Jump to content

You make the call - INT or not?


BrianC14
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4905 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

I agree. While I am not a fan of IR, they should have used it on this just to shut the critics up. During live play, I questioned if it was fan interference. But, after the replay, I agreed that it was a HR. But, it took replay to convince. So, I am still wondering what he saw to be convincing considering angle and distance.

However, he did get it correct IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rich, take your own advice - see with your own eyes, not your heart.

Z6UzBhQg.jpg

Now tell us: where's the ball? And what's the reason for Cruz' glove to be bent over.

Good for you - you've watched it "20 times" , slo-mo, from different angles.

Reynolds saw things in real time - ONCE. And watching it in real time, it's the mother of all bangers, with so much happening all at once.

Thanks for your cut & paste of the rule - but it's pretty clear in this pic that Cruz isn't reaching into the stands - but the fans are indeed reaching into LBT. And again - where's the ball? It sure isn't in the stands at this point.

And finally - the only contention here is that a review should have been made to make sure. That's the whole point.

Go one more frame in the video and you'll see the ball disappeard behind the fence.

The ball is beyond the fence.

It's out of play.

Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go one more frame in the video and you'll see the ball disappeard behind the fence.

The ball is beyond the fence.

It's out of play.

Deal with it.

LOL. You crack me up, you really do.

"Deal with it". Wow, such a compelling argument! Gosh, I'm totally convinced now! :)

Fact: the ball hit the top of the wall.

It's not out of play at the point where the fan is hitting his glove.

Do you know the meaning of the word "obtuse"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich: the ball is over the wall, ....wow ....compelling!:) It doesn't mean that Cruz didn't have a chance

FACT: They are over the wall. The pictures show that Cruz couldn't get to the ball because of the fans, hense, the pic of his mitt being bent over. The ball hit about 8-10" behind the top of the wall, ...Cruz's glove never had a chance to get to the ball because of the fans ........and there inlies the issue....

Go review it with the tools you have to make sure ....

I'm in 100% agreement w/ Brian on this one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this picture from the article that was posted yesterday under "umpire news" on this site.......

http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/10/after-seeing-replay-umpires-ce.html

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/20/was-robinson-canos-homer-a-case-of-fan-interference/

Edited by Thunderheads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree IR should have been used just to end critique, I do not think it was fan INT. The reason is based on the timing of it all. Once the ball went beyond the fence, Cruz reaches over it at his own risk. It's obvious the fans were on his side of the fence. It is also obvious that the ball was beyond the front of the fence while the contact occurred. Once it went on their side, no INT.

It is very close with the timing and when the contact occurred vs. when the ball left the field of play. I don't think there is conclusive evidence of what happened first so I am giving the benefit to it being a HR. It would have to be conclusive to award an out. And, I don't think any of the still pictures are conclusive b/c one shows the ball hitting the top of the wall out of the field of play but doesn't conclusively show the contact occurring while the ball is still in the field of play.

Not to mention, Cruz was way off on his judgment of where the ball was as far as I can tell and didn't have a chance to catch it. But who knows about that part due to the contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's another one of those years where contorversary makes life tough on us amateur umpires. I've been asked about this play a few times at work and have given the same thoughts I've stated above. I actually pulled out a rule book and read 3.16 to somebody including the approved interpretation and actually changed somebody's mind. I doubt I can change any of you minds, but here it goes.

3.16

When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.

No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side

of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference.

Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.

I'll absolutely see this is a potential interference situation. The fans are definately reaching over the wall, and the one clearly seemed to me to be grabbing at the fielders glove.

But in my opinion, the ball was not catchable therefore the interferrence is ignored because the prescribed penalty would still be a 4 run HR.

Would I have had a problem had Reynolds said he wanted a second look at it, no. But in my opinion it wasn't necessary.

I do agree with Brian that there wouldn't have been much controversary had there been a replay, but I just cant see how we would have gotten to that point with Reynolds being confident and Washington not requesting one.

To me the key phrase is "the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference." If the umpire judged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last time and I'm done with this.

The ball hit the top of the wall. Note how wide the wall is - clearly seen in the pic that Thunderhead posted (great shot there). Reynolds contends that the ball was "in the stands" - it was not - it hit the top of the wall and bounced right up into the fan's rib cage - the mook wearing the NY pinstripe jersey. And it got there because Cruz was prevented from reaching it , as clearly shown in the photos.

Mr. Umpire mentions the timing of things... and that's a important point.... the timing of everything that happened there - as the ball arrives, as the fans' hands stretch out over the fence and into the field of play, and making contact with Cruz' glove - which, by the way, is clearly not reaching into the stands (into DBT).

Now, all of those things are happening right at the same time - and in real time, all those things take place in what - 0.25 seconds? 0.5 seconds? In other words, the three key elements of the play all take place in a darned short period of time, meaning that at the very least, Reynolds had a lot to deal with in a split second, so why NOT take a minute to make sure by reviewing it?

The fact is, we'll never know if the ball was catchable if Cruz had been allowed to complete his attempt of it. As you watch the video, the ball sails just clear of his glove, - which at that point is being touched/pushed downward by the fans. So maybe he wouldnt' have caught it - but given the fans' pushing against it, we'll just never know.

One last thing - look at this video

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101019&content_id=15724452&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

and look at 1:33 to 1:36 - it's Reynolds walking in from RF... does this look like a man with a lot of confidence?

And I still have to wonder what Reynolds was doing at the moment the ball arrived at the wall... was he still moving or was he set, and what was his angle? He says the ball flew into the stands - the replay says otherwise - it clearly hit the top of the wall and bounced up into that fan's shirt.

Like the man said, not reviewing it is what has brought more controversy.

Edited by BrianC14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you may be able to slip it in under "douchebag" also :violin::rollinglaugh:

From Urban Dictionary:

douchebag

Someone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and asshole, however not yet reached f*cker or motherf*cker. Not to be confused with douche.*

* a word to describe an individual who has shown himself to be very brainless in one way or another, thus comparing them to the cleansing product for vaginas.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IT DOESN'T MATTER - THE BALL'S NOT THERE - IT'S OVER THE FENCE.

It doesn't matter if it's 3" or 30' over - if it's over there cannot be fan interference.

You're just a pigheaded as I.

Yo, pighead - if the ball's over the fence in that picture, then what are the douchebags reaching for? An autograph?

And one last time: the ball hit the top of the fence - it did not fly into the stands until it bounced off the concrete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo, pighead - if the ball's over the fence in that picture, then what are the douchebags reaching for? An autograph?

And one last time: the ball hit the top of the fence - it did not fly into the stands until it bounced off the concrete.

That picture is prior to the ball leaving. Once Reynolds determined where the ball exited the field, I'm sure he determined that the fans actions had no bearing on the play.

As to why IR was not used, I can only speculate that no other umpire had any other additional information to question the validity of the original call. That with the fact that Washington didn't ask for Reynolds to get help means that there was no reason for IR.

That is in stark contrast to the HR that was reviewed. You could tell that other umpires had additional information on the original call, hence the IR.

You guys want to bit*h and moan about a call that was called correctly? Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That picture is prior to the ball leaving. Once Reynolds determined where the ball exited the field, I'm sure he determined that the fans actions had no bearing on the play.

As to why IR was not used, I can only speculate that no other umpire had any other additional information to question the validity of the original call. That with the fact that Washington didn't ask for Reynolds to get help means that there was no reason for IR.

That is in stark contrast to the HR that was reviewed. You could tell that other umpires had additional information on the original call, hence the IR.

You guys want to bit*h and moan about a call that was called correctly? Give me a break.

That's exactly the reverse of the reason to use IR.

If there were 2 or 3 other sets of eyes on the Cano hit, and if they can provide additional information that would support Reynolds' claim - so why bother to review it?

On the other hand, if they can't provide additional information, then that becomes the best argument for having another look with the video.

Reynolds was wrong when he said the ball was "in the stands". It wasn't. The video proves him wrong; the ball clearly lands on the top of the fence, and then bounces upward.

Who's to say that what's happening in the above pic didn't prevent Cruz from possibly getting to the ball (since it did hit the top of the fence, there exists the possibility that he might have had a play on it)- but that will never be known because of the actions of the fans who pushed his glove away.

On the Berkman "home run", Reynolds got that one wrong as well. And - surpise! - video overturned it.

They should have looked at the video on the Cano hit.

Edited by BrianC14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the reverse of the reason to use IR.

If there were 2 or 3 other sets of eyes on the Cano hit, and if they can provide additional information that would support Reynolds' claim - so why bother to review it?

On the other hand, if they can't provide additional information, then that becomes the best argument for having another look with the video.

Reynolds was wrong when he said the ball was "in the stands". It wasn't. The video proves him wrong; the ball clearly lands on the top of the fence, and then bounces upward.

Who's to say that what's happening in the above pic didn't prevent Cruz from possibly getting to the ball (since it did hit the top of the fence, there exists the possibility that he might have had a play on it)- but that will never be known because of the actions of the fans who pushed his glove away.

On the Berkman "home run", Reynolds got that one wrong as well. And - surpise! - video overturned it.

They should have looked at the video on the Cano hit.

You know what? You are absolutely right, as always. Please talk to MLB and see if there is a position for you. God knows we need someone like you who can clean up the fiascos, stream line the game and implement a system in order to get all of the calls right. I, like you, believe that even if the call is right, we should have IR to verify our call. I honestly can't believe that this game can survive any longer unless you are at the forefront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? You are absolutely right, as always. Please talk to MLB and see if there is a position for you. God knows we need someone like you who can clean up the fiascos, stream line the game and implement a system in order to get all of the calls right. I, like you, believe that even if the call is right, we should have IR to verify our call. I honestly can't believe that this game can survive any longer unless you are at the forefront.

Pathetic. Useless.

Is that all you have?

But thanks so much for the condescending, petty personal attack - it adds so much to the discussion.

Edited by BrianC14
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...