Jump to content

You make the call - INT or not?

BrianC14

By BrianC14
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 5810 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

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

No INT. The ball gets out on its own with out any help at all and it appears Cruz's glove went over the "yellow line" into the stands.

Who's hands are where? Note the hand pushing Cruz' glove away... and look at the shadows on the yellow line... the fans are reaching over.

What gets me though is that they didn't even bother to review this? Remember Rich Garcia's "No INT" call on a Jeter HR -- he was crying after he saw the replay of that one; you'd think they'd at least take a look - and if it doesn't appear to be INT, then award the home run. But to refuse to look at it? Why bother having it at all?

Z6UzBhQg.jpg

Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and touches a live ball. On any interference, the ball is dead."

Even the fans who caught the ball said they "reached over" and caught it. (they contradict themselves in this article)

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

Edited by BrianC14
jnazz

jnazz

Posted
Posted

Exactly --- TAKE A LOOK!!! Then there's no doubt and you don't have every sports radio show in America taking shots at the umpires again.

But imagine if it was reviewed and reversed. RFU has 2 overturned in the same inning.

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Exactly --- TAKE A LOOK!!! Then there's no doubt and you don't have every sports radio show in America taking shots at the umpires again.

But imagine if it was reviewed and reversed. RFU has 2 overturned in the same inning.

And yet they looked at the replay of Berkman's HR.... :question1: And for the life of me, I thought that even the replay showed that it was foul...

Edited by BrianC14
BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No INT. The ball gets out on its own with out any help at all and it appears Cruz's glove went over the "yellow line" into the stands.

BTW, that's not a "yellow line" of any significance - it's the top of a yellow advertising sign for W.B. Mason - there's no yellow line on either side of the sign ... see the pic below and the pic that I posted above. (No, I don't know who these folks are, but this was the best pic I could find that shows that yellow sign).

clients_yankeestadium_june2008b1.jpg?w=7

Umpire in Chief

Umpire in Chief

Posted
Posted (edited)

Remember Rich Garcia's "No INT" call on a Jeter HR

NO!!!!

I'm an O's fan and like the team still havent gotten over that. 1996 was the last time the O's have seen the post season.

Edited by Umpire in Chief
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted (edited)

Who's hands are where? Note the hand pushing Cruz' glove away... and look at the shadows on the yellow line... the fans are reaching over.

What gets me though is that they didn't even bother to review this? Remember Rich Garcia's "No INT" call on a Jeter HR -- he was crying after he saw the replay of that one; you'd think they'd at least take a look - and if it doesn't appear to be INT, then award the home run. But to refuse to look at it? Why bother having it at all?

Even the fans who caught the ball said they "reached over" and caught it. (they contradict themselves in this article)

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

You guys, ...come on, are you serious?? Brian, +1000 on this post here! :D

I know in regular motion it's hard to tell, but the replays (and the picture Brian just posted) is clear that the fans didn't allow Cruz's glove to continue after the ball....and the fans are clearly reaching over the wall. And that fat F&*K on the left is CLEARLY reaching for Cruz's mitt, ...this picture shows his first motion towards it. F&^*ng idiot!

And, in the link Brian posted above....Davis sees the replay after the game and does NOT have interference?????????????????? :question1: They're clearly over the wall, the ball hit's the cement only inches away from Cruz's glove

Anyhow ....this link here w/ Nelson says what Brian just said also ....you HAVE review available, ....Washington I'm sure asked for it, ...why not use it?

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12862817&topic_id=14872518&c_id=mlb

If they DID review it, ...it would have probably been overturned.....but maybe not after reading GD's comment ............. :bang:

Edited by Thunderheads
Umpire in Chief

Umpire in Chief

Posted
Posted

Brian's image is good, but I captured one I think is more telling, though it is hard to determine depth.

From this picture, it appears the ball is out. But you can also see there was definate contact between a fan and the fielder. But I don't think there was an opportunity to catch it.

The image with the ball on the top of the wall is after it bounces of someone's forearm which the best I can tell was out of play.

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Brian's image is good, but I captured one I think is more telling, though it is hard to determine depth.

From this picture, it appears the ball is out. But you can also see there was definate contact between a fan and the fielder. But I don't think there was an opportunity to catch it.

The image with the ball on the top of the wall is after it bounces of someone's forearm which the best I can tell was out of play.

Doesn't matter where the ball might be - there isn't going to be a catch of it because the fans are interfering with his attempt of it.

All of that uncertainty points to one thing: REVIEW THE PLAY!

Mind you, I'm no fan of IR, but it's been made the law of the land, and yet a six man crew doesn't bother to review what could have been a very critical score.

Did you see later in the game - that foul pop along the left field line? It looked like a catch would be imminent by the Yankees F7 - but a fan reaches up and knocks the ball away. One of the (four! :) ) announcers invoked the name "Steve Bartman" right after that... But that ball was clearly in the seats - the fan didn't reach out over into LBT on that one.

But this HR by Cano - you've GOT to review that. And yet somehow they convinced themselves it was out, with no INT? :D

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in their locker room after the game, and hear what they said after seeing the replay of it.

Has anyone seen a replay that shows Reynolds' position, and if he might have been moving as this happens? From the replays I've seen on MLB.com, there's no way that ball is "in the stands" because they clearly show the ball hitting the top of the wall, and it's at that instant that one fan is swatting Cruz' glove away.

Poor choice in not reviewing this. The bad news is (I think) that it'll be pointed to as a reason to mandate even more reviews.

Edited by BrianC14
BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

For Deity's sake folks - the ball was beyond the fence - it is impossible to interfere with a ball beyond the fence.

It's not just a matter of interfering with the ball.

Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or

goes on the playing field, and (1) touches a live ball or (2) touches a player and

hinders an attempt to make a play on a live ball.

You might want to take another look at the still pics posted previously. That ball is not "beyond the fence", and look at Cruz' glove - what's happening there? Now the ball certainly ended up in the stands, but it hit the top of the wall just prior to that. And the picture points out clearly that the fans are reaching over, and touching Cruz' glove. That fits the definition of spectator INT.

The contention here is that the crew should have at least reviewed the play to make sure they had Reynolds' call correct.

Edited by BrianC14
Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

It's not just a matter of interfering with the ball.

You might want to take another look at the still pics posted previously. That ball is not "beyond the fence", and look at Cruz' glove - what's happening there? Now the ball certainly ended up in the stands, but it hit the top of the wall just prior to that. And the picture points out clearly that the fans are reaching over, and touching Cruz' glove. That fits the definition of spectator INT.

The contention here is that the crew should have at least reviewed the play to make sure they had Reynolds' call correct.

I watched the replay about 20 times - every time TBS showed it.

See with your head, not your heart.

The ball dropped just behind the wall. Not only that, it dropped BEFORE the spectator's hit Cruz's glove.

As it was out of play it was NOT a live ball.

Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and (1) touches a live ball or (2) touches a player and hinders an attempt to make a play on a live ball.

No live ball. No interference.

ALSO:

MLBUM 6.17 No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope, or into a stand to catch a ball. Fielders do so at their 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 batter should be called out for the spectator's interference.

The ball ws NOT on the playing field side of the fence.

NO INTERFERENCE!

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by BrianC14
Astrosdawg07

Astrosdawg07

Posted
Posted

BTW, that's not a "yellow line" of any significance - it's the top of a yellow advertising sign for W.B. Mason - there's no yellow line on either side of the sign ... see the pic below and the pic that I posted above. (No, I don't know who these folks are, but this was the best pic I could find that shows that yellow sign).

clients_yankeestadium_june2008b1.jpg?w=7

That's why I put it in parenthesis, there should be a line yellow line there! And if there was one there, the ball was over!

Umpire in Chief

Umpire in Chief

Posted
Posted

I will concede that he was interfered with by the fan, before the ball cleared. I think it shows in the pic I posted. But in practice, maybe not by the letter of the rule, you can't interfere with a uncatchable ball.

In today's Dallas Morning News Jim Reynolds says he had a good angle, and Washington never asked him to get help. As we know Washington can be a firey character at times.

But a moment later they did go to review on a foul which was initially ruled a HR which was Reynolds's call too.

Could it have been reviewed, absolutely. Like Brian I am not a fan of replay, but have come to accept it's current role. In this situation I don't see the need to replay. I absolutely agree it was a close call, and I'm glad I'm not the one having to make it, but if the umpire is confident of his call and the manager doesn't ask for it, why review it.

Another umpire isn't going to ask for a review. What would it be like if Gerry Davis acting as Chief said "I want to review it" that would be throwing Reynolds under the bus. Even if his call were confirmed, how much confidence do you think Gerardi or Washington would have had in him with the appearance that Davis doesn't have full confidence in him. Whether Davis would actually feel that way or not it is the same as saying, "Jim, I think you missed that one."

It's just like what we encounter at the amateur level. Potential pulled foot situation at first on a close play. You make your call. The manager doesn't agree. You feel confident in your call, and the manager doesn't ask you if you can get help. So why would you?

BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Warren, the managers/players are not privvy to what is said during an umpire's conference, so there's no way they would know if Davis forced the issue or not. Being a consummate pro, I would expect that Davis would take Reynolds at his word that he (Reynolds) was confident in his judgment. But for crying out loud, he has Garcia's experience to fall back on - and today he has replay review available to him, so why not just say, "Maybe it's worth another look?" I'm not saying Reynolds' call is incorrect - but if MLB puts the replay advantage in your hands, why not just use it and remove any doubt?

One of the replays I saw at MLB.com showed Reynolds walking back in toward the diamond... and the look on his face was a classic " deer in the headlights" look. I think that their decision not to use the IR on this play has caused far more issues than if they had simply opted to check the play.

And remember, Rich Garcia was also "sure" of his call. Until he saw the video. And then we know the rest of his story from that point on.

I'd still like to see a video that includes Reynolds' position and whether or not he was moving at the time this happened - that might tell a story in itself.

Edited by BrianC14
BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That's why I put it in parenthesis, there should be a line yellow line there! And if there was one there, the ball was over!

Agreed - most of that fence is just high enough to the point where this problem can easily occur again. The place is brand new for crying out loud - you'd think that they'd have learned from problems at other stadiums that have fences this high that allow players to get up close to the top... I guess not.

There really should be a yellow line from pole to pole in that stadium, given the height of the fence.

And who knows - maybe it was that yellow that induced Reynolds to think for a moment that it was a yellow line demarking LBT and DBT? If it had hit on the blue area just to the fans' right - who knows how that call might have gone?

1dumbquestion

1dumbquestion

Posted
Posted

Who's hands are where? Note the hand pushing Cruz' glove away... and look at the shadows on the yellow line... the fans are reaching over.

What gets me though is that they didn't even bother to review this? Remember Rich Garcia's "No INT" call on a Jeter HR -- he was crying after he saw the replay of that one; you'd think they'd at least take a look - and if it doesn't appear to be INT, then award the home run. But to refuse to look at it? Why bother having it at all?

Z6UzBhQg.jpg

Even the fans who caught the ball said they "reached over" and caught it. (they contradict themselves in this article)

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

great pic Brian. does anyone have a pic a second later when the fat dude is actually pulling on the glove or after Cruz points up and the typical NY fans are giving him a typical NY welcome?

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

great pic Brian. does anyone have a pic a second later when the fat dude is actually pulling on the glove or after Cruz points up and the typical NY fans are giving him a typical NY welcome?

Just watch the video and keep your eye on that fat loser .... :)

1dumbquestion

1dumbquestion

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just watch the video and keep your eye on that fat loser .... :)

yeah, I saw it many times... I've just got some friends who are NY fans and I'd love to send them a pic or two.

Edited by 1dumbquestion
BrianC14

BrianC14

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Here's a very good commentary on the non-review.

http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12864791&topic_id=14872518&c_id=tex

The 'money' quote is where this guy talks about creating more controversy by not reviewing the play. That's all I've been saying all along - the umpires were given the tools to get a play reviewed, and this is a play that is in the "reviewable" category... they should have looked at it again.

Edited by BrianC14
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...