NEWSLETTER
I get it. If that cleat were on the other foot, I’d probably be pretty mad this morning about how last night’s game ended. A walk-off out at the plate, which required a double review, and for which there’s an argument that it could go the other way. It’s just the worst kind of outcome.
For the losing team, that is. For the Cubs, the outcome last night WAS FREAKING AWESOME!
If you missed it or just want to see the play again, here’s the full thing, including the review:
I have no idea how Pete Alonso did not beat a two-part throw from that level of outfield depth, but hey, great job by Ian Happ, Nick Madrigal, and Miguel Amaya to get the out and win the game. And thank you Pete for letting your hand bounce up.
OK, so the review part of it. The officials determined that there was no blocking of the plate, and then there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn the out call:
The Mets were obviously quite mad about that decision after the game:
“They send out a memo in Spring Training, what’s legal and what’s illegal,” Mets manager Carlos Mendoza said of MLB. “It’s clearly on that email, that memo that we got, that catchers are not allowed to have their foot in front of the plate, on top of the plate. They cannot straddle without possession of the baseball. It was very clear that [Amaya] had his left foot on top of the plate without the baseball.”
Let me get one thing out of the way up front: Miguel Amaya quite clearly did NOT ACTUALLY block the plate. There was a lane for Pete Alonso the entire time (as confirmed by the fact that he thought he was actually safe), and there is just no argument that Amaya was physically blocking the plate before the throw was on the way. Even then, although the throw took him into more of a blocking-ish position, he still wasn’t blocking even by the time he had the ball. No blocking.
However, here’s the issue from the Mets’ perspective: if MLB sent a memo that explicitly said a catcher cannot have a foot on home plate before he has the ball or is receiving the throw, then … I mean … isn’t that obviously exactly what Amaya did? Pretty clearly yes. So if the Mets are right about the MLB memo, then they have some serious grounds for beef.
Here’s the “evidence,” as supplied by Andy Martino:
That first example image says that a catcher may not have his foot “on the foul line or home plate.” Cut and dry, right? Well, the problem there is that, even if this really is the memo, the image itself has a catcher in a CLEAR blocking position – not standing off to the side, as Amaya was, with part of his foot on the plate. I can read the words, for sure, but the example given is just not even in the same universe as what Amaya did.
The other issue I have here is that if MLB was crystal clear that a catcher with a foot on home plate before he has the ball is “blocking,” then why (1) was Amaya doing it so casually (wouldn’t the Cubs have strictly practiced the rule?)?; and (2) did the MLB replay officials not call blocking? I mean, they have the memo, too, right?
So something here is off. And although I totally get why the Mets would be upset at the call on the basis of that apparent memo, we can’t ignore the part where Amaya was not actually blocking the plate. So, it’s like, the call may have been “wrong” according to some bureaucratic paperwork, but the call was clearly correct according to the ACTUAL RULE:
“The catcher is not permitted to block the runner’s path to the plate unless he is in possession of the ball, though blocking the path of the runner in a legitimate attempt to receive a throw is not considered a violation.”
Amaya did not violate that rule. Clearly. So the call was right, and the Mets’ VERY understandable beef has to be with whoever wrote that Spring Training memo. My guess is that was a rules interpretation by someone who just wasn’t being careful enough, and a guidance memo is NOT the same thing as an actual rule. The Mets are totally justified to feel like they got screwed, but the outcome here was correct.
(If you want to get REALLY nerdy, you can go deeper into the official rule book and come up with a second reason why Amaya didn’t violate the rule. In the full language of the rule, there are actually TWO elements to a blocking call, even though we really tend to focus only on one (the blocking part). The other element is about the slide: “In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding.” Strictly speaking, Alonso here very clearly COULD avoid a collision by sliding, because he DID avoid a collision by sliding! In practice, this winds up being a discussion about whether the catcher left a “lane” for the runner, so we don’t talk about it much as a separate part of the rule. But technically, it’s also an element, and it’s another reason that, in this case, Amaya did not violate the rule.)
