Why No Replay Review?
 

With all the talk about replays these days, why was there no replay review on the Cano HR to right?

Was it that obvious that the fans didn't interfere with Cruz as they reached inside the line of the wall and made contact with his glove? Or is the replay not intended for that type of verification of a HR?

They did use replay review on the next batter to overturn the HR ruling.

I'm not convinced Berkman's shot didn't hit the foulpole. The TV replay has the ball doing some kind of jink at the point it passes the pole. Why a ball obviously outside the pole would be called fair and a HR by the RF ump means he saw some deflection. What they saw on the video to reverse it would be interesting to see.

There is no defense for the crew not using the video replay to look at the HR with the possible fan interference.
It is an embarrassment to officiating that they didn't and consequently didn't get this play right in the postseason. ESPN has shown conclusive proof that the fan reached over the wall into the playing area.
If they aren't going to use it, then why have the rule in place?

Like using the reply monitor in NCAA basketball MLB needs to put down some guidelines to when they may us the replay and when they must use the replay...in this situation you have 6 guys and nobody says "lets go take a look at this!"

On what basis are you making this claim? I've got the ball clearly over the stands when there's contact with the fielder's glove. That's not INT. Hell, if the ball is over the stands, the fans can rip it out of the fielder's glove, and it still wouldn't be INT.

Naturally, the commentators threw out a bunch of red herrings: "fans reached out over the field of play," "definitely could have made a play on the ball," blah blah blah. Not INT.

Here's the video:
Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | ALCS Gm 4: Cano homers over a leaping Cruz - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

The picture of the HR in the USA Today shows the fans reaching over the wall and Cruz's glove in the field of play.

OK. So? By itself that doesn't constitute spectator interference. Where's the ball?

It is really close to fan interf...why not take a look?

Ball over the fence. HR. Fan touched glove after ball is dead. Home run.

That's why the umpires need to call the game and not a bunch of cameras and fans.

The calling umpire judged that it wasn't really close -- the ball was well over the wall. It only looks close if you don't know the rule (or are listening to clowns on TV).

And that's exactly what the replay video shows also. Every single time, too.

Later on in the game, Brett Gardner reached into the stands trying to catch a foul ball and a fan knocked it away from him. Same kinda play. Does the name "Bartman" ring a bell? :D

So let me get this straight... you expected the UMPIRES to make a ruling, and then on their own decide they might be wrong and go to replay? Coaches didn't complain or ask them to confer - so why would they? Blaming the umpires for not going to replay is frankly idiotic.

That's exactly how it works with the NBA last second shot. They are expected the make a call and then review. I have no problem with that concept. If I had been in Reynold's shoes, I would have wanted to double check my call. That way, if the game ends 1-0 for the Yankees; I don't get crucified by the media.

Not sure to whom your comment is directed, but I'll answer since I started the thread.

Ron Washington certainly did go out to complain or clarify what happened along the wall. (You can reference the video link provided by Jurassic.) Since he wasn't miked, I'm not certain what he said to the umpire(s). But he most certainly went out.

Is the trigger mechanism for reviewing a call how vociferously the manager argues? That seems to be the inference of your comment.

I'm simply trying to understand the way the review process works. Does the "offending" umpire have to agree to have his call reviewed, does the manager have to create a dust storm, or can the crew (or crew chief) simply say, "Let's check this one on the tape"?

What's the mechanism that sends them into the tunnel to look at the tape?

It's also interesting that when the call is changed due to review, as in the Berkman HR, the protocol of an umpire changing his own call isn't necessarily followed.

I'm surprised the Rangers manager didn't go to the crew chief to get a video review of the play. I'm guessing that's the proper procedure.

The same umpire that judged that is wasn't close called the other hit a HR.

Why are MLB umpires so stubborn...what ever happen to getting the call right and not saving face at all costs.

So? Are you suggesting that a mistake in one case has any bearing on another case? Or maybe that he has poor judgment in every case? I would disagree with both claims.

Reynolds claimed in an interview that Ron Washington merely asked him "what did you have?"

When Reynolds told him, Washington retired from the field.

Not interference, despite what Cruz or the idiots in the booth say. Reynolds got a good look at it. There was no need to rely on video "to get the call right," because he got it quite right without it.

This has nothing to do with saving face or being stubborn. Washington didn't ask him to go look. Do you ever make a call you don't think is right? Ever? I'm not asking if you're always right ... I'm asking - don't you ALWAYS think your call is right, at the moment you made it?

So ... what would prompt someone, after making a call he believes to be right, to waffle on his OWN call and say, "Hey guys, I'm not sure on that one, let's go watch tv." It doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't.

Sure we make the calls we think are right. But if there is a process to verify that call, especially based on the fact that the manager is out there asking about it, why not take advantage of it.

I made a call this summer on a HR ball that was way over the foul pole. Very difficult call. I called it fair and did not back down even though the defensive manager came out to argue. But if replay had been available, I would have used it. Chances are it would have confirmed my call, but it takes away any doubt.

Of course we make the call we think is right at the time, but you would have to be an egotistical maniac if you've never had a moment after making a call on a whacker, nutcutter, whatever where you haven't said, at minimum, "boy, I wish I could see that one again." And I think we've all had the ones where we say "s***, I missed it" a split second after the call is made.

The problem with the replay system (besides the fact that there is one) is the vagueness and ambiguity in the procedure. Perhaps it is because we have a small sample size of when replay has been used, compared to say football, to really identify the problems with it.

It seems clear baseball does not want it in the managers hands (ie, no red flag). So it is left up to the umpire when to and when not to use it. Which creates alot of different outcomes.

If MLB wishes to use replay in whatever capacity, they should just have the "buzz" system used in college football and hockey. Call what you got, and if something is wrong, we have a chance to go fix it (if the play is reviewable to begin with). 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.

In the extra umpire system, it may also be beneficial to have an umpire get an "off-day" every 5th day in a 162 game season. It would create more opportunities for AAA guys to be evaluated on the MLB level. Also a day off after a plate day may help some of the veteran umpires recover. May eliminate some of the "next-day arguments" that come out of the holes. May give the umpire some mental rest and allow him to be a bit more patient in a game management situation.

I'd be happy to read about some of the cons you all could come up with.

But most importantly, replay being called for by somebody who actually can see the replay before he calls for it eliminates the wasted time when they do actually get it right on the field. Manager comes out to argue, CC feels the buzz, says "Ron, don't worry, we're already going" and you go look. No buzz, manager wastes 20 seconds giving the booth time (which he currently spends trying to convince the umpire to go to replay anyways), umpire says "Ron, I think I got that right because of X Y Z, and they're not buzzing, so lets play" and the umpire looks good because he got it right the first time.

If you want replay, this is the route to go.

1. Because it slows down the game and shouldn't be used when not necessary. It's the crew's call when to use it, not the manager's.

2. This one wasn't difficult.

Perfect example, thanks.

If replay had been available, and NO ONE came to argue, would you call home run and then say, "Wait, I'm not really sure, let's get replay"????? Heck no.

I'm not saying refuse a request to check ... but any umpire that makes a call and then ON HIS OWN wants to review it, is probably not cut out for this job.

They posted an interesting stat on beisbol replays the past year during the game. Iirc out of 69 fair/foul calls looked at at, 24 calls were reversed as being wrong. Iow they had almost 35% of the calls reviewed wrong. Thoughts?

35% of the reviewed calls were wrong?

What percent is that of all calls?

Here's my million-dollar idea: Instead of physical metal foul pole, use a laser instead. It would go up infinitely, so there would be no doubt about whether a shot went "over" the foul pole. If a ball even barely nicked it, the computer that it was tied into would indicate that the laser's continuous beam was interrupted, so the fair/foul for this one would be easy. It could be modified with a series of other lasers extending along the fenceline that, if interrupted, would indicate a fair ball if the ball passed through them - which would deal with the ball that "wraps around the foul pole".
Of course, there may be other problems - you'd probably have to put up a VERY high plexiglass wall along the top of the outfield fence so the fans couldn't toss a beer cup through the laser beam...
I'll give it more thought, send it to R & D, then present it to the fiscal dept for a feasibility study....and then I'll get back to you....

JJ

No idea, but imo you'd have to take some judgment calls out of the discussion. Who's to say who's judgment is right on some calls? That's why I personally find the NBA claims of having the highest accuracy rate of call-making for all major sports very suspect. Hell, I've officiated basketball for over 50 years and I don't have a clue as to what constitutes a foul in the NBA.

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. :(

How about a very thin strand of transparent aluminum?

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

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.

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 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.

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

JJ

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.

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.

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'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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

Cause they can't.

And now I know.

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

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