What the heck?

[Thunderheads]

[maven]

Maybe the thread title should have been, "Looks like they got it right."

[Thunderheads]

Maybe the thread title should have been, "Looks like they got it right."

explain

[maven]

Well, Jeff, I think they got it right. Hence, that should have been a better thread title.

[noumpere]

I disagree they got it right, assuming we all agree it was fan interference.

 

I would either have R2, R3; or R3 and a run scored.

[Thunderheads]

I disagree they got it right, assuming we all agree it was fan interference.

 

I would either have R2, R3; or R3 and a run scored.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!   OK, I'm not going blind!  I saw it too .... unless of course that portion couldn't be reviewed?  THUS ....my thread title ...."what the heck" ....there's a lot going on here ..... 

[Thunderheads]

Well, Jeff, I think they got it right. Hence, that should have been a better thread title.

well, since you won't elaborate ...noumpere caught what I saw as well, which complicates this entire play, which in turn generated my title .....

[maven]

I don't have spectator INT. I see no touch, and I've got a big monitor at work. Close, but no touch.

[Thunderheads]

I don't have spectator INT. I see no touch, and I've got a big monitor at work. Close, but no touch.

you can see it, at 2:30 ...ball actually goes off the wall, then it's touched ....pretty clear

[stkjock]

I watched the 2:30-2:32 part over and over, to my eye, it hits the corner of the padding, you can see that there is a corner of the green padding sticking out, it does not hit the fan, I don't see the fan's fingers move at all. 

[Thunderheads]

I watched the 2:30-2:32 part over and over, to my eye, it hits the corner of the padding, you can see that there is a corner of the green padding sticking out, it does not hit the fan, I don't see the fan's fingers move at all. 

corner of the padding is behind his fingers and wouldn't have dropped the ball like it did .....his hand didn't move due to the fact that his hand and finger were extended and he was reaching ...  IMHO

[stkjock]

I think the ball caught the part between where the  one pad extended down on the left and the bottom of the pad on the right and kicked it straight down.  think of a billiards table and how the ball can come off a corner

 

Edited September 16, 2015 by stkjock

[Thunderheads]

I think the ball caught the part between where the  one pad extended down on the left and the bottom of the pad on the right and kicked it straight down.  think of a billiards table and how the ball can come off a corner

 

Hhhmmmmmmmm.......... you might be right!!!!! wow!

[stkjock]

like a broken clock..  

[Thunderheads]

I'm retracting my statement ........I don't see fan INT anymore  

[ElkOil]

I agree that they got it right, too.  I didn't see fan contact.  But a procedural question, if I may.  Since there were two calls that could have been disputed, how would they handle it?  Do the coaches have to dispute one at a time, or can the play in its entirety be reviewed both for INT and safe/out?

[Thunderheads]

I agree that they got it right, too.  I didn't see fan contact.  But a procedural question, if I may.  Since there were two calls that could have been disputed, how would they handle it?  Do the coaches have to dispute one at a time, or can the play in its entirety be reviewed both for INT and safe/out?

another reason for my title ........

[grayhawk]

I agree that they got it right, too.  I didn't see fan contact.  But a procedural question, if I may.  Since there were two calls that could have been disputed, how would they handle it?  Do the coaches have to dispute one at a time, or can the play in its entirety be reviewed both for INT and safe/out?

Paging @Gil: Owner - UEFL

[mjr_2013]

I agree that they got it right, too.  I didn't see fan contact.  But a procedural question, if I may.  Since there were two calls that could have been disputed, how would they handle it?  Do the coaches have to dispute one at a time, or can the play in its entirety be reviewed both for INT and safe/out?

What it looked like to me was that they went to replay for both calls at one time... The spectator INT possibility occurred first so they looked at that. When that came back as call stands (no INT), they went to the play at the plate, where it was overturned.

[MooseLoop]

Radio announcer Jon Miller said a few minutes after play resumed that the review umps let stand the no-call of spectator interference in a tone that implied official knowledge.  I agree that the idiot fan did not touch the ball, that it caught the underneath of the pad.

Anyone think running lane interference?  BR running out of the lane in fair territory, ball was catchable, albeit maybe with extraordinary effort since it bounced right at the bag, and arguably F3 (a beat-up Brandon Belt) refrained from diving for it to avoid BR colliding with him. Is RLI reviewable?

[noumpere]

Radio announcer Jon Miller said a few minutes after play resumed that the review umps let stand the no-call of spectator interference in a tone that implied official knowledge.  I agree that the idiot fan did not touch the ball, that it caught the underneath of the pad.

Anyone think running lane interference?  BR running out of the lane in fair territory, ball was catchable, albeit maybe with extraordinary effort since it bounced right at the bag, and arguably F3 (a beat-up Brandon Belt) refrained from diving for it to avoid BR colliding with him. Is RLI reviewable?

It's very hard to tell (at least for me) whether BR is back in the running lane as the ball gets there.  He was out, no doubt, and the right foot seems to be clearly back in, but I can't quite tell about the left.

[Lindsay]

The Giants challenged the call at home plate (overturned), the Reds challenged the boundary call in the outfield (stands).

Notable:

The Replay Official shall review all challenges properly initiated, and shall review the challenged calls in the order in which the calls occurred during the game. If the decision of the Replay Official on an earlier reviewable call renders moot a later reviewable call, the Replay Official shall not review the subsequent call. If a call challenged by a Club is not reviewed by the Replay Official by operation of the foregoing rule, that Manager's Challenge shall be deemed rescinded and the Club shall not be charged with the challenge. (II.G.2.)

To begin, there are definitions:

A Play encompasses one sequence of events. For instance, the play above began when the pitcher threw his pitch and ended when time was called following the safe/out call at home plate.
A Call is an individual event that requires adjudication: In the above play, we have the following calls: (1) Fair/Foul, (2) Interference/No-Call, (3) Safe/Out.

Replay Review: Managers may challenge a call and may request umpires review multiple calls within the same play. The concept of reviewing "all aspects" refers to all aspects of the call (not of the play), for instance, on a Safe/Out call at home plate, Rule 6.01(i) [formerly Rule 7.13] will also be reviewed.

[grayhawk]

Thanks @Gil: Owner - UEFL, that's very helpful.  If a manager challenges two calls in the same play, and the first call is either "stands" or "confirmed" then will they then not review the second call since the manager lost his one challenge for the game?  For example:

The pitch comes in on the hands, and is put into play between the pitcher and catcher.  The plate umpire points it fair, and the BR takes off and is out on a banger at first base.  The offensive manager comes out and challenges two calls:  (1) He believes the pitch hit the batter in the hands, not the know, and (2) that the BR beat the throw to first.  If the replay on the pitch shows that it did hit the knob, will they even review the play at first base?

Edited September 16, 2015 by grayhawk

[Lindsay]

One challenge may be used for multiple calls during the same play, so they would review the safe/out at first base.