Blue Jays 3, Twins 2: Bad Replay Review Costs Twins

[Otto von Ballpark]

Basically, it seems to come down to, the catcher's body shouldn't prevent the runner from touching the plate before the tag on a close play.

If the throw had come just a hair sooner, that might have been enough for the tag (not just the throw) to beat the runner without the aid of Sánchez's leg, and we'd get the benefit of the doubt from our replay overlords.

Alternatively, if Sánchez hadn't initially set up to receive the throw in foul territory, Merrifield probably takes a different slide path, or at least his chosen slide path couldn't be blamed on Sánchez blocking before he had the ball?

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

If not for Sánchez's leg, Merrifield would have touched the plate safely before he could be tagged out. That's not really "beating the runner", is it? Or if it is, it seems akin to a high/wide throw to first "beating the runner" but requiring the first baseman to leave the bag to catch it, allowing the runner to reach safely.

Unless you think that ball is moving slower than Merrifield the ball most definitely beat the runner. Maybe it could've been a foot lower and that would've been perfect? Sanchez had the ball before Merrifield got to the plate. So, no, I don't see it at all as akin to a throw to first that pulls the first baseman since they'd be safe while Merrifield was out.

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Basically, it seems to come down to, the catcher's body shouldn't prevent the runner from touching the plate before the tag on a close play.

If the throw had come just a hair sooner, that might have been enough for the tag (not just the throw) to beat the runner without the aid of Sánchez's leg.

Alternatively, if Sánchez hadn't initially set up to receive the throw in foul territory, Merrifield probably takes a different slide path, or at least his chosen slide path couldn't be blamed on Sánchez blocking before he had the ball?

Merrifield openly admitted he knew he was going to be out so he purposefully slid into Sanchez. So, no, I don't think he'd have taken a different slide path. He knew his slide path didn't matter cuz he was going to be out so he just hoped to get the call on that rule and it's why he immediately started complaining to the ump. That was his strategy cuz he knew the ball beat him and he was toast. I mean, unless you don't believe Merrifield when he says " So, I tried to just slide in to him straight in as best I could." He had no intention of trying to reach the plate, he was just hoping to get the call on that rule which is clearly far too vague to be effective or called universally.

[cheeseheadgophfan]

Is the standard for overturning a call "clear and convincing evidence?"  If so, doesn't the fact that there's been sooooo much debate about this call mean it wasn't clear and convincing?  The call on the field was out.....what clear and convincing evidence was there to make an overturn?  I'm confused.

As to the throw from Beckham?  I don't think you can complain for a guy playing LF for (I think) the 3rd time.....just a sucky way to lose a game.

[USNMCPO]

17 hours ago, jkcarew said:

No. What cost the Twins is resting your two best players in a pennant race and scoring 2 runs.

Stupid rule and stupid call…but not as stupid as going all in at the deadline and then resting Buxton for the 2nd time in 3 days, on top of Correa, against a good team in a pennant race, at home.

When i was a STH I would get really pissed when I would drive 300 miles for a game and Gardy would put out one of his Sunday 2nd string rosters. I don't get this one with the Twins having two off days this week.

[Otto von Ballpark]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Unless you think that ball is moving slower than Merrifield the ball most definitely beat the runner. Maybe it could've been a foot lower and that would've been perfect? Sanchez had the ball before Merrifield got to the plate. So, no, I don't see it at all as akin to a throw to first that pulls the first baseman since they'd be safe while Merrifield was out.

Advance the video a few more frames, and you will see that the tag isn’t applied until Merrifield’s foot is pushing into Sánchez’s leg (which is on home plate). What’s the significance of the throw beating the runner if the tag doesn’t (without an assist from the leg)?

I know the plate blocking rule has an exception for a throw “clearly” beating the runner, but I don’t think this is what they had in mind (where the throw beats him but the tag is very close, at best). I think that exception means the catcher can be set up in a blocking position as long as he receives the throw when the runner is only halfway home or whatever. This is too close for a “clearly” exception to be applied.

For the record, I think it was a pretty good throw!

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Advance the video a few more frames, and you will see that the tag isn’t applied until Merrifield’s foot is pushing into Sánchez’s leg (which is on home plate). What’s the significance of the throw beating the runner if the tag doesn’t (without an assist from the leg)?

I know the plate blocking rule has an exception for a throw “clearly” beating the runner, but I don’t think this is what they had in mind (where the throw beats him but the tag is very close, at best). I think that exception means the catcher can be set up in a blocking position as long as he receives the throw when the runner is only halfway home or whatever. This is too close for a “clearly” exception to be applied.

For the record, I think it was a pretty good throw!

Sanchez not being a quick tagger doesn't mean the throw wasn't there in time for the out. That's what I've been speaking against. Fans complaining that Beckham double clutched before the throw, thus making it a bad play by him. Merrifield was out at the plate and the throw was as good as anyone can reasonably ask for. 

I haven't been debating the rule at all. I don't think this was an example of what they meant by "clearly" beating the runner either, but I don't think he's blocking the plate and not allowing a lane for Merrifield. If Merrifield wanted to he could've slid to the outside of the plate and reached it like Gordon did the game before. I think the rule is poorly written so it's almost impossible to use it universally as it's a judgement call on what constitutes a lane to the plate. All that said, my comments stand as I don't think the double clutch not happening would've gotten the ball there sooner to the point that they would've said he "clearly" had it soon enough either. My comments are purely about fans needing to find something to complain about even when the Twins got the out on the play until a quite controversial judgement call on replay.

[Dman]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Unless you think that ball is moving slower than Merrifield the ball most definitely beat the runner. Maybe it could've been a foot lower and that would've been perfect? Sanchez had the ball before Merrifield got to the plate. So, no, I don't see it at all as akin to a throw to first that pulls the first baseman since they'd be safe while Merrifield was out.

MLB's quibble seems to be that Sanchez didn't get over (out of foul territory) soon enough and I assume even in that clip they view him not giving enough room to the runner.  I guess I don't understand how soon you have to be in possession of the ball before they consider it just blocking and not catching it and blocking which is legal to do, but they get a lot of leeway to interpret something in the rules only they know.

 "•The catcher may not block the pathway of a runner attempting to score unless he has possession of the ball. If the catcher blocks the runner before he has the ball, the umpire may call the runner safe."

In this scenario though Merrifield is out regardless of where Sanchez's feet are exactly because the ball beats the runner so blocking or no blocking it shouldn't really matter he was going to be out no matter what which is why this rule makes no sense.  Instead of an obvious out he gets called safe based on some early subjective positioning of the catcher before the play is even over? Doesn't make sense.

To add insult to injury to New York's decision the player freely admits he was trying to run into Sanchez and didn't even attempt to slide to an open side of the plate (real nice guy hoping to hurt another player, we need more of these Ty Cobb type spikes up players or wait wasn't this rule supposed to get rid of those guys?) as he knew he was out and hoped for a reversal.  This goes completely against the spirit of the rule and its ability to protect both players.  New York should have taken that into consideration in this case as well.  The runner made no attempt to slide to the open side of the plate, None.  

While I guess this could be considered blocking according to the league there are tons of these plays that could be blocking and never get called so unless there is some consistency on this issue there are going to upset teams and fans over obvious outs.

[218263]

Knowing now that Merrifield slid into him intentionally to elicit the call based on the rule I wish he would’ve broken his leg

Edited August 8, 2022 by 218263
Grammatical

[Mike_tacos]

If you watch the game recap from Tigers game yesterday, there was a very similar play at the plate with the ball coming from shortstop. The Rays catcher was positioned almost exactly the same as Sanchez was and the Tigers runner slide head first on the 3rd bag side of the plate (as it was his open lane to the plate). He was also out. No review, no arguments. However, if the rule is related to the position of the catcher before the ball arrived, one could argue that the Rays catcher violated the exact same rule. Now the play in the twins game was a bit closer, but I still don’t see how a catcher could play it any differently or better. It’s not Sanchez’s fault that the runner didn’t take the open lane. Terrible rule and terrible interpretation by the NY review panel. Tough way to lose a game. 

[h2oface]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Tim Beckham is not an outfielder and came up with a perfect throw that beat the runner and the runner was out. We're reaching way too far for complaints when a throw right on the plate that beats a runner and results in an out is now being criticized for not being better. You realize that Gordon's deep grounder wouldn't have been a deep grounder with Kepler on 3rd because the infield likely would've been in, correct? And while I think Kepler needed to go back to tag, I don't know that he beats the throw to 3rd from the left center gap. That's certainly not a given.

You realize that critical thinking and exacting observation is not a complaint, right?

[Dman]

To be honest unless that throw was going to make about a 3-5 second difference I think the call would have been the same.  As best I can tell MLB's issue is that Sanchez setup in foul territory early in.  That is the only way I can see how they could call it blocking because as the throw comes in he moves more out of foul territory and they still called blocking and ruled the runner safe even after he caught the ball ahead of the runner sliding in. 

He was blocking the plate without the ball if you look early on in the clip.  So even if the throw was one double clutch away the runner still would have been ruled safe otherwise this whole charade falls apart because he was out of foul territory when he caught the ball and they still called him safe.  The blocking action happened long before the ball got there at least IMO.

If that is the rule I sure hope they apply it to everyone now because it is goofy to me that positioning long before the play at the plate should make a difference even if the runner was going to be out no matter what.  At least then other teams can feel our pain. Then again New York would never have the guts to call that against the Yankee's.  Chicken **** is right Rocco.

[Otto von Ballpark]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Merrifield openly admitted he knew he was going to be out so he purposefully slid into Sanchez. So, no, I don't think he'd have taken a different slide path. He knew his slide path didn't matter cuz he was going to be out so he just hoped to get the call on that rule and it's why he immediately started complaining to the ump. That was his strategy cuz he knew the ball beat him and he was toast. I mean, unless you don't believe Merrifield when he says " So, I tried to just slide in to him straight in as best I could." He had no intention of trying to reach the plate, he was just hoping to get the call on that rule which is clearly far too vague to be effective or called universally.

I have not seen Merrifield say that he knew he was going to be out before sliding. How could he? He couldn’t see the throw — but he knew it could be close because it was a shallow fly. He also knew how Sánchez normally sets up on such plays, and saw him do it again early in this play — and he realized that sliding straight in would give him the option to appeal if he was out. (Of course, a straight line is also the shortest path on a tag play from third too, as opposed to other plays where the runner is rounding the bag.)

Merrifield quotes are here: https://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/use-of-controversial-slide-rule-inspires-heated-takes-from-blue-jays-twins/sn-amp/

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I have not seen Merrifield say that he knew he was going to be out before sliding. How could he? He couldn’t see the throw — but he knew it could be close because it was a shallow fly. He also knew how Sánchez normally sets up on such plays, and saw him do it again early in this play — and he realized that sliding straight in would give him the option to appeal if he was out. (Of course, a straight line is also the shortest path on a tag play from third too, as opposed to other plays where the runner is rounding the bag.)

Merrifield quotes are here: https://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/use-of-controversial-slide-rule-inspires-heated-takes-from-blue-jays-twins/sn-amp/

Perhaps I'm just reading too much into his comments and the fact that he made no attempt whatsoever to avoid being tagged out. I find it hard to believe that a player as smart, and experienced, as him would put all of his eggs in the basket of having that call be overturned by a rule that is hardly ever applied if he felt he had any chance of being safe without that overturn. If this were a call that were enforced on a regular basis and Merrifield had more reason to believe he'd be called safe because of it I'd buy more into him not knowing he was toast. “I know what the rule is. It was just a matter of whether they were going to call it or not" doesn't sound like a guy who was super confident that he was going to get that call and I find it hard to believe he would've gone with the "directly into him" slide if he thought he had any other chance of being safe.

[Otto von Ballpark]

57 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I find it hard to believe that a player as smart, and experienced, as him would put all of his eggs in the basket of having that call be overturned by a rule that is hardly ever applied if he felt he had any chance of being safe without that overturn.

Aren't you the one assuming that he was going to be out?

Merrifield is not putting all his eggs in that basket if he believes he has a chance to be safe. He obviously felt he had a chance to be safe when he broke from third and nothing he would have seen on his way to the plate would have told him he had no chance -- he knew it would be close, but he'd have a chance.

His awareness of the challenge was just a fallback option, in case he wasn't called safe.

If he tries a fancier indirect slide, not only does that fallback option likely disappear, but the slide will also take longer as he'd have to move out of his direct path from third. So the challenge fallback wasn't the only thing that kept him on that slide path.

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Aren't you the one assuming that he was going to be out?

Merrifield is not putting all his eggs in that basket if he believes he has a chance to be safe. He obviously felt he had a chance to be safe when he broke from third and nothing he would have seen on his way to the plate would have told him he had no chance -- he knew it would be close, but he'd have a chance.

His awareness of the challenge was just a fallback option, in case he wasn't called safe.

If he tries a fancier indirect slide, not only does that fallback option likely disappear, but the slide will also take longer as he'd have to move out of his direct path from third. So the challenge fallback wasn't the only thing that kept him on that slide path.

I'm assuming a play that he ended up being out on when he used, as you say, the most direct path to the plate would also end with him being out when using a less efficient path, yes.

I'm not talking about when he left third, I'm talking about when he decided to slide and where he decided to slide. He doesn't have to be able to see the ball coming to know Sanchez is in the process of catching it. He can look at Sanchez and know he's catching the ball. At that point he admits to making a conscious decision to slide directly into Sanchez because he hoped the rule would give him an automatic safe call. "It's just a matter of whether or not they call it" in describing why he chose to slide how he did sounds an awful lot like a guy saying he was putting his faith in that call, not his ability to reach the plate before being tagged, no? It worked in the end and I have no problem with him making that decision as it was his best chance to help his team. My point is that that rule is hardly ever enforced. And he knows it's hardly ever enforced. So deciding to slide how he did for the reasons he admits he made that decision doesn't sound like someone who thought they were going to be safe when they started their slide.

He knew the ball was arriving before he slid. He watched Sanchez shift into position, raise his glove, and prepare to catch the ball. He's an excellent athlete who has had multiple plays like this in his lifetime. He doesn't need to be tracking the ball itself to know whether or not it's going to beat him. He did the calculations in his head and decided a rule that is hardly ever enforced actually being enforced was his best chance of being safe. I think that pretty clearly shows he knew he was out if not for being bailed out by the judgement call of the people in NY.

And on a side note, if taking an indirect slide makes that rule likely disappear they need to make the rule disappear. Or a whole bunch of guys should automatically be safe at second on steals because the MI has their foot in front of the bag and the player has to indirectly slide to the outside corner.

[h2oface]

13 hours ago, wabene said:

You are right I guess that it didn't beat him easy, but the rest of what you say doesn't make sense. "unless he is in possession of the ball or making a “legitimate attempt” to receive a throw" Just looking at this passage you quoted it clearly wouldn't matter if the play was close or not, in possession or making an attempt means the ball is there or arriving. All that said this is just a pointless quibble. 

Maybe for you. But the call was officially overturned. Perhaps it is you that is spewing pointless quibble. Obviously it was viewed differently by those that could make the ruling.

[rv78]

There are a lot of variables in that play from Beckhams extra bunny hop to Sanchez initally setting up in foul territory then moving back into fair territory to Merrifield not sliding to the backside of the plate. First of all, Beckham shouldn't be playing in the outfield. If Rocco doesn't rest Correa, Gordon is probably in the outfield or he ends up being the pinch hitter for Cave, which would be a good move and then just stays in the game at LF. Seriously does Correa really need 3 days off this week? That's Stupid #1. Even with the way Rocco had his lineup, the better move would have been to move Gordon to the outfield and keep Correa in at SS with Beckham going back to the bench. Putting Beckham out there instead of Gordon was Stupid #2. Sanchez did what he was suppose to do. He moved out of foul territory and opened up the lane. After catching the ball he dropped to block the plate like he was suppose to. Merrifield could have slid towards the back of the plate but chose not to. In that situation he isn't going to know if the ball is on target, if Sanchez will catch it, or if it gets to home plate in time for Sanchez to make a play. Not sliding to the back of the plate was a mistake, I think he knew it and after he was called out he did the only thing left that he could do, ask for a replay. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain. What player wouldn't do the same thing? As far as I'm concerned, that rule should be eliminated. If you have an opportunity to keep a run from scoring it shouldn't be taken away from you for any reason. I miss the days of seeing Pete Rose barrel over catchers to score a run. That was baseball!

[h2oface]

8 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Nobody called anyone a "bad fan" so let's not go putting those words in my mouth/keyboard, Chief. And nobody has "observed" playing an infielder in the outfield contributed to the play, they've "observed" that despite having made the play he should've made it better. He didn't make a bad play! Did he double clutch or crow hop twice because he didn't know if Merrifield was going to go? Or is it possible he didn't have a good grip on the ball so he had to regather himself because he's, you know, human? Throwing a guy out a home isn't "bad defense."

Everyone's allowed to be a fan in their own way and I haven't told anyone on any of these boards they shouldn't be allowed to say anything they want to say. And I'm allowed to disagree with those "laments" when it's about something I don't think should be "lamented" about. No, you can't expect better than throwing someone out at the plate. He literally did what you want him to do so I will point out that it's an unnecessarily negative take to wish he threw a guy out at the plate better than he threw him out at the plate.

 

7 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

He threw the guy out at the plate. I don't see how that in any way equals a bad play. So anytime Correa doesn't hit the 1B directly in the chest in 1 smooth motion with no extra movement in fielding or throwing the ball when he gets an out at first it's a bad play? Cuz that's the argument you're making. The runner was out at home. The fielder got the ball to the catcher before the runner got there and the catcher tagged the runner out. That's not a bad play. It may have been imperfect execution with the extra step, but arguing it is a bad play is beyond controversial, it's flat out wrong. Thus it's unnecessarily negative. If the standard for a play not being bad is that a player never makes any extra movements during a play then there have been very, very few non-bad plays in the history of baseball.

You tell people that they have a bad take all the time and that their take is not correct. You are doing it here. That's fine. Maybe you don't think so, but that is how I read it And not necessarily in response to my take, but to others' takes more than mine. "No, you can't expect better than throwing someone out at the plate." - You are not allowed to expect better. - Now you are basically telling people to stop complaining, when they are not complaining, but pointing out nuances that affected the timing of the great throw arriving later than it could have. Basically telling people to not say what they are saying because they are wrong, in your opinion.

A player can have a great get and a horrible throw on the same play. If the net net result is a two base error, is it a bad play because the guy saved a double but threw the ball away and it became a two base error and the runner ends up safe at third? (I admire the great get, and shake my head about the horrible judgement to throw a ball that would not have got the runner at first anyway, and the net result.)

Or is it both a great play and a bad play in the same total event? It can be both. I bet Beckham would even say he made a lucky throw, as he knows he isn't an outfielder - probably saying to himself as the ball is coming to him "it just had to come to me.....". I thought he is capable and Beckham knows he is capable and that it was a lucky throw. Most like this are, even when it is someone that has a history of great throws. I don't think this was a bad play at all, even with the double clutch to make sure he had the ball in the proper grip to make the great throw. I think it was a bad review.

Everyone knows that the throw was made by an infielder who Baldelli ended up having in leftfield and the throw was great. Some pointed out that extra time was added to the play and identified where. Critical observation and thinking is not complaining. That is how even champions get better. 

[h2oface]

1 hour ago, rv78 said:

.......As far as I'm concerned, that rule should be eliminated. If you have an opportunity to keep a run from scoring it shouldn't be taken away from you for any reason. I miss the days of seeing Pete Rose barrel over catchers to score a run. That was baseball!

I always thought if you couldn't do it at first, or second or third base, then you shouldn't be able to do it at home.

I would call the old rule closer to football - where the main intention is to lay the hurt on the opposing team and hit them - than baseball. I like that a player can't take out the second baseman or shortstop (or the third baseman who might be there these days) and not even be close to touching second, and I like the new rule at home. A lot. I like the on field call that was made. I think Beckham made a great and lucky throw (that with a bit more luck could have gotten to Sanchez even sooner.) I think the reviewing personel made the mistake interpreting the rule in relation to the play that occured, not the rule is bad.

[IowaBeancounter]

As I understand it replay requires clear and convincing evidence to overrule a call on the field.  To me this means that if 10 different umpires review a play all 10 should come to the same conclusion.  For a fan you would accept the call whether it was for or against your team.  (I have seem several Blue Jay fans stating that they believe Merrifield should have been called out.)  Either MLB or the review crew this week decided to put an emphasis on catchers blocking the plate.  I believe that of all the calls reviewed the Sanchez Merrifield was the closest to being allowed to stand.  Since this play now become the test to measure future calls, MLB is in a bind.  If another crew does not follow the Sanchez Merrifield decision, MLB will be admitting that the evidence was not clear and convincing and Merrifield should have been ruled out.  If they continue to follow the Sanchez Merrifield rule, MLB will be encouraging players to make contact with catcher on any close play, that the catcher at anytime had a foot in foul territory, and they should be called safe.  The ultimate Karma of this play is that one of MLBs powerhouses, NYY, NYM, LAD or HOU, would have a similar call go against them during the playoffs that cost them a game or the series.   Toronto was given a gift to the detriment of not only the Twins, but every other wild card contender.  During the broadcast I believe they said that the Twins had the tie breaker against almost every wild card team, but Toronto didn't.  This means that if Toronto beats another wild card team by a game, the other team will be eliminated or will have a lower seed.  I hope MLB reaps what it has sown.  Go Twins

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

6 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Alternatively, if Sánchez hadn't initially set up to receive the throw in foul territory, Merrifield probably takes a different slide path, or at least his chosen slide path couldn't be blamed on Sánchez blocking before he had the ball?

I have to disagree and agree, first, that Sanchez was ever much in foul territory.

So following the lead of @chpettit19 with the screen shot, I will add these.

1. Here is Sanchez's initial set up:

Kudos to Gordon for covering third base. Also, I love Gio's gesture here. We're not cuttin' this one!

2. Then, here is the point in time where Sanchez is most in the baseline, preparing to catch the throw but if you slow it down, he's kind of rocking back and forth, probably just natural motion, but notice his right foot:

Sanchez doesn't have the ball yet and Merrifield is not at the plate.

3. Then a moment later, here is Sanchez providing a lane; his left leg is in the air, and is by no means planted in front of home plate denying an avenue (the spirit of the rule). Notice the right foot again back well into fair territory: 

And the call on the field:

Out, and not even a demonstrative call. So while yes it was a close play, it wasn't that close, if that makes sense. Not very logical but it makes sense in my head, anyway.  

Sanchez did it probably just the way you coach it? not sure

What's really unfortunate is that there is a video angle from the third base dugout camera that looks like Sanchez is blocking the plate old school style and falling all over the runner in a big cloud of dust. I'm sure that angle had to have had an effect on the overturn. 

Despite the crow hops and clutches, I also thought Beckham made a pretty awesome throw, as good as a throw you could hope for, in my opinion. 

But mostly I just disagreed that Sanchez did anything wrong and I decided I wanted to do a bunch of screenshots.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

This play had the feel of the old NFL catch rule: where replay reviewers had this mistaken belief that they needed to slow the video way down to make sure both palms and all ten fingers were in firm grasp of the ball on every frame of the tape, that no blades of grass were disturbed by a brush with the football, etc. Thankfully the NFL recognized that their rule had gone too far. Maybe MLB will discuss internally but won't help the Twins this time.

[wabene]

1 hour ago, h2oface said:

Maybe for you. But the call was officially overturned. Perhaps it is you that is spewing pointless quibble. Obviously it was viewed differently by those that could make the ruling.

Lol yes I was referring to my point as a pointless quibble, but if you want to be offended by that and infer that I was only referring to you or whatever it was that got you worked up, go for it. I don't care what the officials in NY think, they made a mistake and most would agree and side with the refs on the field who were put in an awkward position by those officials. 

[h2oface]

8 minutes ago, wabene said:

Lol yes I was referring to my point as a pointless quibble, but if you want to be offended by that and infer that I was only referring to you or whatever it was that got you worked up, go for it. I don't care what the officials in NY think, they made a mistake and most would agree and side with the refs on the field who were put in an awkward position by those officials. 

As do I agree with the refs umpires on the field. Stated many times clearly. But that doesn't change the official review and call, or the understanding of why they did it, unfortunatley.

[jimbo92107]

Went back and watched Cole Sands' three innings of work. Wow. His stuff isn't overwhelming, but Sands was making it look easy to get out the Blue Jay lineup. If this is what Sands looks like when he's relaxed, then I think he's got a good career ahead. Great job tunneling his curve off his fastball down in the zone. This guy is a pitcher, not just a thrower. Very tactical approach, with lots of help from Sanchez, who appears to enjoy working with the young guns. 

[ashbury]

On 8/7/2022 at 3:05 PM, Theo Tollefson said:

Blue Jays 3, Twins 2: Bad Replay Review Costs Twins

It's fascinating to dissect the crucial play at the plate.  However the headline of this TD article buries, if not the lede, at least the true story.

Blue Jays 3, Twins 2: Bad Offensive Showing Costs Twins.  Again.

Score more than a couple, and this good outing from the pitchers isn't wasted.  Again.

 

[Dman]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

It's fascinating to dissect the crucial play at the plate.  However the headline of this TD article buries, if not the lede, at least the true story.

Blue Jays 3, Twins 2: Bad Offensive Showing Costs Twins.  Again.

Score more than a couple, and this good outing from the pitchers isn't wasted.  Again.

 

Yep they had their chance in the 9th and ultimately the 10th and decided not to take it.  Still the play that won the game shouldn't have won the game so there's that.