Everyone's opinion on the first WS instant replay homer?

[The Chief]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091031&content_id=7586236&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Personally I think it should have remained a double.  In that situation where overturning the call on the field directly awards the team 2 runs and changes the entire game, I don't think "well it probably would've topped the fence if that camera weren't in the way" is enough.  I feel IR should be for correcting calls based on things that DID happen, not based on speculation about what might have happened.  And the fact is that the ball never went over the fence, or even touched it.

Thoughts?

[DPMOmaha]

Depends.  What are the ground rules in Philly?  If they're that the cameras are over the fence it doesn't matter if it gives one team the runs or not.  It's not like a fan reached over the fence and stole if from Melky Cabrera.

[The Chief]

True, I hadn't considered ground rules.

[shoeshineboy]

Depends.  What are the ground rules in Philly?  If they're that the cameras are over the fence it doesn't matter if it gives one team the runs or not.  It's not like a fan reached over the fence and stole if from Melky Cabrera.

Yeah, that's the way I feel. It seemed pretty cut and dry to me. The camera was over the fence and it hit the camera. It was a HR, given what was seen on the replay. I had no problem with the ruling given the evidence available.  I do have a problem with the camera being positioned where it is though. If it was a bit higher and a bit further back, replay would likely not have been an issue. And I understand your point in general. Had the replay shown the camera jutting out a foot over the fence, then the ruling wouldn't have been as cut and dry. But in this case, they were going with the general rule that if it his something that is over and behind the fence and bouces back in, it's a HR.

[The Chief]

I just don't see it being certain enough evidence that the ball would've been out had the camera not been there.  And if it wasn't, camera interference didn't really change the play either way.  I don't agree with the fine degree of speculation going on.

Though again, if Philly's ground rules cover this, I have no problem with it as long as the call was made according to those rules.

I do agree that the camera placement is terrible.

[shoeshineboy]

From what I saw on the replay it appeared that the face of the camera was about even with the fence and the ball clearly hit off the camera face what was likely close to a foot above the fence. To me, the trajectory of a hit ball is such that it if hits anything above the fence that is even with the fence means that the ball would have cleareed the fence had the object not been there. Again, that was based on the replays I saw, and from that, I had no doubt. So I was comfortable with it. Certainly, the umps responsible should have made sure the replays they were looking at included enough to confirm the position of the camera to be considered conclusive.

[NatsAddict]

From the stories I read, the ground rules are that a ball hitting the camera is a HR.  Girardi argued it hit a fan, and the ump so no, it hit something hard - thinking it was the top of the fence.

[ronnynat]

That was a home run, regardless. It was going over the fence.

[tomterp]

That was a home run, regardless. It was going over the fence.

I'm not sure of this.  The ball had a steep downward trajectory, it may well have hit off the top of the wall if not for the camera, which stuck out well beyond the rim of the fence.

Of course, if there's a ground rule in effect about the camera, then I have no complaint about the call, but if not for the camera, I have real doubt it was going out.

[ronnynat]

I'm not sure of this.  The ball had a steep downward trajectory, it may well have hit off the top of the wall if not for the camera, which stuck out well beyond the rim of the fence.

Of course, if there's a ground rule in effect about the camera, then I have no complaint about the call, but if not for the camera, I have real doubt it was going out.

Watch the very last part of that video when they zoom in. It bounces off the top part of the lens, meaning it would have gone through that point and over the fence. It was close as hell, though.

[houston-nat]

The MLB article makes it pretty clear that the crew had decided before the game that if a ball hit the camera it would be a home run...

[The Chief]

The MLB article makes it pretty clear that the crew had decided before the game that if a ball hit the camera it would be a home run...

I must have missed that.

As I mentioned, no problem with the call if that was decided ahead of time.

I still doubt that it was going out if the camera wasn't there, though.

[houston-nat]

quote:

"I went down there, and I saw it looked like it hit the camera," Phillies manager Charlie Manuel said. "But it looked like the camera was out over the fence, and the umpire told me that before the game they had talked about that, and if it hit the camera that it was going to be a home run."

Indeed, umpire crew chief Gerry Davis said that his crew explored every inch of Citizens Bank Park prior to Game 3, spending time reviewing areas unique to the park. The right-field camera was one of the aspects they discussed.

"We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that," Davis said. "Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it's a] home run."

MLB officials said the camera struck by Rodriguez's ball will be adjusted moving forward in the Series.

[tomterp]

quote:

"I went down there, and I saw it looked like it hit the camera," Phillies manager Charlie Manuel said. "But it looked like the camera was out over the fence, and the umpire told me that before the game they had talked about that, and if it hit the camera that it was going to be a home run."

Indeed, umpire crew chief Gerry Davis said that his crew explored every inch of Citizens Bank Park prior to Game 3, spending time reviewing areas unique to the park. The right-field camera was one of the aspects they discussed.

"We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that," Davis said. "Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it's a] home run."

MLB officials said the camera struck by Rodriguez's ball will be adjusted moving forward in the Series.

That makes sense, and that's why having clear ground rules is a huge plus.  We shouldn't have to argue about trajectory, just about where did the ball hit.

[PANatsFan]

quote:
MLB officials said the camera struck by Rodriguez's ball will be adjusted moving forward in the Series.

Now that's garbage. It needs to stay there for the remainder of the series.

[Mathguy]

That logic makes no sense.  The camera should not be there if it has the potential to cause a problem and the umps recognize that beofre the game starts.

quote:

"I went down there, and I saw it looked like it hit the camera," Phillies manager Charlie Manuel said. "But it looked like the camera was out over the fence, and the umpire told me that before the game they had talked about that, and if it hit the camera that it was going to be a home run."

Indeed, umpire crew chief Gerry Davis said that his crew explored every inch of Citizens Bank Park prior to Game 3, spending time reviewing areas unique to the park. The right-field camera was one of the aspects they discussed.

"We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that," Davis said. "Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it's a] home run."

MLB officials said the camera struck by Rodriguez's ball will be adjusted moving forward in the Series.

[tomterp]

That logic makes no sense.  The camera should not be there if it has the potential to cause a problem and the umps recognize that beofre the game starts.

For any given game, there's about a 1 / 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance a ball hits that camera.  But note, that the numerator 1 > 0.