If it hit the wall wouldn’t it leave a mark or scuff on the ball? Maybe they should have examined the ball for any useful evidence.
It looks to me like it did clip the upper frame of the panel the glove displaces, but I sure wouldn't bet my life on it. I think it was handled correctly. That said, is there a play that better illustrates the "game of inches" cliche?
The "they" in this case was perfectly satisfied with the call as it was made and moved on. It's only us crazies left.If it hit the wall wouldn’t it leave a mark or scuff on the ball? Maybe they should have examined the ball for any useful evidence.
You said "you have" like I was the one that tweeted it. To be clear--we won, I don't really care. I'm simply providing what people are talking about.You have an interesting definition of 100%. Umps handled this one correctly IMO.
edit: added to whom I was replying
This is my biggest forum pet peeve---just because we're discussing it, it doesn't mean we're "dwelling" on it.Sorry - it's a catch and we should stop dwelling on it.
This interesting to think about. I said in the game thread I'm convinced it hit the wall but I had no expectations they'd overturn it nor am I upset that they didn't. If the call went the other way, though, given the tv replays, I'm with you, I bet it get's overturned from no catch to catch, and then I'd be furious.The fun question is, had they called it not a catch on the field would they have reversed it on replay? From what I saw during the telecast I'm betting they would have reversed it and called it a catch. I'm firmly in the "not sure" camp now after believing 100% it was a catch.
I'd like to make a motion that this play be henceforth known as Schrodinger's Catch.This marks the first observed instance of Schrodinger's Cat(ch)
OKay, I think it hit the wall first. Call stands though and handled well by MLB. I’m really glad it didn’t matter.
I don't think his glove would make the panel bounce around like that.
From this view, I see the ball hit the wall and ricochet into his glove. I don't think it's 100% definitive, but it sure looks like a hit.
The moon does look bigger to me when it's on the horizon, but that's because I'm afraid of the moon.Like, if you're afraid of spiders, they may look bigger to you than they would to someone who isn't. Or like the moon when it's on the horizon...
The last series that was this obviously-fun for a neutral observer is probably the 2016 WS. I mean, I stopped and marveled at the Astros like a half dozen times last night - this play, the Bregman play in foul territory, etc - before catching myself and remembering that I'm supposed to hate them this week.As a neutral observer, I watched the catch and replay, then told my wife "I hope the best team wins because this series is becoming really interesting to watch."
Add Bregman's barehanded play to the list. High level of ball being played here.
Oh, and it's easier to watch when you have no skin in the game.
I've thoroughly analyzed the audio using state-of-the-art techniques and there are actually 2 distinct "clanks" which are so closely timed as to be imperceptible by the naked ear in real time. This strongly supports the "2 ball theory" which is gaining a lot of traction online.
Fortunately, we do not root for the Yankees - who have heavily relied upon blown calls to "win" in the post season. Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the Boston Red Sox. They win Championships DESPITE adverse calls, not BECAUSE of them!
Audio should be part of the review. They should analyze acoustic impact sounds. Why not?It’s all about the sound. His glove hitting the wall certainly did not make it, and I doubt any ball that has a padded glove between it makes a clear smash either. Unless he has webbing and part of the ball kind of protruded from the back of his glove and hit the wall directly, that was not a catch.
But... but... they took out the grassy knoll from CF years ago!Are you all 100% sure there wasn't a 2nd ball fired at the panel from a grassy knoll? If it were the same shade of grey-black of the panel we wouldn't necessarily be able to see it...
Right, I mean, best case - he's dwelling on us all dwelling on it. He's meta-dwelling.This is my biggest forum pet peeve---just because we're discussing it, it doesn't mean we're "dwelling" on it.
Well, for one thing replays usually take far too long as it is. Even if you had one team devoted to finding the most compelling video angles and analyzing them and a separate one scrutinizing the audio plus a person ready to sprint out and retrieve the ball for forensic analysis, but how long would you think it would take to coordinate these teams and weigh the resulting evidence to reach a conclusion? 15 minutes? 20?Audio should be part of the review. They should analyze acoustic impact sounds. Why not?
Because reliably distinguishing the kinds of sounds various materials make when striking various other materials at various velocities and angles as filtered through audio transducers and processors of varying quality is not a simple matter, and I'm pretty sure it's not something umpires are trained to do. Are you asking MLB to employ a trained forensic audio specialist and keep her in NYC for the handful of calls that would hinge on her expertise in a given year?Audio should be part of the review. They should analyze acoustic impact sounds. Why not?
I got a guyAre you asking MLB to employ a trained forensic audio specialist and keep her in NYC for the handful of calls that would hinge on her expertise in a given year?
I mean, there's a limit.
That would all be true if you needed separate teams to retrieve and synchronize audio and video, which you don’t. And if I had proposed doing forensics on the ball, which I hadn’t.Well, for one thing replays usually take far too long as it is. Even if you had one team devoted to finding the most compelling video angles and analyzing them and a separate one scrutinizing the audio plus a person ready to sprint out and retrieve the ball for forensic analysis, but how long would you think it would take to coordinate these teams and weigh the resulting evidence to reach a conclusion? 15 minutes? 20?
Indeed there’s a limit.Because reliably distinguishing the kinds of sounds various materials make when striking various other materials at various velocities and angles as filtered through audio transducers and processors of varying quality is not a simple matter, and I'm pretty sure it's not something umpires are trained to do. Are you asking MLB to employ a trained forensic audio specialist and keep her in NYC for the handful of calls that would hinge on her expertise in a given year?
I mean, there's a limit.
So if someone proposed video replay, would people post scenes from CSI when they just say ‘enhance’ and suddenly an image is clear?I got a guy
I'm looking for the point of this post.That would all be true if you needed separate teams to retrieve and synchronize audio and video, which you don’t. And if I had proposed doing forensics on the ball, which I hadn’t.
There would be times when audio was useless, and so be it.
But how are the videos we use acquired? A guy with a camera following the play. If only cameras could be equipped with some sort of audio recording device. Maybe one with a geometry designed to record sounds from far away. Like a catenary macrophone machine. Or a ‘parabolic mic’, to coin a phrase. I mean, it would be super hard to get a microphone onto a camera and actually have it point at the same place that the camera does, but I bet it could be done with the right teams in place.
Indeed there’s a limit.
i suppose it would be a technological feat to display audio information in a visual medium that a lay person can interpret, but maybe it’s possible.
How hard do you think it is to identify, for example, a ball hitting a glove or a wall... you know, the thing we all do hundreds of times every time we watch a game?
Look, I’m not even saying it would have helped in this situation. Maybe it wouldn’t be so useful, but I’m not sure that ‘the technology is beyond us’ and ‘the interpretation is beyond us’ are the right answers.
So if someone proposed video replay, would people post scenes from CSI when they just say ‘enhance’ and suddenly an image is clear?
Because it’s an analogous situation.
But in this case it's not a ball hitting a glove vs. a ball hitting a wall. It's a ball hitting a wall vs. a glove with a ball inside it hitting a wall (nobody's denying that something hit the wall; the question is what). The surface materials of the ball and the glove are not that different, so you're down to differences in hardness/elasticity and in the surface area that the impact is diffused over, as well as some difference in momentum due to the ball's impact being absorbed by the glove. I don't doubt these will show up as differences in the impact sound, but once you count in response non-linearities in the ambient microphones, reverberation, background noise, and most of all processing for broadcast (limiting can play weird tricks on the spectral content of audio signals, especially sharp transients like impact noises), you reach a point where the difference may not be obvious (or may be deceptively obvious -- i.e., you could get something that sounds subjectively like ball-on-wall but is actually ball-in-glove-on-wall). Or maybe it is obvious, and this is an easy call for a trained person. But you'd need a trained person to know that.How hard do you think it is to identify, for example, a ball hitting a glove or a wall....
Enhance!I'm looking for the point of this post.
Wait one minute....
Still nothing there guys, sorry.
I’m not even saying it would have helped in this situation. Maybe it wouldn’t be so useful, but I’m not sure that ‘the technology is beyond us’ and ‘the interpretation is beyond us’ are the right answers.
Well, some sounds would be distinct and some wouldn’t. But I’m not talking about having the ump identify the acoustic pattern of the sound. I’m talking about the sync between video and audio. If there’s an audio spike at a time when the ball is visibly not in the glove, that would be perhaps as meaningful as ‘a ball hitting a wall makes that particular sound’.But in this case it's not a ball hitting a glove vs. a ball hitting a wall. It's a ball hitting a wall vs. a glove with a ball inside it hitting a wall (nobody's denying that something hit the wall; the question is what). The surface materials of the ball and the glove are not that different, so you're down to differences in hardness/elasticity and in the surface area that the impact is diffused over, as well as some difference in momentum due to the ball's impact being absorbed by the glove. I don't doubt these will show up as differences in the impact sound, but once you count in response non-linearities in the ambient microphones, reverberation, background noise, and most of all processing for broadcast (limiting can play weird tricks on the spectral content of audio signals, especially sharp transients like impact noises), you reach a point where the difference may not be obvious (or may be deceptively obvious -- i.e., you could get something that sounds subjectively like ball-on-wall but is actually ball-in-glove-on-wall). Or maybe it is obvious, and this is an easy call for a trained person. But you'd need a trained person to know that.
I thought they said on the telecast that it was a "crew chief review", not a challenge by Houston. If Hinch asked for a challenge when West was already going to have it reviewed, it'd be silly to count it against the Astros.Can we also discuss why Houston asked for the replay and not charged a challenge. Am I missing something.