Mets/Cards - Spiezio Triple

[waltjp]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

[mbyron]

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."

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[tjones1]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tjones1

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.

[D-Man]

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by D-Man

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by PWL

I'm just curious as to why the fence and back wall are so close at Shea. Also why there is no yellow line at the top of the fence either.

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.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by D-Man

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

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."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

I've often wondered by those foul line guys are so close to the infield. It would seem they would be farther out towards the warning track. Actually, they're so close to the base umpires they could come up and rotate at third and first when the second base umpire goes out, and the third or first base umpire rotate to second or go out on a fly. No need for the plate umpire to go anywhere but stay home. If these guys don't move off the line on certain plays, they're just wasted.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PWL

Actually, they're so close to the base umpires they could come up and rotate at third and first when the second base umpire goes out, and the third or first base umpire rotate to second or go out on a fly.

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

[D-Man]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

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."

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by D-Man

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.

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