Mets/Cards - Spiezio Triple
 

Does anyone have insight as to the controversy about Spiezio's triple in last night's Mets/Cards game? I saw the play but the sound was down so I didn't hear any speculation from the broadcasters (which was probably a good thing!).

If you didn't see the play, Spiezio hit a long drive to the wall in right field. Shawn Green reached over the wall and got a glove on the ball but didn't make the catch. The ball appeared to drop from his glove to the top of the fence and then onto the field.

LaRussa came out to discuss the play. The umpires huddled for a period of time and let the triple stand.

To me it looked like it hit his glove and bounced back to the field - not touching the wall.

I think the replays definitively showed the ball hitting glove then wall, bouncing back onto the field. It never went over the wall.

The conference took WAY too long. I was afraid someone on the crew was going to convince Welke to change the call, while all the world was seeing via replay after replay that his initial call was completely correct.

For a play like that, it's time to re-think baseball's ban on the use of replay to assist in getting a call right.

I too had the sound muted, and then turned it up during the "conference." Joe Buck was declaring that Welke had gotten it right the first time, that it was not a home run, and that he hoped the ruling would stand. When it did, he simply said that they got it right.

I suspect that the meeting went something like this:
Tim Welke: "All right, here's what I saw. The fly ball hit the fielder's glove, then the top of the wall, and bounced into the field of play."
Jim Joyce: "And what's your ruling?"
TW: "Live ball, play on, of course. Anybody see anything different, or want to dispute the ruling?"
[silence]
TW: "OK, well, let's stand here for another 3 minutes to convince everyone that we've taken this matter seriously."

After a few minutes, Joe Buck said that LaRussa was told by team personnel that the replay showed that Welke got the call right, so he dropped the issue.

Disclaimer: I am a Cardinals fan.

Whenever I saw the play live, I thought it was a home run (see disclaimer ;)). But after the replays, no question, Tim Welke got it right. Kudos to Tim for getting the call right orginally and then sticking to his guns whenever they got together.

Disclaimer: I really, really hate the Cardinals.:)

When I saw the play live, I too thought it was a home run. It wasn't until the replay that I realized that Welke nailed it. Great call.

???
 

Welke "nails" the call and from that we gather we need replay in baseball?!?

Seems more like the play and call say they don't need replay. Those guys are that good.

Bad example.

D

So far, only Dave has suggested rethinking replay. I, for one am dead-set against the use of replay, as I'm sure most umpires are.

On this play, from my great positioning and angle I had from 3,000 miles away on a TV set, I thought originally that it was a home run until I saw the replay.

The wall behind the fence isn't really that close - probably 5 feet or so separate them. The camera angle made it look much closer than it really is.

The conference lasted WAY too long, and it was clear that Welke was defending his call against one or more partners who had the same WRONG conclusion about what happened that many of us had seeing the play in realtime. But for Welke's intestinal fortitude in sticking to his guns, we would have been treated to a reversal of the right call to the wrong call, clearly wrong as the whole world had seen numerous replays by the time they finally concluded their minutes long conference.

A couple of years ago Tim McClelland very surprisingly and very WRONGLY overturned an Angel Hernandez call in a playoff game. I'm sorry, but sometimes these guys AREN'T "that good."

I believe the idea behind the positioning of the LF and RF umpires is to reduce the responsibilities of the 1st and 3rd base umpire by about 50%. Anything at or in front of the LF or RF umpires is the 1st or 3rd base umpires' call. Anything that turns the LF of RF umpires around is their call. They don't need to be closer to the fence, because then they would not get those good angles (like the one Welke got), and would reduce their fields of vision significantly.

Having ULF rotate to third is part of the standard mechanic.

OK, now you are trying to justify a bad reason for replay and giving another bad reason for replay. Whether McClelland was accurate or innacurate is moot. He made a procedural error and should have been penalized for it. Because he is who he is and Angel is who he is, Timmy got away with his overturn.

Also, the fact that they got together and stuck with Welke's call, no matter how long it took, shows that a human umpire is able to get the tough ones correct once in a while.

If Spezio had been a robot, he would have left no doubt as to wheter he hit a home run or not.

D

Are you sure? According to some familiar with the quiet way ML handles these issues, McCllelland was penalized for his actions.

My point is simply that had there been an approved procedure in place for checking the replay, the right call could have been ascertained in both the McClelland/Hernandez play, and the Welke play the other night, with no muss, no fuss, no drama, and no doubt.

I can live without your agreement on the matter.

I don't have the slightest idea what that means.

I know this because....that is the mechanic. Just as I described it. Where they set up is plenty close to the fence. If they were any closer, it would decrease their field of vision. Experiment with this for yourself. Go to the ballyard, stand where the RF umpire stands. Look at the fence. See large amount of fence. Now go stand by the fence and look at the fence. See small amount of fence.

Everybody misses calls once in a while. Some of us miss fewer than others. Jeffrey Meier had the benefit of Ritchie Garcia, who happened to be running with his head bouncing up and down when the interference occured, as many MLB guys do regularly. I was trained to get as close as possible, with a good angle, and be set when the action happens.

Often I see MLB guys running when they should be setting. I attribute it to them thinking they are better than they really are, and feel that they can get it right while on the move. I am either set or completely under control when I make such a call.

I think the mechanic is "bounding balls" and balls that land in front of U1 /U3 belong to U1 / U3. Fly balls that land past U1 / U3 belong to ULF / URF.

That's not how I understand the mechanic. My understanding is that fly balls are U1/U3 call up until it passes the LF/RF. I have observed it to be that way, with the LF/RF echoing the call, but U1/U3 with initiating it unless it is past the LF/RF. That was the explanation the other night when LF jumped out of the way, and U3 took the call. It was reported by that umpire to the press box that the mechanic is for the third base umpire to make all calls on fly balls up to the LF umpire, and the LF umpire make all calls on fly balls past him. Perhaps we should ask an MLB umpire to be certain either way.

What's with this?: Or this?:

Wow. In the "you learn new things every day" dept....

"You have to have one thousand one when you stop, or it's a balk"
"And your hands have to be in the same spot in front of your body every time you stop or it's a balk."

I'll give you three guesses (and the first two don't count) as to which genius on FOX just said this. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing it wasn't Steve Lyons........ :D

I'll tell you this much: I'd much rather listen to Lyons than the moron who actually said the above 2 statements.

I'm not watching the baseball game right now. I'm watching the Raiders look pathetic. But I can bet it's that Braniac Tim McCarver who uttered such words. The next rule interp he gets right will be his first.:rolleyes:

Bye Steve, we hardly knew thee...
 

Won't be listening to him any time soon as he was F-I-R-E-D this morning.

I think the conference should last as long as it takes to make sure they get the call right. We blast them for not having a conference and then we blast them saying they are too long. This is game 4 of an NLCS, get the call right no matter how long it takes. This is the exact play where I think they need to use replay! It would have taken a shortly amount of time to check a replay in the situation.

[QUOTE=SanDiegoSteve]So far, only Dave has suggested rethinking replay. I, for one am dead-set against the use of replay, as I'm sure most umpires are.

I am not so sure anymore.

Every BIG Time Sport has replay and it's a matter of time before baseball uses it. especially on the type of play in question.

Replay will not delay the game anymore than when the umpires huddle together. In fact it will probably be faster.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve So far, only Dave has suggested rethinking replay. I, for one am dead-set against the use of replay, as I'm sure most umpires are.

I agree that we should have replay and only for plays such as home run/no home run and fair/foul calls? I am not advocating using it for judgement calls.

[QUOTE=GoodwillRef]Those are judgement calls.

Garth, *snicker*, you slay me.

Baseball will have replay when a sufficient number of wealthy owners get sufficiently pissed by bad calls to bring it about. I don't see this happening very soon.

I've had a former ML player tell me that when Angel Hernandez boots a fair/foul call that costs Steinbrenner the World Series, instant replay will debut the next season.

So, what you're saying is that it will never happen, since Angel will never be placed in that situation, right?

You give baseball too much credit. Remember, Angel worked the 2002 and 2005 World Series.

Yes, but I was hoping they had learned their lesson!:D

To keep this on the Cards/Mets theme, anyone else catch McCarver's comments that (RE: balks):

1. F1 has to come set for at least "1-thousand one", and
2. F1 has to come set with his glove in the same position for every pitch?


I thought the 1-second rule died before I was born.....

See page 2 of this thread for prior responses.

[QUOTE=GarthB]
You know what I mean I don't think it should be used for out/safe or ball/strike type of calls. You guys take everything so literally. Fair/foul, homerun/no homerun, fan interference, those types of situations.

[QUOTE=GoodwillRef] It's a slippery slope from fair/foul to ball/strike.

They should ALL be like that, and most of the HR controversies would go away.

[QUOTE=GoodwillRef]
No, I didn't know what you meant. I didn't know if you knew what you meant. I knew what you wrote.

I am not familiar with you as a poster or as an umpire, and I do not know what you do or do not understand.

Okay, let's take fair/foul situations Will this include whether or not the ball might have hit the batter in the box after hitting the bat and before rolling "fair"? Or do you need to further refine this judgement call?

[QUOTE=GarthB]I'd also like to know what will happen if an umpire declares the ball to be "foul" and replay shows it is "fair"? Where will the runners be placed?

I would like to know why everyone has suddenly forgotten how to use the quotation features correctly, so here's a review:

[quote] must be followed by a close of quotation, which is a / before the word quote.

Like this:

[QUOTE=SanDiegoSteve]I would like to know why everyone has suddenly forgotten how to use the quotation features correctly, so here's a review:

I merely hit the "quote button" and how it comes out is how it comes out.

Edited to add: See how screwed up it is this time? There must be an issue with the "quote button" feature. Trust me, Bob and I aren't screwing this up in purpose.

Previewed
 

Hmm. Quoting a quote seems to get things messed up. The result of the Quote button here had two Quote tags (one for GarthB, one for SanDiegoSteve) and one /Quote end tag. It was messed up. I manually added a second /Quote end tag and things appear to be better. At least, the preview looks OK.

Another try
 

I see that in my last post I ended the SDS post incorrectly, attributing Garth's words to Steve. It matters where you put the /Quote end tag, and I've lost some of Steve's original message. (The quote button has never brought out nested quotations completely.)

[QUOTE=SanDiegoSteve]I would like to know why everyone has suddenly forgotten how to use the quotation features correctly, so here's a review:

Perhaps you could start a thread containing a quote option tutorial. :p

EXACTLY. :rolleyes:

One change that will occur after replay is introduced: umpires will stop calling borderline cases foul. They'll call it fair and wait for the replay officials to clean up the mess.

Hell, I aint wading through all that muck. I'll take your word for it.

[QUOTE=GarthB]He should have said "those calls that are traditionally considered to be reversible calls" instead of "judgment calls."

Actually, he was fired immediately following last Friday's game, which is why I stated I'd rather listen to him than that idiot McCarver.

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]Bob,

This already happened this year, but without replay involved. Third base umpire Randy Marsh (cc) called a ground ball down the third base line foul that Plate Umpire Angel Hernandez--surprise, surprise, huh?--came out and changed to a fair ball. Whether the ball was actually fair or foul is, IMHO, irrelevant--it was really impossible to tell via replay. The umpires huddled together and decided to award the batter a hit. I don't recall the particulars--someone correct me if I'm wrong here--but I think they placed the B-R on second.

I can tell you this much: I was told by my friend that the call should have remained foul once Marsh ruled it such, regardless of whether it was, in reality, fair. I suppose the fact that Angel was involved doesn't surprise many of us.

No argument from me...I was on the field working a tournament on Friday, Saturday and Sunday...so I didn't hear about it until yesterday morning...I guess I thought I heard that FOX was announcing the firing yesterday...but if it was Friday, so be it. He's still T-O-A-S-T.

OK, I'm lost. Whom are we talking about, and what did he do?

Roar of the LYONS
 

(1) Ex-FOX Broadcaster Steve Lyons
(2) He got fired for saying allegedly racist comments about Latinos (Hispanic-Americans) on air during Friday's broadcast.

Whether the comments were "racist" or not is certainly being debated. For instance check out:

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/other...ticleid=162708

Thanks, LU. Now I'm in the loop.