11/21/24
October 20, 2010
Rangers Take 3-1 ALCS Lead Over Yankees: Bengie Molina hit a three-run homer and the Texas Rangers scored five more in late innings for a 10-3 win over the New York Yankees in game 4 of the American League Championship Series. The Rangers take a 3-1 series lead into this afternoon's fifth game. A.J. Burnett had pitched the Yanks to a 3-2 lead before Molina's home run.
I was pretty pissed about that call at the time. If a player can reach the ball, and Cruz definitely could have reached that one, how is it not interference when several fans all impede his glove?
If you watch the replay, check out the taunting by Jared Macchirole -- the fan in the Yankees jersey who ended up with the ball -- to Cruz. It's such a dickish gesture I had to laugh. (He's gotten some love on YouTube.)
posted by rcade at 08:40 AM on October 20, 2010
Time for MLB to do something about this.
MLB did do something about it. It's called video review. It's just the umpires only use it when they feel like it. Remember Josh Hamilton lost a homerun during the regular season because the umpire was sure the ball did not go into stands and refused to use video review, when replays clearly showed it did. They probably would not have reversed the call anyway here, but it looks clear that a fan touched Cruz' glove before the ball got there and then another fan touched it after. In the end, it did not matter; but one of the biggest problems with video review appears to be that its use is discretionary with the umps.
posted by graymatters at 08:52 AM on October 20, 2010
MLB did do something about it. It's called video review.
Absolutely. It's ridiculous and almost seems like the umpires have places to be after the game and don't want to take time to check out a call.
Even though when it comes to the playoffs the emphasis should be on getting the calls right, regardless of what it takes, the way the Yankees are pitching and hitting, a solo home run matters about as much as a foul tip.
With regards to the fans at Yankee Stadium, sure they're often idiots, especially in the bleachers, but most of you are too young to remember how bad it was out there during the Reggie Jackson/Bronx Zoo days. Back then there was no monitoring of behavior, no texting to security regarding problems, no high-def cameras focused on all parts of the stadium, no intensive stadium security. Son of Sam could have been sitting in the crowd.
posted by dyams at 08:58 AM on October 20, 2010
With a play like that an Umpire has to admit there is a chance of a missed call and go to replay - that's what replay is for. If you aren't going to use it, why have it at all?
It all comes down to the Umpiring crew being too intimidated by everything Yankee to make the right call. Do you think the same play goes unreviewed if it happens in Tampa?
posted by cixelsyd at 09:50 AM on October 20, 2010
Lip readers will enjoy the fan to the right of Macchirole on the next row.
posted by rcade at 10:01 AM on October 20, 2010
I know. The kid with the guy in the white sweatshirt in the front row is getting a good indoctrination into life in the Yankee Stadium right field bleachers.
posted by dyams at 10:09 AM on October 20, 2010
The umpires made the right call on the Cano home run.
The outfielder has NO protection when he reaches over the wall (see, Bartman).
The fans made contact with his glove when it was reaching over the wall.
The fans made contact with the ball after it crossed the top of the wall.
There is no reason to call fan interference.
This was not ANYTHING like the Jeffrey Maier incident in 1996, when he reached well INTO the field of play (1.5 to 2 feet) and pulled the ball back out of play.
Absolutely. It's ridiculous and almost seems like the umpires have places to be after the game and don't want to take time to check out a call.
That's a bit hard to believe as they then reviewed a play that same inning (Berkman's foul ball).
posted by grum@work at 12:33 PM on October 20, 2010
I'm amazed at the ineptitude of the Yankees offense. The Rangers even loaded the bases for them at one point.
As far as the Cano home run, the big guy on the left actually pushes down at the outfielders glove, not going for the ball. Might not be against the rules, but it should be.
Those guys remind me of a saturday night skit using over the top stereotypes as Yankee fans. Then you see that and you realize they do exist. But they're happy, they're on the teevee.
posted by justgary at 12:54 PM on October 20, 2010
The outfielder has NO protection when he reaches over the wall ...
If you look at this picture, it looks like fans reaching into the field of play and interfering with Nelson Cruz's glove.
The fan who swung his arm downward to hit Cruz's glove should have been ejected.
posted by rcade at 01:03 PM on October 20, 2010
That's a damning picture. I don't care if the umpires made the right decision. From their vantage point it was a guess.
The play should have been reviewed. That the ump got the call right doesn't change that.
posted by justgary at 01:09 PM on October 20, 2010
Here's another picture that adds no insight to this discussion but shows Macchirole flipping off Cruz.
posted by rcade at 01:10 PM on October 20, 2010
And another picture, suggesting the seats to see these games might be a little expensive.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 01:17 PM on October 20, 2010
Watch the video on MLB.Com and see how many fans are leaning into the field of play as the ball approaches. It seems highly unlikely to me that the fans who touched Cruz's glove were not in the field of play when it happened.
posted by rcade at 01:17 PM on October 20, 2010
Those guys remind me of a saturday night skit using over the top stereotypes as Yankee fans.
Pretty sure that is Andy Samberg with the ball, gesturing at Cruz.
posted by holden at 01:17 PM on October 20, 2010
"It seemed pretty clear to me. I thought it was a home run." -- Jeffrey Maier on last night's call
posted by rcade at 01:21 PM on October 20, 2010
Here's the best picture yet.
posted by rcade at 01:22 PM on October 20, 2010
I wonder if Jared Macchirole was still taunting Nelson Cruz during the bottom of the 9th inning?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:32 PM on October 20, 2010
He was, but the content of the taunts was more in the vein of "Ha ha, now you guys are going to get your asses kicked by the winner of the NLCS."
posted by Joey Michaels at 02:02 PM on October 20, 2010
The umpires made the right call on the Cano home run.
Absolutely wrong. The "right call" would have been to go to video review. Whether the homerun would have been overturned or not is an entirely different story.
posted by graymatters at 03:36 PM on October 20, 2010
The umpires made the right call on the Cano home run
A fan reaches into the field of play and contacts the player's glove while the player is attempting to catch the ball, proven by video and photo evidence.
What logic is behind your statement?
posted by cixelsyd at 03:38 PM on October 20, 2010
What logic is behind your statement?
Grum explained it thoroughly in his original comment.
posted by tron7 at 05:47 PM on October 20, 2010
A fan reaches into the field of play and contacts the player's glove while the player is attempting to catch the ball, proven by video and photo evidence.
What logic is behind your statement?
The logic behind my statement was that I made it at noon today, after watching all of the replays that were available.
All of the pictures that are presented in this thread to dispute my theory were more than 30 minutes after I posted my comment, so it isn't like I'm able to go back and reverse my statement with more evidence.
Interestingly, NONE of those photos would have been used to dispute the home run call, and all of the video angles that were available to the umpires to review would have concluded a home run, if they chose to use them.
Also available to the umpires is the point of view not show in any of the pictures, which is that Cruz might not have been able to catch the ball even if there were no fans around him. That gives the umpire the interpretation option to declare it "uncatchable", regardless of the interference that MIGHT have occurred.
Based on "the best picture yet" link, the ball hit the concrete behind the padded wall. Unless Cruz thinks his jump was denied another 4-6 inches up (because of the arc of the ball), he wasn't going to catch that.
If the umpires feel like he couldn't have caught it because of the angle/height/depth that it was into the crowd (and his jump), then they don't need to check instant replay, because then it isn't "fan interference".
Do I wish they had checked instant replay?
Sure, just so people wouldn't be going crazy about this after the fact, and get distracted from the fact that the Yankees are getting hammer-f*cked by the Rangers, and the series would be over if it wasn't for one-half-inning of Yankees magic in game 1.
Do I think they would have reversed the call?
Nope.
posted by grum@work at 06:08 PM on October 20, 2010
some of the pictures linnked to above are somewhat misleading in that the ball had already past the wall when the photos are taken.
Cruz's glove continues upward, and the fans' hands continue down and outward, so that when the photo is taken it looks more like interference than it was.
Still, I was surprised that the umps didn't go to the replay. Too important of a call not to use the tools given to them.
posted by dviking at 06:11 PM on October 20, 2010
Do I think they would have reversed the call?
I agree with you on that - I don't think they would have the balls to take the HR away.
Would it be the right call based on the photo / video evidence? Absolutely not.
Does it matter in light of the game outcome? Not at all.
But the outcome of the event is bad - rather than reinforcing the fan interference rule, the fans in this case have been rewarded with notoriety.
posted by cixelsyd at 07:08 PM on October 20, 2010
I think that was a home run. I do think the fans interfered with Cruz as he was heading into the stands (not to mention that a few of those fans were hardly concentrating on the ball, but were rather waiting for Cruz), but the ball was in the stands and Cruz had to go in to get it.
If you go into the stands to get the ball, you have absolutely no protection against interference and the like. This makes perfect sense to me. I can see how you could argue that those fans deserved to see the rest of the game from the bar across the street, but I do kinda think that was a homer - because of where the ball ended up crossing into the stands.
To extrapolate - if Cruz leaps in the same place, and the ball lands forty feet into the upper deck - but the fan slapped his glove on the way in - would that not count as interference?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:15 PM on October 20, 2010
would that not count as interference?
I think that should also get the dickhead tossed from the event, but it has no impact on the play itself. It does speak to player safety and general event security.
A player's ability to make a play should not be impacted by fan interference.
posted by cixelsyd at 09:03 PM on October 20, 2010
A player's ability to make a play should not be impacted by fan interference.
Then fan seating should not be where fans can so easily reach where plays are being made. It's the only one of the major sports where a fan's hand(s) can impact a actual play in the game, as well as the outcome. It's another one of the quirky little baseball-only nuances everyone says they love so much about baseball, allowing all the differences in stadiums.
posted by dyams at 06:24 AM on October 21, 2010
Semi-related: Found out this summer that one of my friends I played college ball with was the fan who interefered with a ball at the Twins game in '08, which became the last-straw incident leading to instant replay. I tried to find some video but it's proving difficult at work. He said he wasn't trying to interfere, thought the ball was going to carry to him and he reached without thinking it through.
posted by tron7 at 11:06 AM on October 21, 2010
So once again a douche bag Yankee fan reaches out and interferes with a long fly out at Yankee Stadium and turns it into a homerun!! Time for MLB to do something about this.