an E4... but wasn't, only because another class player was involved on the offensive end of the bat, and requested a review.

Huh? So your argument is that they gave him the hit because he's a class player? Um, no. He asked for, and was awarded, the hit because that is the way MLB is scored. It was originally scored an error (because the hometown scorekeeper was trying to preserve the no-hitter), so that throws your scorekeeper games theory out the window (or at least makes it counter to your argument). He wouldn't have asked for the review, if he didn't think it should have been scored a hit. MLB wouldn't have overturned the scorekeeper's call, if they didn't think it was a hit. So I'm sorry if you don't agree, and I don't need to declare victory, because the issue was already decided, and I'm not the one on the wrong side of the call.