The McLouth foul Homerun Call

[OFFNY]

You guys DO realize that the usher if that section admitted to Craig saber that the ball did hit the pole right? I find it hard to believe a Yankee usher would lie about it unless he Really believed it.

Yup. MLB will now rely on eyewitness testimomy from stadium ushers when attempting to resolve disputed calls. Too funny.

That's not what he was insinuating. His point was that a Yankee usher would (if anything) be biased toward the Yankees, not against them. Hence, he would have no reason to concede that the ball hit the pole unless he saw it do so (which he did, and which replays clearly show that it did from the ball changing its trajectory.)

[SeaBird]

That's not what he was insinuating. His point was that a Yankee usher would (if anything) be biased toward the Yankees, not against them. Hence, he would have no reason to concede that the ball hit the pole unless he saw it do so (which he did, and which replays clearly show that it did from the ball changing its trajectory.)

From Bleacher Report:

TBS field reporter Craig Sager subsequently ventured out in pursuit of the fan who caught the fly ball, determining that the white leather covering of the baseball was free from the yellow paint of the vertical foul pole.

Though Sager noted a Yankee Stadium usher had allegedly suggested that (s)he saw the fly ball hit the pole on its way by.

Meanwhile, Yankee fans seated in Section 209, where the ball landed, had their own take: "It definitely curved foul, definitely. Before it went by the pole, it went right," said Matt Darch from Commack, Long Island, with brother Brian stating, "I believe it went foul."

Meanwhile, a poll conducted by The Baltimore Sun and targeted at Orioles fans found 55 percent support for the determination of "fair ball," with just 28 percent of respondents selecting the "foul ball" option.

It must be true: Beauty—and a contested non-home run call—is truly in the eye of the beholder.

There was nothing the umpires saw that would conclusively overturn the call made on the field. If anything, it was an optical illusion. Watch the video from the blimp.

And let's not beat this to death for the whole postseason.

[OFFNY]

From Bleacher Report:

TBS field reporter Craig Sager subsequently ventured out in pursuit of the fan who caught the fly ball, determining that the white leather covering of the baseball was free from the yellow paint of the vertical foul pole.

Though Sager noted a Yankee Stadium usher had allegedly suggested that (s)he saw the fly ball hit the pole on its way by.

Meanwhile, Yankee fans seated in Section 209, where the ball landed, had their own take: "It definitely curved foul, definitely. Before it went by the pole, it went right," said Matt Darch from Commack, Long Island, with brother Brian stating, "I believe it went foul."

Meanwhile, a poll conducted by The Baltimore Sun and targeted at Orioles fans found 55 percent support for the determination of "fair ball," with just 28 percent of respondents selecting the "foul ball" option.

It must be true: Beauty—and a contested non-home run call—is truly in the eye of the beholder.

There was nothing the umpires saw that would conclusively overturn the call made on the field. If anything, it was an optical illusion. Watch the video from the blimp.

And let's not beat this to death for the whole postseason.

Right. As long as YOU get the last word in, it's not beating it to death. But if someone else posts something in opposition to what you proclaim, then it's "beating it to death."

Sorry Sea Bird, but I'll post as I please, and I'll call them as I see them.

[The Wedge]

I would like you to honestly explain to me how the blimp camera conclusively shows jack, as the change in trajectory that can be seen from the one angle is so slight that you need to be super zoomed to even catch it? How does a view from more than 100 feet up conclusively disprove that shot? Furthermore, how can you 100% say that an upwards angle completely disproves no trajectory change? The change occurs as the ball has a downwards path, and as noted, is so slight as to need a super zoom to really see it. How can you even tell it's changed from a blimp shot?

I'm not even mad about this anymore, it was so hard to see that I can totally see the umps saying that what they saw simply wasn't conclusive enough to overturn what was called on field, but come on. Claiming the blimp angle disproves the superzoom of the front angle makes zero sense to me.

[lovetoaster]

I would like you to honestly explain to me how the blimp camera conclusively shows jack, as the change in trajectory that can be seen from the one angle is so slight that you need to be super zoomed to even catch it?

When I saw it, I honestly thought that the blimp view showed that there was space between the ball and the pole, rendering it foul.

[glenn__davis]

When I saw it, I honestly thought that the blimp view showed that there was space between the ball and the pole, rendering it foul.

Yeah, I could actually see where an overhead view would be the ideal vantage point. But I say that without having seen the blimp footage.

None of the views that I saw were "clear" one way or the other. I don't think you can tell from the uber-zoomed in shot. It sort of looks like it changes direction, but not enough to overturn.

[tuOsfan]

[video=youtube;1wi-lW2poE4]

[Nigel Tufnel]

people keep using this word. i don't think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable! Anybody want a peanut?

[Nigel Tufnel]

None of the views that I saw were "clear" one way or the other. I don't think you can tell from the uber-zoomed in shot. It sort of looks like it changes direction, but not enough to overturn.

Yeah, this is where I'm at. In all of the replays except for the uber-zoom, it looked just foul to me. In the zoomed version, the ball appeared to change trajectory as it passed the pole, but I didn't think it was conclusive enough to overturn the call.

Can you imagine if this had instead happened in McLouth's 8th inning at bat with the bases loaded? Hoo boy.

[The Wedge]

When I saw it, I honestly thought that the blimp view showed that there was space between the ball and the pole, rendering it foul.

I couldn't see any space, not from the distance of the ones I saw. Was there ever a zoomed shot?

[DuffMan]

I'm not even mad about this anymore, it was so hard to see that I can totally see the umps saying that what they saw simply wasn't conclusive enough to overturn what was called on field, but come on. Claiming the blimp angle disproves the superzoom of the front angle makes zero sense to me.

I look at that play the same a replay challenge in football. While the call might have been incorrect there's not enough evidence in the booth to overturn the call on the field. The ball looked foul except for one zoomed in shot from one angle where it may have nicked the pole, can't get up in arms over that.

[LookitsPuck]

Let's just settle this:

It was a home run.

The end.

[LookitsPuck]

I look at that play the same a replay challenge in football. While the call might have been incorrect there's not enough evidence in the booth to overturn the call on the field. The ball looked foul except for one zoomed in shot from one angle where it may have nicked the pole, can't get up in arms over that.

Pretty much.

It was a home run, guys. But I'm guessing the umps were not looking for it hitting the pole, but rather just looking at whether it was to the left or to the right of the foul pole.

[BobbyWoontz]

The ball looked foul except for one zoomed in shot from one angle where it may have nicked the pole,

And that's all you need, according to the baseball rules. All it needs to do is touch the pole, any part of the baseball.

[Frobby]

When hundreds of people can't agree on whether a super slo-mo replay show the ball changing direction, it's time to go with the umpire's judgment.