Replay in WS

[BaBa Booey]

Anyone else not fully convinced that the ball would have left the park if it didn't hit the camera? With the camera extending over the fence, I think it would be tough to determing what would happen to the ball if the camera were not there. It could have hit off the top of the wall and come back into the field of play. It may have never left the field of play at all. I wouldn't classify the replays I saw as conclusive either way, so doesn't the call on the field stand in that situation?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

Any. I wouldn't classify the replays I saw as conclusive either way, so doesn't the call on the field stand in that situation?

Haven't seen the play yet, but I don't believe MLB replay policy takes into consideration your opinion as to what is conclusive.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

Anyone else not fully convinced that the ball would have left the park if it didn't hit the camera? With the camera extending over the fence, I think it would be tough to determing what would happen to the ball if the camera were not there. It could have hit off the top of the wall and come back into the field of play. It may have never left the field of play at all. I wouldn't classify the replays I saw as conclusive either way, so doesn't the call on the field stand in that situation?

No, I'm not convinced would have left the field of play, but I think it was the right call.

[BaBa Booey]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Haven't seen the play yet, but I don't believe MLB replay policy takes into consideration your opinion as to what is conclusive.

What an unnecessary and obnoxious response. I never said my opinion was right, I was merely asking what others thought. Obviously Gerry Davis and crew thought otherwise.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

What an unnecessary and obnoxious response. I never said my opinion was right, I was merely asking what others thought. Obviously Gerry Davis and crew thought otherwise.

No, that's not what you said. You said: "I wouldn't classify the replays I saw as conclusive either way, so doesn't the call on the field stand in that situation?"

Thus you asked if the call on the field would stand based on how you interpreted the replays. That is doubtful.

If you meant to ask a different question, I apologize.

[BaBa Booey]

Right. I gave my opinion, that the replay was not conclusive either way. I never said that my opinion was right or that MLB should check with me first before making any decisions. I was curious as to what everyone else thought, based on the replays. Davis and crew clearly thought they were conclusive, and I have no problem with that, I just wanted to know what you thought. Well, maybe not YOU, but everyone else.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

Right. I gave my opinion, that the replay was not conclusive either way. I never said that my opinion was right or that MLB should check with me first before making any decisions. I was curious as to what everyone else thought, based on the replays. Davis and crew clearly thought they were conclusive, and I have no problem with that, I just wanted to know what you thought. Well, maybe not YOU, but everyone else.

dude your a little pissed huh?....its just a message board.. with other peoples opinions...

[TussAgee11]

Or maybe, which the announcers of course never mentioned, there is a ground rule regarding that camera that overhangs. It might be auto 4...

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

What an unnecessary and obnoxious response. I never said my opinion was right, I was merely asking what others thought. Obviously Gerry Davis and crew thought otherwise.

Don't feel bad; he's haughty to almost everyone.

[cookie]

Listen to CC Gerry Davis' explanation:

New York Yankees vs. Philadelphia Phillies - Recap - October 31, 2009 - ESPN

A ground rule regarding balls hitting "overhanging cameras" was in effect. Replay call was right.

Note: Select video "Umpires on Instant Replay Game 3"

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Or maybe, which the announcers of course never mentioned, there is a ground rule regarding that camera that overhangs. It might be auto 4...

I'm with you. I think it's likely that ground rules specific to the WS configuration of the stadium (including each overhanging camera) were very thorough and carefully written.

IF true, then it should have been a pretty easy call for the ump down the line. I just hate it when replay changes a call, because it will inevitably be used to promote more extensive use of replay. Ick.

Note to baseball stadium architects everywhere: Can you please design your freakin' stadiums in such a way that if the ball comes back on the field (other than off the foul pole), it's in play, and if it doesn't, it's a home run. It's not that hard.

[BaBa Booey]

Just watched Gerry's interview. Makes sense to me, and it explains why they came to their decision so fast. Fair enough.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Note to baseball stadium architects everywhere: Can you please design your freakin' stadiums in such a way that if the ball comes back on the field (other than off the foul pole), it's in play, and if it doesn't, it's a home run. It's not that hard.

So, what you're saying is the Minnesota baggie in the outfield should be a no go? (sarc)

[UMP25]

If you ask me, the ball would have left the field of play over the fence for a home run had it not hit the camera.

[PeteBooth]

Compared to NFL or College Replays, we did not have to wait that long for a decision. The umpires came right out after looking at the replay and ruled an HR.

No argument from Manual etc. AROD hit a line shot and the umpires felt (and IMo rightly so) that if the camera was not there the ball would have cleared the fence.

All in all as mentioned there was not a HUGE delay in making the decision compared to some NFL / College replays.

Pete Booth