Foot foul ...Infra-red

[Thunderheads]

I figured I'd post this as a separate thread as it's being discussed on the 'let's play a game' post ....here's the video.

Notice at :32 seconds, Tim McDouchebag says it looks like it hit his left foot ..... YOU CAN'T SEE THAT TIM.... idiot!!

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=19923669

Here's Washington afterwards ...not much to say....

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19923697&topic_id=25589412&c_id=mlb

[mstaylor]

It didn't look like it hit him but the batter didn't sell it either.

[Thunderheads]

It didn't look like it hit him but the batter didn't sell it either.

I'm not saying it hit him, ...but Beltre reacted immediately as if he'd been hit...

[Rich Ives]

It didn't look like it hit him but the batter didn't sell it either.

I thought it looked like it hit him - just brushed the toe.

Beltre started hopping around as soon as he recovered his balance.

I had the sound off so I didn't have to listen to Timmy so I didn't get what that IR thing was supposed to prove.

[zm1283]

It didn't look like it hit him but the batter didn't sell it either.

I thought he sold it quite a bit. He started hopping around.

The Infrared thing is dopey, but it supposedly showed a heat signature on the tip of Beltre's shoe. It looks like it grazed his toe, but this is not some awful miss like some of the media and the fans on Twitter are claiming. There are people on Twitter talking about how horrible Layne's zone was (He was about 95%), and how he is horrible because he didn't see the ball hit the foot.

The way the ball came off the bat, it didn't appear to have hit anything.

[noumpere]

Wouldnt the ball and ground have lit up even if the ball didnt hit the shoe and with the resolution it might look like the shoe got hit?

Im glad in a way that there was some controversey over this because it seems to be the one call that we get more **** over no matter how we call it and no metter whther we got it right (based on discussions with players after the fact, to the extent you can believe them). Some here have said that the rule should be changed so the ball just remains live in this situation and we play on because its the batters own fault he hit the ball off his foot. Im beginning to agree with them.

[Lindsay]

There was a conclusive change of direction upon the ball hitting the foot at 1:15. This is while the ball is still traveling downward, before contacting the ground.

[Mr Umpire]

Wouldnt the ball and ground have lit up even if the ball didnt hit the shoe and with the resolution it might look like the shoe got hit?

Im glad in a way that there was some controversey over this because it seems to be the one call that we get more **** over no matter how we call it and no metter whther we got it right (based on discussions with players after the fact, to the extent you can believe them). Some here have said that the rule should be changed so the ball just remains live in this situation and we play on because its the batters own fault he hit the ball off his foot. Im beginning to agree with them.

But those kind of arguments can be made for so much. Such as, ground ball hit to F4 who decides to set up in the baseline. He gets rewarded if the runner goes around and is out by 1 step or if the runner runs into him. It was F4's fault for setting up in the baseline wasn't it? So, I don't agree with that way of thinking. The rule states it to be a foul ball so I think it should be ruled that way IF the umpire believes it was. If the rule changes, I will change with it.

This play is not conclusive by technology. I would have only gone by Beltre's reaction and thought it was foul only based on that since it wasn't definitive in real time or anything else. But, Layne saw it differently and oh well.

[Mr Umpire]

To add, I believe this is the type of situation Leyland talked about in the ALCS where the umpires don't get together if anyone has a foul ball on this. So, I don't understand the huddle. Either another umpire has a foul ball or they don't and Layne tells Washington that. That is what I have told coaches and they stop there.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I had a redass coach come out on me and insist that a foul hit his batter's foot. I swear to Christ, I look down at the ground with the guy and point out a full depression in the dirt where the ball hit and it's completely outside the batter's box. I said, "So you want me to call him out because his foot's out of the box on contact? I can't do that Frank, because I don't have that ball hitting him."

Second-quickest coach departure ever.

[mstaylor]

On six slowmo replays and infrared it may have possibly hit him, how the devil is the umpire supposed to make that call in real time? I'm not convinced it did hit him, it might have but I don't see it definitively. I was wrong, he did sell it right off the bat but it is not a gross miss. The talking heads said a batter can't react that fast if it didn't actually hit him. That's BS, batters do it all the time. Shall we go back and dig out the video of Jeter or the college catcher that got tossed when neither got hit?

[Thunderheads]

On six slowmo replays and infrared it may have possibly hit him, how the devil is the umpire supposed to make that call in real time? I'm not convinced it did hit him, it might have but I don't see it definitively. I was wrong, he did sell it right off the bat but it is not a gross miss. The talking heads said a batter can't react that fast if it didn't actually hit him. That's BS, batters do it all the time. Shall we go back and dig out the video of Jeter or the college catcher that got tossed when neither got hit?

:clap:

Thank you sir ........and might I add .....those TALKING HEADS are doofus McGee and doofus McGumb! :)

[dumbdumb]

I will stay on this page to answer MST's question #31 from topic "Let's play a game". No need to email fox.

I thought you saw this already back on the 12th MST. It was not a matter of "if" they would use it, but "when" they would use it. I just googled "news for umpires" and this appeared on the 12th. Enjoy.

http://sports.nation...-tv-experience/

[mstaylor]

They need to send it back to India then.

[yawetag]

Found a screenshot of the infrared:

[Thunderheads]

Found a screenshot of the infrared:

:Spit_20Laugh: :Spit_20Laugh: :Spit_20Laugh:

[Mr Umpire]

Sad part, this is probably going to be used in so many questionable/undesired calls like this one.

Did a spectator touch the ball, did the ball graze the base before going into foul territory, did the ball touch the runner, or any other cases where the ball grazes or doesn't graze something and the umpire calls something against what the public wanted. Such a crock and designed to incite fans. It has no practical use in any sport IMO.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Found a screenshot of the infrared:

YOU are a funny man!

[yawetag]

It has no practical use in any sport IMO.

The only point these things have is to prove to some unknown entity (the fans, I guess) that instant replay is the answer to all of sports' issues. To expect an umpire to even second-guess himself on a ball that might have barely grazed the foot of a batter is crazy.