Pujols HR reviewed

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

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?"

Originally Posted by Larry1953

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.

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.