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.

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.

The concrete and the padding are level. The ball can hit the concrete and not hit the padding and vice versa.