Yelling out a cordial profanity at an umpire is a really bad idea. Yelling out a profanity at the crew chief is a death wish. Yelling out a profanity at Dan Iassosgna is the definition of a death wish.
I think this coach went out of his way to get tossed. I mean the list that's shown he seemingly tried to catch all of them he could. Certainly a HBP and I could see calling it a swing, but it's a tough one too... Sadly, in this day an age, you don't fire your team up getting tossed. it's no longer a rare thing.
What do you mean the hands are not part of the bat??!? I went to buy a new bat the other day, and I got 50% off the price of the hands that came with it. Great deal!!
Was there ever a check swing appeal? Given it was ruled foul first, that would have negated the check swing appeal. Would that have needed to happen before review? Or once the review came back with HBP, would home plate umpire then ask the base umpire to rule on the swing (unless the home plate umpire decided to make the call themselves as is their decision), and then announce the result?
I don't know if he can ask afterwards I had the question myself, but I do want to point out that no swing is appealable by right by the defense. If they ask for it he has to do it, so he can't really decide on his own it is a no swing UNLESS appeals are outright not allowed to occur after the replay.
CB should have come up quickly with a, "Did he go?" And replay never checks "a swing", nor a, "struck at" so it was irrelevant during the review. CB has to get the check in that instance or make the, he went call, himself. In someones opinion
except, thats not how check swing appeals work. the catcher has to ask for the home plate ump to get help from the base umpire. CB called no swing, defense never asked for a check, that's how the rule works.
I don't think they showed it, but since the call was overturned to a HBP I'm pretty sure he called it a foul ball. There is no reason to ask about swing if you are calling it foul
@tw1nn319 the plate umpire is required to ask if the catcher or manager ask, but that does nor preclude them from going on their own. There are game managment situatuons where you should go without being asked, and, in pro ball, there is even a situatuon where the third base umpire can rule on the swing without being askee. Going to fhe third base umpire could have potentially alleviated the situation (let's be real here, it just would have been the Angels that were mad), and potentially lead to what (IMO) would have been the correct call.
@@mse326 I think you're right but that does mean that there is no difference if he had swung completely or not. If it's called a foul ball on a full swing and then replay shows the ball hit his hand first, the replay does not judge whether he swung (same as this play), only that the ball hit him. So if it is not called a dead ball strike and is erroneously called a foul ball, I don't think replay can ever turn it in to a dead ball strike, only a HBP. Not 100% sure though.
So he moved his hands into the path of the pitch while seemingly attempting to strike at the ball, and was awarded first base. Something is wrong there. As best as I understand it: 1. it was originally called a foul ball. 2. It went to Replay where it was determined that it it hit the hand instead of the bat first, so it could not be a foul ball anymore. 3. At that point, it could be either a HBP or called a ball/strike, depending if the batter met the criteria for HBP and didn't swing at the ball. 4. But replay isn't allowed to look at if the batter attempted to swing, so we magically determine that it was a HBP. Yes, I get the "dead ball when it hits the batter" so we don't look at anything past that, and both fair/foul and HBP are reviewable but attempted swing is not reviewable. That seems like a hole in the replay rules where they can go look at the footage to change a foul ball call to a HBP, but then aren't allowed to look at if the batter was attempting to swing. Even though the original call of foul ball implies that a swing was attempted. This seems to be one of those "technically correct but actually just wrong" situations.
I have questions myself about whether and when the can rule on a swing if the original call is foul. But, this part "Even though the original call of foul ball implies that a swing was attempted" is just wrong. Foul ball only implies it hit the bat not that there was an attempted swing.
@@mse326 which is why it's implied that there was an attempt to strike the ball, not stating that there actually was one. Yes, there are odd situations where there can be a foul ball without an attempted swing. Was this one of those situations? Didn't seem to be.
But the whole point of the rule and this video was to show the HBP. Once the ball hit his hands him swinging doesn’t matter bc it’s dead as soon as the ball touches his hand. If a pitch hits the ground and hits the batter and then once the ball is lying on the ground the batter swings it’s not a swing bc it him then he swung.
Literally every single solitary thing in baseball has a ridiculously long set of rules and stipulations to them. I don’t understand how umpires can do it.
@@Volante31921unless the dirt is, by definition of rule 15.9, the playing area. In which case the playing area will result in a 3rd strike or a ball depending on which side of the plate (rule 12.32). This play also non reviewable unless the batter is a switch hitter. Then rule 21, the switch hit replay will apply in place of rule 15.9
As far as I can tell Miller never threw a pitch in the major league. Somewhere along the line he gets hired as the Astros pitching coach and gets credit for the pitching staff that won 2022 WS? Seems to have a limited vocabulary.
yeah, hope he gets to watch this video because he certainly can learn a few things and get to see how bad he comes across when hes clearly in the wrong
Basically every reviewable play that exists uses a freeze frame. Doesn't mean the rules are bad, just means they are using extreme precision in getting things correct.
As mentioned - the check swing was not reviewed (not reviewable either) so it didn't play a part in this. It's kind of like the pushed off the bag at second play. If the umpire doesn't call pushed off the bag and it gets reviewed and he's pushed off the bag and tagged, then replay calls him out. Same here, if they called it a foul ball because CB thought it hit the bat and they review it and it hit the hand, then they have to award first base, hbp.
What I still don't understand is players/coaches arguing something that is clearly wrong. I would be ashamed if I went in front of my coworkers yelling about how correct I was ,only to be shown how wrong I was the next morning.
HBP is reviewable. They challenge that it was a HBP, and wont he challenge. The check swing appeal then does become applicable, but was ruled no swing.
@@sfan2767 I think they are referring to the E167 video, which was another HBP challenge that was originally called a foul ball. In that video, Lindsay said the call could not possibly be overturned because it was ruled foul first, and foul balls are not reviewable.
@@Arcame Ah yeah good point; I have no clue what's happening. Maybe it's because the potential HBP was before the (potential) bat contact. Versus in the Espada case it was after, although since there was no bat contact it's hard to say before or after. tl;dr MLB needs to clean this shit up to just let the replay officials make things right.
Maybe our host could address how E167 is "this is called a foul ball and can't be overturned even if he was HBP" to this one "called foul ball overturned to HBP". Is the rule interpretation dependent on the phase of the moon?
A little more respect could go a long way here. Especially since those two scenarios are not related, and you've confused yourself by oversimplifying things.
@@athelstan-101.3 "Not related." Well, other then both were called foul balls - one got overturned, and the other didn't. Or are you suggesting that the expensive replay room could not see the clear contact in E167? If so, that doesn't speak very highly of whoever was watching the replay.
@@brianmullaney6237 In E167, the foul ball call came as a result of a batted ball striking the hitter. That is not a reviewable aspect of the play, so of course replay is not able to overturn it. They did right by the authority they have in the rulebook. I would watch the E167 video again, just to be sure. Here is a batted ball not hitting the batter and rolling foul. That is reviewable, since you are replacing the call of hit the bat to hit the batter. Replay again gets it right in this instance.
Screaming profanities at an umpire, especially when you're wrong, is a terrible idea for anyone on the team. We always here that coaches are "standing up for the players" which is ridiculous. Have an adult discussion with the umpire, get an explanation, then get off the field. It's not like you're going to change the umpire's mind.
As a slight quibble (I agree with the majority of what you said), there are times where a manager getting ejected instead of his player is valuable. If he gets big and that prevents his star from getting thrown out of the game, he has given his team a better chance of winning
Situationally, I do not understand the moments that players and coaches choose to die on a hill nor the hills they choose to die on. Once again, the umpires working with replay get this correct. Once again, the rule book (which is available to everyone) is very clear that a batter is not responsible for their actions with regard to a swing or no swing after being HBP. And once again, the manager who has access to the rulebook and should know this rule…is wrong, horribly wrong. And again, situationally you are up 6-1 in the bottom of the 9th…read the room. This is just further proof to add to over 100 years of proof that managers love nothing more than verbally abusing the umpires on ANY and EVERY call that goes against their club whether the umpires got it right or wrong. MLB managers need to find some new material because their act is old and has been old for decades now. What other line of work do we allow people to be verbally abused on the regular? As in, that’s all part of the job of you making it to MLB as an umpire? Nobody loves The Game of baseball more than the umpires. Why else would they agree to those working conditions? Just more bread and circuses to distract us from the fact that pro sports is an entertainment platform masquerading as a competitive sport…
It’s not fair to compare modern umpires with umpires 100 years ago or even 30 years ago. That was real abuse. But if you can’t handle it then go be a basketball ref. No one is forcing them to be umpires.
@@DJTexan I’m not comparing. I’m saying it’s all the same. You’re the one comparing and saying what’s occurring today isn’t abuse. Look…there’s no crime being committed here. Nobody’s feelings are being hurt. These are all grown adults on a professional baseball field. Some people see the world as it is and accept it. Others see the world and wonder for a moment…could the world be a better place? It’s baseball. The sport is played with passion. Fine. I don’t like seeing the umpires (or officials in any sport) being yelled at, called names, cussed, having the breeding practices of their mothers questioned, etc. You don’t like the call…fine. You don’t agree with the call…fine. You do have to accept the call so, why not take it like an adult and maybe find just a MODICUM of decency in how you choose to express yourself about it. To say nothing of the fact that FAR more often than not, the umpires got it right and the players and or coaches are wrong.
To quote Jim Joyce, "If we put $100 bills in each of the rulebooks we give the clubs each season, we'd get 95% of our money back at the end of the year."
That’s the whole point of the rule though. Even if they had checked it LA could still ask for an appeal that the ball hit him. Once the balls hits him it’s dead him swinging after that means nothing.
except it was called a no swing and check swings arent reviewable. this was the only outcome that could come out of this scenario according to the book. plus, he easily COULD HAVE held his swing back had he not taken a pitch to the knuckles, cant fault him for that
I feel like this doesn't actually address the issue at hand. If it's a hit by pitch, then yes, the ball is dead. However, if the batter doesn't make a move to avoid being hit, it isn't a hit by pitch. It should have been a ball. Per the rules: “(1) A batter must attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. If he does not attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch then: a) If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, the ball is dead, it shall be called a ball and the batter is not awarded first base. b) If the ball is inside the strike zone when it touches the batter, the ball is dead, it shall be called a strike and the batter is not awarded first base.”
This is never enforced when pitches are travelling 90+ mph which this pitch was… only really enforced when batters stick their elbow/shoulder into an off speed pitch.
As far as I'm concerned, he swung and missed at a pitch he could not possibly hit because it was right on his hands. The fact that it hit his hand a microsecond before the bat was through the zone is secondary. Further arguments against this being a HBP are 1) he clearly struck, or offered, at the pitch, and 2) he made no effort to avoid being hit since he was swinging at the pitch.
But that’s not the rule. You can think that all you want doesn’t make it the rule. Again once a ball hits a batter the ball is dead. So if someone gets hit then swings it doesn’t matter bc the balls dead. Also no where in the rule does it say the bat has to go “through the zone” . Making an effort to avoid being hit on a ball inside is asinine. You either haven’t played baseball or umpired a game ever. And if you have you need more training.
@@lscales6131 You have quite a foul mouth. And those **are** the rules, and they conflict. You **are** obligated to make an effort to avoid being hit by the pitch, even if it's inside. And I see nothing in your reasoning to remove from the consideration the fact that he struck at the pitch. The only place where the dead ball issue comes up is whether it is a foul ball or not.
@@lastdance2099 I have a foul mouth? Why bc I said asinine? Yes you have make a reasonable attempt to avoid being hit but on an inside pitch it’s hard to that’s why your point was not valid. None of which you said made any sense if you know the rules.
No, he did not. As soon as the ball hit the batter and he has not offered at the pitch, the ball is dead, nothing else can happen, and he is awarded first base. If he offers at the pitch and THEN the ball hits him, that is a dead ball strike and he stays at the plate with 1 or 2 strikes or is out if it's Strike 3.
@@MikeHatfield-tj1pw He was offering at the pitch as it hit him. This is not a case of a guy getting hit and then the bat coming through the zone due to his reaction to getting hit. That is what that note in the rule is meant to address. It is not meant to make swinging at a pitch not a swing because the ball might have hit the batter a millisecond before his bat came through the zone.
Never, in any circumstances, can a ball be ruled foul if the batter is hit by a pitched ball. Had you ever seen the inside of a rules book, you would know this
I deeply enjoy Lindsay's frustration at the Astros broadcast crew not knowing the rules. It's deeply shared by this Astros fan.
more frustrating that the manager and coaches don't know, also
Yelling out a cordial profanity at an umpire is a really bad idea. Yelling out a profanity at the crew chief is a death wish. Yelling out a profanity at Dan Iassosgna is the definition of a death wish.
1:30 - Love the "fertilizer" reference. Nice nod to Vin Scully.
Great analysis as always Lindsey but I can only give this a C++
CONTROVERSIAL!
Justify yourself kind sir!
Please 🙏.
@@fifiwoof1969the computer code at :40 and other parts of the video is in the language C++
Such Perls of wisdom can only come when you See Sharp with the Ada-f a replay.
I think this coach went out of his way to get tossed. I mean the list that's shown he seemingly tried to catch all of them he could. Certainly a HBP and I could see calling it a swing, but it's a tough one too... Sadly, in this day an age, you don't fire your team up getting tossed. it's no longer a rare thing.
I learned something from this video. Great breakdown!
What do you mean the hands are not part of the bat??!?
I went to buy a new bat the other day, and I got 50% off the price of the hands that came with it. Great deal!!
I love the new Easton hands. They are so much nicer than the product DeMarini has been schlepping for years.
@@teebob21 My dad’s old Louisville Slugger hands came with his wood bat and have extra protection against splinters.
Was there ever a check swing appeal? Given it was ruled foul first, that would have negated the check swing appeal. Would that have needed to happen before review? Or once the review came back with HBP, would home plate umpire then ask the base umpire to rule on the swing (unless the home plate umpire decided to make the call themselves as is their decision), and then announce the result?
I don't know if he can ask afterwards I had the question myself, but I do want to point out that no swing is appealable by right by the defense. If they ask for it he has to do it, so he can't really decide on his own it is a no swing UNLESS appeals are outright not allowed to occur after the replay.
CB should have come up quickly with a, "Did he go?" And replay never checks "a swing", nor a, "struck at" so it was irrelevant during the review. CB has to get the check in that instance or make the, he went call, himself. In someones opinion
except, thats not how check swing appeals work. the catcher has to ask for the home plate ump to get help from the base umpire. CB called no swing, defense never asked for a check, that's how the rule works.
I don't think they showed it, but since the call was overturned to a HBP I'm pretty sure he called it a foul ball. There is no reason to ask about swing if you are calling it foul
@tw1nn319 the plate umpire is required to ask if the catcher or manager ask, but that does nor preclude them from going on their own. There are game managment situatuons where you should go without being asked, and, in pro ball, there is even a situatuon where the third base umpire can rule on the swing without being askee. Going to fhe third base umpire could have potentially alleviated the situation (let's be real here, it just would have been the Angels that were mad), and potentially lead to what (IMO) would have been the correct call.
@@mse326 I think you're right but that does mean that there is no difference if he had swung completely or not. If it's called a foul ball on a full swing and then replay shows the ball hit his hand first, the replay does not judge whether he swung (same as this play), only that the ball hit him. So if it is not called a dead ball strike and is erroneously called a foul ball, I don't think replay can ever turn it in to a dead ball strike, only a HBP. Not 100% sure though.
What volume is this of "Grown Men Throwing Temper Tantrums" ?
They are man babies.
MLB 2024 Edition
Lol
"Hand is on the bat"
and the Hand is on the arm.
Arm is on the body.
Hit on the body is therefore a batted ball 😂
So he moved his hands into the path of the pitch while seemingly attempting to strike at the ball, and was awarded first base. Something is wrong there.
As best as I understand it:
1. it was originally called a foul ball.
2. It went to Replay where it was determined that it it hit the hand instead of the bat first, so it could not be a foul ball anymore.
3. At that point, it could be either a HBP or called a ball/strike, depending if the batter met the criteria for HBP and didn't swing at the ball.
4. But replay isn't allowed to look at if the batter attempted to swing, so we magically determine that it was a HBP.
Yes, I get the "dead ball when it hits the batter" so we don't look at anything past that, and both fair/foul and HBP are reviewable but attempted swing is not reviewable. That seems like a hole in the replay rules where they can go look at the footage to change a foul ball call to a HBP, but then aren't allowed to look at if the batter was attempting to swing. Even though the original call of foul ball implies that a swing was attempted. This seems to be one of those "technically correct but actually just wrong" situations.
I have questions myself about whether and when the can rule on a swing if the original call is foul. But, this part "Even though the original call of foul ball implies that a swing was attempted" is just wrong. Foul ball only implies it hit the bat not that there was an attempted swing.
@@mse326 which is why it's implied that there was an attempt to strike the ball, not stating that there actually was one. Yes, there are odd situations where there can be a foul ball without an attempted swing. Was this one of those situations? Didn't seem to be.
But the whole point of the rule and this video was to show the HBP. Once the ball hit his hands him swinging doesn’t matter bc it’s dead as soon as the ball touches his hand. If a pitch hits the ground and hits the batter and then once the ball is lying on the ground the batter swings it’s not a swing bc it him then he swung.
Literally every single solitary thing in baseball has a ridiculously long set of rules and stipulations to them. I don’t understand how umpires can do it.
It's not that hard. The rules are frankly pretty damn simple.
@@teebob21I wish I was like you then... I've spent literally 100s or hours learning and studying the rules, and I still miss some stuff.
It’s like my association’s rules interpreter says whenever going over a rule. “Are there exceptions? Of course there are.”
@@garrettwebster201 The case book is your friend. So is a good memory.
@@bentraudt What are the exceptions to a dead ball as a result of the batter being hit by a pitched ball?
I hate when people say hands are a part of the bat.. it either hit the bat first or the hands. Whichever first unless the batter struck at the pitch
The hands are on the bat! And the body is attached to the hands! And the ground is under the body! Pitch in the dirt? HBP, take your base.
@@Volante31921unless the dirt is, by definition of rule 15.9, the playing area. In which case the playing area will result in a 3rd strike or a ball depending on which side of the plate (rule 12.32). This play also non reviewable unless the batter is a switch hitter. Then rule 21, the switch hit replay will apply in place of rule 15.9
I agree
As far as I can tell Miller never threw a pitch in the major league. Somewhere along the line he gets hired as the Astros pitching coach and gets credit for the pitching staff that won 2022 WS? Seems to have a limited vocabulary.
yeah, hope he gets to watch this video because he certainly can learn a few things and get to see how bad he comes across when hes clearly in the wrong
Is this a case of check swing is not reviewable so if not called first it's not considered? Or did NY explicitly decide this as no swing?
I believe so. Review was checking if it hit the hand first or the bat first (or neither, but clearly that wasn't the case).
My understanding is that you are correct. A check swing scenario is not reviewable. Hit by pitch is reviewable.
Swing decision being based on the freeze frame is an obvious flaw in the rules.
Why? The ball is dead the instant it hits the batter. If he hadn't swung by that time, whatever happens during a dead ball doesn't affect play.
@@bhamsoxfan72 Because that freeze frame doesn't accurately define the swing intent.
Basically every reviewable play that exists uses a freeze frame. Doesn't mean the rules are bad, just means they are using extreme precision in getting things correct.
As mentioned - the check swing was not reviewed (not reviewable either) so it didn't play a part in this. It's kind of like the pushed off the bag at second play. If the umpire doesn't call pushed off the bag and it gets reviewed and he's pushed off the bag and tagged, then replay calls him out. Same here, if they called it a foul ball because CB thought it hit the bat and they review it and it hit the hand, then they have to award first base, hbp.
U have a point. However, until they come up with a definition of a swing, it's all a matter of opinion anyway.
What I still don't understand is players/coaches arguing something that is clearly wrong. I would be ashamed if I went in front of my coworkers yelling about how correct I was ,only to be shown how wrong I was the next morning.
it's called doing the Aaron Boone!
Wait. I thought a foul ball wasn't reviewable. If this was called a foul ball, why is it being reviewed?
HBP is reviewable. They challenge that it was a HBP, and wont he challenge. The check swing appeal then does become applicable, but was ruled no swing.
@@sfan2767 But there was an earlier one that said HBP could not be reviewed since a Foul was called, and that preempts, a HBP.
@@sfan2767 I think they are referring to the E167 video, which was another HBP challenge that was originally called a foul ball. In that video, Lindsay said the call could not possibly be overturned because it was ruled foul first, and foul balls are not reviewable.
@@Arcame Ah yeah good point; I have no clue what's happening. Maybe it's because the potential HBP was before the (potential) bat contact. Versus in the Espada case it was after, although since there was no bat contact it's hard to say before or after.
tl;dr MLB needs to clean this shit up to just let the replay officials make things right.
Maybe our host could address how E167 is "this is called a foul ball and can't be overturned even if he was HBP" to this one "called foul ball overturned to HBP". Is the rule interpretation dependent on the phase of the moon?
A little more respect could go a long way here. Especially since those two scenarios are not related, and you've confused yourself by oversimplifying things.
@@athelstan-101.3 "Not related." Well, other then both were called foul balls - one got overturned, and the other didn't. Or are you suggesting that the expensive replay room could not see the clear contact in E167? If so, that doesn't speak very highly of whoever was watching the replay.
@@brianmullaney6237 In E167, the foul ball call came as a result of a batted ball striking the hitter. That is not a reviewable aspect of the play, so of course replay is not able to overturn it. They did right by the authority they have in the rulebook. I would watch the E167 video again, just to be sure. Here is a batted ball not hitting the batter and rolling foul. That is reviewable, since you are replacing the call of hit the bat to hit the batter. Replay again gets it right in this instance.
@@athelstan-101.3 You might want to watch E167 again. The ball never hits the bat.. it only hits the batter.
WOW! For once, not only are the rules not out to screw the players but the calls were right. Hallelujah!
Screaming profanities at an umpire, especially when you're wrong, is a terrible idea for anyone on the team. We always here that coaches are "standing up for the players" which is ridiculous. Have an adult discussion with the umpire, get an explanation, then get off the field. It's not like you're going to change the umpire's mind.
As a slight quibble (I agree with the majority of what you said), there are times where a manager getting ejected instead of his player is valuable. If he gets big and that prevents his star from getting thrown out of the game, he has given his team a better chance of winning
Should have been a strike. His intent was clearly to swing at the ball.
At the moment the ball was dead, was this pitch swing at by the batter and missed?
I agree with you
Fertilizer - horse or bulls***
Situationally, I do not understand the moments that players and coaches choose to die on a hill nor the hills they choose to die on. Once again, the umpires working with replay get this correct. Once again, the rule book (which is available to everyone) is very clear that a batter is not responsible for their actions with regard to a swing or no swing after being HBP. And once again, the manager who has access to the rulebook and should know this rule…is wrong, horribly wrong. And again, situationally you are up 6-1 in the bottom of the 9th…read the room. This is just further proof to add to over 100 years of proof that managers love nothing more than verbally abusing the umpires on ANY and EVERY call that goes against their club whether the umpires got it right or wrong. MLB managers need to find some new material because their act is old and has been old for decades now. What other line of work do we allow people to be verbally abused on the regular? As in, that’s all part of the job of you making it to MLB as an umpire? Nobody loves The Game of baseball more than the umpires. Why else would they agree to those working conditions? Just more bread and circuses to distract us from the fact that pro sports is an entertainment platform masquerading as a competitive sport…
It’s not fair to compare modern umpires with umpires 100 years ago or even 30 years ago. That was real abuse. But if you can’t handle it then go be a basketball ref. No one is forcing them to be umpires.
Great post. I would add something but nothing needs to be added.
@@DJTexan I’m not comparing. I’m saying it’s all the same. You’re the one comparing and saying what’s occurring today isn’t abuse. Look…there’s no crime being committed here. Nobody’s feelings are being hurt. These are all grown adults on a professional baseball field. Some people see the world as it is and accept it. Others see the world and wonder for a moment…could the world be a better place? It’s baseball. The sport is played with passion.
Fine. I don’t like seeing the umpires (or officials in any sport) being yelled at, called names, cussed, having the breeding practices of their mothers questioned, etc. You don’t like the call…fine. You don’t agree with the call…fine. You do have to accept the call so, why not take it like an adult and maybe find just a MODICUM of decency in how you choose to express yourself about it. To say nothing of the fact that FAR more often than not, the umpires got it right and the players and or coaches are wrong.
To quote Jim Joyce, "If we put $100 bills in each of the rulebooks we give the clubs each season, we'd get 95% of our money back at the end of the year."
That’s clearly a strike out in my opinion
I’m calling that a strike on the swing personally.
That’s the whole point of the rule though. Even if they had checked it LA could still ask for an appeal that the ball hit him. Once the balls hits him it’s dead him swinging after that means nothing.
@@lscales6131right like this guy would know this if he actually watched the video.
Me too
The coach. A drama queen.
Vance Wilson was ejected by David Rackley in Kansas City and Alex Cintron was ejected by Brian O Nora in San Diego
The batter was hit by a pitch he was trying to hit. Dead ball strike. I don't see any other option that doesn't make a complete travesty of the game.
except it was called a no swing and check swings arent reviewable. this was the only outcome that could come out of this scenario according to the book. plus, he easily COULD HAVE held his swing back had he not taken a pitch to the knuckles, cant fault him for that
I feel like this doesn't actually address the issue at hand. If it's a hit by pitch, then yes, the ball is dead. However, if the batter doesn't make a move to avoid being hit, it isn't a hit by pitch. It should have been a ball. Per the rules:
“(1) A batter must attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. If he does not attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch then:
a) If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, the ball is dead, it shall be called a ball and the batter is not awarded first base.
b) If the ball is inside the strike zone when it touches the batter, the ball is dead, it shall be called a strike and the batter is not awarded first base.”
This is never enforced when pitches are travelling 90+ mph which this pitch was… only really enforced when batters stick their elbow/shoulder into an off speed pitch.
As far as I'm concerned, he swung and missed at a pitch he could not possibly hit because it was right on his hands. The fact that it hit his hand a microsecond before the bat was through the zone is secondary. Further arguments against this being a HBP are 1) he clearly struck, or offered, at the pitch, and 2) he made no effort to avoid being hit since he was swinging at the pitch.
But that’s not the rule. You can think that all you want doesn’t make it the rule. Again once a ball hits a batter the ball is dead. So if someone gets hit then swings it doesn’t matter bc the balls dead. Also no where in the rule does it say the bat has to go “through the zone” . Making an effort to avoid being hit on a ball inside is asinine. You either haven’t played baseball or umpired a game ever. And if you have you need more training.
@@lscales6131 You have quite a foul mouth. And those **are** the rules, and they conflict. You **are** obligated to make an effort to avoid being hit by the pitch, even if it's inside. And I see nothing in your reasoning to remove from the consideration the fact that he struck at the pitch. The only place where the dead ball issue comes up is whether it is a foul ball or not.
@@lastdance2099 I have a foul mouth? Why bc I said asinine? Yes you have make a reasonable attempt to avoid being hit but on an inside pitch it’s hard to that’s why your point was not valid. None of which you said made any sense if you know the rules.
Either you didn’t watch the video or you don’t consider Lindsay to have credibility. Nothing actually happened after the ball became dead.
@@lastdance2099bullshit, asinine is a great word, and is not profanity, Nancy.
That's a strike. He swung at the pitch.
No, he did not. As soon as the ball hit the batter and he has not offered at the pitch, the ball is dead, nothing else can happen, and he is awarded first base. If he offers at the pitch and THEN the ball hits him, that is a dead ball strike and he stays at the plate with 1 or 2 strikes or is out if it's Strike 3.
I agree
@@MikeHatfield-tj1pw
He was offering at the pitch as it hit him. This is not a case of a guy getting hit and then the bat coming through the zone due to his reaction to getting hit. That is what that note in the rule is meant to address. It is not meant to make swinging at a pitch not a swing because the ball might have hit the batter a millisecond before his bat came through the zone.
He swung at it, should be a foul ball.
At the moment the ball was dead when the batter was hit by the pitched ball, had he swung at the pitch and missed?
Never, in any circumstances, can a ball be ruled foul if the batter is hit by a pitched ball. Had you ever seen the inside of a rules book, you would know this
I agree
@@minaeldiwany3215 In that case, you are dead wrong, and should educate yourself on the rules.
First!