http://espn.go.com/dallas/mlb/story/_/id/10931361/major-league-baseball-changes-david-ortiz-play-hit-error-yu-darvish-no-hit-bid

IMHO, this is ridiculous - I am 100% sure that ball would've been caught by Rios if Odor was not playing the shift on Ortiz. No question. None. My grandson's 11 Year Old Little League team makes that catch look easy.

I guess what Big Pedi and the Red Sox want, they get.

[This message has been edited by CoppellAg93 (edited 5/14/2014 12:50p).]

You do realize that Yu ended up giving up a hit in that game anyways, right? Why is this devastating news? So he allows 2 hits instead of 1? Am I missing something?

Yes - I watched the game. But MLB makes the Rangers scorer look like an idiot, and he will probably second-guess himself on every close play from now on.

Given that play is always ruled a hit and not an error, I assumed this would be the outcome. Who cares.

The official scorer actually gets a break here.

If Yu gets a "No Hitter" the call stands as an Error. Since he gave up a hit, the traditional call overrules.

Papi said he wouldn't have challenged if it remained a no-hitter and only spoke out because the no-hitter was lost.

If it remained an E, they could have gone back and documented every time previously that he ruled it a H. EVERY game in the future... this would have been an issue for him. And that was how I was afraid things might turn out.

He justified himself in that: 1) He followed the rule book 2) Called Elias to ensure he had a legitimate call 3) Had a no-hitter going. Consider it a self-correct Armando Galarraga call.

Chalk this up to "Instant-Replay" and the transfer rule change.

Hit it where they ain't, or hit it where they ain't smart enough to get to

SM - by what rule ? The "it's always been done that way" rule ?

quote:

---

Rule 10.12a1 .... 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, an outfielder at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball.

---

In the scorer's judgement (and mine), Odor or Rios should've caught the ball - they were both standing within a couple feet of where the ball landed. It's not like one or both of them were in dead sprints and would have to dive to make the catch.

Bottom line - why was it so important to make the change 5 days later ? They can't fix the obvious error on Galarraga's perfect game but they feel the need to give Ortiz an extra - and basically meaningless - hit ? Doesn't make any sense.

quote:

---

SM - by what rule ? The "it's always been done that way" rule ?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 10.12a1 .... 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, an outfielder at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In the scorer's judgement (and mine), Odor or Rios should've caught the ball - they were both standing within a couple feet of where the ball landed. It's not like one or both of them were in dead sprints and would have to dive to make the catch.

Bottom line - why was it so important to make the change 5 days later ? They can't fix the obvious error on Galarraga's perfect game but they feel the need to give Ortiz an extra - and basically meaningless - hit ? Doesn't make any sense.

---

Was this the first baseball game you've ever watched? Did you even watch it?

Or is this misplaced aggression towards the Sox and David Ortiz?

I'll bet you assumed you'd have every Ranger fan lining up with pitchforks and torches, ready to burn down the MLB over this - because the Rangers were clearly screwed over because of some non existant but percieved bias?

SC - reading comprehension goes a long way buddy - I said in a post above that I watched the game.

I ignored most of what you said as irrelevant.

As did I of your insanely intelligent response.

quote:

---

Or is this misplaced aggression towards the Sox and David Ortiz?

---

^^^^^This. Obviously.

OP,

You'll notice that you are the only one who thinks the Rangers got shafted here.

Most understand that this particular incident would ONLY be scored an error when there is a no hitter/perfect game situation. Under any other circumstances, it goes as a hit.

Yu got tagged for another hit (a clean one) and they went back and fixed this one. What's the big deal?

[This message has been edited by Say Chowdah (edited 5/14/2014 3:33p).]

If you look at the reader comments below the article on ESPN, there are a lot of people saying it should've been an error. I understand that in most cases it's considered a hit - I just don't agree here - that is all I was trying to say. You disagree - I'm good with that.

Wrong... Not only one.... Why change ruling??? Rule cited is in play here.... MLB just ignoring their own rules.

Not saying this article wasn't thread worthy - it is good baseball discussion. I just don't understand why it is so upsetting

quote:

---

that is all I was trying to say

---

No it isn't. By saying this:

quote:

---

I guess what Big Pedi and the Red Sox want, they get

---

You are stating that the MLB caved to the Sox and David Ortiz.

Ignoring the fact that I don't give two ****s about 'errors' and that they are ridiculously arbitrary, the fact is that in practice, errors are only given when a fielder touches the ball and fails to make a play he should. When a ball is merely missed and not touched, its always called a hit. This happens all the time on miscommunication plays or 'lost in the sun/lights' plays, and is always ruled a hit. It would have been a hit if there wasn't something important at stake. I don't understand either the issue with the call or caring in the first place.

Aha - so you did read my posts above.

SM - I get it - you don't care - even though you've now posted twice on this thread.

We disagree on the ruling - let's leave it at that.

quote:

---

Why change ruling??? Rule cited is in play here.... MLB just ignoring their own rules.

---

Keep in mind that on any given day, you could have 15 MLB games. That would indicate you have as many as 15 scorekeepers on any given day.

The key, IMO, is not necessarily the ignoring or application of a rule... it is the consistency of application, fairness of application and distribution of implementation.

If you had a secret vote by any 15 MLB scorekeepers... you'd like get the following:
14 = H
0 = E
1 = No vote.

I believe every single scorekeeper would have ruled it an Error (in pencil) during the game and everyone would have it changed to a Hit shortly after the game.

Why have that rule in place if you are just going to change it then??? Its black and white.

As is routine on the numerous scoring appeals each week, the league didn't provide an explanation for the reversal.


You do realize they do this every week right, it's only making news since it was potentially a no hitter. The stat effects a guys avg and so on so it makes sense he would challenge it.

I hate the Red Sox but still think it would have been a tainted no hitter as that play is typically called a hit.

This offseason they need to either change the rule or declare that they're going to start calling this an error.

I honestly think the only reason it's not called an error now is because it's not clear who to attribute the error to.

Sounds like we need a scorekeeper from the Tea Party

AT

I hate when those are ruled a H, but unless the player gets leather on it... it has been that way for as long as I've known.

There are several rules in baseball that are not followed. The Proximity Rule gained prominence this season.

Not attempting to get out of the way for a HBP.

McPizza

This is baseball... you don't go messing with the game. Let it be!

Regarding who would get the E. That, IMO, had absolutely no concern to either the scorekeeper or MLB. IMO, it was Rios' error in any way you want to look at it.
- He was the veteran, so no benefit given to Rios.
- Odor was a rookie, so the veteran should have taken control.
- It was in Rios' area of coverage.
- Odor was playing out in RF, but it was still his play.
- Rios would be coming in on the play, which makes it an easier play for him.
- He actually could have made the play routinely from where he was lined up.

The only benefit you could give Rios was that he yielded to Odor because he didn't want to confuse or distract Odor in only his 2nd game. That would be supported by Odor's comments that he mistook crowd noise as Rios calling him off.

If there is any uncertainty among players about who should have gotten the Error... the players can chat with the scorekeeper to change it. That is usually only done if a player is looking at a Gold Glove or a consecutive error-free streak. I've seen a player take ownership of getting an error and going up to the scorekeeper and having a change. IIRC, it was right after graduation ('94-95) and was between 2 of 3B, SS & LF, during a Rangers home game.

I think it sucks for the pitcher who gets credited with a Hit and potentially Earned Runs instead of Unearned Runs.

It got reversed just like Big Papi's positive PED test.