Incorrect call on replay review in Cleveland
 

On a double in Cleveland in the ninth which was reviewed, it was kept a double instead of changed to a home run when the ball clearly hit the railing, which is why I ask... like the NHL, why doesn't MLB and the NFL have reviews conducted in New York, which makes all the sense in the world.

Angel Hernandez is an idiot, and leave it at that.

Agree with that and shows that instant replay is NOT the answer that everyone thought it would be. :D

Thanks
David

And when did he start wearing an adjustable hat? :confused::D

I wish I knew what Hernandez saw. We will never know, because (From Fox News):

Hernandez compounded his gaffe by the way he handled it. According to Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle, Hernandez didn’t allow the media to record his postgame comments. While stipulating that his answers be written in print only, Hernandez said the umpires “didn’t have enough evidence to reverse (the) call,” Slusser reported.

I predict more changes in MLB's replay policy next year.

Anytime Angel or CB Buckner are involved, chaos is prevelant.

Sounds like he made a point of blaming the "TV" they had. I guess it was an old black and white with rabbit ears.

I picture them all looking at the replay on their individual I-phones.

Did anyone ever think that maybe they are not looking at the same video that we are? I agree, that from the video we got to see, it was a HR but I cannot believe that 4 properly trained professionals can make such a bad call (by what we see).

JMHO

+1

Good point, Oz. This may be ironic... but I bet if this was ANY other umpire, my initial thought would be about the technology - what replay did they see, is the monitor as good as my TV, etc.

But when I saw it was Hernandez, my initial thought was, "Arrogant Jack@$$ strikes again".

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.

Totally agree.

Peace

So ... no railings (or for that matter, stairs ... seats ... etc) allowed in the outfield? This didn't hit a WALL above the yellow line (I do agree with you that having walls higher than the yellow line is simply stupid). This hit a hand-rail in the middle of the stairs that lead to the lower seats in that section. The rail was not attached to the fence, it was attached to the stairs.

Hmmmm, I did notice it was raining.

I am SURE that the rain has nothing to do with Angel's decision.

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.

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.

Angel is having a tough day in the national press.

Lmao
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

ô!ô
 

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

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

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

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.

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.

Now that MLB has admitted that the crew missed the call, the big question is: why?

With the multiple camera angles available, and given the current state of HD video equipment, there's really no reason why the on-field umpires aren't provided with all the information they need. Sure, there may be the occasional screwy play where no definitive angle exists, but I believe those are rare.

It's human nature to see only the "evidence" that supports your call, which is why it makes good sense to use a neutral observer who has no dog in the fight to make the final determination.

Are you suggesting that the umpires on the field aren't neutral?

The calls belong to the umpires on the field. I see no compelling reason to leave them to guys in their pajamas sitting in a studio hundreds of miles away.

Suppose this had been ruled a HR, and upon review, the video shows the ball didn't clear the yellow line. So the reviewer in some centralized location makes the final call. Does that reviewer then also have to judge where to place the runners? How is he going to be able to do that if he likely has no idea where they were at the time of the call, and there probably isn't any video that will give him any help? In the meantime, you've got three umpires who were tracking those base runners and would be better suited to judge who goes where.

No, I don't care to have reviews done by some "neutral observer" who is nowhere near the stadium. The MLB system in place is fine. This was just one screw-up. We've seen plenty of reviews in the NFL where the announcers watch multiple angles with blow-up "NB-See-it" enhancements and come up with a call, only for the reviewer to come up with the opposite call. No review system is infallible.

WRT a call they have already made, of course they aren't. He's not saying they are biased toward a team ... just that it would only be natural to be biased toward the accuracy of your own initial call.

MLB has used Hernandez in the post-season 14 of the last 16 years. In one of those two years, he worked the All-Star game. Many other umpires in the bigs haven't had that level of success.

For example: CB Bucknor has only worked the postseason 3 times (just the division series) in his 17 years as a ML umpire. Tim McClelland (a crew chief) hasn't worked the postseason since 2009.

In other words, our perception of Hernandez and the MLB players' perception of Hernandez doesn't mean a damned thing. At least until now, MLB liked Hernandez -- we'll see if that changes.

Not at all. See MD's comment above.

Nope. If it's questionable whether it is a HR or not, the play is left live, so there's no discussion about what "would have" happened. Then if it's overturned to a HR, they don't have a problem.

NFL & NCAA D-I officials have changed their on-field philosophy to accomodate replay. No reason why MLB can't follow suit.

Neutral to the team, of course. Neutral to themselves and their own calls, they're only human.

There is no reason why you would have to put any part other than HR or not to the neutral observer. Once he says no HR, the crew can carry out the rest of the ruling.

Obviously not. The view provided in the telecast was obvious enough that it should have been easy to declare a HR. Whether that means a neutral observer, better equipment, better procedure, or better training is up for debate, but the system isn't fine.

[QUOTE]Exactly What is the MLB System?

Apparently it is not clearly defined with respect to type of video equipment to be used.

Why use a neutral site (reference Tee's post)?

makes sense and is the most cost effective. The alternative would be to have each stadium equipped with similar video equipment plus have a replay booth manned by former MLB umpires which would cost money. Yeah I know baseball is big business but how many questionable HR's do you get a year.

There is already (again refer to Tee's post) a neutral site in NY with all camera angles you need. The people in this neutral site are not making calls or rulings but simply giving the umpires all angles needed to make the final call.

Bottom Line: MLB (where's Bud been but that's another topic altogether) needs to clearly define Replay with respect to video equipment.

Pete Booth

Exactly. Someone likes him even if I have a different opinion. And you know what they say about people with opinions? And I have not known any official at any level that everyone loves.

Peace

With Angel Hernandez as the crew chief, I can honestly believe that any number of highly trained professionals would screw something up!

Why not just have Buster Olney review it from Bristol, CT?

I've seen worse. Doug Eddings refused to go to instant replay on a ball that was obviously a home run to everybody in the stadium but him.

I don't remember who is the head of umpires (retired, but I cannot remember who it was) said the replay people could have put a yellow circle around the ball showing where the ball hit. They simply had to ask for it.

T do you happen to have that number handy? I have few questions for them.;)

and the legendary Marty Foster has only worked two Division Series since his first game 17 years ago. In fact Marty has never worked a post season game behind the plate or at 1B which is probably a pretty good thing.

Is that the same number they called when the other crew goofed the pitching rules? The PU got on the horn with someone, from the dugout phone. So that's a least five know-it-alls that contributed to that one.

I can assure you that Hernandez is where he's at and has worked what he's worked not because of his abilities. ;)

Well, after speaking to an old friend who is not retired from MLB, the umpires have access to every camera that is in the park, so they should have seen the same thing that we did. I also understand that Joe Torre is having a discussion with the entire crew about this matter.

It seems that after the pitching change fiasco the other day, Joe Torre is fuming about the competency of the MLB umpires. After the last couple of seasons, I think he is right.

Is this the same Joe Torre who was cursing at the media after Game two of the World Series because all the media was asking him was about Clemens throwing a bat at Piazza?

MLB has no-one to balme but themselves. Until they take an active and serious role in umpire development we will not get the "best of the best" officials.

They should take a page from the NFL. We saw what happened in the NFL when replacement officials were used. I'm no so certian there is that much of a drastic differrence between the Minor league officials and the MLB officials. The beiggest difference is they hardly ever get a chance.

Pete Booth

I have no knowledge of business relationship between MLB and their umpires. But it has been suggested (elsewhere) that blame for there being no consequences for poor MLB umpire performance is on the collective bargaining agreement that umpires have with MLB. After the fiasco of 1999, I wonder if the umpire union has any real weight in these negotiations these days?

What phone was he on? I'm guessing not the one to the bullpen.

Actually, MLB has dramatically improved their umpire development in the past few years. I can remember a time when there were "career" minor league umpires who clogged up the system & took spots from those trying to climb the ladder. Now, with injuries, in-season vacations & personal days-off, there are many more opportunities for rising AAA umpires to show what they can do in The Show.

The biggest difference (and it may not qualify as "drastic") between MLB and MiLB umpires is in the area of game management. As always, that requires lots of time to gain the necessary experience .

In other words, if MLB thinks using Hernandez will help them increase revenues as they look to expand in Latin America, that's what they will do. Monetizing the brand is the goal, and if sacrificing excellence in umpiring will further that goal, that's what will happen.

Future growth is in Latin America, not in the USA, and that's the audience that's going to be pandered to.

That said, MLB would never assign people who would embarrass them. They think Hernandez is solid enough to be used in the post-season in 87.5% of the last 16 post-seasons.

And yet, they do.

"Hindsight is 50-50." (Pat Dye)

The Erick Gregg days are over.