MLB Ejection 055 - John Tumpane (2; Asdrubal Cabrera)

HP Umpire John Tumpane ejected Mets 2B Asdrubal Cabrera (strike three call; QOCY) in the middle of the 9th inning of the Yankees-Mets game. With two out and none on in the bottom of the 8th, Cabrera took a 0-2 slider from Yankees pitcher Dellin Betances for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located over the outer half of home plate and thigh-high (px -.627, pz 1.994 [sz_bot 1.535]), and that there were no other callable pitches during the at-bat, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Yankees were leading, 4-3. The Yankees ultimately won the contest, 4-3.

This is John Tumpane (74)'s second ejection of 2018.
John Tumpane now has 10 points in the UEFL Standings (6 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 10).
Crew Chief Mark Wegner now has -2 points in Crew Division (-3 Previous + 1 Correct Call = -2).
*UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule): |0| < STRIKE < |.748| < BORDERLINE < |.914| < BALL.
*This pitch was located 3.444 horizontal inches from being deemed an incorrect call.

This is the 55th ejection report of the 2018 MLB regular season.
This is the 26th player ejection of 2018. Prior to ejection, Cabrera was 1-4 (SO) in the contest.
This is New York-NL's 1st ejection of 2018, 3rd in the NL East (WAS 3; ATL 2; NYM 1; MIA, PHI 0).
This is Asdrubal Cabrera's first ejection since March 23, 2017 (Angel Hernandez; QOC = U ["Time"]).
This is John Tumpane's 2nd ejection of 2018, 1st since May 20 (Kyle Schwarber; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: New York Yankees vs. New York Mets, 6/9/18 | Video as follows:

Replay Rewind - Technically Correct or Spiritual Travesty?

Would you rather baseball be technically correct or invoke common sense and fair play in its Replay Review decisions: how close is too far? This philosophical quagmire manifests most frequently in the tag play at second base when a runner's foot slides into the bag and subsequently may or may not momentarily break contact with the white rubber square by fractions of an inch, all while the fielder holds a glove to the runner's leg. What's the correct call?

Is Replay Review becoming too cumbersome?

As of June 9 at 9am, the category of Replay Review known here as "Tag - Into Base" (and, occasionally, "Tag - Stolen Base") enjoys a Review Affirmation Percentage (RAP) during this 2018 season of 64.6% (53.7% for stolen bases, but bear in mind the SB figure rarely pertains to tags on runners where breaking contact with the base is an issue), which is better than the league average of 51.5% for all Replay Review categories, but perhaps we should consider an even greater subcategory of this classification: the Tag - Into Base [Broken Contact].

Such is the case of one particular play this weekend in Toronto, when 2B Umpire Ted Barrett's ruling that Orioles batter-runner Danny Valencia was out at second base at the hands of Blue Jays second baseman Devon Travis stood following a Baltimore challenge.

When tmac reviewed this play, it received a flag for a potential Replay Review missed call: replays indicated clear and convincing evidence to suggest fielder Travis' initial tag attempt on runner Valencia missed the runner entirely, so why did New York uphold the out call?

Travis may have tagged Valencia after all.

Upon closer examination of the frame-by-frame coverage, not only did we confirm our original finding (that Travis missed Valencia on the slide into the base), but we also discovered that, after sliding safely into second base, Valencia's right foot may have broken contact with the bag afterward by fractions of an inch as Travis may have tagged Valencia's thigh.

Accordingly, upholding Barrett's out call is technically the correct determination, but almost assuredly for a reason different than the one Barrett originally used in calling Valencia out.

As Orioles Manager Buck Showalter was left shaking his head in the aftermath of the decision, we consider whether expanded replay has infiltrated the confines of common sense—or perhaps, changed what that term actually means.

The Replay Review regulations are clear: whether a runner is safe or out as the result of a fielder's tag is a reviewable play, and the Official Baseball Rules pertaining to tags shall apply.
Related Post: MLB Releases Replay Review Regulations for 2014 Season (3/31/14).

For what it's worth, the relevant OBR items are 5.09(b)(4) ["Any runner is out when—He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base"] and the definition stating, "A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball (not including hanging laces alone), while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove."

Gil's Call: Pursuant to OBR and Replay Review rules and regulations, the pop-up slide, like an overslide, places the runner in jeopardy of being tagged out, as in 5.09(b)(4). Such an out is not a force play (if applicable, and mainly relevant to potential time plays), but by now we know, there is absolutely no grace and no allowance granted for a runner whose cleat breaks contact with the base—not for a nanosecond, and not by a nanometer.

Travis clearly misses on his initial tag attempt.

Perhaps even I, with all my advocacy for adherence to the rules' technical idiosyncrasies, am too "old school" to even consider calling out a runner for nothing more than breaking contact with the base by a centimeter. It better be more apparent than that, at least in my faulty judgment.

So while I personally despise the Travis-Valencia "call stands" determination, I must acknowledge that upholding the out call is the technically correct outcome.

I would prefer seeing the runner called safe unless it's plainly obvious that his foot has left the bag entirely—by at least an inch or two—but the problem with that line of thinking is, first, what margin-of-grace should we afford the runner on a consistent basis, and, second, what rule would even support it? Per the rules, breaking contact with the base by as much as one Planck length—that's quantum physics—is enough to render the runner out, and we have high-speed, ultra-zoom, x-mo cameras absolutely chomping at the bit to overturn whatever call was initially made.

Naturally, we have no realistic way of observing a Planck (1.62 x 10^-35 m) on a baseball field, so the question regarding Travis-Valencia and all similar plays, then, becomes, how close of a margin can the technical eye discern?

I posit this question because the laws of physics state that similar charges repel. Because all atoms are comprised of electrons, which are the outermost particles of an atom and have the characteristics of both a particle and a wave—not to mention a negative charge—the subatomic particles will naturally repel and, thus, never touch; in other words, you can never actually touch anything.

Two objects can never truly "touch."

Even when electrons jump atoms, they never actually touch.

If the electrons defied impossibility and somehow managed to touch...well, they've made some very powerful and dangerous bombs about similar concepts; an electron bomb would be on a whole other, inconceivable level.

Because of electromagnetic repulsion, it is quite literally impossible for a runner to ever touch a base, and equally impossible for a fielder to ever tag a runner.

Accordingly, if we were to focus a subatomic microscope on any play at any base, not only would we see that the runner is not touching the base, we'd see the fielder is not tagging the runner. Everyone would be safe by default (because the defense could never legally appeal by touching the appropriate base...in NFHS or NCAA softball—leagues with dead ball and verbal appeals—I suppose every runner would be out on appeal) and games would never end (also, the pitcher would be throwing illegal pitches the entire game, for never having touched the pitcher's plate).

Video: Enrico Pallazo ejects Joe West.

Who knew? Enrico Pallazzo was actually right—the runner was safe!

At some point this becomes rather ridiculous, but nonetheless illustrates what happens when visual capture technology continues to improve as the laws of physics stay the same.

Technically speaking, of course.

SIDEBAR: As long as we're being technical, it isn't that far of a logical leap for a broadcaster to incorrectly assume that if any leathery item touches the runner while the runner is off the base, it is a legal tag, even when the rules specifically state otherwise (which is why Toronto's "laces" statement was wrong). Is this a cerebral inconsistency within the rules themselves, an uneven application of common sense and fair play, or an appropriate jigsaw navigation of what the rules should be?
Related Post: Commentary Critique - Glove Laces Not Part of Tag (6/4/18).

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 054 - David Rackley (1; Chris Prieto)

HP Umpire David Rackley ejected Mariners 1B Coach Chris Prieto (balk no-call; QOCY) in the top of the 9th inning of the Mariners-Rays game. With two out and one on (R1), Rays pitcher Vidal Nuno attempted to pick off Mariners baserunner R1 Jean Segura, throwing to first baseman Jake Bauers, to second baseman Christian Arroyo. Replays indicate Nuno appeared to step toward first base prior to throwing to that base (Nuno's intent of a throw to first base is indicated by the pitcher's consistent orientation toward first base and pointed toe toward first base; as stated in Rule 6.02(a)(3), "It is a balk when—The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base"), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Mariners were leading, 4-3. The Mariners ultimately won the contest, 4-3.

This is David Rackley (86)'s first ejection of 2018.
David Rackley now has 6 points in the UEFL Standings (2 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 6).
Crew Chief Marvin Hudson now has 1 point in Crew Division (0 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 1).
*Rule 6.02(a)(3) Comment states, "Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without actually stepping or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk. because he steps. A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base and is required to throw (except to second base) because he steps."
Furthermore, "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the 'intent' of the pitcher should govern."
Related Post: Case Play 2018-2 - Balk-A-Day...Joe West? [Solved] (4/27/18).

This is the 54th ejection report of the 2018 MLB regular season.
This is Seattle's 3rd ejection of 2018, T-1st in the AL West (LAA, SEA 3; HOU 2; TEX 1; OAK 0).
This is Chris Prieto's first career MLB ejection.
This is David Rackley's first ejection since September 9, 2017 (Mike Scioscia; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Seattle Mariners vs. Tampa Bay Rays, 6/8/18 | Video as follows:

Commentary - Cubs Score on HP Collision Violation

In this edition of Commentary Critique, we visit Chicago, where Replay Review overturned HP Umpire Nick Mahrley's call that Phillies catcher Andrew Knapp tagged out Albert Almora Jr., finding Knapp violated MLB's collision rule by blocking home plate without possession of the ball.

Replay overturned an out call at home plate.

The Play: With one out and the bases loaded, Cubs batter Anthony Rizzo hit a fly ball to Phillies left fielder Dylan Cozens, who threw home as Cubs baserunner R3 Almora tagged from third base, resulting in a play at the plate wherein Knapp tagged Almora prior to Almora's touch of home.

The Call & Challenge: Initially ruled out by HP Umpire Mahrley, the ruling was overturned to safe as a result of a violation of Rule 6.01(i), which is the Official Baseball Rule for home plate collision abatement.

Commentary Critique, Statement: During the Replay Review, Cubs television broadcasters Len Kasper and Jim Deshaies stated, "The catcher has the right to block the plate once he has the ball...and the baserunner in that instance has the right to hit the catcher," "There's no question the block impeded his ability to get there, which is only his job if the case where he already has the ball," and, "the block absolutely is the reason that he didn't score."

Commentary Critique, QOC: This statement is mostly accurate (QOCY). Knapp illegally blocked the plate.

The Rule: The relevant rule is 6.01(i)(2), which states the following relevant information:

Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). 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.

Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment provides additional clarity: "A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate."

HP collision is still legal in certain situations.

Analysis: The catcher may legally block a runner's access to home plate under just four circumstances: 1) The catcher is in possession of the ball, 2) the catcher is not in possession of the ball, but blocks the runner's path in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, 3) a collision occurs, and the runner could have avoided the collision by sliding, or 4) the catcher without possession of the ball has not hindered or impeded the runner.

Accordingly, a legal home plate collision may occur when a catcher blocks access to home plate and a runner opts to run into the catcher rather than attempting to avoid the collision by sliding, provided the runner has not deviated from his direct pathway to home plate for the purpose of initiating contact with the defensive player at home plate.
Related Post: Little Home Plate Collision Begets Wrigley Bench Clearing (5/8/18).

The Cubs previously were called for a violation of the catcher's home plate collision rule during the 2017 postseason, resulting in Manager Joe Maddon's ejection for arguing the Replay Official's decision that catcher Willson Contreras illegally blocked baserunner Charlie Culberson's pathway to home plate. As was the case with Knapp on Thursday, last October's call against Contreras also involved a catcher extending his leg in an attempt to block the runner from touching home plate.
Related Post: MLB Ejection P-2 - Mike Winters (2; Joe Maddon) (10/14/17).

Catcher Knapp blocks the runner at home plate.

In this play, Knapp 1) does not have possession of the ball, 2) does not extend his leg in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (in other words, his leg position isn't part of a legitimate attempt to field a throw...the throw didn't take his leg into the runner), 3) the runner slid, and 4) the catcher impeded the runner by placing his leg/foot in the runner's pathway after the runner began to slide and before the catcher received the throw.

With none of the four exemptions applicable to this play, it was properly overturned to a violation and the runner was permitted to score.
Related Topic: Home Plate Collision Rule and Plays (UEFL Archives)

Sidebar: Notice Crew Chief Jerry Layne signal the violation on review by kicking his lower leg.

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 053 - Quinn Wolcott (1; Craig Counsell)

HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott ejected Brewers Manager Craig Counsell (strike three call; QOCY) in the top of the 8th inning of the Brewers-Indians game. With one out and one on (R1), Brewers batter Travis Shaw took a 2-2 sinker from Indians pitcher Oliver Perez for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located over the inner half of home plate and at the hollow of the knee (px .273, pz 1.584 [sz_bot 1.627 / RAD 1.505]) and that all other pitches during the at-bat were properly officiated, the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Indians were leading, 3-1. The Indians ultimately won the contest, 3-1.

This is Quinn Wolcott (81)'s first ejection of 2018.
Quinn Wolcott now has 1 point in the UEFL Standings (-3 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 1).
Crew Chief Jeff Kellogg now has -7 points in Crew Division (-8 Previous + 1 Correct Call = -7).

This is the 53rd ejection report of the 2018 MLB regular season.
This is the 23rd Manager ejection of 2018.
This is Milwaukee's 4th ejection of 2018, 1st in the NL Central (MIL 4; CHC 3; PIT 2; CIN, STL 0).
This is Craig Counsell's 3rd ejection of 2018, 1st since May 22 (Angel Hernandez; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).
This is Quinn Wolcott's first ejection since September 13, 2017 (Brad Ausmus; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Milwaukee Brewers vs. Cleveland Indians, 6/6/18 | Video as follows:

Deceptive Angle - Woodring's Parallax Check Swing

When umpire Tom Woodring's check swing call angered Rays batter Mallex Smith on Tuesday, Tampa Bay's broadcast utilized a camera angle to suggest Smith didn't go, while Washington's replay suggested a strike. Why the discrepancy? Answer: Parallax, an effect known to hockey fans for quite some time that applies to any sport with variable camera angles.

The origins of parallax go back to Ancient Greek (parallaxis), but the theory behind this visual oddity is rather simple. When a viewer looks at a distant object in front of a background which itself is at any amount of distance (even just inches) from the object (here, we're looking at a bat on the background of either home plate or Smith's own body), the angle with which the viewer sees the object from will dictate how this object appears in front of the distant background.

Parallax effect in hockey: Same timecodes.

Hockey: Parallax plays a huge role in hockey's use of limited replay—namely when reviewing whether a puck has entirely crossed the red goal line. Because the red line itself is painted about an inch below the ice surface, even a puck that lies flat on the ice is subject to the parallax effect, as demonstrated by the accompanying image. For accuracy's sake, a top-down view is required to conclusively adjudicate most goal line plays.

Baseball (Woodring/Smith Check Swing): Accordingly, Washington's replay angle from the camera well located closest to the first base line extended provides us with a view that is more suggestive of a "swing" than Tampa Bay's angle, which is located farther along foul territory on the third base side of the field.

This explains why two different angles might have made Smith's check swing look like two different events.
Related Post: MLB Ejection 052 - Tom Woodring (1; Mallex Smith)

What big league baseball does right in regard to check swings is consistently have the home plate umpire call the initial pitch, and, if necessary, refer to the first or third base umpire on appeal. This provides a consistent angle up the respective foul lines for the field umpires, who, due to parallax, are more apt not to rule a swing than the plate umpire.

What this means is that if a base umpire rules "swing" so as to affirm the appeal, that base umpire will have adjudged the swing from an angle less suggestive than the plate umpire's angle of a swing. This ensures the base umpire's election to overturn the "no swing" call at home plate is based on a higher threshold of evidence to suggest that the batter did, in fact, swing.

In other words, all else equal, given the differing angles (and assuming that pitch location is so far in the dirt so as not to be a distraction for the plate umpire), a plate umpire is more apt to rule a swing on a 50-50 play than a base umpire is for that same exact check swing, due solely to the parallax angles.

Image of red line for parallax coin experiment.

A simple experiment you can conduct at home to illustrate the parallax effect requires just your smart phone and a small coin.

In order for the demonstration to work, your phone will need to have a screen that is underneath the glass. Generally speaking, the distance between the LCD, digitizer, and front glass lens is nary a millimeter, but even this is enough to demonstrate the parallax effect.

Parallex Effect Demonstration: Smart Phone and Coin
Step 1) On your smart phone, open an image of a red line (such as the one attached to this article).
Step 2) While looking directly overhead ("straight down") the phone, place the coin flat on the phone's screen so only a tiny portion of its edge is over the red line.
Step 3) Keeping the phone and coin stationary, adjust your head height and overall depth, as if simulating a camera in motion. Notice how from certain angles ("in front"), the coin appears entirely not in contact with the red line while from other angles ("behind"), the coin appears greatly in contact with the line.

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 052 - Tom Woodring (1; Mallex Smith)

3B Umpire Tom Woodring ejected Rays CF Mallex Smith (check swing strike three call) in the top of the 8th inning of the Rays-Nationals game. With none out and two on (R1, R2), Smith attempted to check his swing on a 0-2 changeup from Nationals pitcher Max Scherzer ruled a ball and adjudicated as a swinging strike on appeal by 3B Umpire Woodring. Play was reviewed and adjudicated by the UEFL Appeals Board (9-0-0), the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Nationals were leading, 4-2. The Nationals ultimately won the contest, 4-2.

This is Tom Woodring (75)'s first ejection of 2018.
Tom Woodring now has 6 points in the UEFL Standings (2 Prev + 2 AAA + 2 Correct Call = 6).
Crew Chief Ted Barrett now has 11 points in Crew Division (10 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 1).
*This is the first ejection since May 28: E-051 - Mark Carlson (1; Clint Hurdle).

This is the 52nd ejection report of the 2018 MLB regular season.
This is the 25th player ejection of 2018. Prior to ejection, Smith was 0-3 (2 SO) in the contest.
This is Tampa Bay's 1st ejection of 2018, T-3rd in the AL East (NYY 5; TOR 3; BAL, BOS, TB 1).
This is Mallex Smith's first career MLB ejection.
This is Tom Woodring's first ejection since March 16, 2017 (Yasiel Puig; QOC = U [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Tampa Bay Rays vs. Washington Nationals, 6/5/18 | Video as follows:

UEFL Invokes Injury Replacement Rule for Everitt

Since sustaining an Opening Day concussion on a March 30 pitch to the head that eluded catcher Francisco Cervelli's mitt, umpire Mike Everitt attempted a return after 25 days off the field, officiating several games from April 25 through May 2 before he once again disappeared from on-field service.
Related Post: Injury Scout - Everitt Concussed on Pitch to Head (3/31/18).

Mike Everitt is yet to return to regular service.

Unfortunately, this complication has led to a second absence that has now surpassed the 30-day threshold indicated in new-for-2018 UEFL Rule 1-5-b, which authorizes umpire replacement under certain circumstances during the regular season pertaining to extended absence.

Because Everitt is a Crew Chief, there are two potential replacements that UEFL members who own Everitt may effect: that of Everitt as a Primary/Secondary umpire, and that of Everitt as a Crew Chief.

If you drafted Everitt in either capacity and wish to make a replacement, read on for Rule 1-5-b's instructions.

UEFL Acceptable Replacement Procedure
If your Crew Chief is Mike Everitt, you may select any Crew Chief listed below.
If your PRM/SDR is Mike Everitt, you may select any primary/secondary umpire listed below.

Everitt has zero points in Primary and Secondary classifications, and zero points in Crew Division.

List of Legal Replacements (as of June 5, 2018; Subject to change after this date)
Crew Division - Eligible Replacement Crew Chiefs (ranked by UEFL points, in parentheses):
Welke, Bill (-1) [Rule 1-2-b replacement]
Wegner, Mark (-1) [Rule 1-5-b replacement]
Holbrook, Sam (-1) [1-5-b]
Davis, Gerry (-3) [1-5-b]
West, Joe (-4) [1-5-b]
Hallion, Tom (-7) [1-5-b]
Miller, Bill (-7) [1-5-b]
Kellogg, Jeff (-8) [1-5-b]

Primaries and Secondaries - Refer to UEFL Standings (umpires must have less than 0 UEFL points)

To effect a midseason replacement, post a comment to this announcement indicating your username, classification to be changed (Crew Chief, Primary, or Secondary), and proposed replacement name.

Commentary Critique - Glove Laces Not Part of Tag

Welcome to the inaugural episode of Commentary Critique, where we take a broadcaster's statement and analyze the announcer's rules- or umpire-centric accuracy. Today, we see if Toronto's "the laces are part of the glove...that is the rule" is a correct statement or not. Just as we determine Quality of Correctness for an umpire who ejects a player, we will attribute a Broadcaster QOC for this corner of criticism.

Question: Are laces part of the glove?

The Play: With two out and a runner on third, Blue Jays pitcher Sam Gaviglio's 2-2 slider to Red Sox batter Xander Bogaerts bounced in the dirt and eluded Jays catcher Luke Maile, who threw to Gaviglio covering home as Red Sox baserunner R3 Jackie Bradley attempted to score.

The Call & Challenge: Initially ruled safe by HP Umpire Jerry Layne, the ruling was overturned to an out after John Gibbons challenged the call.

Commentary Critique, Statement: During the Replay Review, Blue Jays broadcasters Buck Martinez and Dan Shulman stated that because the laces of Gaviglio's glove made contact with Bradley's hand, the runner was out. According to Shulman, "the laces are part of the glove...that is the rule."

Commentary Critique, QOC: This statement is inaccurate (QOCN). While the laces are physically attached to the glove, loose/hanging laces alone tagging a runner is not sufficient for an out call.

The Rule: The relevant rule may be found in the Definition of Terms, and states:

A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball (not including hanging laces alone), while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove. 

OBR Appendix 4: Laces are not part of a glove.

Analysis: Accordingly, laces alone are not sufficient for a tag and the broadcasters' statement otherwise ("that is the rule") is incorrect. This phrase—"not including hanging laces alone"—was added to the Official Baseball Rules ahead of the 2016 season, as the Rules Committee was concerned with expanded replay and potential confusion of whether a hanging lace incidentally contacting a runner should be enough to oblige the Replay Official to overturn a safe call or confirm an out call.

This is also supported by OBR Diagram 4, in Appendix 4, which pictures a regulation glove featuring many items of interest, none of which happen to be hanging laces.

Instead, the call in Boston was overturned to "out" because the fielder tagged the runner, not with hanging laces, but with the glove's web, as indicated by Diagram 4's letter "E" (and C, and D).

Video as follows:

Simba's "Revenge" - Andrelton's Illegal Slide on Odor

And just like that, it was over. Angels shortstop Andrelton Simmons retaliated against Rangers middle infielder Rougned Odor with a non-bona fide slide of his own Saturday, barreling past second base and drawing an interference call from 2B Umpire Brian O'Nora to wipe away a would-be safe call by Chris Conroy at first base on batter-runner Shohei Ohtani.
Related Post: Light Up the Halo & Clear the Benches - Slide INT Part II (6/2/18).

Simmons' retaliatory slide cost his team an out.

The Play: With one out and one on (R1) in the bottom of the 4th inning of Saturday's Rangers-Angels game, batter Ohtani hit a ground ball on the ground to Rangers shortstop Jurickson Profar, who flipped to second baseman Odor, who threw onto first base as Angels baserunner R1 Simmons slid into second base.

The Call: Although Odor's throw reached first base well after batter-runner Ohtani's arrival, 2B Umpire O'Nora declared two outs on the play: Simmons on the force play, and Ohtani on Simmons' interference at second base.

Analysis: By now, you're familiar with the "four criteria" drill for bona fide slide rule 6.01(j):
(1) Did the runner begin his slide (e.g., contact the ground) before reaching the base? [YES];
(2) Was runner able & attempted to reach the base with a hand or foot? [YES];
(3) Was runner able & attempted to remain on the base (except HP) after completing the slide? [NO];
(4) Did runner slide within reach of the base without changing his pathway for contact? [YES].

O'Nora gets two outs as Odor looks on.

Conclusion: Simmons' slide was illegal because he was unable or made no attempt to remain on the base after completion of his slide: Simmons slid through second base and seemed more concerned about potentially taking out Odor than running the bases legally. This is interference and was correctly officiated as such. Apparently, the call was so routine that Angels Manager Mike Scioscia didn't even challenge the play.

Gil's Call: It appears we have found the offense's equivalent measure of retaliation as the defensive intentional hit-by-pitch: the illegal slide...and just like a beanball that ultimately harms the defense by putting a free runner on base, the payback force play slide hurts the offense by giving the defense a free out on a secondary player (batter-runner) that would have been safe had the slide been legal.

None of these retaliatory measures are legal and, arguably, both are clear intents to injure, or, at the least, send a non-baseball message to the other team. For what it's worth, the Angels lost Saturday's game in extra innings, 3-2.

Video as follows: