Instant Replay for Home Runs

[zahavasdad]

Last Night (May 18, 2008) the Umps blew the Call on National TV, they overulled the 3rd Base umpire and took away a home run from Carlos Delgado in the Yankees - Mets Game.

ESPN showed the hit over and over again that the UMPS Clearly blew the call (Its not a subjective call)

Luckily the call didnt cost the Mets the game, but the idea is to get the call RIGHT.

Should baseball use instant replay for Home Runs like that, you would not to cost a team a game because the Ump Blew it!!

[Brian McKenna]

Why are home runs so special to warrant such unprecedented scrutiny?

[metfan13]

Why are home runs so special to warrant such unprecedented scrutiny?

Because they are guaranteed to involve runs being scored, or not.

[zahavasdad]

Because they are not subjective and they directly cause a score change unlike almost any other call

[ipitch]

In the NHL, all goals and near goals are reviewed in Toronto (no matter where the game takes place). I think their system works well. I'd like to see MLB do something similar for homeruns.

[cardsfanatic]

I'm always a fan of instant replay. To me it's not about making a quick call that's wrong. It's about taking the time to make the right call. Everyone that says IR would slow down games always cites that as a reason to not use it. I'm sorry... I can't see the value in making a quick judgment that's wrong. I don't know, maybe that's why stuff like fast food and ARM loans exist, the culture we live in wants results and they want them now. Unwilling to take the time to make sure it's right. Who knows. Personally, I'd rather take an extra minute or two and make sure it's the right call.

EDIT: Before anyone brings it up, I obviously wouldn't support instant replay for things like strikes and balls. It'd have to be a major play like a game-winning tag from 3rd if they thought the runner may have left early. Homeruns, definitely. Something like the Don Denkinger "safe" call at first. Things like that.

[Boston Boxer]

In the NHL, all goals and near goals are reviewed in Toronto (no matter where the game takes place). I think their system works well. I'd like to see MLB do something similar for homeruns.

i agree, no harm in using the system for HRs. It would not take that many replays to see if it is a HR or not. I am all for it. It is the one thing hockey has going for it above baseball.

[Old Sweater]

Rox get ripped on 4 HR calls last season. 2 of them cost us the game that forced the 1 game playoff with the Padres where there was another blown call on a HR.

Yankees get the benefit of a blown HR call.

I don't want instant replay. I want 3 more HR jelly rolls.

Instant replay is going to work out 50/50 for your team which is around the same as blown calls so no one is going to benefit from it in the long run.

[zahavasdad]

Yankees get the benefit of a blown HR call.

Not exactly, Imagine the Yankees would have won the game 5-4 and the Blown Call cost the Mets a Team.

The Yankees would never have lived it down.

Even the Yankee annoucers and the Ump (Davidson) said the call was blown. You never want to WIN a game based on a blown call. You need to win games on the Field, not based on the UMP

[ipitch]

Instant replay is going to work out 50/50 for your team which is around the same as blown calls so no one is going to benefit from it in the long run.

It could literally take hundreds of years for things to "even out" when a team gets screwed from a blown call at a critical time in the World Series.

[metfan13]

Why not a 5th ump upstairs to make the call. No review on the field. He could call down a decision faster than Davidson ran out to screw it up last night.

[spark240]

I obviously wouldn't support instant replay for things like strikes and balls. It'd have to be a major play like a game-winning tag from 3rd if they thought the runner may have left early. Homeruns, definitely. Something like the Don Denkinger "safe" call at first. Things like that.

So, bottom of the 9th, home team down by one, bases loaded, two outs, full count. You wouldn't consider a video replay for a ball or strike call?

[KCGHOST]

Something like fair or foul on HR's would be okay. Something like the NBA uses where you don't have replay officials and such and the use of the replay is for a very limited set of circumstances.

I still can't figure out why the 1st base umpire thought he got a better view than the 3B umpire.

[metfan13]

Something like fair or foul on HR's would be okay. Something like the NBA uses where you don't have replay officials and such and the use of the replay is for a very limited set of circumstances.

I still can't figure out why the 1st base umpire thought he got a better view than the 3B umpire.

On a play like that I don't see how anyone not looking directly down the line can even have an opinion.

[Imgran]

Fair-foul, HR or not, tag plays, and anyhthing controversial in the 9th inning.

[cardsfanatic]

So, bottom of the 9th, home team down by one, bases loaded, two outs, full count. You wouldn't consider a video replay for a ball or strike call?

Absolutely not.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

So, bottom of the 9th, home team down by one, bases loaded, two outs, full count. You wouldn't consider a video replay for a ball or strike call?

Don't hold your breath.................instant replay for balls and strikes.
I doubt that one, very much.

[KCGHOST]

For what it's worth:

""I ----ed it up. I'm the one who thought it was a ---- foul ball. I saw it on the replay. I'm the one who ----ed it up so you can put that in your paper. Bolts and nuts, I ----ed up. You've just got to move on. No one feels worse about it than I do."

--Home plate umpire Bob Davidson, after Sunday night's Yankees-Mets game, on a Carlos Delgado opposite-field blast that was ruled foul after striking the left field foul pole. (Christian Red, New York Daily News)"

[zahavasdad]

What else was he gonna say, He couldnt pull a Bill Klem (He claimed never to have missed a call)

The replay showed he made a mistake and it was a Nationaly Televised Game and ESPN spent almost the rest of the game saying he made a mistake showing every angle and that it wasnt even close

[SHOELESSJOE3]

What else was he gonna say, He couldnt pull a Bill Klem (He claimed never to have missed a call)

The replay showed he made a mistake and it was a Nationaly Televised Game and ESPN spent almost the rest of the game saying he made a mistake showing every angle and that it wasnt even close

You heard it before now hear it again, umpires are human, they make mistakes and they make bigger ones than they did on that home run. Not the easiest call to make last night

You say it wasn't close, well maybe so on instant replay, slo-mo, frame by frame looking at it in that mode. But thats not the case, the ball is hit and the ump has to make a call in real speed, big difference. And for that matter his initial call was fair
Don't see how anyone could say it wasn't close. Hit near the bottom of the foul pole the most difficult part of the pole to see........... with the naked eye, it was close, very close a few inches from being foul.

The bigger problem here is how the decision was made to change the call. The third base ump was in the best position to see the ball and he ruled fair. Now they get together and the other umps farther away change the call, thats the real problem.

Think of what the umps saw, in real speed a ball striking close to the foul pole at the base and then a fan in foul territory holding the ball.

Yes the wrong call but understandable.

[zahavasdad]

The Foul Pole at Yankee Stadium is about 2 feet in from the Foul Line , You could hit a ball to the Left of the Foul POLE and it could still be a home run

ESPN showed a reporter who sat between the foul pole and the foul line.

The UMP should have know this

[Old Sweater]

Yankees get the benefit of a blown HR call.

Not exactly, Imagine the Yankees would have won the game 5-4 and the Blown Call cost the Mets a Team.



Even the Yankee annoucers and the Ump (Davidson) said the call was blown. You never want to WIN a game based on a blown call. You need to win games on the Field, not based on the UMP


Umps are part of the field that I knew of as their calls are part of the game. I would say that it safe to say that umps get 99.9% of HR calls are right by the umps so instant replay would be a waste of time. Blown calls at first lead to much more runs during the season. Every run a team scores after 2 outs is due to a blown call at 1st base or any base for that matter. Same can be said for a borderline call for a 3rd strike or 4th ball.

Not exactly, Imagine the Yankees would have won the game 5-4 and the Blown Call cost the Mets a Team. The Yankees would never have lived it down.

There is nothing to live down. Blown calls work out about 50/50 down thru the years. Like I said in my other post in this thread the Rockies were the poster team for blown HR calls with 4 last season which cost them 2 games and a 163rd game against the Padres where the umps blew another HR call which caused extra innings for them.

Take that 163rd game for example, both the HR call and Holliday sliding home were both debateable and instant replay wasn't clear enough on either play with the playoffs on the line for the winner. Me being a Rockies fan I'm saying and seeing the HR being good and Holliday was safe at home and touched the plate. A Padres fan would say the opposite so instant replay isn't going to slove anything in that important game.

Most players just accept it as part of the game where umps have been blowing calls since they were in T Ball for a lot of them. They don't cry and whine or use it as an excuse or point their finger at the ump for the loss. They realize it is part of the game and I wish all the belly aching fans would realize the same. Human game/Human error and there is plenty of human error judgement calls in the other sports that more then make up for the reversed calls where they use instant replay.

[zahavasdad]

Take that 163rd game for example, both the HR call and Holliday sliding home were both debateable and instant replay wasn't clear enough on either play with the playoffs on the line for the winner.

In Football (I dont know the other sports) you need CLEAR EVIDENCE the call on the field was wrong.

The Blown Home Run call yesterday was obvious to everyone including the UMP.

[cardsfanatic]

Take that 163rd game for example, both the HR call and Holliday sliding home were both debateable and instant replay wasn't clear enough on either play with the playoffs on the line for the winner.

In Football (I dont know the other sports) you need CLEAR EVIDENCE the call on the field was wrong.

The Blown Home Run call yesterday was obvious to everyone including the UMP.

Obvious with slow motion replay. When I saw it at first before any replays I thought for sure it was foul. So maybe it wasn't so "obvious" huh? They got the call wrong and instant replay would help in a situation like that. But to those saying it was "obvious" for an umpire to see, give me a break. That ball was traveling 80+ MPH most likely and struck a black pole in an angled portion of the park that is poorly lit. That's far from an easy call to make.

If you want to say the crew should yield to the ump with the best view of it, sure. The guy who originally made the call hesitated to make it, but made the right call eventually. The fact he hesitated makes you assume even he wasn't sure about an "obvious" call. However, since he had the best view they most certainly should have stuck with that. That, I can agree with. To act like they blew an "easy" or "obvious" call on purpose is preposterous. There was nothing at all easy OR obvious about that.

[zahavasdad]

I meant it was obvious after the replay,

In Football its not always obvious what the correct call is even on Replay , Then the call on the field stands.

Many baseball plays are also not obvious after a replay either

[Mattingly]

I'm slightly hijacking this thread, but is it true that in every single ballpark, including ones with roofs (which have their own HR rules, depending upon what gets hit way up there), that if a fly ball hits the foul pole, regardless of whether it goes fair or foul, that it's automatically a HR? Or would I be wrong on this?

[ipitch]

The Foul Pole at Yankee Stadium is about 2 feet in from the Foul Line , You could hit a ball to the Left of the Foul POLE and it could still be a home run

ESPN showed a reporter who sat between the foul pole and the foul line.

The UMP should have know this

:shrug: Are you saying that the pole is not in line with the foul line, or are you saying that the pole is 2 feet behind the wall?

[zahavasdad]

Are you saying that the pole is not in line with the foul line, or are you saying that the pole is 2 feet behind the wall?

The Pole is NOT in Line with the Foul Pole, The Foul Pole is about 2 Feet to the RIGHT of the Foul Line

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'm slightly hijacking this thread, but is it true that in every single ballpark, including ones with roofs (which have their own HR rules, depending upon what gets hit way up there), that if a fly ball hits the foul pole, regardless of whether it goes fair or foul, that it's automatically a HR? Or would I be wrong on this?

That would have to be true in all parks. Even if the ball goes foul, doesn't matter it hit the foul pole.

The thing here is anyone watching that game last night would have to agree, real speed, fans reaching in the background making it even more difficult to pick up where the ball hit and top of that the ball hit around the base of the foul pole.
Is it that difficult to understand the umps had a problem making the right call. Isn't strange that three umps thought it was foul. How many times have we all seen plays that look one way then you see replays, slo-mo and frame freeze and we realize we had it wrong.

Sure after we all saw it over and over we could see it was fair. The umps don't have that privilege. "Some" getting all over the umps who made a call on a ball that was fair by inches.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Are you saying that the pole is not in line with the foul line, or are you saying that the pole is 2 feet behind the wall?

The Pole is NOT in Line with the Foul Pole, The Foul Pole is about 2 Feet to the RIGHT of the Foul Line

If what you say is true, thats the fault of the ground crew. No ump is going to make a fair call on any ball down the left field line that goes to the left of that pole. It is assumed that the line and the pole are lined up.

I take your word for what you heard or saw about the line and the pole not lined up but two feet or even one foot out of line is hard to believe. I would like to do some research on that.

[Gary Dunaier]

The Pole is NOT in Line with the Foul Pole, The Foul Pole is about 2 Feet to the RIGHT of the Foul Line

Here are a couple of photos I took looking directly up the left field line.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/2338892577_188e84a8c3_b.jpg
(Photo taken August 30, 2006. © Gary Dunaier)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2394114951_4694e041ed_b.jpg
(Photo taken April 3, 2008. © Gary Dunaier)

In both photos, the foul pole does appear to be slightly to the right of the foul line marking on the fence.

[bluezebra]

Last Night (May 18, 2008) the Umps blew the Call on National TV, they overulled the 3rd Base umpire and took away a home run from Carlos Delgado in the Yankees - Mets Game.

ESPN showed the hit over and over again that the UMPS Clearly blew the call (Its not a subjective call)

Luckily the call didnt cost the Mets the game, but the idea is to get the call RIGHT.

Should baseball use instant replay for Home Runs like that, you would not to cost a team a game because the Ump Blew it!!

No one overruled anyone. They got together, and they convinced the 3B ump that the ball was foul. By rule, no umpire can overrule another, not even the crew chief.

Bob

[Old Sweater]

Looking at that top photo it looks like the out side of the foulpole lines up with the outside of the fouline as should be.

[spark240]

So, bottom of the 9th, home team down by one, bases loaded, two outs, full count. You wouldn't consider a video replay for a ball or strike call?

Absolutely not.

Why not, exactly?

Don't hold your breath.................instant replay for balls and strikes.
I doubt that one, very much.

I'm not holding my breath. At the moment, I'm not even taking a position on whether instant replays should be used in any circumstances.

Many people are advocating the use of instant replays for distinguishing a home run down the line from a just-foul fly, or perhaps for close plays at the plate. But it is easy to imagine circumstances in which the outcome of a game could hinge on practically any call by any of the umpires, including a ball/strike call. What would be the logic in making video replays determinative for only some of these?

[Old Sweater]

Take that 163rd game for example, both the HR call and Holliday sliding home were both debateable and instant replay wasn't clear enough on either play with the playoffs on the line for the winner.

In Football (I dont know the other sports) you need CLEAR EVIDENCE the call on the field was wrong.

The Blown Home Run call yesterday was obvious to everyone including the UMP.

They delayed a Packers/Bears game for 7 minutes once and still got the call wrong. They went by the foot being behind the line of scrimmage and it's actually where the ball is released by the QB. I don't know about you but I don't enjoy all the extra commercials while the Ref is looking at a camera for that clear evidence as you call it. If it was clear it would only take 10sec max.

Yeah, after the ump watched the replay. HR calls are just the tip of the iceberg compared to runs cost or given on judgement calls or points in the other games.

Why should the top level of ball be umped any different then other levels of ball for a player or fan? It upsets me just as bad when the umps blow a call in legion ball as it does at top level MLB and MLB is still baseball.

Blown calls by a ump are just like flipping a coin for heads and tails. Same go's for instant replay. In the end they will all work out 50/50 for your team or in the ballpark. I enjoy the jellyrolls more then I hate the blown calls myself.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Looking at that top photo it looks like the out side of the foulpole lines up with the outside of the fouline as should be.


Correct, nothing wrong with that foul pole, looks good.
Outer edge of foul line and outer edge of foul pole lined up.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Here are a couple of photos I took looking directly up the left field line.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/2338892577_188e84a8c3_b.jpg
(Photo taken August 30, 2006. © Gary Dunaier)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2394114951_4694e041ed_b.jpg
(Photo taken April 3, 2008. © Gary Dunaier)

In both photos, the foul pole does appear to be slightly to the right of the foul line marking on the fence.


Your correct Gary, the pole, a portion of it is to the right of the foul line, no problem with that. The only part that matters is the left side of the foul line and the left side of the foul pole.

I would bet that if you went to any other park you will see the same "part" of the foul pole will be to the right of the "inside" of the foul line. It doesn't matter if the inside of both are lined up, the left side, foul side should be lined up.

I would be surprise to see any foul pole and foul line are the same width.

These pics that I put through Adobe Photo shop show everything is as it should be.

In one I extended the foul line up the foul pole and you can see the only part that matters is the left edge of both and they are lined up.

The other I whited out the part in foul territory, again the left sides are lined up.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Again I ask especially of those so critical of the call............... how many times have we seen a play in real speed and made a call and then watched replays and changed our calls. Are the umps different, do they always get it right. I realize my call means nothing, their call means a great deal, but they are still human and will not always be correct.

To the poster who said this one was easy, don't know what he or she was watching. Let me try to understand, umpires looking at a play a couple of hundred feet away with the ball lost in a background of fans, hits the bottom of the foul pole and is fair by inches...............thats an easy one, come on.

[spark240]

Again I ask especially of those so critical of the call............... how many times have we seen a play in real speed and made a call and then watched replays and changed our calls. Are the umps different, do they always get it right. I realize my call means nothing, their call means a great deal, but they are still human and will not always be correct.

My most frequent "replay experience" has been to recognize that the umpire's call was in fact correct, when it seemed questionable at first.

Of course they're not perfect, but I think professional umpires, in general, are actually much better than many fans give them credit for.

[milladrive]

Why the pole isn't painted yellow all the way down to the wall is beyond me. I see no logical reason for a section of black between the yellow on the pole and the white line on the wall.

Anyway, yes, I think the instant reply should be instituted for certain aspects of the game. Felt this way for a long time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Why the pole isn't painted yellow all the way down to the wall is beyond me. I see no logical reason for a section of black between the yellow on the pole and the white line on the wall.

Anyway, yes, I think the instant reply should be instituted for certain aspects of the game. Felt this way for a long time.

Kind of surprised at that myself. I can't imagine why they would leave that part near the base a different color. Looks like they may have had a reason, the right field foul pole base is the same. I have to look at some other parks and see what they do.

Looks like it wouldn't have mattered in that Yank/Mets game, difficult to see where the ball struck for the umps no matter what the color was.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

My most frequent "replay experience" has been to recognize that the umpire's call was in fact correct, when it seemed questionable at first.

Of course they're not perfect, but I think professional umpires, in general, are actually much better than many fans give them credit for.

Been watching this game for many years and have to hand it to these guys, usually the correct call and on some very tough plays.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

The biggest issue for me, is the fact that the pole is not entirely yellow. Having the bottom bit of it painted black makes things many times harder to see from 200 feet away.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The biggest issue for me, is the fact that the pole is not entirely yellow. Having the bottom bit of it painted black makes things many times harder to see from 200 feet away.

I hear ya Richmond and I agree. Something tells me they have their reasons for doing so. There may be a reason, why I don't know, but why would they do so such a neat job. It's not like they just stopped with the yellow at that point, it looks like it was planned that way.

Again, doubtful all yellow would have made a difference. The ball hit so low it was difficult to see by the umps at that distance.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Are you saying that the pole is not in line with the foul line, or are you saying that the pole is 2 feet behind the wall?

The Pole is NOT in Line with the Foul Pole, The Foul Pole is about 2 Feet to the RIGHT of the Foul Line

Z have you looked at the pictures I posted in post #37, looks like the only part that matters, the foul pole edge in foul territory is line up perfect with the foul line edge , the outside edge.

[Westlake]

Nope, I hate instant replay.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I hear ya Richmond and I agree. Something tells me they have their reasons for doing so. There may be a reason, why I don't know, but why would they do so such a neat job. It's not like they just stopped with the yellow at that point, it looks like it was planned that way.
Again, doubtful all yellow would have made a difference. The ball hit so low it was difficult to see by the umps at that distance.

Did some searching.
First two pics foul lines or screens at Jacobs Field.
Third pic RF line at Fenway.
Both parks same as Yankee Stadium, painted black 4 or 5 inches at the base. There must be some reason, don't know why.

[digglahhh]

My most frequent "replay experience" has been to recognize that the umpire's call was in fact correct, when it seemed questionable at first.

Of course they're not perfect, but I think professional umpires, in general, are actually much better than many fans give them credit for.

I totally agree.

[digglahhh]

The appearance of the pole being off in Yankee Stadium is because the wall juts out sharply right before the wall.

When ESPN kept showing the guy in the seat, it looked like the pole was to the left of the line, but that's because of the angle. Looking straight ahead, it looks just fine.


Why don' they just equip the poles with some sort of visual or audio technology so that if the ball hits it, the pole lights up, or it triggers some sort of buzzer. I'm kidding there, kinda.

[LetsGoMets687]

Looking at that top photo it looks like the out side of the foulpole lines up with the outside of the fouline as should be.

Agreed. It's perfectly aligned.

[LetsGoMets687]

The appearance of the pole being off in Yankee Stadium is because the wall juts out sharply right before the wall.

When ESPN kept showing the guy in the seat, it looked like the pole was to the left of the line, but that's because of the angle. Looking straight ahead, it looks just fine.


Why don' they just equip the poles with some sort of visual or audio technology so that if the ball hits it, the pole lights up, or it triggers some sort of buzzer. I'm kidding there, kinda.

Like a pinball machine?! I kind of like that LOL.

Hit the pole, light it up and get a 500,000 run bonus, an extra ball and a replay!

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The appearance of the pole being off in Yankee Stadium is because the wall juts out sharply right before the wall. When ESPN kept showing the guy in the seat, it looked like the pole was to the left of the line, but that's because of the angle. Looking straight ahead, it looks just fine.


Why don' they just equip the poles with some sort of visual or audio technology so that if the ball hits it, the pole lights up, or it triggers some sort of buzzer. I'm kidding there, kinda.

If one looks at it directly down the line, the only way to look at it, there is no question. The top picture that GARY posted in post #31 a good one, makes it perfectly clear. Here is another I posted earlier with a red line connecting the two, right on.

One more pic showing how much wider the foul pole is than the foul line, giving the appearence that it is not in line with the foul line. The outer edge is the only part of the foul pole that should be lined up with the outer edge of the foul line, thats all that matters.

[zahavasdad]

That the Foul Pole is NOT Aligned with the Foul Line may or may not be aprarent from any of those pictures

The picture MUST be take from the Foul Line / Foul pole itself, right behind the fence, its the only way to see it

ESPN showed this last night, Its about 2 feet apart

[zahavasdad]

BTW the closeup shown was in RIGHT FIELD, the Play occured in LEFT FIELD so the poles might not be in the same position.

Here is a picture I saw in the Daily News

Its aparent here they are NOT lined up


<p><img border="0" src="http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/05/19/alg_foulpole.jpg" width="450" height="312"></p>

[zahavasdad]

Sorry about that, I thought these posts took HTML

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/05/19/alg_foulpole.jpg

[SHOELESSJOE3]

BTW the closeup shown was in RIGHT FIELD, the Play occured in LEFT FIELD so the poles might not be in the same position.

Here is a picture I saw in the Daily News

Its aparent here they are NOT lined up


<p><img border="0" src="http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/05/19/alg_foulpole.jpg" width="450" height="312"></p>

I only showed the RF foul pole "only" to show how wide it was.
The picture I showed with he red line to show alignment was in left field.You can see the 318 marker.

That picture in the Daily News does make the foul line appear to be out of line with with the foul pole but it's at least possible that the camera makes it appear so because of the position of the camera. That picture shows only the base of the wall with the line, the others give a good look all the way down the line.

[LetsGoMets687]

Sorry about that, I thought these posts took HTML

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/05/19/alg_foulpole.jpg

I hate to tell you this, but that photo is not aligned with the foul line--it's obviously a photo from either home plate or first base. As the previously posted photos taken directly down the foul line clearly show, they are perfectly aligned.

[Stat One Author]

I don't know how the 3rd base ump and the home plate ump both missed that call. Baseball needs to install an instant-replay system whereby each manager gets one challenge per game. However, I wouldn't allow them to use it on balls/strikes, check swings, or balks. The game last night was a perfect example of why baseball needs IR.

[zahavasdad]

I dont have Photoshop handy, but there IS a gap between the white line and the pole

[SHOELESSJOE3]

BTW the closeup shown was in RIGHT FIELD, the Play occured in LEFT FIELD so the poles might not be in the same position.

Here is a picture I saw in the Daily News

Its aparent here they are NOT lined up


<p><img border="0" src="http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/05/19/alg_foulpole.jpg" width="450" height="312"></p>


Lets just say the the pole and the line were not lined up even though I don't believe that. The whole issue is the criticism of reversing a call. A call that was not easy to make either way. It's not like it was an easy one. it was a very difficult call to make, a good distance away, a background of spectators making it harder to follow the flight of the ball and fair only by inches. Easy to understand it was a tough call.

[rockin500]

astros park has a bad setup for homeruns too. Soto hit one to the right of the line that should have been a regular homer. but due to the way it bounced, he got a homer anyways. not too often you see a catcher with an inside the parker.

[metfan13]

An ump 300+ feet away shouldn't be overruling an ump standing on the line half the distance away. And the other two umps with NO angle on the play should have nothing to say.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't know how the 3rd base ump and the home plate ump both missed that call. Baseball needs to install an instant-replay system whereby each manager gets one challenge per game. However, I wouldn't allow them to use it on balls/strikes, check swings, or balks. The game last night was a perfect example of why baseball needs IR.

I don't know what the big mystery is. Why is it so hard to believe that two umps saw the play that way. Sorry to be so repetitious but in case you missed one of my earlier posts, let me ask. Have you ever seen a play in real speed as it took place and you made a call. Then you saw a number of replays, slo-mo, frame by frame and then realized your first call was wrong. The umps don't see replays, they made a mistake.

I don't debate your idea of instant replay for some situations. What I don't get is your disbelief two human beings, two umpires can make a mistake on a tough call, whats the mystery.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

An ump 300+ feet away shouldn't be overruling an ump standing on the line half the distance away. And the other two umps with NO angle on the play should have nothing to say.

I did post the same idea earlier. If we recall the ump that was closest to the play, the third base ump, his initial call was fair ball.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

astros park has a bad setup for homeruns too. Soto hit one to the right of the line that should have been a regular homer. but due to the way it bounced, he got a homer anyways. not too often you see a catcher with an inside the parker.

There is no bad setup at Yankee Stadium. It was a tough call, hitting down low on the foul pole. The umps got it wrong, no fault of the foul pole.

[ipitch]

zahavasdad,

When viewed from home plate, the left side of the left field pole is perfectly aligned with the left side of the foul line (as it should be). Your pic in post #55 WAS NOT taken by someone in line with the foul line. The pics in post #37 & #52 WERE taken by someone who was sitting directly in line with the foul line.

If you still don't believe it, aren't you the slightest bit curious as to why the pole would be more "off line" in some pictures than in others? That's because the pictures are all taken from different seats! The further you are up the first base line, the further "off line" the pole will appear to be.

Do you know what parallax is?

parallax
the apparent displacement or the difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points not on a straight line with the object

[metfan13]

I did post the same idea earlier. If we recall the ump that was closest to the play, the third base ump, his initial call was fair ball.

Yes and he was correct. Then he let someone twice as far away change his call. And that bad call was backed up by two guys viewing from the wrong angle (as mentioned by others in the posts about the seemingly non-aligned pole.)

He had no reason to ask for help. There really was no one in position to help him.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yes and he was correct. Then he let someone twice as far away change his call. And that bad call was backed up by two guys viewing from the wrong angle (as mentioned by others in the posts about the seemingly non-aligned pole.)

He had no reason to ask for help. There really was no one in position to help him.

Agreed, I've seen just the reverse happen a couple of times. An ump making a call and then asking another ump or umps who were in a better position to help. That makes sense, this was just the opposite, the ump in the best position asking for help from other umps not in a good position.

[metfan13]

Agreed, I've seen just the reverse happen a couple of times. An ump making a call and then asking another ump or umps who were in a better position to help. That makes sense, this was just the opposite, the ump in the best position asking for help from other umps not in a good position.

I can see asking for help on balls more towards the center of the OF, where an angle might help determine if a ball hit beyond the wall. On balls right down the line, only someone right on the line can have a good angle.

[zahavasdad]

First Why cant the Majors just hire 2 more umps per game like the playoffs and World Series

There is a more than enough money to pay for it

Secondly it appears Selig has changed his position on Instant replay because of this play and will now support it.

Finally for those who wonder why Home Runs should be checked, this HR was actually a THREE RUN HOMERUN, 3 Runs is a major mistake and usually tough to recover from

[wrigleybum]

Is instant reply strictly banned? I seem to remember a St. Louis-Florida game several years back, where the umps could not decide whether the hit should have been a home run or a ground rule double, so they looked at a monitor showing a replay. Then again, I could be completely making this up, or heard it from someone who made it up years ago and believed it.

Anyway, instant reply on home runs is a good idea. It would have taken the Umps 15 seconds to realize they blew the call in New York.

[ipitch]

Is instant reply strictly banned? I seem to remember a St. Louis-Florida game several years back, where the umps could not decide whether the hit should have been a home run or a ground rule double, so they looked at a monitor showing a replay. Then again, I could be completely making this up, or heard it from someone who made it up years ago and believed it.

Yep, it happened in 1999. The AL and NL presidents said afterwards that replays had no place in umpiring decisions. I assume they are still not allowed to use replays since it hasn't been done since (I think).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Not a home run but a very important blown call, it happens. Looks to me like most of the time the runner would be called safe on one like this, it's close but not that close of a call to make.

Yes, sometimes it goes against the Yanks. Contrary to what some believe "all" teams get get good and bad calls.

This one of importance. World Series 1952, 10th inning and it sure looks like Yankee Johnny Sain is safe. The Yanks protested, lost the protest and the game in the 11th inning. Of course no way to ever know what might have been had Sain been called safe.

This was a big one a tough extra inning loss and now the Dodgers are up 3 games to two and worse the next two games will be played in Brooklyn.

Well, the Yanks took the next two and the WS. Had they lost this play would still be brought up today.

Say it again, umps do make mistakes but not often.

[metfan13]

Not a home run but a very important blown call, it happens. Looks to me like most of the time the runner would be called safe on one like this, it's close but not that close of a call to make.

Yes, sometimes it goes against the Yanks. Contrary to what some believe "all" teams get get good and bad calls.

This one of importance. World Series 1952, 10th inning and it sure looks like Yankee Johnny Sain is safe. The Yanks protested, lost the protest and the game in the 11th inning. Of course no way to ever know what might have been had Sain been called safe.

This was a big one a tough extra inning loss and now the Dodgers are up 3 games to two and worse the next two games will be played in Brooklyn.

Well, the Yanks took the next two and the WS. Had they lost this play would still be brought up today.

Say it again, umps do make mistakes but not often.

And that's typical umpire arrogance. At least Davidson was willing to admit he screwed up. "Pictures don't always tell the story." Give me a break.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Like I said earlier, the Yanks get some breaks on the calls and some against them. AROD hit one home run and it appears he lost one that was a home run. The umps missed this one just like the one they missed against the Mets the other day.

This one looked like an easier call then the Mets, not easy but easier. There was no question of fair or foul and the ball hit up high on a stairway that is behind the wall and higher than the wall. You can see the ball clear the wall by a good two feet and strike the side of the stairway, bounce back on the field. I guess to the umps it appeared to hit the wall, it happens, can't really fault them.

[Seattle1]

Because they are not subjective and they directly cause a score change unlike almost any other call.

This is correct. Home runs are either home runs or they're not. There is nothing subjective about it. I would absolutely support the use of instant replay to ascertain the validity (or invalidity) of a home run on close calls.

Did anyone see the Browns make that field goal against the Ravens last year? The one that went through the uprights, bounced awkwardly on the top of the post, and flew back through the uprights, landing in the endzone. Technically they weren't allowed to use instant replay on that, but thank goodness they got the call right and gave the Browns the three points.

[spark240]

This is correct. Home runs are either home runs or they're not. There is nothing subjective about it.

All plays either "are" or are not.

And until the game is over, it is impossible to say definitively which calls may or may not have been critical to the outcome.

[milladrive]

Not a home run but a very important blown call, it happens. Looks to me like most of the time the runner would be called safe on one like this, it's close but not that close of a call to make.

Yes, sometimes it goes against the Yanks. Contrary to what some believe "all" teams get get good and bad calls.

This one of importance. World Series 1952, 10th inning and it sure looks like Yankee Johnny Sain is safe. The Yanks protested, lost the protest and the game in the 11th inning. Of course no way to ever know what might have been had Sain been called safe.

This was a big one a tough extra inning loss and now the Dodgers are up 3 games to two and worse the next two games will be played in Brooklyn.

Well, the Yanks took the next two and the WS. Had they lost this play would still be brought up today.

Say it again, umps do make mistakes but not often.


Wow, that's a good one. Obviously safe, and had the Yanks not taken the next two games, this blatantly botched call would still be talked about today.

I definitely agree that MLB umpires do one helluva good job. They get the calls correct well over 99% of the time, and as humans, they're bound to make a mistake now'n'then. I give'm a lotta credit. There have been countless amounts of times I'd think on first sight they'd blown the call only to watch the reply and acknowledge just how correct they were. Their accuracy, on the whole, is stupendous.

That being said, I like the idea brought up that each manager be allowed x amount of times per game to request a "challenge" when it comes to things like homers, base calls, hit batsmen, and such. Definitely not with balls and strikes, checked swings, balks, etc, but I do think there should be a line drawn (no pun intended) so that on the rare occasion that the umps may have made a critical mistake, it can be rectified using the technology at hand.

I also agree there may very well be a legitimate reason for the black gaps between the pole's color and the field's foul line. I'd just like to know what that reason is, since :think: I can't think of a logical explanation. :shrug:

:homeplate:

[spark240]

I like the idea brought up that each manager be allowed x amount of times per game to request a "challenge" when it comes to things like homers, base calls, hit batsmen, and such. Definitely not with balls and strikes, checked swings, balks, etc, but I do think there should be a line drawn (no pun intended) so that on the rare occasion that the umps may have made a critical mistake, it can be rectified using the technology at hand.

If the implementation of replay is going to be limited to a set number of challenges for each team, then why impose other limits? Let the manager challenge any call by any umpire, if the manager feels it is important enough. If the number of challenges allowed is kept low, the impulse will be to save them for the (potentially) really game-changing calls. And don't we want to get those right, whether they're ball-and-strike calls, or home runs, or anything else?

(Checked swings and balks are tricky largely because the rules are not precise, which is a somewhat separate issue from an umpire's judgment of whether an event described has taken place.)

How about this: one umpire is added to each crew, in a booth with video monitors which are capable of showing replays from the feeds of all the cameras in the park. Games proceed as always, with all calls being made on the field as they are now, except that each manager is allowed two challenges per game, plus one additional challenge if the game goes into extra innings. A challenge (or perhaps we should call it "request for review," to be less adversarial with the umps) may be issued after any call by any umpire. The umpire in the video booth then reviews whatever video of the play in question he wishes to, repeatedly or in slow motion at his discretion, and either confirms or reverses the call on the field. The RFR is burned for that manager regardless of the replay ump's decision.

[milladrive]

If the implementation of replay is going to be limited to a set number of challenges for each team, then why impose other limits? Let the manager challenge any call by any umpire, if the manager feels it is important enough. If the number of challenges allowed is kept low, the impulse will be to save them for the (potentially) really game-changing calls. And don't we want to get those right, whether they're ball-and-strike calls, or home runs, or anything else?

(Checked swings and balks are tricky largely because the rules are not precise, which is a somewhat separate issue from an umpire's judgment of whether an event described has taken place.)

How about this: one umpire is added to each crew, in a booth with video monitors which are capable of showing replays from the feeds of all the cameras in the park. Games proceed as always, with all calls being made on the field as they are now, except that each manager is allowed two challenges per game, plus one additional challenge if the game goes into extra innings. A challenge (or perhaps we should call it "request for review," to be less adversarial with the umps) may be issued after any call by any umpire. The umpire in the video booth then reviews whatever video of the play in question he wishes to, repeatedly or in slow motion at his discretion, and either confirms or reverses the call on the field. The RFR is burned for that manager regardless of the replay ump's decision.

Not a bad idea. I'm not sure why I think there should be a limit to what can be challenged. I guess it goes with the idea that a manager can't argue balls and strikes. But yeah, I think limiting the number of challenges would be akin to limiting the number of timeouts a football team is allowed. I do think it's a good idea, regardless of what the other limitations are (if any).

I'm not sure it needs to be an additional ump on the crew solely hired for that purpose, though. At least not while it's easy enough for one ump on the field (preferably the home plate ump) to carry a Blackberry or something with a direct feed to the cameras.

:baseball:

[SHOELESSJOE3]

All plays either "are" or are not.

And until the game is over, it is impossible to say definitively which calls may or may not have been critical to the outcome.


Even thats not certain. In some cases if a blown call is made everything that takes place after that blown will be played differently. Some times there is no way to know how the teams would have played the game if not for the botched call.

Say a runner is called safe when he was out.The pitcher retires the next three batters and we hear the expression, the bad call didn't matter because no runs were scored. Well it "could" matter because 4 batters batted that inning and it could mean having to face one of the big hitters in the last inning who would not have batted if not for that earlier blown call.

I could go for replays on home run and fair or foul balls, thats about it.

[Seattle1]

All plays either "are" or are not.

Even with instant replay, some plays are so agonozingly close that you would still have to make a subjective call:

Did he get the tag on the basestealer in time?

Did he beat the throw to first?

Etc.

By contrast, a home run ball either goes over the yellow line within the foul poles, or it doesn't. That can be definitevely determined with no risk of human error with replay. Even if something like potential fan interferance is involved. That's my two cents.

:twocents:

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Even with instant replay, some plays are so agonozingly close that you would still have to make a subjective call:

Did he get the tag on the basestealer in time?

Did he beat the throw to first?

Etc.

By contrast, a home run ball either goes over the yellow line within the foul poles, or it doesn't. That can be definitevely determined with no risk of human error with replay. Even if something like potential fan interferance is involved. That's my two cents.

:twocents:

Thats 4 cents in the kitty. I posted the same earlier. Home run fair or foul much easier to conclude, to prove one way or another. We're dealing with stationary objects, a wall or fence and a foul line or foul pole and where the ball struck. That I could see.

When you get into plays on the bases, runners reaching, the ball getting there in time, not in time, tag plays very complicated. I've seen some of these type of plays replayed over and over.............and over and still no way to tell if it was the right call. Lets keep it simple, replay for homers and fair or foul.

[zahavasdad]

There was the Ref in Basketball who was crooked

Someone could easily pay off an Umpire to make a "MISTAKE" , One could never know if the UMP just blew the call or was paid to "MISS" the call

Instant replay would keep the game straight, the cameraS (With a S) would not lie

[Seattle1]

Thats 4 cents in the kitty. I posted the same earlier.

Whoops, I hadn't noticed your post before I posted. Yep I think we are on the same wavelength on this.

[Brooklyn]

Whoops, I hadn't noticed your post before I posted. Yep I think we are on the same wavelength on this.

Baseball is the only major sport that doesn't have fouls. all basketball fouls are subjective. In fact, you could argue there is a foul on every play. Same with hockey and football. Holding in football seems to be the most subjective - there doesn't seem to be consistency to when it is called.

Therefore baseball is the only sport where eveyr call is either right or wrong. the object of the umpires is to get the call right. If we have the technology to get it right, I'm all for using it. There should be nothing subjective about it.

We do have the technology to get home runs and fouls ball correct, for example. It should be instituted for these plays. For close tag plays, I don't bbelieve that the cameras are always more conclusive then the naked eye, so I don't think we are ready for that, yet. but maybe a challenge system to overturn the blatently bad calls.

For those that think this will slow the game down, think of how much time it will actually save from not having the managers / coaches / players arguing every call.

I'm also for using an automated way to call balls / strikes, assuming the technology exists to due it instantaneously and, of course, get it right. I don't see the need for strike zones to change from umpire to umpire and especially within a game. Again, the strike zone is well defined and should not be subjective

[spark240]

I'm not sure it needs to be an additional ump on the crew solely hired for that purpose, though.

Well, in a logistical sense it's maybe not necessary to have an additional umpire employed for this purpose... but it might make the new system more acceptable to the umpires (who also have a union).

[digglahhh]

If the implementation of replay is going to be limited to a set number of challenges for each team, then why impose other limits? Let the manager challenge any call by any umpire, if the manager feels it is important enough. If the number of challenges allowed is kept low, the impulse will be to save them for the (potentially) really game-changing calls. And don't we want to get those right, whether they're ball-and-strike calls, or home runs, or anything else?

Just to make a point similar to that which you made earlier, why must we limit challenges. If the goal is to ensure that every call is right, and since every call, and every type of call could prove critical, why limit the oversight at all?

I think there are two important points to consider:

- Any line drawn about review-able vs. non-review-able plays is going to be arbitrary. Similarly, any line drawn about how many theoretical requests for reviews is appropriate would also be subjective and arbitrary. To say that a strike/ball call can be as important and conclusive as a fair/foul HR call doesn't imply that it need be granted the same opportunity for review; there are no underlying truisms a proposed policy need adhere to. Striving for logical consistency is one thing, but some sort of ultimate philosophical justice in unachievable.

- The goal is not simply to ensure every call is accurate; it is do strive to achieve the highest degree of accuracy possible without disrupting the natural flow, pace and character of the game. Of course, the second part of that is subjective, and therein lies the subjectivity of the line drawing.

Crafty righthander - awesome, btw. I shall, in kind, anoint myself, "Caucasian spark plug."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Just to make a point similar to that which you made earlier, why must we limit challenges. If the goal is to ensure that every call is right, and since every call, and every type of call could prove critical, why limit the oversight at all?

I think there are two important points to consider:

- Any line drawn about review-able vs. non-review-able plays is going to be arbitrary. Similarly, any line drawn about how many theoretical requests for reviews is appropriate would also be subjective and arbitrary. To say that a strike/ball call can be as important and conclusive as a fair/foul HR call doesn't imply that it need be granted the same opportunity for review; there are no underlying truisms a proposed policy need adhere to. Striving for logical consistency is one thing, but some sort of ultimate philosophical justice in unachievable.

- The goal is not simply to ensure every call is accurate; it is do strive to achieve the highest degree of accuracy possible without disrupting the natural flow, pace and character of the game. Of course, the second part of that is subjective, and therein lies the subjectivity of the line drawing.

Crafty righthander - awesome, btw. I shall, in kind, anoint myself, "Caucasian spark plug."

This is extremely important imo. I think the home plate ump should be wearing an earpiece. If the base umps feel that there is any doubt what-so-ever, or if a manager wants it reviewed, a quick/simple conference is held and the word is passed down to the home plate ump.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

We do have the technology to get home runs and fouls ball correct

I'm also for using an automated way to call balls / strikes, assuming the technology exists to due it instantaneously and, of course, get it right. I don't see the need for strike zones to change from umpire to umpire and especially within a game. Again, the strike zone is well defined and should not be subjective

Big difference BROOKLYN. Home runs, fair or foul, we're dealing with a horizontal fair or foul and a verticle over or not over a wall or fence and both are stationary lines. They show up great in replay, we saw that this week, easy to determine in most cases.

Can't see an electronic device to determine ball or strike, doing it accurately and satisfactory to both teams.

It's been discussed before, the batter fitted with sensors which will then be monitored, scanned by another device to determine the verticle strike zone.
Do the sensors attatch to the uniform, a problem there should the batter hike up his pants, raising the lower part of the zone, now smaller. Do they attach to the players body. Now we can't see them, are they in the correct location. Also we have a moving target to be monitored. The batter strides into the ball but does not swing, he's moving.

We of course still need a home plate ump. Batter out of the box, checked swings, catcher interference (rare) the catcher tipping the bat, ticked balls and players being hit on sleeves or other part of the uniform in both cases so slight at times the ump relies on sound not vision.

And for sure one team or the other is going to not be satified, they will think the device blew a call or the batter cheated some how, how could that not be a strike, how was that not a ball. Electronics will solve nothing.

Home run, fair or foul thats fine. Strikes and balls electronic, how much more accurate could it be than a human.....all the time.

Don't turn this beautiful game into a Nintendo game.

[spark240]

Just to make a point similar to that which you made earlier, why must we limit challenges. If the goal is to ensure that every call is right, and since every call, and every type of call could prove critical, why limit the oversight at all?

If there were not other factors involved, the ideal would be to get every single call of every single game correct, up to the absolute limits of combined human and technological ability.

The primary objection is that it will slow down the game. (Of course, arguments about calls, and the occasional conference of umpires, already have this effect; the difference is that now sometimes we have a delay, and still end up with a bad result.) My thinking is just that limiting the number of challenges is a way to assure everyone that the potential for delays will be controlled. In actual practice, I expect most games would take place without all of the allowable challenges being used. With a modest limit in place, the impulse will usually be to save the challenge.

Any line drawn about review-able vs. non-review-able plays is going to be arbitrary. Similarly, any line drawn about how many theoretical requests for reviews is appropriate would also be subjective and arbitrary.

True.

When proposing a change as "radical" as instant replay to a sports culture as conservative as baseball's, we have to balance any ideal with the objections which so far have kept the technology from being used at all. An arbitrarily-limited system may be theoretically inferior to an unlimited system devoted to perfect accuracy... but a limited system has a much better chance of becoming reality.

To say that a strike/ball call can be as important and conclusive as a fair/foul HR call doesn't imply that it need be granted the same opportunity for review; there are no underlying truisms a proposed policy need adhere to.

I would say the truism is: Nobody wants to see a game decided by a call which is, in fact, wrong. Everybody can more or less live with some mistakes being made, if they don't appear to be affecting the game outcomes.

Given that any type of call, in theory, could be critical, it just seems to me that the simplest solution is to let each team's manager decide when the moment is pivotal.

This would lead to new opportunities for second-guessing managers after the game ("Why didn't Girardi challenge that call? Idiot!" and "Why did Francona waste a challenge on that call? Idiot!"), and perhaps for a little gamesmanship in the deploying of the challenges. To me, those things are much better than having people blaming the umpires for a game's "wrong" outcome, on the basis of a replay which was not available to the umpires--or blaming an arbitrary rule which made that particular call ineligible for review.

[digglahhh]

This would lead to new opportunities for second-guessing managers after the game ("Why didn't Girardi challenge that call? Idiot!" and "Why did Francona waste a challenge on that call? Idiot!"), and perhaps for a little gamesmanship in the deploying of the challenges. To me, those things are much better than having people blaming the umpires for a game's "wrong" outcome, on the basis of a replay which was not available to the umpires--or blaming an arbitrary rule which made that particular call ineligible for review.

The thing I hate about challenges in the NFL is that teams hold on to them, and then at the end of the game when they are losing, they'll just randomly throw the flag on a play that would put the game away - basically a prayer.

Ehh, maybe they'll see a pass interference there...

With flag in hand, Randolph would have thrown it after the Wainwright curve, hoping somehow to get Beltran another swing.

This is, admittedly, more of a personal gripe than a legit counterargument. And it is certainly reasonable to argue the benefits of the review process more than outweigh whatever peeves one might have. That's one aspect that really annoys me though.

[Go Cardinals]

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200805232753276

[dgarza]

It just takes simple design measures to help make fair/foul or HR plays more clear cut. Seats along HR walls, irregular wall heights, advert clutter, etc., none of these things are designed with much foresite regarding play calls. They may make things interesting, but now we're seeing how "interesting" they are becoming.

Why not try to fix the root and cause of the problem rather than focus solely on the symptom? KISS