Pujols HR reviewed
 

Pujols hit a line drive shot to CF that was originally ruled a HR (bottom of 1st, R1, 2 outs). Cards announcer Mike Shannon reviewed the replay and immediately said it just hit the top of the wall and on review "it will probably end up a ground rule double with the runner who was sure to score being sent back to third. It amazed him that after further review it was confirmed to be a HR and he went on to disagree several times as the game went on.

Several points: 1) the review rule disarmed the vociferous argument that was sure to happen without one. 2) I thought if they overturned the HR they would place the runners to whatever bases according to judgment as opposed to the bookrule double bounding over the fence. (this is what makes using replay for catch/trap in the outfield with runners on). 3) One would think MLB umpires would err on the side of "no HR" on questionable calls to let the play go on so the runners determine their own advance. If it is changed to HR after review, heck, all you have to do is send everyone to home.

So, even the Cards announcer did not think it was a HR. How hard would it be to provide the viewer with a stop-action view that shows the "evidence" that was used for the decision from the replay?

Two thought provoking situations, complete with commentary, in the same evening.

We're blessed. And I mean that with all the sincerity one can imagine.

Homer off top of fence?
 

Instant replay should confirm HR.

The announcer made the wrong call.

The only replay I've seen so far is the real time long distance view from the snippet on MLB.tv highlights. Perhaps there are better views that might even convince the announcer whose team the call favored.

I haven't seen the replay yet. Did the ball hit the wall and then go over, or did it hit the wall and drop into the field?

It hit the cement wall (behind the padding) on the top.

From the St Louis write-up:

Pujols' homer hit at the very top of the wall in center field, bouncing back onto the field of play. The call was so close as to require replay, and even on video, it wasn't entirely clear that the ball had fully cleared the wall. However, the umpires upheld the original call, giving the Redbirds a 2-0 lead.

The replay I watched this morning wasn't very conclusive. The ball could have hit the top of the wall or just above the padding. Not sure of the ground rules in St. Louis so I can't say either way. I would think that if a ball hits the wall and comes back in, it should be in play. St Louis has no yellow line denoting out of play vs. in play.

I do agree with Larry, I think the umpires should have let the play go on and not have ruled it a HR so soon. The ball hit and bounced right back to F8 and they were already ruling a HR before Pujols hit 2B.

Video

I have now heard a couple different versions of what happened.

According to DiMuro, the ball skipped off the top of the wall and hit concrete beyond the wall and bounced back.

According to another media outlet, the official ruling from MLB was that since the ball hit above the padding, it was a HR. It didn't matter that it didn't clear the wall, just that it cleared the padding on the wall.

To both of these, I have to say WOW!!!

According to said media outlet, MLB has corrected this ground rule and now a ball must clear the fence to be a HR. (:confused:you think)

Why would the fact that the play is under review overrule a book ruling? Reviews are in place to get a second look to get a correct ruling, not to create an environment in which the umpires play god.

I don't understand the part in parenthesis.

1) a bookrule double (usually called a "groundrule double" is usually reserved for cases of a ball bouncing over the fence. I did not think that if the HR was overturned that the runners would be place according to that rule and have the R1 who was certain to have scored be sent back to third. It seemed more proper to handle them like spectator interference.

2) I omitted the word "difficult" at the end of the parenthesis. If replay is allowed for trapped balls in the outfield, there would be difficulty knowing where to put the runners after a reversal.

While not as dramatic as the Meals call, the Astros also filed a complaint about the Pujols HR. Game feed video clearly showed the ball hitting the top of the wall. So much for getting it right with replay.

If it hit the top of the wall, why did it bounce up in the air? A ball the bounces up in the air usually has hit something behind the wall. It looked like it hit the concrete wall behind the padding.

Here is the video - Pujols' Home Run Reviewed - if you run out to .048 you will see the 2 slo-mo's. The ball did not bounce into the air, it ricocheted back as if it hit a spring. Was it a HR? Can't tell from the slo-mo's as they are not clear enough. My opinion, the call was made, the call was reviewed, the call was confirmed and it happened several days ago. Who cares?!?

It happened the same night as the Jerry Meals call. It points out questionable HRs should be allowed to play out. It showed the limitations of replay. There was a side view on the Houston telecast that showed it never cleared the wall and they also showed an indentation on the padding where it first struck. Truth be told, it was easier to just call it a HR than to have to worry about where to place the runners.