share
email
font size
options
 
Monday, June 15, 2009
Why replay on Dobbs non-HR wasn't necessary

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.

Posted by Rich Hofmann @ 2:22 PM  Permalink | 71 comments
71
Comments   
Posted 05:13 PM, 06/16/2009
Delaware Jim
Make that "not that expensive." Poor proofreading.
Posted 05:12 PM, 06/16/2009
Delaware Jim
GoBirds77 is right: the foul poles should extend to the very highest point in the stadium. Why not? After all if they are all that expensive, and could settle some disputes such as this one.
Posted 10:55 AM, 06/16/2009
deldog64
I agree that the ball was most probably foul however several issues occur to me about the situation. Time? please how much time is wasted in baseball? Stepping out of the box, throwing to first, Pitchers warming up? A few minutes to replay an event should be no big deal. Why have it if your not going to use it to make sure you got it right? Another thing I think the manager should have the right to demand they review a play that is reviewable. They are in effect challenging the umpires decision are they not? The manager is challenging them to take another look in slow motion from different angles to determine if the video evidence is sufficent to either back up their call or overturn it. Your right sometimes its not sufficent so the call would stand just as in football but could we use the technology to at least look and see if the video can help? What is the sense of having the technology if your not going to use it? And what is the sense if those who made the call can refuse to use it simply because they don't feel like they need to? If the play is reviewable the manager should have one challenge per game to insist they look at the replay.
Posted 09:58 AM, 06/16/2009
Your Majesty
If the NFL refs could miss the Pittsburgh-Detroit OT coin flip, the MLB umps could miss a fly ball over the foul pole 400 feet away. Not that Selig would think of such things.
Posted 09:52 AM, 06/16/2009
abnrgr
The job of the umpire is to save face. The job of the umpiring crew is to protect the other members of the crew. Getting the play correct is secondary. They do a good job but getting the play right is not their main concern.
Posted 08:38 AM, 06/16/2009
Dave Clemens
This is an interesting discussion that we wouldn't even be having if the umps had reviewed the play. Good reason to do so. That said, I think the most conclusive evidence was Dobbs's reaction. If he feels like he's been robbed of a game-winning three-run homer, he's gonna say something.
Posted 08:01 AM, 06/16/2009
jsprosonh
First of all baseball umpires are the worst officials in any major sport. Second you could take 2 of them off the field and it wouldn't make any difference in the way the game is called.Third you talk about integrity how about when they get shown up they retaliate against the player or team. There was no reason for those arrogant jerks not to review that home run call but on the other hand they would probally be like football refs who can't even get the replay's right after watching it 10 times and also their the only one's who see that way.
Posted 07:27 AM, 06/16/2009
DR Heller
He knew it was a foul ball. So lets get back to winning some games.............at home.
Posted 11:04 PM, 06/15/2009
dlauver1
I wasn't at the foul pole...or the game....I din't even see it on tv. Here is the not simple solution. A laser on the fair pole with the embedded camera pointing up. End of debate. On the other hand all judgment calls even out eventually...i.e...Ruiz misses the tag and the Ump misses the call. Better yet when we have the technology with sensors we can get rid of all umps...weeeeee!
Posted 11:02 PM, 06/15/2009
KMG
I think it was foul, too, but why not at least look? That's why you have replay. If the replay was inconclusive then stick with the umpire's call.
Posted 10:48 PM, 06/15/2009
drfireman
As Ricky Bottalico pointed out on the postgame show, the replay clearly showed the ball was foul. Don't look at the ball, don't look at the pole, look at all the people sitting directly underneath. When the ball passes overhead, the get less excited, not more.
Posted 10:23 PM, 06/15/2009
bodybaggame
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.
Posted 10:09 PM, 06/15/2009
jbcanoe
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!!!!
Posted 09:23 PM, 06/15/2009
GoBirds77
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.
Posted 08:35 PM, 06/15/2009
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.
Posted 08:34 PM, 06/15/2009
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.
Posted 08:24 PM, 06/15/2009
brinkmang
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.
Posted 07:14 PM, 06/15/2009
Ags8th63
Oddly enough, here in Boston, the NESN didn't even show the replay, or did their announcers talk about it.
Posted 06:45 PM, 06/15/2009
FMWarner
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.)
Posted 05:50 PM, 06/15/2009
phillyroni
I was at that game in section 205 and the ball hit by dobbs was unfortunatly FOUL,, I wish that it was not.
Posted 05:49 PM, 06/15/2009
oboeman
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.
Posted 05:45 PM, 06/15/2009
Phillymike77
Should have looked at it, would have been the end of it there.
Posted 05:41 PM, 06/15/2009
John621
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.
Posted 05:34 PM, 06/15/2009
mdcasino
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.
Posted 05:34 PM, 06/15/2009
TBear
To my man 'G$Money'.....Absolutely NO FREAKIN' WAY man!!! (I made a clean getaway.)
Posted 05:10 PM, 06/15/2009
drumminge6
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.
Posted 05:09 PM, 06/15/2009
PhillyTheKid
Junethe4th - Nice post - idiot.
Posted 05:06 PM, 06/15/2009
fman727
This article was a waste of time. Instant Replay is used for what? REPLAYS!!!!! Boston Sucks!
Posted 05:05 PM, 06/15/2009
PhillyTheKid
Rich - I disagree with you here - COMPLETELY. First of all, comparing the foul ball to a field goal is like comparing apples and oranges, though I understand your desire to go that route. Maybe it's time to insert officials down the lines in baseball, i.e., right smack in the middle of the fair pole area, like hockey, ONLY much more accurately placed...Don't tell me it can't be done either... Oh, wait, how about this to knock your socks off? Because I'm sure nobody wants to deal with taller FAIR poles, a laser/light beam that extends from the top of the pole to the top of the stadium, if not higher...It could be rigged so that when the ball crosses the plane of the beam (a FAIR ball), a siren goes off signifying a HR... In football, the referees stand beneath the goal posts and do, in fact, have the view to which you refer and dismiss...Oh, and by the way? Why the HELL can't they install cameras in the tops of the goal posts (or the FAIR poles, for that matter)??? They can put a camera in the goalie's head; in the ump's head; the catcher's head; the flower beds down the lines; Rich, it is 2009. The telephone still freaks me out...AND poker is now played by 50 million people a day BECAUSE of the camera that shows our hole cards on TV - so don't tell me that SOMETHING can't be done to rectify this! PK PS - Do I think this one loss WILL hurt our season? Probably not; HOWEVER, that it COULD makes your conclusion unacceptable to those of us who play, coach, officiate, watch and analyze sports with the integrity of the game on the line every day.
Posted 04:55 PM, 06/15/2009
junethe4th
Give it a rest! Game's over. Phils lost. You are all starting to sound like football fans, complaining about every perceived incorrect call.
Posted 04:52 PM, 06/15/2009
republicrat
The ump had the best view. He was standing on the foul line. He saw where the ball was when it went past the foul pole. It's not where it landed that counts, but where it left the field of play... No need to review if you saw what you saw...
Posted 04:51 PM, 06/15/2009
TheReck82
No rich. THIS article was a waste of time.
Posted 04:47 PM, 06/15/2009
EndTheDrought
i was sitting up high... fair ball... no doubt
Comment removed.
Posted 04:39 PM, 06/15/2009
BJG83
The key difference between a FG in football and a homerun in baseball, that is not even considered in this post is that the refs are standing directly beneath each upright to determine if the football goes through the uprights, whereas the umpire is only standing on/near the line. The bottom line is, it would've depended on which camera angles the umpire was able to review, so there's a chance it would've helped and there's a chance it wouldn't have helped.
Posted 04:38 PM, 06/15/2009
jphil
I am kinda confused here..we are in the 21st century right? Isn't there enough technology to extend the foul pole higher on the review screen and see if the ball passed on the left or right of it, or if it would have hit the pole? Pretty simple task right? The play should have been looked at. With the game on the line, it was too close for that ump to be as arrogant as he was and just shrug it off.
Posted 04:36 PM, 06/15/2009
JPMaine
Frame by Frame on my DVR shows the ball dissapearing behind the foul pole on the way down. I am no engineer but based on the camera angle I believe that this fact confirmed the ball was fair.
Posted 04:32 PM, 06/15/2009
jpelle36
If they can not review a replay when asked than end the use of replay.
Comment removed.
Posted 04:28 PM, 06/15/2009
awallack
They need taller foul poles. Perhaps ones that can extend vertically like a telescope.
Posted 04:25 PM, 06/15/2009
libertyof76
Yes a camera straight up WOULD tell you, as long as the camera is oriented right.
Posted 04:16 PM, 06/15/2009
phillysportsnut
watched the game on tv. dobbs didn't argue and the fans in outfield didn't seem excited .must of been foul.
Posted 04:16 PM, 06/15/2009
xrajux
You're a waste of time!!!!
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Posted 04:01 PM, 06/15/2009
inquisitor
Andy Musser would have called it a homer!
Posted 04:01 PM, 06/15/2009
spikescars
The Phillies should look into an electronic beam system above the foul pole to dedect in and out of bounds. Then set it up as a ground rule in CBP and forget the MLB policy on reviews.
Posted 03:58 PM, 06/15/2009
o_man
The networks use technology to "paint" a yellow first down line in football, the putting line in golf, and at one time, a glowing puck for hockey. MLB can surely use technology to draw a yellow line up from the foul pole to review fair/foul calls. Sounds simple...except this is the MLB.
Posted 03:57 PM, 06/15/2009
billym
It was obvious by the reaction by both Dobbs and the phans in the stands that it was foul. Replay in that instance is a total waste of time since the ball was too high and there was no good angle to use for a reasonable decision. The ump would need to see 'clear and convincing evidence' and that wasn't going to happen. Get over it.
Posted 03:50 PM, 06/15/2009
psuflyers
Rich, was Jim Joyce wearing a helmet with a heads-up display showing him every single camera angle of the disputed call to know that there was no definitive angle? I didn't notice him having instant access to that information when he arrogantly told Charlie that he's been doing this a long time and that he knew it was foul. While I will be the first to agree that the camera angle would have made it nearly impossible to overturn any call either way, there is no way that any of the umps knew that on the field at the time. The technology is available. Use it.
Posted 03:48 PM, 06/15/2009
rich hofmann
Fixed: Friday night, not Saturday. Thanks.
Posted 03:38 PM, 06/15/2009
tkohl
Reviewing the call would have been less a waste of time then reading this article. On a slow sports day earn your paycheck and report on the minors, or at least something worth reading, thank you rich for wasting my time.
Posted 03:35 PM, 06/15/2009
Gary Varsho
It isn't anyone decision about what is a waste of time. Its not a waste of time to make sure the call is correct. For all that ump knew, the replay could have shown it to be definite one way or another (even though it didn't), but it was arrogant to not even check. Dan in Holmesberg is anti-Phillies, don't believe a word he says.
Posted 03:32 PM, 06/15/2009
tgray83
In football, the field goal call is anticipated, and referees are positioned directly under the posts to make the call. The referees are best suited to make the call. In baseball, the umpire does not know the hit is coming and is positioned more than 200 feet away. Your comparison is not very good. If the call was reviewed, and the original call stood on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to overturn it, the result of the game would have had more legitimacy.
Posted 03:24 PM, 06/15/2009
Greg S
eaglebobby, you are correct, in football the rule is that if it goes above the goal post but is in line with it (i.e. if it hit the imaginary line that goes above the posts) its good. however they dont allow you to review it, because once you have more scrutiny of this rule it doesnt make sense. when more often than not, a ball hitting the upright clangs out, why would a football that hits the imaginary line be automatically good? the nfl is in a no win situation. in baseball however, its doesnt matter where it bounces. rich is right it probably wasnt a home run, but you cant compare to field goals. the easy solution for baseball is to just install some sort of sensor or laser pointer at the top of the pole. this way you know for sure.
Posted 03:24 PM, 06/15/2009
Captain
2 things. First the game was Friday night. But secondly and more importantly who decides what's a waste of time. This is why replay was put in. He didn't have the nads to go to replay b/c if it showed he was wrong, he would have had to call a walkoff homer after a delay of 10 minutes via replay. And as I side note I was in section 424 which is slightly to the third base side of home plate so when looking at home plate my vantage point was directly on the first base line and about the top of the foul poul high. And I completely disagree with the guy who said it was foul while apparently looking straight up. When I got home and saw the replay it still looked fair, but by less than I thought live. Live it looked like a high, slow fade that went over on the inside of the foul poul. But it didn't count, Kendrick stinks, Phils lose. What can you do?
Posted 03:22 PM, 06/15/2009
sportsfan63
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.
Posted 03:16 PM, 06/15/2009
G$Money
You can clearly see that there was one gunman and the ball landed on the grassy knoll
Posted 03:09 PM, 06/15/2009
fafafooey
Umpires don't want to use replays because they never want to admit that they ever get any call wrong. Ever.
Comment removed.
Posted 03:05 PM, 06/15/2009
eaglebobby1
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.
Posted 03:00 PM, 06/15/2009
Bake McBride
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!
Posted 02:58 PM, 06/15/2009
kse
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.
Posted 02:57 PM, 06/15/2009
GLB
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.
Posted 02:56 PM, 06/15/2009
TruePhillyFan27
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.
Posted 02:43 PM, 06/15/2009
RichNC
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.
Posted 02:43 PM, 06/15/2009
Greg S
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.
Posted 02:40 PM, 06/15/2009
scars73
Dan, exactly my point. You had a much better view than the umps.
Posted 02:38 PM, 06/15/2009
scars73
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.
Posted 02:37 PM, 06/15/2009
Dan in Holmesburg
I was at this game, in section 108 right next to the foul pole on the foul side. That ball was foul.
Posted 02:33 PM, 06/15/2009
Elbarad
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.
About Rich Hofmann
Rich Hofmann arrived at the Daily News in 1980 for a job whose status was officially designated as "full-time, temporary." A senior at Penn at the time, he was hired to fill in on the copy desk during a staff illness. The notion of him covering the Eagles or being a columnist did not exist in anyone's imagination. It was supposed to be six weeks and out, but he never left. It is only one of the reasons why so many people have concerns about him as a potential house guest. Rich has blogged the postseasons of the Flyers and Eagles.

You can now follow The Idle Rich on Twitter.
Advertise Here