Why No Replay Review?

[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.

[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.

[CraigD]

Okay, the guys on ESPN Dallas (I think it was Ben and Skin) asked Washington about this situation. Washington explained, "I went out and asked him what he had. He said he saw no interference, so I went back to the dugout. I didn't see any need to stand there and act the fool." (That's a close paraphrase.) In other words, Washington didn't formally/specifically ask for a video review.

And that brings us back to the original intent of my question: Had Washington stood there and "acted the fool," would that have been the mechanism to cause the umpires to head to the tunnel for review? Does the crew chief have authority to say, "I think you missed that, let's go review it"? Or does the team manager have to specifically request a review, and from whom? Can the "offending" umpire, even in the face of pressure from the players, managers, and/or other umpires refuse a review?

[MD Longhorn]

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.

Cause they can't.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Cause they can't.

And now I know.

Soooooo....Phil Cuzzi has to live or die with his f**k-ups. Got it.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And now I know.

Soooooo....Phil Cuzzi has to live or die with his f**k-ups. Got it.

And the Phillies pitchers have to live or die with giving up the lead. BFD.

[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.