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.
disagree on this one.... waste of time???? what, 5 minutes??? the point of the replay is for this exact scenario. USE IT! if the call is upheld then no harm done, but if its overturned it changes everything. no such thing as a waste of time in baseball where "time" doesn't matter anyway.— drumminge6- To my man 'G$Money'.....Absolutely NO FREAKIN' WAY man!!! (I made a clean getaway.)— TBear
- Disagree ! 1st of all, why spend all that $$$ on the setting up a room at the park with other people in another room somewhere ready to review a play. Why was the new rule set up ? The technology and man power are a waste of $$$. Umpires and their union are against it. Fair or foul, the play should have ben reviewed. The game was on the line.— mdcasino
Rich, that's exactly the situation that brought the review in the first place, disputed homeruns. It would not have killed that arrogant a**hole to take 5 minutes to look at it, then conclude he was right.— John621
Comment removed.- The replay showed the ball hitting the wall behind the pole at a spot marked by a large W on a sign. The replay was very clear on that point. So you could stand on home plate and see if the W is in fair territory. Any 10th grader in geometry could have figured that out. I think umps and refs who don't try to "get the call right" ARE arrogant. It may have cost us the game.— oboeman
- I was at that game in section 205 and the ball hit by dobbs was unfortunatly FOUL,, I wish that it was not.— phillyroni
- The replay would have been useless. The point Hofman is making is that when the ball is above the top of the foul pole, there is no point of reference for its flight path. You have to visually imagine the pole extending up into the air and make your best guess. You would have had to do the same thing with the video. That method cannot be conclusive, and a replay needs to be conclusive to change a call. This is why replay would have made no difference. It has nothing to do with arrogance on the part of the umps (even if they ARE arrogant.)— FMWarner
- Oddly enough, here in Boston, the NESN didn't even show the replay, or did their announcers talk about it.— Ags8th63
- I disagree. They have the technology to review plays like this. You obviously didn't see the "Greatest Game Ever Played" on ESPN. Gifford's first down that was disputed for years was finally put to rest by modern technology, which clearly showed the spot of the ball was correct. They could use technology similar to the strike zone box they display on TV to question a pitch. They could extend the plane of the foul pole and get it right. As you say no camera would be able to determine the angle but this scenario would work.— brinkmang
- We was jobbed. Chalie should have played the game under protest. Don't we still have that option? Although I can remember only 1 instance where a ruling was overturned and the play reversed. That was the famous Pine Tar incident with Georgie Brett, Billy Martin and the Yanks against KC.— brinkmang
- We was jobbed. Chalie should have played the game under protest. Don't we still have that option? Although I can remember only 1 instance where a ruling was overturned and the play reversed. That was the famous Pine Tar incident with Georgie Brett, Billy Martin and the Yanks against KC.— brinkmang
- All those who said they were at the game sitting near the foul pole and claim that Dobbs home run was foul need glasses just like the umpire. I was out there, and that ball was fair. Even if it went over the foul pole the slightest bit, it is fair. The foul pole should be higher in the stadium, I don't know why it isn't. At the vet, it went all the way to the top of the stadium.— GoBirds77
- I say get rid of all cameras and replays for baseball-- let the umps do their job- good or bad- that is baseball- and that is why it is such a wonderful game- to watch and play. you could put in many cameras and use computers to define the strike zone- you could have a full suite of rules about what can be reviewed and when etc- but then you would have another kind of game. As it stands dobbs won it but we got a bad call- in my view! PLAY BALL!!!!— jbcanoe
- rich, use your brains. the call was obviously close. to not use replay in that instance is the height of arrogance. in football, any close call in the last 2 minutes is usually reviewed, regardless. why wouldn't you review a call in baseball with the game on the line? because he didn't want to be proved wrong. he didn't want to take the chance of having to overrule it and starting a firestorm. as for dobbs, he knew it was out and was watching to see if it was fair or foul. charlie should have laid into the ump or the crew chief and gotten thrown out the process. I would have embarrassed the ump as much as possible to show the crowd that he had no guts. And no brains.— bodybaggame
