West's Upheld Fan Interference Call is Growth Opportunity

[Lindsay]

MLB's problem Wednesday night was not that RF Umpire Joe West ruled Astros batter Jose Altuve out for spectator interference against Red Sox outfielder Mookie Betts, it's that replay couldn't produce ample video evidence with which to review the call with any meaningful level of conclusiveness....

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[beerguy55]

The NFL has the same problem as MLB.  There's no standardization of where cameras need to be placed to be able to have all angles covered, or even how many are required.   The stadiums themselves have no mandate or direction for their own cameras - and they have to foot the bill anyway, not the league - so often it can become dependent on where the networks have placed their cameras for the game in question.

For a multi-billion dollar industry, it's ridiculous to think they're not willing to drop a few hundred grand per year to put cameras at all standard locations in all stadiums to cover angles on the common areas they would be needed.

 

[BT_Blue]

Good point. Especially for a call that was original to the IR rule.

[dumbdumb]

Does football have this problem?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Mike_Ferrin/status/1052730686107312128?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1052730686107312128&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsports.yahoo.com%2Fsecurity-guard-keeping-us-knowing-truth-jose-altuves-home-run-191336836.html

[Richvee]

In MLB's defense, there was a camera that would have had the definitive view, but the security guard put an end to that. 

[andydufresne]

How much longer will it take MLB to figure out that if they're going to add U5 and U6 to games they should put them on the fence, where their value added is considerably greater than on the foul lines 100' closer to the fence than U3 and U1? I'd put them in the alleys, but even at the foul poles would be a lot better than the way they waste them now.

[umpstu]

3 minutes ago, andydufresne said:

How much longer will it take MLB to figure out that if they're going to add U5 and U6 to games they should put them on the fence, where their value added is considerably greater than on the foul lines 100' closer to the fence than U3 and U1? I'd put them in the alleys, but even at the foul poles would be a lot better than the way they waste them now.

Not so sure it's be good for fair/foul calls if they're next to the outfield wall.  No way they see fair foul as good.

[beerguy55]

22 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

Does football have this problem?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Mike_Ferrin/status/1052730686107312128?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1052730686107312128&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsports.yahoo.com%2Fsecurity-guard-keeping-us-knowing-truth-jose-altuves-home-run-191336836.html

Not the problem of non-players obscuring the camera - that's a good one, though I doubt even that would give a definitive angle if the security guy wasn't there - camera needs to be higher.

NFL has a problem on goal line stands where of 22 players on the field 15 of them or on the line and on either side of the ball.  Not all stadiums have enough cameras at the goal line.

 

18 hours ago, umpstu said:

Not so sure it's be good for fair/foul calls if they're next to the outfield wall.  No way they see fair foul as good.

 Why do they need to?  Infield umps make this call properly a very high percentage of the time anyway, and now IR lets those fair/foul balls that land in the outfield to be reviewed.  Besides, if they're at the wall, on the line, it ensures the ball is always in front of them to determine fair/foul, rather than having to turn and see a ball that zips past and lands behind them.  

Seeing catch/trap would be harder, but camera angles for IR are typically sufficient for that, for the handful of times they or the infield umps don't see it right.

They're greatest value would be at the wall - foul/fair always in front of them, better view of fan interference, better view of catch/trap against the wall, and better view of balls hit higher than the foul pole.

 

 

[Gfoley4]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Not the problem of non-players obscuring the camera - that's a good one, though I doubt even that would give a definitive angle if the security guy wasn't there - camera needs to be higher.

NFL has a problem on goal line stands where of 22 players on the field 15 of them or on the line and on either side of the ball.  Not all stadiums have enough cameras at the goal line.

 

 Why do they need to?  Infield umps make this call properly a very high percentage of the time anyway, and now IR lets those fair/foul balls that land in the outfield to be reviewed.  Besides, if they're at the wall, on the line, it ensures the ball is always in front of them to determine fair/foul, rather than having to turn and see a ball that zips past and lands behind them.  

Seeing catch/trap would be harder, but camera angles for IR are typically sufficient for that, for the handful of times they or the infield umps don't see it right.

They're greatest value would be at the wall - foul/fair always in front of them, better view of fan interference, better view of catch/trap against the wall, and better view of balls hit higher than the foul pole.

 

 

I think the major, major downside of this would be that they're so much closer to (drunk) fans for potential physical/verbal assaults throughout the game