The only thing that makes me sure he tagged the runner is how the ump signs ‘safe’ and the runner touches the plate right after, just to be sure. Makes me think the runner thought he was out too.
1:35 Under the plate-blocking rule (Rule 6.01(i)(2)), if the catcher blocks the plate without the ball, "the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe". But plate-blocking "in a legitimate attempt to field the throw" is exempted. So the question is, does that exception apply here?
Note to Umps : When you see the Catcher move his mitt 6 inches back towards the Strike Zone after catching the ball - it was NOT a Strike . Glad I could clear that up for you.
1:35 The runners fingers touch the plate. You can see the catchers leg get pulled across the plate by the runners hand. Definitely touched home plate. The catcher loses the ball and it doesn’t matter. The runner is definitely safe. The replay shows it better. No question on that call.
Nothing wrong with the first call, except that the announcers wrongly proclaimed the runner to be safe. Its hard to tell when the laces of the glove contacted the runners leg.
2:38 If you watch the catcher’s mitt it’s actually a really close call whether or not he touched the runner with that sweeping motion.
The only thing that makes me sure he tagged the runner is how the ump signs ‘safe’ and the runner touches the plate right after, just to be sure. Makes me think the runner thought he was out too.
1:07 rangers and rays is one of the worse I've ever seen
1:35 Under the plate-blocking rule (Rule 6.01(i)(2)), if the catcher blocks the plate without the ball, "the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe". But plate-blocking "in a legitimate attempt to field the throw" is exempted. So the question is, does that exception apply here?
The plate blocking rule was added in 2014 and this play occurred in 2007, so it doesn't apply here.
Note to Umps : When you see the Catcher move his mitt 6 inches back towards the Strike Zone after catching the ball - it was NOT a Strike . Glad I could clear that up for you.
Game 4, 1969 World Series. Blown call ended game with a Mets win.
2:56
Idk he mightve actually been safe lol
That joe west call was actually not bad considering the rule of “struck at and missed” being the judgement. The rule there is whats not good.
1:35 The runners fingers touch the plate. You can see the catchers leg get pulled across the plate by the runners hand. Definitely touched home plate. The catcher loses the ball and it doesn’t matter. The runner is definitely safe. The replay shows it better. No question on that call.
+michael conforto hbp vs marlins call
All these guys trying to imitate angel Hernandez
I knew there was an Angel Hernandez reference somewhere in these comments and it's totally deserved
@@rsybinghe is low hanging fruit
こういう判定に対して猛抗議して選手を庇ってくれる監督羨ましい。うちの贔屓チームの監督は選手を守るより責めるコメントばかり目に付くし苛立つと物に八つ当たりしちゃうから。
The first one was just to hard to overturn 0:38
it wasnt tho you can see is foot on the base and then the glove hit his chest
2:42 did u see the runner falling?
主審（早く家に帰りたい…）「ストライク！」
Sometimes you look at tjese and ifls tje referee corrupt or incompetent?
No tag on the Pirates/Braves game. He was safe.
Nothing wrong with the first call, except that the announcers wrongly proclaimed the runner to be safe. Its hard to tell when the laces of the glove contacted the runners leg.
For purposes of a tag, the laces are not considered part of the glove. They used to be, but that changed back in 2016.
Robo umps now
0:48- Not a strike. That was OUTSIDE.
Robo umps can only call ball/strike.