Basebal needs Instant Replay

Cusipz · Apr 1, 2008

Ok, I just saw these replays. The play at the plate was just missed. Looked like the tag would be right there, and even though the tag wasnt applied it kinda looked like he got the shirt. Not sure it would be overturned by replay.

The interference call was a good one, I think. He GRABBED the guy's ankle for chrissakes. It wasn't just sliding into him, he reached out and grabbed him, hence interference.

I think eventually we will see it for home runs and plays at the plate only. We'll see.

TonyMar · Apr 1, 2008

Cusipz said:
Ok, I just saw these replays. The play at the plate was just missed. Looked like the tag would be right there, and even though the tag wasnt applied it kinda looked like he got the shirt. Not sure it would be overturned by replay.

The interference call was a good one, I think. He GRABBED the guy's ankle for chrissakes. It wasn't just sliding into him, he reached out and grabbed him, hence interference.

I think eventually we will see it for home runs and plays at the plate only. We'll see.

Its Rule 7.08

Here is part of it:

Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Cabrera has a right to the base...I thought he was on it when he touched the Indians' Cabrera. So it goes to a judgment call...and Cabrera did not even try to throw the ball, when it appeared that he could have. I thought it was a real bad call...just my take and I did not have a wager on the game at all.

Illini · Apr 1, 2008

TonyMar said:
Its Rule 7.08

Here is part of it:

Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Cabrera has a right to the base...I thought he was on it when he touched the Indians' Cabrera. So it goes to a judgment call...and Cabrera did not even try to throw the ball, when it appeared that he could have. I thought it was a real bad call...just my take and I did not have a wager on the game at all.

Saw it on Sportscenter. Looked like a good call to me. He doesn't have the right to reach or grab. I thought it seemed pretty obvious, actually.

barman · Apr 1, 2008

djmatt said:
good thing thing I wasn't drinking today

30 second video follows

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CwyrGwM4a7M&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CwyrGwM4a7M&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

SlevinKabrera · Apr 1, 2008

Idiot Umpires

Dsethi said:
could have used replay on Varitek's home run called double last inning

fuck boston but it was still a home run

A simple lesson in Physics would have sufficed here. Same bullshit as last year. If a ball on the decline / "way down" hits a wall it will continue downward. this is the only possible outcome. How could the ball bouce up in the air and not be a home run ? Umpires are idiots. 4 of them, and not one could figure that out DUH. Francona is too stupid to explain it to get the call changed. I figured after the same thing last year that someone might have explained it to them.