Other Not softball related but curious....

[bradblah]

I'm sure you guys have a good understanding of the MLB rulebook also..
I'm watching the Phillies game right now and there was just a deep fly ball to right field. The ball was not a homerun, but it was interfered with by a fan as a Marlin was trying to make the catch. The umpires didn't call interference on the field but decided to review the replay to see if it was a homerun or not.

When they came back from replay, they called the batter out for interference and sent the base runner back to 1st base.

As far as I'm aware, in the MLB rules, replay is available only to judge if a ball is a home run or not. Did the MLB umps blow this call? Do you guys have a good understanding of this rule?

 

[irishmafia]

I'm sure you guys have a good understanding of the MLB rulebook also..
I'm watching the Phillies game right now and there was just a deep fly ball to right field. The ball was not a homerun, but it was interfered with by a fan as a Marlin was trying to make the catch. The umpires didn't call interference on the field but decided to review the replay to see if it was a homerun or not.

When they came back from replay, they called the batter out for interference and sent the base runner back to 1st base.

As far as I'm aware, in the MLB rules, replay is available only to judge if a ball is a home run or not. Did the MLB umps blow this call? Do you guys have a good understanding of this rule?

The call is 100% correct. How they reached that decision may be questionable and will be reviewed as the game was played under protest. However, this is what happens when you use replay in sports and restrict it. Trust me, if the umpires came out and rules that it wasn't a HR and it was INT, but they were not allowed to rule on it because the rules don't allow it, a Florida fan would be on here bitching in the other direction.

What is equally embarassing to baseball are the TH whining about the umpires assuming the OF would have made the catch. What a bunch of loads!

 

[bradblah]

The call is 100% correct. How they reached that decision may be questionable and will be reviewed as the game was played under protest. However, this is what happens when you use replay in sports and restrict it. Trust me, if the umpires came out and rules that it wasn't a HR and it was INT, but they were not allowed to rule on it because the rules don't allow it, a Florida fan would be on here bitching in the other direction.

What is equally embarassing to baseball are the TH whining about the umpires assuming the OF would have made the catch. What a bunch of loads!

I understood that the call was correct on the field..it most definitely was interference...I just didn't think they could use replay to change the call on the field which was originally a double.

And I wasn't bitching about the call, more so just curious about the actual rule lol...I totally agree it was INT and Pence should have been out. I just know there are rules in football where you're not allowed to change some things in a play based on a replay ... I wondered if baseball was the same.

 

[Gabonayez]

I say "do-over".

In my opinion (which is extremely invaluable), if stuff like this happens, and you cant determine (due to third party outside interference) what the outcome of the play would have been... (catch, dropped ball, Jose Canseco-type HR)..... Everything should be reset and the pitch in question should be thrown again.

When Randy Johnson hit that bird while pitching, did they call it a ball? or did they rule a dead-ball no pitch?

 

[BretMan]

From a press release back when MLB first introduced replay reviews:

Instant replay will apply only to home run calls- whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed. (Source: MLB.com)

Of course, this is the "quick and dirty" explanation, not the entire written guideline. The replay review guidelines aren't in the rule book and, other than that brief explanation, I can't find the "official" guidelines. There is some discussion on another umpiring forum that unless the ball was actually a home run, or could have been a home run if not interfered with, replay may not be used to reverse it.

So they're probably operating under a league guideline that the general public isn't privy to. We don't know exactly how this has been presented to their umpires and what they've been told with respect to a play like this where it wasn't a home run or a potential home run.

Since the Phillies protested and lost the game that should force their hand. They will have to rule on the protest. That will either establish a precedent for using replay on a call like this or confirm that their intent is for it to be used on such a play. Had they won, then the protest would have been moot and we probably never would have known what the league intended.

And, yes, the Randy Johnson pitch was correctly ruled a dead ball (should have been a "dead bird"!) and a "no pitch".

 

[irishmafia]

And I wasn't bitching about the call, more so just curious about the actual rule lol..

You are right, you were not bitching, but you know it is happening somewhere, probably down Paddy's since the hurling was over by 1.

 

[mikeo9001]

The funny party is that I believe the Phills are the ones that asked for the review as they thought it was a homer.

 

[irishmafia]

The funny party is that I believe the Phills are the ones that asked for the review as they thought it was a homer.

According to the newspaper, Florida's manager had first crack at the review arguing it was INT and apparently Joe West agreed.

And again, the idiots of the press continue to point out that the umpire cannot presume the ball will be caught. As usual, the ignorance is abundant among the sports media.

 

[bradblah]

You are right, you were not bitching, but you know it is happening somewhere, probably down Paddy's since the hurling was over by 1.

Haha it's most definitely happening somewhere ... my FB feed blew up about it after it happened.

I like to try and understand the rules as best I can and I think this is going to educate a lot of people to the intricacies of the baseball review rule that we weren't aware of before.

 

[irishmafia]

Haha it's most definitely happening somewhere ... my FB feed blew up about it after it happened.

I like to try and understand the rules as best I can and I think this is going to educate a lot of people to the intricacies of the baseball review rule that we weren't aware of before.

Well, here is probably the most infamous spectator interference non-call which was admitted terrible and probably the unravelling of Richie Garcia's career which was outstanding, except for this one widely publicized boner.

 

[Gabonayez]

And again, the idiots of the press continue to point out that the umpire cannot presume the ball will be caught. As usual, the ignorance is abundant among the sports media.

Lol. Please excuse my ignorance, but why is this idiotic? How can the umpires assume the ball would have been caught? Go easy on me.... Lol

 

[BretMan]

Lol. Please excuse my ignorance, but why is this idiotic? How can the umpires assume the ball would have been caught? Go easy on me.... Lol

The whole premise of calling an out on a fly ball where a spectator interferes with a fielder is that the interference may have prevented a catch. The rule prescribes the penalty, not the umpire's "assumption".

 

[irishmafia]

Lol. Please excuse my ignorance, but why is this idiotic? How can the umpires assume the ball would have been caught? Go easy on me.... Lol

That is my point. They cannot and it isn't part of the rule, never has been. Yet the TH are questioning how an umpire can rule a player out by assuming the ball will be caught.

And like the TH working the NCAA championships or World Cup or any other softball on TV, they are allegedly experienced and knowledgeable of the game, running at the mouth and passing on wrong information.

 

[BretMan]

Official Baseball Rules:

3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

So it's not just a blanket "assumption". The possibility of a catch having been made is a judgment, which means taking in all of the elements of the play and and determining the most probable outcome had the fielder not been interfered with. Generally, the fielder is going to get every benefit of the doubt. If the fielder's glove and the ball were in the same vicinity when the interference happened, most likely an umpire is going to call an out.

Sure, the ball could always hit the glove and pop out. But we don't know if that would have happened because the spectator robbed the fielder of his chance to catch it...benefit of the doubt to the fielder.

 

[pjordan4477]

I'm sure you guys have a good understanding of the MLB rulebook also..
I'm watching the Phillies game right now and there was just a deep fly ball to right field. The ball was not a homerun, but it was interfered with by a fan as a Marlin was trying to make the catch. The umpires didn't call interference on the field but decided to review the replay to see if it was a homerun or not.

When they came back from replay, they called the batter out for interference and sent the base runner back to 1st base.

As far as I'm aware, in the MLB rules, replay is available only to judge if a ball is a home run or not. Did the MLB umps blow this call? Do you guys have a good understanding of this rule?

I think you are confusing reply in the NFL with replay in the MLB. NFL reply can not be used to call penilties.

There are no penilties in MLB. There are rulings. The ruling for that play is an out. The Umps checked for a homer, but it's not an "enough evidence to over turn the call" situation as in the NFL. It's, make the correct call, period.