You make the call - INT or not?

[Umpire in Chief]

OK, this is the last thing I'm going to say about this... and since a picture's worth a thousand words, I submit this picture, which will replace the dictionary definition of the words "mook" and "douchebag".

Now for something completely different....

I got an email from a non umpire friend about the "mook" I already deleted it, but it said something to the effect of:

After seeing that guy 50 million baseball fans in the south, regardless of their team affiliation, clenched their guns and uttered GDYB.

[BrianC14]

Okay guys, I think this is a fun debate, but lets take it back a notch. We can have different views and still have a beer.

I don't mind hearing other's views, Warren - but I refuse to stand for snide, petty and senseless sarcasms that add nothing to the discussion, simply because I've chosen to make an opinion and stand my ground.

[yawetag]

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

I can find you hundreds of videos of fans that can't judge where a ball's going to land.

[Thunderheads]

The snide remarks come from more than one, and it's usually fairly common if you look around.

Regardless, ...I'm with Brian on this one all the way. You can't tell what would have happened if Cruz hadn't been interfered with, which he was, pictures prove it, the fans were over the wall preventing him from getting a 'chance' at this ball.

You've got replay, why not use it.

That's all Brian's contention has been since post (1).

[UmpTTS43]

Pathetic. Useless.

Is that all you have?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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?

Yo Kettle, this is Pot.

In the many debates we have had in the past, you have shown that you refuse to budge on an issue. While that is your perogotive, it doesn't make it right. Instead of agreeing to disagree, your view seems to be that there is only one answer to a situation.

If you think I was out of line, so be it.

Appologies to the site and Warren if it was misinterpreted.

[HokieUmp]

I can find you hundreds of videos of fans that can't judge where a ball's going to land.

I see still pictures all the time - football and baseball - where the ball is in the player's possession (hand or glove, depending on the game), and yet his eyes are still trained elsewhere. It's all in the timing of the picture.

"Follow the ball all the way to the glove/bat/whatever." Yeah, sure.

[yawetag]

I see still pictures all the time - football and baseball - where the ball is in the player's possession (hand or glove, depending on the game), and yet his eyes are still trained elsewhere. It's all in the timing of the picture.

Yes. Watch video of your eyes on a pitch. My point was that I've seen dozens of videos of fans getting pelted by foul balls -- many who had their hands in completely different places than the ball actually landed. To use the locations of a fan's arms to determine where the ball was going to land is faulty.

[BrianC14]

Yes. Watch video of your eyes on a pitch. My point was that I've seen dozens of videos of fans getting pelted by foul balls -- many who had their hands in completely different places than the ball actually landed. To use the locations of a fan's arms to determine where the ball was going to land is faulty.

And this is where you've missed the point.

I pointed out the fans and where they are looking to illustrate not where the ball might end up - but rather where the ball is in relation to the fact that they're already reaching out over into the field of play - and making contact with - a defensive player. The ball has not yet arrived - anywhere - e.g., it's still falling.

It's right after this point that the ball hits the top of the fence - not "in the stands" as described by Reynolds. This latter point has been consistently ignored here.

The play should have been reviewed.