Mookieference Call in ALCS Game 4

You make the call!

  • It was clearly a homerun

  • It's clearly unclear, we may never know

  • It was clearly interference

  • I am a red Sox fan and I cannot think clearly about this

  • I am an Astros fan and I hate you all


Results are only viewable after voting.

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,015
Los Angeles
Splitting this out and adding a poll. You make the call. Not the call based on overturning or upholding the West call - what do you think actually happened?

Feel free to bring Zapruder quality film, high end audio and any other forensic evidence you can muster,



Because when a fan touches a ball in the field of play, it’s a dead ball.




There is no video or photo showing that Betts’ glove crossed the invisible, extended plane of the outfield fence. All the video and photo evidence shows that it did not. It also shows that two or three fans reached into the field of play to try and catch the ball.



True.



There was no “the latter” on this play. Mookie, his glove, the ball and the fans’ hands were all in the field of play. Watch it again. Betts’s body was one to two feet away from the wall at the moment of contact between glove, hands and ball. After the ball deflects his body continues to move then bangs into the wall. His arm is extended upwards at a slight angle. Unless his left arm is four feet long, his glove was still in the field of play. It’s even more obvious if you look at the fans. Three of them are reaching into the field.
Correct. It was either an out or a HR. No chance for a third option based on the fan interference rules.

This is a useless discussion going on around a first inning play. Houston built their ballpark so the fans could be right on the field. You do that and you run the risk of a fan interference call that might come back to bite you like last night. The teams combined for 12 runs after the out call was made. I know the media (social and otherwise) love a good controversy. This is not a good controversy. Mookie would have caught it easily if the fans weren’t there. The fraction of a millimeter difference between out of play/in play was not close to being clear enough to overturn.

Thank Joe West for making the call on the field. I don’t think the opposite call could have been overturned by review either.
Two real stories here IMO:

1. Joe F'in West had a very difficult big time pressure call in an ALCS game and got it right. Well done/good call Joe.
2. Mookie made a fantastic 5* play (one of two last night) to get to point where only fan interference could "plainly prevent" him from catching the ball.
I've watched it several times, and I have no idea how you're seeing it as so clear-cut. It's very difficult to say exactly how close to the rail the guys directly behind Betts are at the moment the ball hits Mookie's glove (about 2:14 here). They're clearly close, but how close? A variation of a few inches in the answer would be the difference between out and HR. My best clue is the guy to the right of that group directly behind Mookie, in the light grey shirt, who's leaning to his right and grabbing the rail with his left hand. He seems to be leaning almost straight to the side, perhaps very slightly forward. Judging by the position of his body, it looks like his hand is maybe 4-6 inches behind the rail. And the ball appears to be a few inches forward of his hand--more or less right above the rail, in other words.

We'll never know what the true answer is. Probably nobody involved--Mookie or fans--knows for sure what the answer is. Astros fans will naturally feel robbed. Sox fans will naturally feel like the call was fine. On we go.
Maybe, but

Definitely the most compelling look I've seen thus far. Either call could be spun as correct, but we got this one. And frankly we are all pretty certain he was going to catch it anyway whether it was in front of or behind the yellow line. So it feels like the right thing was done.
One thing that I wish the media would tumble to is where the actual plane is. If you look at the right field wall, the entire top of the wall is painted yellow which means that a ball that hits the top of the wall is in play. Contrast this to the Moster, where the shelf above the painted red line is not in play and is a home run. That means that for purposes of defining what constitutes the "playing field side of such fence, railing or rope" within the meaning of the rule's approved comment, the playing field side is the part of the fence that lies outside the plane that extends vertically upward from the inside (that is the part facing the spectators) part of the wall.

When this is understood, I really don't think the call is that debatable in the absence of a more dispositive angle. All the video evidence I've seen suggests it is more likely than not that Mookie's glove at the time of interference was on his side of that plane.

And one final point. The relevant question is where the fan's interfering body part is at the time of the interference, which may or may not be the same as where his body part is at the time he touches the ball. Interference is the act of preventing the catch, which started to occur here with contact with Mookie's glove not with contact with the ball.

Again, a view down the wall would be crucial. Without one, the evidence that exists to me suggests it's more probable than not that Joe West got this one right.

There is another part of the rule that is not really being talked about. The interference must prevent the catch, which means the umpire has to judge that the player was going to catch the ball. I think it's fair to say Mookie might have caught the ball. I'm kind of curious how umpires are taught to judge this. Do you presume the ability to make a spectacular play? Can you take the attributes of the player in question into account? Or do you assume something closer to ordinary effort? Is the rule that a ball that has the trajectory to be a home run should be presumptively judged likely to have made it or do you decide that you should never punish the player from being deprived of the opportunity to make a great player if the spectator violates the stadium rules? I think these are all pretty interesting questions and not obvious.
It appears that the orange guys shirt bottom is touching the rail.
Even if he has trex arms they would still be out past his waist given his slight lean and thus in the field of play.
To me, it seems very clear in that photo that all three fans are reaching across the plane. As others have said, whether Bett’s glove did or didn’t break the plane, (I don’t think it did, before impact,) isn’t relevant.
You must be new here. Welcome to SoSH.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
1,538
Pretty great video/image analysis done by Jeff Sullivan at Fangraphs that lays out the logic of defending the interference call really well: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fan-interference-call-was-probably-good/

Key image:


Key quote:
The point of reference here is the guy in white in the front row. This was taken moments after the ball first came down, but Betts’ left hand has barely moved. Betts’ left arm is almost straight up. He hasn’t yet crashed into the wall. The guy in white is holding the wall with his own left hand. And he’s leaning forward with his upper body, such that his shoulders are over the wall’s top. And now look at the guy’s right arm, outstretched. Even though the wall itself fades away to the left, because of the angle, the guy in white’s arm is reaching toward the camera. It’s reaching to the front and the side of his right shoulder. His hips are almost against the wall. His shoulders appear to be above the wall. His right hand appears to be in front of his shoulder. It’s nothing easy, it’s nothing obvious, and it’s nothing conclusive, but it’s enough for me to lean. It’s enough for me to think the chances Betts was still in play are greater than 50%.
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
9,821
Between here and everywhere.

Guy in the white shirt is using his hand to support himself as he leans over the railing, and his arm is extended forward when he makes contact.

Good call.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,390
Yoknapatawpha County
I missed the bottom of the first, so saw it described as a settled play before seeing the video. It was in the books, so I thought, "ok I can be objective, we got the call going our way already." First couple times I felt it was clearly a HR, but that was just slo-mo from the normal broadcast angle.

Everything else I've seen makes me think West made a great, tough call.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
10,628
I think the Sox got lucky on that one. It was definitely close, but it appears Mookie's glove could have been over the yellow line, making it fair game.

EDIT: Changing my mind a bit after seeing the videos upthread. Still very close, but looking like the correct call.
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
15,730
I think the Sox got lucky on that one. It was definitely close, but it appears Mookie's glove could have been over the yellow line, making it fair game.
Important to note that the "yellow line" extends up from the stadium edge of the wall. The plane that is the thickness of the wall is in play.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,983
Concord, NH
I am obviously a Red Sox fan, so there's going to be some involuntary bias, but I do my absolute best to take emotion out of it and try to run it through my head with the tables reversed.

That was the correct call. From all of the angles I've seen posted here, watching the replay a thousand times and reading everyone's thoughts, it's clear to me that the call is correct.

It's very difficult to discern where an object is in 3d space with 2d pictures. More angles lead to more info which can inform it. There is nothing absolutely conclusive here. If there were, we wouldn't still be talking about it. However, there are no angles that strongly suggest the ball was in the stands, and several that strongly support that the ball was either just in front of, or immediately over the imaginary line above the wall. Any angle that looks like it could be beyond the wall is coming from the home plate-ish area and is so zoomed in as to make it impossible to judge. The LF camera shot was the best angle, and it does appear to me to be inside the lines. The angle that looked like it COULD be the better angle was blocked be a fan leaning over the wall by so much that it just supports the idea that the others were also leaning over the wall.

There are two people who had perfect 3D vantage points. Mookie Betts and Joe West. Both of which reacted immediately. Mookie is obviously biased, but he also perfectly lined that catch up. I have a hard time believing he would intentionally line it up so that his glove were to reach that far behind his head to catch the ball. He was aiming to catch the ball just inside the park and there did not appear to be any late adjustments.

Joe West continued to express that he clearly saw it as interference, and the review team supported his call. I did read an article this morning that tries to fill in the narrative from the NY framing it as if the office simply didn't have enough proof to overturn it, but Joe West's comments (again, an extremely experienced umpire and the only one to have the best look at it and first hand experience of the phone call) said that they couldn't see anything that would suggest the call was wrong, which is a big step away from using the "not conclusive enough" excuse. That's agreement.

The rest doesn't matter, as the rule on the field was called, and there definitely wasn't enough out there to overturn even if they wanted to. But, just for fun, I do believe that Mookie would have caught that ball. I understand it's difficult to swallow if you're one of the many who believe that that's a factor (it's not) and that that would have been one of the greatest, most difficult catches in history. That's actually not true. It would have been an incredible catch, don't get me wrong, but it's not like Mookie was running down there at full speed. He trotted a bit to get into place and had time to get perfectly lined up. Mookie had that play under control from the moment the ball hit the bat. On replay, it looks like the ball was dropping directly in the middle of where his glove would be if it were open. I believe he absolutely would have caught that.

The ruling on the field, I believe, was correct. It was bold, and it was tough, and it was correct. Thank you Joe West. If there's a Hall of Fame for umpires, you're on the first ballot.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,784
The wrong side of the bridge....

Guy in the white shirt is using his hand to support himself as he leans over the railing, and his arm is extended forward when he makes contact.

Good call.
OK, this convinces me. Better angle on white shirt guy than the video I linked to. He does move his hand back toward the wall before the ball's impact, but even at the moment of impact it's clearly not behind the wall, and Mookie's glove appears to be slightly in front of it. Ergo, Mookie's glove is either directly over or (more likely) slightly in front of the wall, ergo, interference is the correct call.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
218
I'm thinking about what must have been going through Joe West's mind. It comes down to this: he must assume that any fan standing in the first row who extends their hands forward has crossed the plane into the field of play. Standing in your seat, you knees probably have, at most, a few inches of room, the wall is maybe 5" thick - if you put your hands out, even bent just at the elbow, you've crossed the plane. So if West sees contact with anyone in the front row, he's looking to see if their hands are out. In this case, they clearly were, so he made the call and just assumed he got it right.

Looking at the videos, I'm compelled by this train of thought. We'll never truly know. However, with this thinking, the guy in blue and the guy in white have crossed the plane with their bodies, and the guy in puke-orange has with his hands. Essentially, as a fan, you gotta just let the ball hit you or lean way back and not use your hands if you don't wanna interfere.
 

pvg44

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
543
Pretty great video/image analysis done by Jeff Sullivan at Fangraphs that lays out the logic of defending the interference call really well: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fan-interference-call-was-probably-good/

Key image:


Key quote:
Right on, here. This was the best camera angle of all of them, and this pic is a lot clearer than the one I posted earlier. The guy in the white shirt is clearly leaning over, but the other two in orange and blue are essentially directly above the yellow. The angle that seems to be the basis of this national nightmare makes it look like he jumped into the crowd but he really didn't. I would've voted that it was interference but tenuous, but after seeing this photo and sequence from the linked article, I think it is clear. Close, but clear. Wrap it up tonight, lads.
 

notmannysfault

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
474
I enjoy the call. I will take the call.

But I think the area in which Mookie was interfered with belongs to those fans. The fact that some "Bartman-esque" fellow was leaning on the yellow is irrelevant.

In short:

The call on the field was, in my opinion, wrong. But that said, it was not conclusively overturn-able (my own word).

BTW, unless I have missed the thread, shouldn't we be pleased to burn Price for 300 pitches tonight in the interest of getting home in one piece?

And should the offense defeat Verlander, which this offense is capable of, so be it.

As an aside, I don't want to see any defensive specialists in there tonight. It's balls out offense or win at home.

Sorry for the aside.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,983
Concord, NH
I'm thinking about what must have been going through Joe West's mind. It comes down to this: he must assume that any fan standing in the first row who extends their hands forward has crossed the plane into the field of play. Standing in your seat, you knees probably have, at most, a few inches of room, the wall is maybe 5" thick - if you put your hands out, even bent just at the elbow, you've crossed the plane. So if West sees contact with anyone in the front row, he's looking to see if their hands are out. In this case, they clearly were, so he made the call and just assumed he got it right.

Looking at the videos, I'm compelled by this train of thought. We'll never truly know. However, with this thinking, the guy in blue and the guy in white have crossed the plane with their bodies, and the guy in puke-orange has with his hands. Essentially, as a fan, you gotta just let the ball hit you or lean way back and not use your hands if you don't wanna interfere.
Why must he assume anything? He was in the correct position and saw it with two eyes. There was no ambiguity in his statement. He stated it was clearly in play.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
17,039
It appears that the guy who got interviewed, in the orange shirt, probably accurately said that *his* hands were not over the field and the *he* didn't hit Betts's glove.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,625
Waltham, MA
It appears that the guy who got interviewed, in the orange shirt, probably accurately said that *his* hands were not over the field and the *he* didn't hit Betts's glove.
He didnt directly hit Mookie’s glove. But his hands collided with blue shirt’s hands, which collided with Mookie’s glove. It was a pile up.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,552
Portland, Maine
I think one factor that helped Joe West make a quick and decisive call was that the interference by the fans was egregious and plain for all to see. Over the wall or not, even in real time it was apparent that Mookie could have made that catch if not for the fans. If it was more ticky tacky or if that was inconclusive on replay, the result might have been different.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
9,983
Concord, NH
Q. What did you see that prompted the initial call of fan interference?
JOE WEST: Well, when he jumped up to reach for the ball, the spectator reached out of the stands and hit him over the playing field and closed his glove.

Q. So the ball had not yet crossed the railing?
JOE WEST: No.

Q. And Betts’ glove had not yet crossed the railing, do you believe?
JOE WEST: No.

Q. Okay. Did the fan —
JOE WEST: Here’s the whole play, here’s the whole play. He hit the ball to right field. He jumped up to try to make a catch. The fan interfered with him over the playing field. That’s why I called spectator interference.

Q. So it’s a clear call in your mind?
JOE WEST: Yes.

Q. Were there already — was there a single call that you saw, that the replay officials saw on replay that confirmed —
JOE WEST: I don’t know what he saw. He just — the replay official said I was right.

Q. Okay.
JOE WEST: That’s all. He said I have nothing that can change it.
https://deadspin.com/joe-west-tries-to-explain-that-fan-interference-call-1829835433

The deadspin article goes on to, sort of correctly, say that the officials didn't say that he was "right" they say there's nothing to overturn it. But, the deadspin article, IMO, puts more emphasis on that language than I believe is warranted. If the review office is being impartial, that's what they would say. To me, that's actual agreement. This is the call on the field, here's the replays. I don't see anything that says it's wrong. Call confirmed. That's it.

So, since there's only one person on the planet that was there, properly in position, an official with literally more experience than anyone who has ever come before him (a record 42 years), who is literally paid to make this decision as a profession at the highest possible level for decades, and there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary, then there's little reason to question it.

Edit: man, having some real trouble wording that last paragraph, lol
 
Last edited:

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,637
AZ
I don't think it's clear, but I agree with Sullivan. It is more probable than not based on the evidence available, such as it is, that the contact with Mookie's glove first occurred over the field of play. Beyond that I don't really know what to say.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
6,692
0-3 to 4-3

Guy in the white shirt is using his hand to support himself as he leans over the railing, and his arm is extended forward when he makes contact.

Good call.
Follow Mookie's glove. It doesn't seem to move at all from the point of impact, but his body continues to move toward the wall. By the time he's at 180 degrees with his glove he's still not touching the wall. So, I don't think his glove was beyond the wall at impact.
 

Sin Duda

lurker
Jul 16, 2005
72
(B)Austin Texas
The question isn't "Why did Joe West rob the Astros of a 2-run homer"? but "Why did homer Astros fan rob Mookie of one of the greatest postseason catches of all time?"
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
12,216
Seattle, WA
I enjoy the call. I will take the call.

But I think the area in which Mookie was interfered with belongs to those fans. The fact that some "Bartman-esque" fellow was leaning on the yellow is irrelevant....
What does that even mean? The stands belong to the fan. Anything above the entire thickness of the wall belongs to the fielder (again, the line/field ends at the back surface of the wall).

Fenway has a red line on top of the Monster.



A fan that leans far enough over the ledge/wall junction to touch the ball has entered the field of play while a ball hitting the ledge is out of the field of play and is a home run (assuming Benintendi can't jump high enough to snatch it before it hits the ledge, which, after last night, I now believe he could do.)

So going back to the pix:



This one shows white shirt's left hand (actually both of them plus his belly and head) is in the field of play. Is Betts' glove at this moment beyond the line? No. So you need to advance the film to see where Orange Shirt's right hand (the one that closed the glove) is relative to White Shirt's right hand. The best shot is at 47 seconds on the replay. His hand (with the watch) is slightly back of White Shirt and directly over Gray Shirt's and both are clearly above the top of the wall.

Looking at it in real time, it's even more clear to me, since no one is on their knees in the seat rather than standing in that 1' space between the seat and the wall.

The fans did nothing wrong, but a rule is a rule.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,488
If only there was a camera placed parallel to the wall to conclusively capture video of catches like this ...

Oh, wait, there is a camera - only it's placement is so poor that a security guard leaning over can block the view. GJGE, Astros.
 

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,015
Los Angeles
mookie.jpg

I voted in the clearly unclear camp, but this picture could change my mind. The glove, ball, and three fans' hans all seem atop or on the field side of the wall.
 

Monbo Jumbo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
24,580
the other Athens
Snap245.gif


Note hand coming in from right, presumably white shirt guy discussed above. We know he is in the field of play.

Note hand CASTING shadow on Mookie's arm. We can get a sense from the shadow how far in FRONT of Mookie's arm he is. Could he be in field of play?

There are at least three spectators, plus Mookie, all 'there' as the ball arrives.

It's possible from this pic, orange shirt guy touched the ball.

The extent Mookie is reaching back into the crowd is not clear. It's not an obvious case of a player making a play 'in the stands.' We all know those when we see them. This is the classic 'he's up there to rob the home run.' We know those too when we see them.

The shear number of spectators potentially interfering in the immediate vicinity of the yellow absolutely calls for interference here.

The shadow is the piece of evidence that puts it over the top for me. That guy is in front of Mookie.
 
Last edited:

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,552
Portland, Maine
Can somebody post that photo from Yankee Stadium from a 2004 game with the Red Sox? The one where the guy looks like a total clown going for a foul ball just like these guys? I've been image searching for it for years and it used to be on SOSH. I think it was in the NY Times. Thanks.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
17,039
Manny, Moe and Jack all have their eyes closed, so their recall of time-zero is suspect.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,637
AZ
To me, blue shirt guy is just as important as white shirt. His thigh is against the wall or close to it and he's clearly leaning forward. His entire forearm looks to be over the wall and his hands are in the same place as the orange shirt guy's hand, when it makes contact with Mookie's glove.

Edit. I'm now totally convinced. Blue, White and Orange are all over the field of play. Orange hat glasses is the only one of them who seems to actually be complying with the rules.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
4,588
Seacoast NH
For those that haven't gone to the Fangraphs link, you should.

Anyhow this is the two frame gif from the article that does it for me. First frame, glove has first contact with fans, second frame his glove is straight over his head and his glove hasn't really moved horizontally. At this point he is still not contacting the wall so it would seem his glove didn't go over the yellow line.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
25,464
Here
It’s pretty simple to me: White shirt guy’s right arm is very clearly over the playing field, and the arms that touched Mookie are extended even further out. There might be some slant to the wall out there, I’m not sure, but even if there is those arms are clearly over the wall. Interference. Out.

Fantastic call by Joe West.
 

Cumberland Blues

Dope
Dope
Sep 9, 2001
4,881
Great photo. I love that the three jokers interfering all have their eyes closed - while Mookie clearly has his eye on the ball.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
437
Melrose MA
I think Mookie's glove was in the field of play and the fans' hands were reaching over. When the ball was hit and the fans stood up, the first thing they would do, and clearly both the guy in blue and the guy in white did, would be to take a half step forward so their thighs would either touch or be very close to touching their side of the wall. Then, if they extend their arms at all, which they both did, their hands would be beyond the vertical plane of the wall and into the field of play. The guy in orange isn't so clearly standing as close to the wall but his hands are just as far forward. Mookie jumped up from a foot or so in front of the wall and jumped straight up so his body never made contact with the wall. I do think it is possible that at some point during his follow through after the ball hit the outside of his glove that his glove went backwards and out of the field of play. But the ball hit his glove while the glove was still in the field of play and in front of the vertical plane of the wall. The fans' hands were also in front of the vertical plane of the wall and in the field of play. Therefore, interference.
 

notmannysfault

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
474
What does that even mean? The stands belong to the fan. Anything above the entire thickness of the wall belongs to the fielder (again, the line/field ends at the back surface of the wall).

Fenway has a red line on top of the Monster.
My only point is that, while trying to be an "interferer" of sorts and extending one or more parts of his body into into the field, White Shirt failed in that his actions (in my view) are not the ones at issue here.
 

rajendra82

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,394
Atlanta, GA
All this talk about relative position of hands and bodies remonds me of the scrutiny of Leonardo's Last Supper, and makes me wonder which fan is secretly Mary Magdalene, as Marcus has clearly taken over the role of our Lord and Savior.
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
26,273
It’s an impossible situation. The fan graphs article is great. And hilariously there are CPAP ads for me on it.
 

notmannysfault

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
474
This is all so fascinating.

Let me clarify: white shirt has his left hand *clearly* in play, but his right hand appears to be (IMO) in the home run area.

If I am Stretch Armstrong reaches back ten rows to make a catch while holding other hand directly on the warning track, is he interfering?

Hyperbole used only for clarity of definition purposes.
 
Last edited:

EllisTheRimMan

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2007
4,408
Shaketown
It was the first inning in a back and forth game. Was it a turning point? Sure. How many more turning points were there after?

Anyway, if you are sure it was interference and you were on the MLB review team... Would you have reversed a HR based on the video evidence if West called it that on the field?
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
51,885
San Andreas Fault
The biggest travesty from all of this is that we were all robbed of what should have been a highlight-reel catch that would have been shown for decades.

That said, Joe West is great when it comes to the playoffs.
Bottom line is the same (prevented 2 runs) and it will have a unique look to it that catches like Torii Hunter’s off Barry Bonds in the all star game don’t have. And those type catches are, if not a dime a dozen, pretty common nowadays. JBJ and Mookie have some. Last night’s will live on, not to worry.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
2,387
Definitely interference. Christ, there are at least three hands out there whacking into his glove. I will admit to some bias, in that I wish fans would just get out of the way when a ball is close like this. In any case, I think a close interference call should go to the fielder.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,637
AZ
Anyway, if you are sure it was interference and you were on the MLB review team... Would you have reversed a HR based on the video evidence if West called it that on the field?
Tough call. But, no. The camera angles are not quite good enough and I think that you have to give the nod in that case to the fact that there is a guy, who doesn't give a shit who wins, who is looking at the play.

Edit: One other thing about all this. We have no idea what the other umpires saw or didn't see. They had a conference, which means presumably West was open to the idea that another umpire might have additional information for him. It's possible they all said, "we didn't get a good look," but for all we know there may have been other umpires who said they had it as spectator interference as well. I think it was good of the crew to conference before they went to replay and that's a very important step. If the call on the field is going to be given the benefit of the doubt in a circumstance in which replay is unclear, seeing if there is dissent before finalizing the call on the field seems like just plain good umpiring to me, even if we'll never know what any of them said.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
There is a green ledge for drinks I guess behind the fence that prevents fans standing too close to the yellow line. Maybe 9 inches or so

IMG]
I’m in the I can’t tell camp. West wouldnt have been able to tell either but had to call something. Need a side view to tell for sure

If you are going to have a review process make sure you have adequate camera coverage to support it. Either force the broadcasters to pay for it or have the teams /league pay for it.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,506
Portsmouth, NH

Guy in the white shirt is using his hand to support himself as he leans over the railing, and his arm is extended forward when he makes contact.

Good call.
This angle makes it not even debatable for me. I’m not sure if I missed it on broadcast or they didn’t show it - ten minute reviews generally lead me to do stuff like to take a poop or take the dog out - but they both clearly reach over the wall and his glove is jarred. Unless someone corrects me that interference relies on the ball arriving at the same time, I’m not sure how this isn’t obvious.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,625
Waltham, MA
There is a green ledge for drinks I guess behind the fence that prevents fans standing too close to the yellow line. Maybe 9 inches or so

IMG]
I’m in the I can’t tell camp. West wouldnt have been able to tell either but had to call something. Need a side view to tell for sure

If you are going to have a review process make sure you have adequate camera coverage to support it. Either force the broadcasters to pay for it or have the teams /league pay for it.
That's a fun tweet. Those wouldn't be Astros fans saying that, would they?
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,101
Melbourne, Australia
Definitely interference. Christ, there are at least three hands out there whacking into his glove. I will admit to some bias, in that I wish fans would just get out of the way when a ball is close like this. In any case, I think a close interference call should go to the fielder.
I think it is hilarious that on the almost exact same play that occurred in today's Game 5 -- where Mookie did indeed catch the ball -- there wasn't even one Houston fan within 10 feet of his efforts.

It appears therefore that Houston fans can indeed be trained.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
17,039
I think it is hilarious that on the almost exact same play that occurred in today's Game 5 -- where Mookie did indeed catch the ball -- there wasn't even one Houston fan within 10 feet of his efforts.

It appears therefore that Houston fans can indeed be trained.
Also looked like the four horse's assmen's seats were empty. Banned?