Astros/Cubs ending - Whose call?
 

Bottom of 12th, one out, bases loaded. Cubs batter hits a slow chopper down the third base line. Astros F5 inexplicably tries to one hop it as it is going foul. He deflects it into fair ground - action about two-thirds of the way up the line. BU emphatically signals fair. The announcers (Cubs radio) say it is the PU call until it reaches the bag and the replay showed the Cubs caught a break.

Looking at the replay, PU was behind the plate, looking down the line but his view was blocked by the catcher and runner. My question is, how can the PU be responsible for both the anticipated banger at the plate and making the fair/foul call obstructed by the catcher and runner? Does the usual mechanic change when there is an R3?

http://http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameda...b_1&mode=video

Looks like a fair ball that Jim Evans demonstrates at his clinics. From one angle you have daylight between FL and ball. Move overhead or inline and edge of ball is over the line.

Technically it's the plate umpire's call till it gets to the bag, but if he's blocked and the base guy has a good look, he can call it once he realizes the plate umpire isn't making a call.

JJ

With the bases loaded, the plate umpire will give up fair/foul decisions outside the circle to the wing umpires so he can prepare for a possible play at the plate. This is an advanced 3- or 4-man mechanic.

The best replay view seemed to show the ball barely landing foul and then it hopped up and deflected off the glove. It was an incredibly stupid play by F5 Russ Johnson - the only thing that would have made it "better" would have been if it closed out the first 100th loss in team history instead of just the 99th. You've got to make your share of plays like that to lose 100 games.

The best replay did not have a straight line view of the play. U3 did and maybe the PU did. Whose call it was depends on the crew. It looks like the PU did not miss a beat in explaining the call to the manager. The edge of the ball was over the FL in my opinion. This was advanced because at my level U3 would not poach my call and I as PU might not have a clue. At least nobody killed the ball. You can always fix an improper fair signal but you have to take your lumps. In this case I believe it was fair.

That makes sense. It seems it would be best to do it that way whenever there is a runner on third. The crew looked like they called it seamlessly with the BU immediately taking control of the call - like he should have.

I see your point - on further review. Indeed, the edge of the ball did appear to be over the line. Usually at the MLB level the fielder is trying to "field it fair" so he can make the out at the plate. In this case, a reasonably bright Little Leaguer would have had the presence of mind to let it roll foul.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9171/fairfoul.png

Impossible play to umpire. PU must take position for a collision play and is screened by oncoming R3. U3 gets to stare at F5's backside. Nobody has a great look.

Correct call. Sphere of the ball is hanging over line.

Quite true on all accounts. At the MLB level you just don't expect F5 to make such a dumb play to put everyone in that predicament. I saw a few web articles using this play to call for expanded use of replay. Jeesh, no replay views were perfectly definitive and the best one shows they likely got it correct and used perfect mechanics. One report said Mills went out to argue that it was the PU's call but it was explained that the mechanics change with R3 and he got quiet pretty quick after that.

Admittedly this is a long time ago, but I heard Bruce Froemming explain to us that the base line is not the same as the plate when it comes to three dimensions. The ball in the photo shown is touching foul territory. The foul line is only considered to extend upward when judging a ball that is in air. This ball was foul according to what we were taught, it is in contact with foul territory.

From MLB Rule 2.00

A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that is on or over fair territory when bounding to the outfield past first or third base, or that touches first, second or third base, or that first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base, or that, while on or over fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player, or that, while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight.
A fair fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the fielder is on fair or foul territory at the time he touches the ball.
Rule 2.00 (Fair Ball) Comment: If a fly ball lands in the infield between home and first base, or home and third base, and then bounces to foul territory without touching a player or umpire and before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball; or if the ball settles on foul territory or is touched by a player on foul territory, it is a foul ball. If a fly ball lands on or beyond first or third base and then bounces to foul territory, it is a fair hit.
Clubs, increasingly, are erecting tall foul poles at the fence line with a wire netting extending along the side of the pole on fair territory above the fence to enable the umpires more accurately to judge fair and foul balls.

FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and including the first base and third base lines, from home base to the bottom of the playing field fence and perpendicularly upwards. All foul lines are in fair territory.

@ Mike Strybel

Interesting aspect about a ball settling in foul territory. The ball bounced twice. The first time it hit the line and kicked up chalk. The second time it touched the ground only in foul ground with the conjecture that an edge of the sphere was still over the outer edge of the line.

A baseball is about 3 inches wide (diameter). Let's say that it leaves a 1 inch imprint when it hits the ground. So the point of impact would take up 1/2 inch of the 1 and 1/2 inches of the half of the ball that could have been at risk of being above the edge of the line. That leaves 1 inch of the ball to be over the line - max. It seems impractical to be able to judge that with the naked eye from 30 to 60 feet away or even with ultra slo-mo high definition replay. Any parallax from a camera or eye angle that is not precisely down the line would introduce a margin of error of at least an inch.

So, if replay is ever to be used for a case like this, it is probably best to call it foul if it does not definitely hit the line and show some chalk kicked up.

I have a ball that was touched while part of it was over fair territory. I have it fair and so does Jim Evans.

I'm not douobting what you were taught, but it doesn't make sense to me.

If the ball was 30' farther out, it would hit third base -- fair ball. If it was 330' farther out and 30' higher, it would hit the foul pole -- home run. So, the ball in this play should be fair. That's how I was taught, and what makes sense to me.

Bob, that makes sense. However, consider a ball hit on a line 250 feet further that landed in the same proximity to the line without kicking up any chalk and bouncing away into foul ground. It might be better to call that one close but no cigar.

And this is why you aren't an umpire.

Bye bye now.

Are you a Lastro fan?

Even the Pirates have left them in their dust.

This is correct. It is used in the minors as well in addition to some other mechanics that are filtering to NCAA.

Must be nice to have a great ballclub to root for right in your home town!:cool:

Indeed I am. Dad took me to the second game played at Colt Stadium in 1962. That team was better than this one. It took 50 years, but we finally reached the century mark. And now they'll probably be moved to the AL. What a mess!

Hows about we keep them in the NL Central and they can send the Brew Crew back to the AL. As a Cubs fan, I'd be alright with that............


Tim.

As a Brewers season ticket holder (who is actually a Phillies fan), I'd be happy if the Cubs were shipped somewhere else. Mainly because I hate going to Miller Park when a bunch of Cubs fans come up. Of course, they've been pretty absent this year.

(BTW, I just got the A&E DVD that shows the entire 23-22 Phillies/Cubs game from 1979. Good stuff. The ML umpires were on strike, BTW, so the game is being done with replacements who all worked less than a few dozen games in the major leagues.)

I think the writing is on the wall for the Astros to be moved to the AL West. The best they can do is bargain for some extra draft picks and some financial considerations. It would be quite a kick in the gut for lifelong fans and might take whatever heart is left out of the franchise. But nobody else in baseball would really care.

Same here. The Cubs fans outnumber Pads fans at our home games, and we have to wear dark sunglasses to keep the glare from their pasty faces from burning our retinas!:)

Any idea who those umpires were?

JJ

Umpires: HP - Dick Cavenaugh, 1B - Bill Lawson, 2B - Dennis Riccio, 3B - Dave Slickenmeyer

Found it....Slick's the only one I know personally...he worked major college ball for years in the Chicago area and the Big Ten.

JJ

Your inference here is both contrary to rule and common sense. You seem to be saying that a particular ball could be foul, yet if you take that same ball and lift it an inch it's fair. Sorry - that dog don't hunt.

And yes, I have seen a ball come completely to rest while touching only foul ground - and still be fair by rule.

Better by whose perception? Not by any umpire I know. PS - can't find "close" in the definition at all. It's fair or it's foul and the rule is VERY easy to understand.

I thought we all agreed not to quote him. Now you've made me read his words - I've just lost 1 IQ point.

Ortiz hit a ball near the Pesky pole today that was ruled foul. The replay seemed to show it hit about a foot and a half fair hitting the Scott sign. Just saying, if it hits near the foul line and doesn't kick up chalk, probably best to rely on that clue considering Estabrook might have missed it by 18 inches with all the clutter in the background.

ETA: another replay shows it might have just grazed off the fence to the foul side of the pole in that weird "hockey rink" right field. Strange play.

Please just stay off the field.

+100

Sorry for your loss. I'll try to remember.:p

Precisely this play happened in the Ray/Ranger game tonite. The ump had all but called it foul until he realized it had kicked up chalk.

So then, he didn't call it foul?

Because it kicked up chalk. An inch to the left and it would not have. I really doubt he would have "seen the shadow" and called it fair.

Boy Larry you really are reinventing umpiring as we know it with your every post.

I look forward to what obtuse and tangential wisdom you come up with next. Maybe it really would be best to join Twitter as another poster suggested. It would be great for all of us to get mobile updates on your umpire musings.

Please explain how my reasoning is obtuse or tangential. The puff of chalk is the only thing that allowed ULF to make the right call. What is rather obtuse and tangential is trying to parse what fraction of a baseball might be tangentially over the perpendicular plane of the foul line, absent the puff of chalk. Considering it is hard for a MLB PU to track the course of a dribbler 6 feet in front if him at T-Ball speed, I can't see how it is practical to try to call a tangential shadow on a ball going around 100 mph

Just googled "ball kicks up chalk" and came up with an old thread from this forum from July 2001. There was a side taken by Carl Childress and the other taken by Rich Ives. Nobody called Carl obtuse or tangential for making the same argument I did.
http://forum.officiating.com/basebal...fair-foul.html
QUOTE:
Originally posted by Rich Ives
If the last 1/4" of a fly ball hits the foul pole and the ball glances off the foul pole to the foul side, it's a home run isn't? Other than the distance travelled, what's the difference here?
Rich:
I am simply amazed at this discussion. Obviously, a ball that HITS the foul pole is a fair ball. (Duh!) A ball that hits a chalk line beyond the base is a fair ball. A ball that stops rolling in front of the base is a fair ball if it's touching the line.

But we're talking about a ball that "breaks the plane" of the foul line WITHOUT TOUCHING IT.

Blarson said that he's "always" called such a ball fair. In nearly 50 years of baseball, that's the most intriguing statement I've ever heard about the game, for in that time I have never seen a ball stop in such a position, and I have never spoken to any umpire who has. BLarson, the minor league umpire reported in Referee, and the originator of this thread stand alone in my experience.

Once we admit that a ball can be fair without touching the line because part of it sticks OVER the line, what will we say to the coach who claims that the batted ball broke the plane as it passed over third base? Remember, we're talking at most about a half inch viewed by an umpire from 90 feet away.

Fellows: We cannot begin to deal in microcentimeters. A ball that kicks up chalk is easy to call. Right? Even worse: Imagine how to explain to a defensive coach that a ball that passed to the left of the foul pole in left field is a fair ball, home run, because as it passed it broke the plane of the pole.

After reflection, I come to the conclusion this thread is a joke. Right? You're yanking my chain. Right?

__________________
Papa C
Editor-in-Chief
Officiating.com

So the umpire made the correct call, and you want to create a fantasy in which he doesn't? Wow.

Okay, I will. Carl has a lot of head-scratching opinions--often obtuse.

So if a batted ball strikes(or comes to rest) on level ground with the edge hanging over the foul line, yet not touching the foul line, you want that ball foul. Yet if a batted ball strikes (or comes to rest) on ground on un level ground (the foul portion is lower than the foul line) so that the same edge of the ball now touches the foul line, it now is a fair ball. Hmmm. Nope, cant justify it by rule, by any stretch.

I agree, a slowly hit or bunted ball that is allowed to come to rest in the hope that it might roll foul should be ruled fair if it overhangs the edge of the foul line. I think that is a much harder call on a line drive to the outfield if you can't see chalk or paint chips kick up. That is what seemed to make the LFU abort his foul call that he was just about to make.

Hardly a fantasy - the LFU came within a synapse firing of completing the foul call he started to make.

Probably because Carl knows what he is talking about, where as you, on the other hand ................

I can't believe this. You just don't get it. LFU called the play correctly. And you want to play, "what if." You can play that game with every call made in baseball. "Well, if only this happened, he'd have made the wrong call."

Is that how you view life? Would have, could have, should have?

You just can't accept that the umpire got the call right. Have you considered softball? They'd love you there.

Larry;
You obviously have no knowledge of the rules of baseball and no knowledge of umpiring. If you have a question about rules or mechanics, great, we will answer them. If not, please go somewhere else with your nonsense. Everyone here is tired of your idiocy.

+10000

Will do. Sorry to have been such a bother. You guys certainly know your stuff. Keep up the good work!

Holy Cow....did anybody see that call in the 5th inning last night in the Yankee game? I'm certain the plate umpire was about to call a pitch a ball, but he waited just long enough to see that it caught the corner of the plate and at the last second, he hesitated and called it a strike. Man, he almost blew that call.


:rolleyes: