Phillies protest IR ruling

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Disagree. A ball near the yellow line might be a HR and so reviewable.

I believe that MLB declared that IR was used improperly in this case, but I don't see why.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you (and only you, apparently) think this could have been a home run. Did you see the video?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you (and only you, apparently) think this could have been a home run. Did you see the video?

If the fan was behind the wall and hit the ball knocking it back in, we'd have a home run, no? So if you were 200 yards away and didn't have a good sense of whether the fielder reached into the stands or the fan reached into the field, you might need replay to determine if it was a home run. (And the replay was clear it was the latter but I gather nobody got that great a look at it live.)

[MD Longhorn]

The difference here is that it was not ruled a home run. The ball hit the glove, and was apparently ruled as such. And it was Florida's manager that came out initially. For some reason I'm thinking he's not coming out asking them to check and see if it was a home run. the rule doesn't say, as you state, they can check on any ball that's close to the yellow line.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by youngump

If the fan was behind the wall and hit the ball knocking it back in, we'd have a home run, no? So if you were 200 yards away and didn't have a good sense of whether the fielder reached into the stands or the fan reached into the field, you might need replay to determine if it was a home run. (And the replay was clear it was the latter but I gather nobody got that great a look at it live.)

200 yards? Joe West should've been no more than 200 *feet* from the ball. He was the U1 and it was his ball since there was a runner on first base. I'd love to see how far out he got on it. I already know the answer to that.

[Rich]

Torre denied the Phillies protest. No details whatsoever as to why he denied it. I'd have been surprised if this was settled otherwise.

[MD Longhorn]

Guess this means MLB umpires can do whatever the heck they want with replay, and if it turns out they are right, rules be damned...

[umpjong]

Good article on the protest. Looks like this guy got it right from the start.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Good article on the protest. Looks like this guy got it right from the start.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

I thought the tone was a tad arrogant and snotty considering how poorly written the replay procedure is and how it leaves itself open to a rather logical protest that can be reasonably argued. And it would keep guys like West from having to lie to shoehorn their calls within the confines of the written procedure.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Good article on the protest. Looks like this guy got it right from the start.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

Yup, he was right... except for the part about being wrong. Love how he sticks to the letter of the law until that letter of the law no longer supports his case ... at which point we slide into "common sense", which almost always translates as "in agreement with the opinion of the writer" regardless of the topic being discussed.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Good article on the protest. Looks like this guy got it right from the start.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

Thank you for that article. I originally thought that it was incorrect that Joe went to the IR but not knowing the ground rules of that park, I now have to agree with Joe. Simply put, all one of the crew has to suggest is that the ball may have been a HR and the crew must user the IR if there is any doubt.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The difference here is that it was not ruled a home run. The ball hit the glove, and was apparently ruled as such. And it was Florida's manager that came out initially. For some reason I'm thinking he's not coming out asking them to check and see if it was a home run. the rule doesn't say, as you state, they can check on any ball that's close to the yellow line.

1) We only know what the initial (or close to it) memo / press release said. It's certainly possible (and I would say likely) that it has been discussed / clarified over the past three years, even if it hasn't been published to us.

2) When in doubt, keep it live. IT's a lot easier to send the runner back than to try to guess where he would have ended up if the play was killed in error. So, the fact that they didn't declare a home run initially means nothing.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) We only know what the initial (or close to it) memo / press release said. It's certainly possible (and I would say likely) that it has been discussed / clarified over the past three years, even if it hasn't been published to us.

2) When in doubt, keep it live. IT's a lot easier to send the runner back than to try to guess where he would have ended up if the play was killed in error. So, the fact that they didn't declare a home run initially means nothing.

The crew ended up getting the call right. It would be a good idea to rewrite the replay rule/procedure to very clearly allow them to rule the way they did. It is obviously poorly written as the confusing semantics of the way it is now written is what caused the protest.

Furthermore, I don't see why replay can't be slightly expanded to allow review of fan interference in a ground rule double situation to properly place the runners so an obvious run by R1 on a gapper is not negated by having to otherwise stop him at third. In 2009, MLB told a crew that used replay for that was wrong to do so. Not much different mechanically than the West call, so why not incorporate that too?