Why No Replay Review?

[CraigD]

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.

[umpjim]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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?

[GoodwillRef]

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!"

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

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

[GoodwillRef]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

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?

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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?

[DBull]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

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

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).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.


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

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?

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

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.

[kylejt]

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.