I wonder why it isn't reviewable. I would think it would be pretty easy to determine on a replay.

I wonder why it isn't reviewable. I would think it would be pretty easy to determine on a replay.

 

No judgement calls are reviewable.

No judgement calls are reviewable.

Isn't safe vs. out a judgement call? I can understand balls and strikes, but they review catcher's interference. They review baserunner interference. Why not batter interference?

The catcher didn't sell the interference well enough. In the heat of the moment that's hard to think about doing but it's a call that a guy like AJ would have gotten.

 

I think the reason the umpire didn't think to call it because the catcher went out of his way to get the throw off cleanly. This might not have been as obvious to the umpire that there was a major obstruction at the time.

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by soxforlife05

The catcher didn't sell the interference well enough. In the heat of the moment that's hard to think about doing but it's call that a guy like AJ would have gotten.

 

I think the reason the umpire didn't think to call it because the catcher went out of his way to get the throw off cleanly (and this might not have been as obvious to the umpire).

Avila said almost exactly this after the game.

 

“He was directly in front of me and I had to throw over him,” Avila said. “According to the rules there has to be some sort of contact. Problem is, if I throw normal there I smoke him in the head. Next time I’ll just throw it and hit him, but that’s not something I would wanna do. That’s unfortunate that’s how it is. Your reaction is to kind of get out of his way and make the play but next time if there’s a batter in front -- I’d feel bad.

 

“(Correa) was in front of me but (the umpire) said he ducked. He’s 6’4 and I’m 5’10 so there’s still a difference there. He was in front of me. I couldn’t step through it and tried to throw over him. Like I said, next time if that happens again, I’ll just throw it like I normally would.”

 

Is that what we want? Do your jobs, umps.

Isn't safe vs. out a judgement call? I can understand balls and strikes, but they review catcher's interference. They review baserunner interference. Why not batter interference?

 

And they still got it wrong with blatant interference on Eaton by Odor last week.

I'm at the point now where I assume the White Sox will have every one of these go against them. Very frustrated, similar to shysocks. This is now kind of going back to 2013. I just feel like we have had an extended run of crap hit us and we always end up eating it.

Isn't safe vs. out a judgement call? I can understand balls and strikes, but they review catcher's interference. They review baserunner interference. Why not batter interference?

 

In the eyes of major league baseball? No.

Avila said almost exactly this after the game.

 

“He was directly in front of me and I had to throw over him,” Avila said. “According to the rules there has to be some sort of contact. Problem is, if I throw normal there I smoke him in the head. Next time I’ll just throw it and hit him, but that’s not something I would wanna do. That’s unfortunate that’s how it is. Your reaction is to kind of get out of his way and make the play but next time if there’s a batter in front -- I’d feel bad.

 

“(Correa) was in front of me but (the umpire) said he ducked. He’s 6’4 and I’m 5’10 so there’s still a difference there. He was in front of me. I couldn’t step through it and tried to throw over him. Like I said, next time if that happens again, I’ll just throw it like I normally would.”

 

Is that what we want? Do your jobs, umps.

He doesn't need to come in contact. That's not in the rules. Ump was just wrong.

In the eyes of major league baseball? No.

Makes no sense to me. Anything outside of balls and strikes and foul/fair calls should be reviewable.

He doesn't need to come in contact. That's not in the rules. Ump was just wrong.

I was just copying his quote, but you're right and it is worth pointing out. Avila was incorrect. Astros manager also said something about how the runner would have gone back to first and the inning would have continued anyway, which is bull.

 

How do these guys not know the rules?

Makes no sense to me. Anything outside of balls and strikes and foul/fair calls should be reviewable.

 

Pretty sure fair/foul can be reviewed.

Pretty sure fair/foul can be reviewed.

 

Only on HRs no?

Only on HRs no?

 

No. On everything now.

Isn't safe vs. out a judgement call? I can understand balls and strikes, but they review catcher's interference. They review baserunner interference. Why not batter interference?

 

Yeah it should be reviewable... it's the same in essence as many things they review already.