kevin_standlee | Unintended Consequences

It's a game that has no bearing on the final outcome of the season (the Dodgers have clinched the division; the Giants are locked into fourth place). But it may prove to be a ground-breaker and result in a change to Major League Baseball's newest rule: the Home Run Instant Replay Rule.

In the bottom of the sixth, Dodgers leading 2-0, with one runner on, Giants catcher Bengie Molina hit a long fly ball that was initially ruled to have rebounded off the bricks in the Arcade. Bengie, one of the slowest runners in the MLB, was on first base, with Pablo Sandoval going to third. The Giants sent Emmanuel Burriss in as a pinch runner. But Giants manager Bruce Bochy came out and asserted that the ball that Bengie hit had actually caught the lower edge of the green tin roof over the arcade, which by the ground rules at ~~AT&T Park~~ Emperor Norton Field would make it a home run.

The umpires invoked the new Home Run Replay rule and three of them retired under the stands to consult the replay. When they came out, they overturned the initial ruling on the field and ruled that the ball had hit that roof and was a home run.

But wait a minute: the person who hit the home run was no longer in the game, pinch runner Burris having taken his place at first. A somewhat bemused Burris completed the other three bases of the game-tying home run. Now apparently there have been cases of someone having to run the home run someone else hit, in case of injury, but this was completely unprecedented.

The Giants manager, in effect, asked if they could "take back" Burriss' substitution because (a) no play had happened during the long delay and (b) it was in the middle of a uncompleted home run, and you can't substitute in the middle of a home run. After further consultation, the umpires ruled that while the home run counted, so did Burriss' substitution, to the annoyance of the Giants, who thus lost the services of their catcher unnecessarily. Indeed, this was so annoying that the Giants lodged an official protest, which could conceivably lead to the game needing to be replayed from this point if the league office allows the protest. I don't think they'd actually do the replay, however, as the game has no meaning on the final result of the season -- like an un-made-up rainout, the game would simply go into the "not completed" column. I think the stats up to the point of the protest would still count, however, so Bengie would get credit for his home run.

I feel for the umpires here. The crew chief went over and apparently asked the official scorer whether Burriss had been officially entered into the game, and made his ruling based on the fact that yes, Burriss' name had been entered into the official scorer's record. (Update: See below.) I think that if I had been the umpire on this case, I would have decided that there was no actual rule covering the situation and ruled that the fair thing to do would have been to say the Burriss' substitution never happened (it was pending the result of the replay), had Bengie come back out and complete his home run and stay in the game. Of course, the Dodgers would probably have protested the game instead of the Giants at that point, on the grounds that if a player leaves the field in this situation, he is out and the run shouldn't score.

I believe that this weird combination of events will lead to the HR Replay Rule being getting an addendum prohibiting personnel moves in the middle of a replay adjudication. I wouldn't be surprised if the League Office issues an emergency rule addition in time to affect post-season play. Thus tonight's game will make baseball history, albeit in a strange way.

Update, 23:12: The protest is moot because the Giants won the game. I still think the league office will have to put in a special rule or interpretation to cover this oddball situation.

Update, 27 Sep 10:00: Here's the MLB.com news story about the game, which does clarify a few details, such as the fact that the call to the official scorer was not to check to see if Burriss had been officially entered, but to advise the scorer that the game was being played under protest. That's because the official scorer is responsible for preserving the state of the game at the point of the protest in case the game has to be replayed from that point.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

on the grounds that if a player leaves the field in this situation, he is out and the run shouldn't score.
I don't see that - the same way you can't make a substitution in the middle of a home run, a person who hits a home run can't be ruled out in the middle of a home run, and neither can any base runner.

Blame poor communication among Giants management for putting in Burriss before challenging the call.

Actually, I'm not that critical here. MLB has been telling teams to speed up games. Burriss would have been alerted ("If Bengie gets on base, you're running for him") and would have therefore gone out there as soon as the play appeared to end. The Replay rule is so new that there's no "case law" and therefore there's no obvious point where "the next play begins" like the NFL rule. So here we have a new rule and an existing MLB policy that are in conflict with each other.

Not being a baseball fan, my view is that most of baseballs rules are made to cover odd situations that occur only once in a blue moon.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, but I can understand how it might look that way. But if you think about it, in a lot of rule systems, most of the rules are there to cover the outliers. Most of the common situations are covered by a small number of rules. I know that's true in American parliamentary procedure, for instance.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that MLB has made a mess of implementing instant replay. If you are going to have it, two things should be very clear:

1. Challenges have to be made quickly. You can't have the game going on and then someone challenging a ruling that was made several plays ago.

2. If a challenge is made and does succeed then the state of the game has to be reset to the point at which the challenge occurred. You can let people go on with administrative stuff like substitutions while the challenge is being considered, but they should have no effect if the challenge reverses the ruling.

I should also add that it seems quite ridiculous that baseball should require the batter to run around the bases for a home run to count. It is nice theater, but aside from that all it does it create a possibility for really annoying disputes about whether the runner actually touched the bags correctly. Cricket does not require a batsman who hits a 4 or 6 to run up and down the wicket for the runs to score. Indeed, half the point of going big is to remove the need to run, which can be very important if you have been batting for a while and your knees are aching.

Challenges have to be made quickly.

In fact, it's not a "challenge" system. The umpires' crew chief is the only one who can decide whether a call should be reviewed by instant replay. In this case, the Giants' manager came out and talked to the umpires, who decided they should go review the call, but there's nothing equivalent to the gridiron or tennis "challenge" system.

You can't have the game going on and then someone challenging a ruling that was made several plays ago.

Agreed, but the rules don't define when play has continued. In gridiron, once the next play starts, the previous play is no longer subject to review. That's why you sometimes see teams rushing to start the next play before a review flag is thrown. Baseball doesn't know. The commentators on last night's game were suggesting that, while the next pitch thrown would have obviously meant play had continued, Bochy's insertion of a pinch runner could also be interpreted as play having continued, at which point the previous play was over and could not be reviewed. This is logical, but because baseball instant replay is so new, it's untested ground.

If a challenge is made and does succeed then the state of the game has to be reset to the point at which the challenge occurred. You can let people go on with administrative stuff like substitutions while the challenge is being considered, but they should have no effect if the challenge reverses the ruling.

Agreed. That's the meat of the dispute here. Bochy's protest was exactly what you said -- he had taken care of the substitution in case the play was left to stand, but when the home run was called, he believed that he should have been able to rest to the situation that would have obtained had the call been correctly made as a home run in the first place.

Look at it the other way around. If it had been initially been called a home run the based would have been cleared, then the play reviewed. The umpires would have ruled that it was not a home run, put the runners back on base at first and third, the Giants would have substituted Burriss into Molina's place at first, and play would have continued. That would have made sense, unlike the nonsensical ruling made last night be an umpire reading the letter of the rule while not parsing the spirit.

I should also add that it seems quite ridiculous that baseball should require the batter to run around the bases for a home run to count....

It certainly is an oddity of the sport. And it's not ceremonial, as you note. The batter must touch all four bases even though it's now an uncontested run. Apparently there have been cases where a batter has missed a bag and the run been disallowed.

In fact, it's not a "challenge" system.

Well there's a huge problem right there. You are going to get situations where the TV people and the teams know that a play ought to be reviewed, but a stubborn umpire is refusing to do anything about it. Instant replay can't work well unless it is a challenge system.

Agreed, but the rules don't define when play has continued.

Right, but it should have been defined as part of the new rule. MLB has been very sloppy.

Apparently there have been cases where a batter has missed a bag and the run been disallowed.

I'm sure there have, but it is a very petty rule. How does it add to the sport to have a means whereby a batter can be deprived of a home run for failing to touch the bags? In ordinary running bag-touching is required, otherwise players would take short cuts (and there is a parallel "one short" rule in cricket), but once the ball it out of the park that should be an end to it. Requiring batters to run the bases is rules-lawyering gone mad.

MLB has been very sloppy.Agreed completely.
Requiring batters to run the bases is rules-lawyering gone mad.
Agreed again. In fact, I recall seeing a game that was very critical -- I don't remember if it was to clinch the division or to win a playoff -- and the batter hit a "walk-off" home run with the bases loaded and the team needing one run to win. He got as far as first base when he was overwhelmed by the mob of teammates celebrating the win. Because he didn't complete the trip around the bases, he didn't get credit for the home run -- only a single -- and got only one RBI instead of four. Stupid.

Update, 15:00: Aha, found the story of the "grand slam single" in the Wiikipedia entry on walk-off home runs.

Edited 2008-09-27 22:02 (UTC)

I Hate Instant Replay!

I saw on ESPN that Molina would get the HR, but the substitution would stand. I am not so sure the official protest will go far, but one never knows.

As far as MLB issueing a emergency rule, don't expect that to happen as look at how long it took MLB just to get HR replay in. Maybe over the off-season something might happen . . .

Unintended Consequences

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject