WTF are you talking about: "play out"?

Maybe I'm too much in the "who cares" camp, but I was under the impression [from the early posts] that, in this case, if it WASN'T a HR, it was a GR Double, not Play On?

In which case, what's to "play out"?

Either way, the umpires had to make a ruling RIGHT THEN, not wait and see what happens.

I watched the Houston archive of the play. Jim Deshaies (absolutely the BEST color commentator in the game) said exactly the same thing I did. That is, if the HR is at all borderline let it "play out" so you don't have to figure out where to place the runners - if you reverse it on review, it is easy just to send everyone home, right?

I am not aware of any rule or interpretation that would convert a HR into a "ground rule/ book rule" double after review overturned the HR. Actually, think of all the HR reviews you've seen. About the only HRs overturned were because they were foul. This is one of the very few I can remember where the runners would have to go back.

On the Houston feed they showed the imprint of where the ball struck at the very top of the padding. On the StL feed the announcers were equally incredulous. Both feeds asked "what view did they see on replay where they saw HR?"

Also, why did you say the umpire had to make a decision RIGHT THEN? That is what the replay is all about. To clarify: a HR is questionable if the ball ends up back on the field of play and most especially when it rebounds directly back to the CFer. A HR is questionable when there might have been fan interference but it is a dead ball in that case.

you really need to get out and make some friends.

Just to be clear: you are not, at any level, an umpire, right?

To further clarify: I have NOT viewed the replays [see: previous comments re: "don't care"]. I am basing my comments on YOUR OP.

Proposition #1: IN MOST CASES [read: most ball parks, esp. pro fields], if a fly ball clears a CF boundary obstacle [fence, wall, etc.] and returns to the field of play somehow, there is gonna be a "ground rule" [i.e.: a pre-determined ruling specific to that field and that obstacle] which covers it: hence the term "ground Rule double".

Proposition #2: apparently, the commentator YOU CITED [Jeez, am I really discussing the maunderings of a "color commentator"? I guess I am.] seemed to think this was such a sitch: if the ball was NOT a HR, it would be a GR double. Was this, in fact, the case? I don't know. I was assuming that you and your commentator hero were not complete morons [a stretch, I realize] and had some idea of what the actual Ground Rules in play on this occasion were. Perhaps I was wrong about that.

Proposition #3: Replay IS NOT "all about" getting "play on" decisions [and consequent judgment placement of runners] correct. Replay is usefull/ used/ authorised ONLY where there is a black/ white "this or that" decision and the only judgment involved is what actually happened. Thus, you do NOT have replay on, for example, an obstruction call; but you DO have replay for HR vs. foul ball. In the later, there is NO judgment involved in where anyone goes in EITHER outcome; it's 4-base award or do-over, period.

THUS: [my] Conclusion A: IF replay was used to determine the correct call in the OP sitch, "play on/ all you can get/ the ball remains in play" WAS NEVER one of the possibilities under the ground rules at this park and game.

Conclusion B: IF the possible universe of outcomes on this play were: 1) HR, 2) fixed base award based on a Ground Rule: it WOULD NOT be proper EVER [your suggestion] for the umpires to allow it to "play out". The umpires were SUPPOSED/ REQUIRED to make an immediate ruling WHICH it was, and in neither case did the subsequent actions of anyone onthe field make a damn bit of difference what the correct award/ ruling would be.

Which leads to Proposition $/ Conclusion C: I am an idiot for trying to reason with a fanboy troll who wants to engage in "interesting discussions" about what the Rules [including Ground Rules at specific fields] "ought to be", instead of learning/ discussing what the Rules ARE and how to interpret/ enforce them, on an online board for umpires.

There's no ground rule in any enclosed field that would supersede the rule book: Four bases in flight; two bases on the bounce.

I believe Larry (I may regret defending him) was commenting whether Busch Stadium's ground rules state where the home run line is for the outfield walls. In this hit, the ball either bounced off the top of the padded wall or it hit the cement wall behind the padded wall; after doing one of the two, it came back toward the outfield. Ground rules would determine which wall it had to clear. If it didn't clear the correct wall, it would be an alive ball, with runners getting what they can.

You don't know Mike Shannon, do you? Here's a sample.

The commentator I referred to was Jim Deshaies who works with Bill Brown on Houston TV.

MLB said that from now on, the ball has to clear the small concrete strip that the padding does not cover. Hard to say why it would ever have been deemed otherwise. If the same ball was hit today, it would be IN PLAY, as it should have been in the first place.

Which was it?

It was Deshaies who said that it was better to let the ball stay in play, knowing that if replay shows it was a HR, it is an easy matter just to send all runners home.

This was the post where I referred to Deshaies.

Pujols' homer forces ground rules change at Busch Stadium - MLB - Sporting News

It took less than a week to come into play. 7/31 - Freese hits an identical shot to RCF. It was ruled in play. Review took less than a minute. Valentine et al remembered the Pujols HR but they still thought the ground rule at Busch was that ball hitting concrete rim was a HR.

Uh no, it (Freese's hit) hit the top of the pad. So it would have been in play regardless...

From the game report:

The ball appeared to hit the concrete wall behind the outfield fence and bounced back into play, prompting crew chief Derryl Cousins to opt for a second look.

There was a similar play during Tuesday's game against Houston, when Albert Pujols' home run was reviewed after it bounced off the concrete in left-center. That homer stood, but on Sunday, the call did not go the home team's way.

"The explanation is there's a piece of the wall that's not covered by the mat and we've just got to solve that because if it's hitting the concrete and coming back, that's still part of the fence," La Russa said. "We've just got to make sure we get all of that fence covered with the mat and put an end to that."

Whatever the game report said, I was watching this when it happened last night and ESPN froze the shot when the ball hit the wall. It clearly it the padding and not any part of the concrete behind the wall.

At Busch, the outfield wall is concrete covered with padding. There is no gap. For some reason they left a rim uncovered. As TLR pointed out, that is leading to confusion and he says they should fix it by covering the rim up. That sounds like a good plan.