Incorrect call on replay review in Cleveland

[Ref'sProudPapa]

I saw a documentary once (not about replay) that showed an actual replay review in Fenway park. It was a single screen in the hallway leading from the home dugout to the locker rooms, just in the middle of the wall. One umpire stays on the field. One umpire stays in the hallway keeping away cameras and players and team reps, so only two actually do the review -- presumably the crew chief and whomever's call it was if those are different people.

The tv was kept in one of those metal boxes on the wall like your electrical panel. The screen was about the size of one of those dvd screens on the back of a car seat in a mini-van.

The NHL system seems to work pretty well and the set up in Toronto is impressive. But I guess one difference is that NHL arenas don't have ground rules and all playing areas are uniform. Whether or not the puck crossed the line, or was kicked in, is the same in Phoenix as it is in Winnipeg, except for maybe slight camera placement differences. MLB crews each series go over pretty carefully the ground rules of each stadium and have them in mind when they are doing reviews. They are also there, live, in the park, and so can see things that might not be apparent on tv -- for example how deep a gap is between a fence and the stands. Also, on any given night in the NHL, Toronto will be called upon for at least a couple of reviews. You can go weeks in MLB without a review. Having a war room, with a dedicated crew versed in the ground rules of 30 stadiums seems a bit infeasible. I guess I'm leaning toward centralized review if the alternative is that crazy procedure I saw in the Fenway documentary. But, to go along the lines of the OP's question, I don't think centralized review is as obvious in baseball as it seems.

One thing I'd add is that we all seem to take as granted -- largely from the NFL experience -- that the call in the field have primacy unless the video evidence is overwhelming, and from Hernandez's supposed comments yesterday that seems to be the rule in baseball as well. Everyone acts like this is an obviously correct method of using video. I disagree. Once you make the decision to go to video, go to video. If video is not adequate to make a call, that's one thing. But if you have the tape, forget what happened on the field, and make your call based on the video just like you make your call on the field. If you are truly in equipoise after seeing the video, fine, the tie goes to the call on the field. But the circumstances in which reviewers and the league think this should be the case seem to be a very significant band, not a very narrow one, as I think should be the case.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I think 100% of the blame belongs to the designers of the stadium. How hard can it be to build the thing so that if a ball that goes over the fence, it's a home run, if it doesn't, it's in play. You don't need a camera for that. Yellow lines are for taxiways.

Come on Dash this is America, it is much easier to blame the Umpires than those, that really cause the problems. (Although I will admit, Hernandez must have been looking at one of those 4 inch TV's or Iphone, to not be able to see that it hit the railing.)

Watch, by the end of the season they will be screaming for Backup Replay for the Instant Replay System.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Angel is having a tough day in the national press.

[Publius]

"...Even with the replay, Angel Hernandez got it wrong, and that's really not a surprise."

[tmagan]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

Angel is having a tough day in the national press.

Considering how evasive he was with the pool reporter, he only has himself to blame, but once again, if they followed the NHL's lead and have all calls reviewed in Toronto (New York for MLB), this would have been avoided. So, also, MLB and Bud Selig only have themselves to blame.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tmagan

So, also, MLB and Bud Selig only have themselves to blame.

Not sure about "only". I think MLB and Selig have a reasonable expectation that umpires should be able to look at replays and see what the entirety of the rest of the planet sees. And I can't recall anyone missing one this badly that wasn't actually difficult to tell from replay.

I do agree that centralizing this makes more sense, and would allow them to incorporate more technology uniformly if "get it right" is the goal. It would also get rid of the ridiculousness of having the umpires jog down a tunnel and come back out. Heck, if they did it right, they could have had this fixed before Brenly even had time to argue much about it. Ideally, an umpire (whichever one makes sense) could have been buzzed that it was being looked at - they could have intercepted Brenly and said, "Don't worry about it, it's already being looked at," and it could have been fixed much quicker than the current, manager argues, talks umpires into leaving field, umpired go get a slushy routine we have.

[tmagan]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not sure about "only". I think MLB and Selig have a reasonable expectation that umpires should be able to look at replays and see what the entirety of the rest of the planet sees. And I can't recall anyone missing one this badly that wasn't actually difficult to tell from replay.

I do agree that centralizing this makes more sense, and would allow them to incorporate more technology uniformly if "get it right" is the goal. It would also get rid of the ridiculousness of having the umpires jog down a tunnel and come back out. Heck, if they did it right, they could have had this fixed before Brenly even had time to argue much about it. Ideally, an umpire (whichever one makes sense) could have been buzzed that it was being looked at - they could have intercepted Brenly and said, "Don't worry about it, it's already being looked at," and it could have been fixed much quicker than the current, manager argues, talks umpires into leaving field, umpired go get a slushy routine we have.

Think about it, the NHL has had centralized replay for about ten years now, and how many big controversies have they had, one.
If Selig wants to make the $18 million a year, well then he has to assume the responsibilities when things go wrong when they shouldn't go wrong, like when the decline to have centralized replay. So, once again the blame rests with Commissioner Selig and the Commissioner's Office, just like it was Commissioner Goodell's fault for his disastrous officials lockout this season.

[JRutledge]

I think the video is really inconclusive because it is from a terrible angle. I love how we Monday Morning Quarterback these situations when the guys get one angle and a time limit to decide. Then instead of admiting that fact we go after the guy for other reasons when more than one guy made the decision I am sure or had input.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the video is really inconclusive because it is from a terrible angle. I love how we Monday Morning Quarterback these situations when the guys get one angle and a time limit to decide. Then instead of admiting that fact we go after the guy for other reasons when more than one guy made the decision I am sure or had input.

Peace

Not sure which angle you are seeing that is terrible... I've seen 3, all three are pretty clear. Also - A) they don't have a time limit, and B) if you've heard the live broadcasts (I've heard 4), all of them were relatively certain it would be ruled a home run - and they said that within the same timeframe that the umpires had.

Regarding "going after the guy", if he hadn't already put himself into a negative light time and time again, it might be different. This is the worst umpire in MLB and has been for some time. And he's given us plenty of examples of arrogance over time - enough that we're all pretty sure Angel would have gone with his own decision regardless of what his partner's input was.

You're probably right that most umpires would get more benefit of the doubt here... probably ANY other umpire.

But not him.

[Dave Reed]

Joe Torre has stated that a mistake was made.
"By rule, the decision to reverse a call by use of instant replay is at the sole discretion of the crew chief. In the opinion of Angel Hernandez, who was last night's crew chief, there was not clear and convincing evidence to overturn the decision on the field. It was a judgment call, and as such, it stands as final.

"Home and away broadcast feeds are available for all uses of instant replay, and they were available to the crew last night. Given what we saw, we recognize that an improper call was made. Perfection is an impossible standard in any endeavor, but our goal is always to get the calls right. Earlier this morning, we began the process of speaking with the crew to thoroughly review all the circumstances surrounding last night's decision."

[Tim C]

If what I am going to say is old news I apologize.

For about 20 years MLB has had a room in New York that is manned by at least two people when any game is being played in the leagues.

These people are "rules experts" that are available by phone to answer questions (note: not make rulings) if any umpire calls their number during a game.

The room is like what you would expect -- hi def monitors carrying all games and multiple coverages of all plays.

So we are not reaching very far to have this room to have a couple of professional umpires reviewing plays.

I HATE replay but if available why not use it.

T

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is the worst umpire in MLB and has been for some time.

There is not a single person on this site qualified to make this statement.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not sure which angle you are seeing that is terrible... I've seen 3, all three are pretty clear. Also - A) they don't have a time limit, and B) if you've heard the live broadcasts (I've heard 4), all of them were relatively certain it would be ruled a home run - and they said that within the same timeframe that the umpires had.

Regarding "going after the guy", if he hadn't already put himself into a negative light time and time again, it might be different. This is the worst umpire in MLB and has been for some time. And he's given us plenty of examples of arrogance over time - enough that we're all pretty sure Angel would have gone with his own decision regardless of what his partner's input was.

You're probably right that most umpires would get more benefit of the doubt here... probably ANY other umpire.

But not him.

I am simply saying that it was a bad angle and a bad design for the park. And I think it is easy after the fact with enhanced video to make this call hours after the people in the heat of the battle. I am not a fan of everything the umpiring crews do in MLB, but I do not think you or I are in a place to be so judgmental to go over the top with your criticism. You probably have never been in that situation. I know I have never been in that position. And it was inconclusive for me when I first saw it and only today did I see anything that made me rethink that position. But I can totally see why this was ruled that way.

And honestly I do not care to get into a debate of the umpire and his history. I think that is mostly irrelevant to this situation. You and I do not know the conversation they had and how the decision was reached. And I doubt you would say all of this to that man's face.

Peace

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Rich

There is not a single person on this site qualified to make this statement.

Perhaps, but it is quite possible that he is one of the worst in MLB. One doesn't need to be an MLB Umpire or supervisor to believe a certain umpire is bad, provided one doesn't hold an opinion solely on emotional bias.

[jicecone]

None of us have, been in that position granted, but we are talking about an official that has been there for thousands of games. One who we now know had better video equipment available to him than most if not all of us. And somehow between one, two or three sets of eyes, they could not determine the correct call, after they choose to utilize the replay.

If it was based upon judgement alone, I don't think anyone here would have a problem with the call. But when the Crew Chief decides that the crew will utilize replay and not determine the correct call, that the whole world could get right with amateur equipment, something is wrong.