Why No Replay Review?

[Texas Aggie]

I'm not convinced Berkman's shot didn't hit the foulpole.

It didn't. You could see the shadow clearly in one replay, and the ball's path was unaffected.

I've got the ball clearly over the stands when there's contact with the fielder's glove.

You need to watch the replay again. The ball is easily 10-15 feet (perhaps more; hard to tell for sure) in the air and over the warning track while there is the initial contact with the glove. Hard to judge how far away from the fence, but it is not over the stands.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

You need to watch the replay again. The ball is easily 10-15 feet (perhaps more; hard to tell for sure) in the air and over the warning track while there is the initial contact with the glove. Hard to judge how far away from the fence, but it is not over the stands.

I disagree, but it doesn't matter. Even if you're right, it's STILL not interference.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Whether it be a war room like in hockey, or a 5th umpire on the crew, if you want replay in baseball, this would be the way to do it.

I like the war room idea. There's not that many chances for review in a day, so why pay an extra $100,000 per crew per year for a guy to sit in a booth with his feet up? You can pay a crew of 5 or 6 $50-60k a year to sit in a war room.

I still think they should have "text in your call" promotions -- the most popular during a commercial break wins the call.

[ozzy6900]

From reading many of the comments to this post, I really hope that replay does not come lower than MLB. Some of you guys would run to the replay for a slightest thing. Let's try and remember, people, we are umpires - it is our job to make the calls not the videos.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Where would you locate the beam detector for the top of the foul pole beam? The beam source cannot be configured to detect an interruption in the beam. IOW, same problem.

Also, lasers don't work in the rain.

R & D, my good man....R & D.....and domed stadiums for everyone!

JJ

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by yawetag

I like the war room idea. There's not that many chances for review in a day, so why pay an extra $100,000 per crew per year for a guy to sit in a booth with his feet up? You can pay a crew of 5 or 6 $50-60k a year to sit in a war room.

I still think they should have "text in your call" promotions -- the most popular during a commercial break wins the call.

From a dollars and cents standpoint you are probably right, UNLESS they go to expanded use of replay. If they put it in for safes/outs, you would see probably 10 replays a night I would guess under a buzz down system. In which you would probably want some camaraderie between CC and the guy looking at the monitor in order to effectively communicate what needs to be communicated. Just a bit of a trust / comfort issue for the crew.

IF they put in replay. I still don't think they will. They may experiment a bit with it in a WBC or spring training though.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree, but it doesn't matter. Even if you're right, it's STILL not interference.

Hey Hoss, take a look at this. It shows the fans with their hands in glove of Cruz. The ball had just taken a bounce off the front the padded wall. I doubt their hands got there after the ball had passed Cruz.

Yankees vs Rangers Game 4 ALCS | NJ.com

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Hey Hoss, take a look at this. It shows the fans with their hands in glove of Cruz. The ball had just taken a bounce off the front the padded wall. I doubt their hands got there after the ball had passed Cruz.

Yankees vs Rangers Game 4 ALCS | NJ.com

Who knows which direction that ball was traveling, if it had already bounced off concrete, etc. etc. etc.

[DG]

Does not matter what any of of think about the call, the original question was why was it not reviewed. I think it was close enough to review and should have been. I have my own opinion about the call itself, but that was not the question.

[umpjim]

"I'm not convinced Berkman's shot didn't hit the foulpole."

"It didn't. You could see the shadow clearly in one replay, and the ball's path was unaffected."

I'm still not convinced. I only saw one TV replay that was not in line with the foul line and I saw what I thought was a deflection on that replay. The shadow means nothing unless it lets you determine that there was a gap. The ball would still leave a shadow as it touched the FP. The only reason for the RF ump to call it fair was that he thought he saw it touch. Otherwise, it's an obvious foul ball. So what video do you have that convinced the RF ump and the crew that he was wrong?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by DG

Does not matter what any of of think about the call, the original question was why was it not reviewed. I think it was close enough to review and should have been. I have my own opinion about the call itself, but that was not the question.

I would say that no other umpire had anything for Reynolds. Reynolds stuck by his call. He probably told Wash the same thing, thus the short conversation. I wouldn't expect Reynolds to say, "You know I might have blown that call. Let's go take a look and make for sure if I did or didn't."

The missed home run by Berkman was pretty obvious to everyone but Reynolds. Notice that the Yankees and all their rowdy friends in the bleachers didn't say a peep after seeing the replay on the big screen.

Good thing the Rangers laid a 10-3 beat down the Yankees.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Who knows which direction that ball was traveling, if it had already bounced off concrete, etc. etc. etc.

Everyone with a perception of reality, etc. etc. etc.

The ball didn't bounce off concrete. It bounced off the top of the padding that is affixed to the wall.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by DG

Does not matter what any of of think about the call, the original question was why was it not reviewed. I think it was close enough to review and should have been. I have my own opinion about the call itself, but that was not the question.

Similarly, why didn't they review Sandoval's shot that looked like it just touched the outside of the right field line in the 6th inning last night of the SF/Philly game? It was moot because he got a hit right after that, but that could have been a big call also.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Similarly, why didn't they review Sandoval's shot that looked like it just touched the outside of the right field line in the 6th inning last night of the SF/Philly game?

That one's easier to answer. The rules for replay do not permit using it for fair/foul calls inside the park, but only for home runs.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Similarly, why didn't they review Sandoval's shot that looked like it just touched the outside of the right field line in the 6th inning last night of the SF/Philly game? It was moot because he got a hit right after that, but that could have been a big call also.

That call could've gone either way.

If we had replay, we'd have to call everything close fair and then go to replay. The game would grind to a halt.