I understand the layout of the park but it remains ambiguous, with regards to the rulebook, as to whether that ball was fair or foul. It is not a scenario covered by the rule of the game, and Fenway inexplicably does not have a ground rule for it. So there should be a ground rule for it.
It’s hard to disagree with this. If you’re going to use replay, make sure you’ve got cameras in the right place. But in this case the replay was really very clear; the ball landed about a foot fair according to one foul line and a foot foul according to another, on territory between the two. So is that fair or foul? No rule covers it. I presume the purpose of the line on the wall is for the umpire to judge balls that strike the face of the wall, but there’s no line on top of the wall.
The Jays won the game so there’s no reason to be too riled up about it, unless you’re Adam Lind, but the whole point of ground rules is to prevent some horrifying century-long debate if this happens in Game 7 of the ALCS or something. Given how well laid out the ground rules are for all the weirdnesses of left field at Fenway, I’m amazed there isn’t a rule for the right field corner. For all I know this specific thing has never happened before, but now it has, and it could happen again.
The only “ambiguity” was that created by parallax. The ball landed on the foul side of the (extended) foul line, and was therefore foul. It might have helped if the yellow line had been extended over the top of the wall, sure - but even then, the available camera angles were so acute that it would have been hard to see.
A close, difficult call, sure - but not ambiguous. And you don’t need ground rules to define “foul” as being “outside the foul line”.
Perhaps you didn’t see the play or do not understand the rules.
There are two marked foul lines in right field in Fenway. One is marked on the wall; the other is the foul pole, Pesky’s Pole. The two line up from the perspective of home plate but are not actually on top of each other. They’re about eighteen inches away from each other. Here’s a picture:
The ball struck the top of the wall entering from fair territory. It was fair relative to the line on the wall; it was foul relative to the pole.
Now, if the ball had hit the FRONT of the wall left of the line, but right of the pole, and bounced back into the field of play, is that fair or foul?
The ball landed on the foul side of the (extended) foul line, and was therefore foul. It might have helped if the yellow line had been extended over the top of the wall, sure - but even then, the available camera angles were so acute that it would have been hard to see.
A close, difficult call, sure - but not ambiguous. And you don’t need ground rules to define “foul” as being “outside the foul line”.
[/QUOTE]
You can see the ball just as it’s hitting the top of the wall. After the ball bounced off the top of the wall, it then went behind the foul pole. So, as RickJay says, it appears to be fair (as determined by the line on the wall) and also foul (as determined by the pole).
RickJay, i agree with you that it’s a silly situation and needs to be more clearly defined in the ground rules, but i also sort of see where Elvis is coming from.
From the camera angle shown above, the ball is clearly fair with respect to the line on the wall. I think what he’s saying about parallax, though is that, viewed from home plate, looking straight down the first base line, the line on the wall and the pole do line up to form a single line.
But i don’t think that reduces the confusion. If the line on the wall is imagined to extend straight up into the air, in a way that matches the parallax of the pole, then at the very least it seems to me that you could argue that the ball hit the (invisible) part of the line before hitting the top of the wall. And hitting the foul pole or foul line constitutes a home run.
Elvis, i agree that parallax is an issue here, but it doesn’t remove the confusion. If the line and the pole are meant to be viewed as a single entity when seen from home plate, it doesn’t change the fact that a ball can both be inside the line and outside the pole. This is a situation that needs fixing, either by connecting the line and the pole somehow, or by a special mention in the ground rules.
I don’t see how you could connect the line and the pole without reconstructing the corner or moving the line on the wall to a position that makes even less sense, so really it should just be a ground rule.
Logically, it seems to me it should be a home run. Contact with the wall left of the line would unquestionably be called fair, so the top of the wall really should be a fair ball as well.
Try mentally extending a line from the outside edge of the paint stripe on the wall to the outside edge of the foul pole (misnamed, it’s in fair territory). Then look closer, as the umpires (who must not understand the rules, according to you - perhaps you could send MLB a letter explaining it) did, and you’ll notice that the ball hit the wall *outside *that extended line, before reaching the pole.
By this logic, a sliced shot that stays inside the Pesky Pole but continues to curl around and lands in foul territory is not a home run.
I haven’t seen a single angle that demonstrates this. Have you got a link to video that shows exactly what someone looking down the first base line would have seen? I just watched all the replays on MLB.com, and none of them show the angle that would be necessary to support your contention that the ball hit the wall outside the imaginary line between the actual line and the foul pole.
Also, even it wasn’t a home run, it should have been a fair ball and an automatic double. After all, if it hit the wall outside the line marked on the wall and is then called a foul ball, there’s absolutely no reason for the line to be painted on the wall in the first place. It serves no purpose if it does not mark the boundary between fair territory and foul territory.
Also, if there is an imaginary line between the line and the pole, then any ball that hits between the two should logically be considered as having hit the foul pole, which would make it a home run.
Even the Boston commentators noted the discrepancy in how the line and the pole line up, and argued that going by the position of the line could reasonably lead to calling it a home run. They were saying:
These are the guys who watch at this park every day.
The only sensible and intelligent way to deal with this is a ground rule specifically dealing with the situation that occurred last night. It’s both a hard call and an ambiguous ruling, and there’s no reason not to make a ground rule for it.
Where the hell do you get that from? Balls going past the pole fair /= balls going past the pole foul.
Okay, so you want to be argumentative. Try this, then: Use your eyes. Just like the umps did.
The stripe on the face of the wall is for the (rare) case of a ball hitting the face of the wall on the fly. Same reason as for every other foul stripe on every other wall in every other park in baseball.
Not imaginary, just unmarked.
As already said, the ball hit the top of the wall on the foul side of the foul line. You can continue to claim otherwise for the fun of argumentation, but you’ll have to find somebody else to do it with, Chief.
As well as noting that they do, in fact, line up when seen right down the line. The final authority over game rules, however, is not theirs.
Here we go. :rolleyes:
Or perhaps put permanent cameras looking right down the lines. As mentioned previously.
That explains the stripe on the face of the wall, which I don’t believe anyone was confused about.
The issue in this case is that, from the picture, there appears to also be a yellow line on top of the wall, and that yellow line appears headed in the wrong direction. The part directly on top of the wall doesn’t seem to be pointed at the foul pole.
So, you concede that the only way to correctly evaluate a foul ball in this situation at Fenway is to be looking straight down the line, correct? And you support the idea that this is how the current setup needs to be evaluated, right?
You also concede that, right now, there are no permanent cameras looking right down the line. You say as much is the quoted lines above.
So, given all this, it seems to me that, in the absence of such cameras, the only officials who have an opportunity to make a judgment from the correct angle are the umpires on the field at the time. We’ve already established that none of the cameras show the proper perspective, and you yourself have rested your whole argument on the notion that what we see on the screen is actually a problem of parallax error.
If all this is true, then what basis did the umpires have to overturn the initial home run call last night? After all, the umpire who had an opportunity to see the play from the correct angle called it a fair ball. And no angles provided by the cameras show the view straight down the line.
As has already been pointed out, you yourself have said it’s not possible to judge the position of the ball using the camera angles available. So how do you know the ball landed in foul territory?
They did, and called it a home run.
They when they used the camera angels you claim to be flawed by parallax error, they reversed the call they’d made with their eyes.
You know what would prevent this in the future? A clear ground rule.
It’s bizarre that some people get all offended and sarcastic when anyone happens to have a difference of opinion with them. The only conclusion one can draw is that such people expect to have their opinions deferred to on all occasions, without question or argument.
:shrug:
Anyway, the last week has seen the Orioles slip from 6-1 to 6-7, with 6 straight losses. I don’t expect them to make the playoffs, but i’m hoping they can be a .500 team for the first time since i began rooting for them.
Two good performances by Beckett and Lester, which fills me full of hope that this may end up being an alright season. The problem is the other three. Dice-K and Lackey are oxygen thiefs and I have not now nor ever been sold on Buckholz. Francona needs to switch to a 2 man rotation if we have any chance of climbing out of this rather deep hole.
(Obviously I’m not serious about a 2 man rotation)
The Mariners win, and catcher Miguel Olivo lets the word “shit” slip during his postgame interview on the radio.
Rookie starter Michael Pineda continues to impress: 6 innings, 1 run, and according to the announcer during the game, he’s the first pitcher since somebody whose name I now cannot recall in 1980 or '81 to start his career with three consecutive quality starts. I’m not sure if that’s “first Mariner pitcher since…” or “first Major League pitcher since…”, and the game recap on the M’s site doesn’t mention it. Fans commenting on the M’s site appear to have dubbed him “Prince Pineda” (to go along with “King Felix”).
Thank you, Matt Kemp, for saving us from being swept. First Dodger walk-off of the year, homerun style. I have the feeling that Kemp and Ethier are going to be getting a lot of votes for the All-Star game, and I say that even at this early stage.
Also very pleased for my Tribe, who continue to play out of their minds right now. Another solid pitching effort for Fausto, who I think is going to spend the rest of year trying to make up for giving up 10 runs on Opening Day.
Manny Acta deserves major props. This is the first Indians team I can remember in a long time that came out ready to play in April. It’s not like they’ve been playing out of their minds, either. They hit the ball, they throw strikes, they turn double plays. We’ll know more what kind of team they are when they have their first real slump, but I’ve been impressed so far.
A key Indians-Royals series coming up! Who woulda guessed?
Balls going past the pole fair /= balls going past the pole foul.