Phillies protest IR ruling

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjong

What part dont you understand? The PU questioned whether the ball would have been a home run less the fan interference. Thus the replay. Just like the directive states. Even without replay the umpires could have got together and the information from the PU could have changed the call without the replay. Sounds like it might have been ruled a home run with the information provided by PU but with the replay the umpires were able to get it right. Will the directive be re worded? Probably, but give West credit for this one, we all know he needs one once in a while.

Heres a quote from a Philly paper,

-1... -2 really. Trusting a quote from a newspaper? Again ... you're funny.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by umpjong

What part dont you understand? The PU questioned whether the ball would have been a home run less the fan interference. Thus the replay. Just like the directive states. Even without replay the umpires could have got together and the information from the PU could have changed the call without the replay. Sounds like it might have been ruled a home run with the information provided by PU but with the replay the umpires were able to get it right. Will the directive be re worded? Probably, but give West credit for this one, we all know he needs one once in a while.

Heres a quote from a Philly paper,

You're not helping yourself with newspaper quotes. The rule is specific: IR may be used only for determining HR/no HR. No amount of study by anyone changes that.

[umpjong]

So you have inside knowledge of MLB?
To bad you cant understand simple, or I should say refuse to accept simple concepts. You really want to continue to believe that MLB would have their people simply ignore part of a play they are reviewing then go ahead. I choose to believe that they handled this particular play within their rules and correctly.

And I see that you ignore the fact that the article stated that the league contended that the ruling was correct. I suppose the paper was lying along with West.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjong

So you have inside knowledge of MLB?
To bad you cant understand simple, or I should say refuse to accept simple concepts. You really want to continue to believe that MLB would have their people simply ignore part of a play they are reviewing then go ahead. I choose to believe that they handled this particular play within their rules and correctly.

And I see that you ignore the fact that the article stated that the league contended that the ruling was correct. I suppose the paper was lying along with West.

Wow... I think you might actually even believe yourself. Wow.

If anyone is claiming any inside knowledge it's you. What EVERYONE else is saying is that based on what IS published, this ruling is wrong. Replay (at least in the information we're allowed to see) does NOT include the opportunity to look at the replay for one reason and then make a ruling for a different one (and one not included in those things that you ARE allowed to use replay for). You can CHOOSE to believe whatever you want... we can't stop you. But you've yet to post how it's within the published rules (good luck with that... it's not!)

And really... you're basing your "fact" on the opinion of a newspaper writer? I wonder what other fabricated nonsense we see in the paper you now take as fact. I would HATE to get into a political discussion with you if you're believing everything you read from people who would not know what they were writing about (as in this case). PS - NO ONE has said West was lying. Just you saying that we said that. I think, now, that I know what party you would belong to should that political discussion every happen. Typical strawman argument idiocy.

[bob jenkins]

I think this has pretty much run it's course.