Phillies protest IR ruling

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

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.

So you continue to ignore facts when presented to you? Who would have thought?

Some have erroneously and speciously claimed the only thing instant replay can be used for is to determine whether a home run was a home run. This is not factual. The rule clearly allows for determinations of whether a ball that bounced off the top of a wall, or a foul pole, or was interfered with by a fan and then bounced back onto the field of play, should have been a home run. The claim that the initial ruling on the field had to be a home run is beyond ridiculous. For that would mean the instant replay rule could only be used to negate home runs.

Anyone who even briefly researches the instant replay rule and its history knows this not to be the case. Therefore, it's clear that once Fairchild believed the initial ruling may have been incorrect, and that fan interference may have prevented a home run for Pence, West not only had the authority to initiate an instant replay review, he was compelled to by the rule.

Furthermore, as West himself stated, once the review was underway, he could not ignored evidence gleaned from the review, and could not ignore the fan interference that was obvious from the video evidence. Those arguing he should have ignored all common sense, and apparently believe MLB would agree their umpires should so narrowly interpret the instant replay rule (which doesn't specifically or expressly forbid them from considering such evidence once the review has been initiated) as to ignore that evidence, and the infractions it may include, are simply wrong.

Quoted from the above posted article/ http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ycn-9080723

[MikeStrybel]

I am eager to see how MLB refines the IR rule now. I recognize that many still feel that IR has no place in competitive baseball (they are wrong) and this play highlights the need to establish clarity for players, management and fans alike.

Imagine this play had been the final one of the game. IR is pretty handy to have around, especially if your favorite team is the one that benefits from the correct ruling. Now imagine this play happened in the playoffs or World Series...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjong

So you continue to ignore facts when presented to you? Who would have thought?



Quoted from the above posted article/ Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

It's the very underlined portion of that article that is completely false. Interpreting the rules to mean what that says opens things up to the absurd.

Example: A ball near the 1B fence is ruled a catch on the field - R1 then tags and advances to 2nd, defense appeals that he left early and the appeal is denied - runner safe.

Fans are close to the catch, so they review it to see if a fan hit the ball before the catch... and in the replay they notice that the runner did, in fact, leave early.

Using the interpretation underlined by you, the umpire would be "compelled" now to rule the runner out.

This is clearly NOT true.