Why replay on Dobbs non-HR wasn't necessary
Look to the NFL for the reason.
Why replay on Dobbs non-HR wasn't necessary
Rich Hofmann, Daily News Sports Columnist
The world that orbits around the Phillies is still talking about the call on Friday night, when Greg Dobbs' extra-inning, potential gamewinning bomb against the Red Sox was ruled a foul ball by first base umpire Jim Joyce. The ball was high, so high, that it was higher than the top of the foul pole in rightfield. There has been talk about how long Joyce took to make the call, about how they had to go to replay on a play that close, and how this is a sign of the typical arrogance that baseball umpires have exhibited forever.
Well, no.
My guess is that he didn't go to replay because there is no earthly camera angle that could tell you if the call was right or wrong. Because, you know, there isn't.
The NFL has the same issue with field goals. They do not tend to be controversial plays, and field goals were not reviewable at all until recently. But there was a wacky one a couple of years ago, one that hit the curved base of the upright oddly and bounced back onto the field of play. The officials eventually got it right but, after that, replay was instituted for field goals.
Except in this case, from the NFL rulebook:
Non-reviewable plays include...Field goals that cross above either upright without touching anything.
The reason is simple: there is no way to tell. There is no camera on earth that can pinpoint the location of the ball at the instance it crosses over the upright. (Well, maybe if they had a camera embedded in the upright, pointed skyward -- but, I mean, come on. Even then, I'm not sure you could tell.)
The NFL won't even allow its officials to take a whack at that one on replay because there is no chance the camera can tell you for sure -- which is the standard you need in order to change the call. Baseball's standard is the same, by the way.
Might Joyce have gotten it wrong? Yes, he might have. But replay could not conceivably have offered evidence either way to overturn the call on a ball hit that high over the foul pole. So if that's the case, if there was no possible way to overturn it, there was no reason to go to replay.
It just would have been a waste of time.
While I agree it would have been really impossible to tell even with a replay, I would like to point out one difference between the field goal and foul pole. A football hitting the goal post is almost certainly not going to go between the poles, and there's no way a ref could tell if it would take a crazy bounce and manage to go through the posts. But if a baseball touches the foul pole in any way... it's a homer. That to me is much easier to tell.— Elbarad
I was at this game, in section 108 right next to the foul pole on the foul side. That ball was foul.
Waste of time? It would have taken 5 minutes. How did they know it went directly over the foul pole? The umpires are so far from where the bal went, there is no way they could tell. Whether it would have been overturned or not, it still should have been reviewed.— scars73- Dan, exactly my point. You had a much better view than the umps.— scars73
- Rich, the difference is, when a football hits the upright, it doesnt matter, it still as to either bounce in between the poles to count, or bounce outside for it to be no good. So if you review a field goal, and attempt to question if it would hit the upright, well its a murky situation that is best not to get into. In baseball, its pretty clear, you hit the foul pole, its a homerun. The replay looked like it would have hit the pole were it to extend higher. And while I would agree the evidenece might not have been substainial enough to overturn, it should have been looked at anyway, we are talking the difference between a win and a loss. The umpire did show arrogance not taking a look. I umpire, and while I dont claim to be on par with the major league level, I would always appreciate a 2nd look at close calls, this time he had the option for a 2nd look to make sure he made the right call and turned it down, didnt want to make himself look bad. Poor job by the ump.— Greg S
- The replays were the best evidence to attempt to determine the correct call. That's why replay has been added, to use all the available infomation to try to get the call correct. Waving off the replay on a call that close on a play to decide the game, for heaven's sake, IS just plain arrogance. Sure the ball landed foul. He didn't know if the ball went over the pole fair, that's why he delayed the call, and that's why there is replay. Maybe replay doesn't help, BUT YOU HAVE TO USE IT.— RichNC
- I do not believe that would have been reversed as a home run, but why not review it? In the MLB they are allowed to look at replay for close calls like this. You can't just see that off hand then the ball goes over the top of the foul pole and curves to the right side after it passes the pole in my mind where I was sitting in Section 110.— TruePhillyFan27
- Install a camera at the base of each foul pole, looking straight up. You could easily superimpose a calibrated line grid to show if a ball anywhere near the pole is fair or foul. This is very common technology for other applications. Baseball is just afraid of removing the judgement factor. I agree. Even though the technology is simple, I wouldn't be in favor of it. Umpire's judgements are part of the game; blown calls are part of the game.— GLB
- How on earth would an umpire on the field of play have any idea whether any camera angle would show fair or foul, a call like that should be reviewed, simple as that.— kse
- It really wasn't that close. Ball was about 12-15 feet foul. Think I'm wrong? Ask Dobbs - anyone who has played knows that the batter always knows first. He never even dropped his bat!— Bake McBride
- He's not talking about a football hitting the uprights--he's talking about a FG going right over the top of the upright. If I'm not mistaken, last year in SF, Akers kicked a FG that went right over the right upright post and the officials signaled it was good; the 49ers thought it was no good and had thrown a challenge flag on it. They immediately picked it up when the ref told Mike Nolan that it wasn't reviewable.— eaglebobby1
Comment removed.- Umpires don't want to use replays because they never want to admit that they ever get any call wrong. Ever.— fafafooey
- You can clearly see that there was one gunman and the ball landed on the grassy knoll— G$Money
- here is a tip, take the time to have the proper camera's installed, maybe each team should split the cost with major league baseball. it cant be that expensive and to get the call right is the object. Modern technology would be able to assist the umpire. I do agree with Rich though to the extent the camera angle would have been no help but as somebody also said, how does the umpire know that. More than any other sport the umpires in baseball think they are above being wrong, kinda like David Stern.— sportsfan63
