MLB's definitive angle for overturning Saunders' would-be infield single

[Terminator]

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/70467870/v1147737983/tornyy-yanks-get-saunders-after-call-overturned/?query=definitive

[Terminator]

I thought he was out but if that's the definitive angle they used I'm not so sure that it should have been overturned. You can't even see wear Saunders' foot touches the bag because the view is obstructed by Teixera.

[fatcowxlive]

Is this a new thing? Also idk how you can count this as enough evidence to overturn the call, the ball disappears in the frame, I thought the ball had to touch the back of the glove in order to be a catch? When the ball disappears from the frame I guess his foot wasn't really all the way down on the base, but literally a few milliseconds late his foot came down... probably the same time it took the ball to be caught. We've had clearer reviews that have been called inconclusive, I'm struggling to see how this is conclusive enough to overturn a call

[Orgfiller]

There were better angles shown on the Blue Jays broadcast that showed that Saunders was very likely out. I'm not sure 1) why this was chosen as the definitive angle and 2) why they wouldn't just show it in slo-mo so it becomes clearer to the fans.

[bones10]

I didn't catch most of this game, but on the way home from class I was listening to the game on the radio and they were saying they got the call right. Watching that video however, I don't see how that can be conclusive enough to overturn, puzzling decision.

 

It's cool that MLB allows this type of video to be released to public.

[Candy Maldonado]

still looks inconclusive to me

[Jonn]

He looked out slightly but it would have never been overturned if it was call against the Yankees instead of us. We have seen more obvious plays called inconclusive mutiple times. Edited September 8, 2016 by Jonn

[JoeCarter]

He looked out slightly but if would have never been overturned if it was call against the Yankees instead of us. We have seen more obvious plays called inconclusive mutiple times.

 

When I brought up the following with some sports-watching friends, I was surprised with how quickly they all were to agree: it seems like the standard for conclusiveness is measurably lower in baseball replay than in football. In the NFL, fans have become accustomed to calls only getting overturned if there's an angle that shows with virtual certainty that the on-field call is wrong. "Pretty sure" is never good enough. I can only recall a tiny # of plays where something was overturned when we didn't have something that a reasonable non-partisan fan would consider conclusive. (And in those plays, I typically assumed the video replay booth may have had angles the TV cameras didn't...though that may not be the case.)

 

Baseball's standard for conclusiveness is just all over the map. We've seen a DOZEN+ calls this year get upheld against the Jays when the evidence pointed very strongly to the wrong call having been made. I'm not necessarily saying the NFL has it right and MLB has it wrong...I think there's even a rather strong case you could make that video review officials should use a 'more likely than not' standard. But the standard needs to be clearly stated and consistently applied, which it currently is not. Not even close.

[Terminator]

When I brought up the following with some sports-watching friends, I was surprised with how quickly they all were to agree: it seems like the standard for conclusiveness is measurably lower in baseball replay than in football. In the NFL, fans have become accustomed to calls only getting overturned if there's an angle that shows with virtual certainty that the on-field call is wrong. "Pretty sure" is never good enough. I can only recall a tiny # of plays where something was overturned when we didn't have something that a reasonable non-partisan fan would consider conclusive. (And in those plays, I typically assumed the video replay booth may have had angles the TV cameras didn't...though that may not be the case.)

 

Baseball's standard for conclusiveness is just all over the map. We've seen a DOZEN+ calls this year get upheld against the Jays when the evidence pointed very strongly to the wrong call having been made. I'm not necessarily saying the NFL has it right and MLB has it wrong...I think there's even a rather strong case you could make that video review officials should use a 'more likely than not' standard. But the standard needs to be clearly stated and consistently applied, which it currently is not. Not even close.

 

To put it in subjective numbers, in football they have to be 99% sure to overturn a call. In baseball if they are 75% sure they sometimes overturn it.

[JoeCarter]

ps Has anyone heard of any methods being discussed to automate calls at 1st base. It's one of the most frequently-challenged calls, but also one with very few variables that we honestly should be able to solve within a few years max:

1) Measuring when a runners foot hits the bag seems like child's play: some type of motion/impact sensor I'm sure we already have the technology for.

2) Judging when a ball impacts the back of a first baseman's glove is a little trickier, but I can't imagine is all that difficult; perhaps some kind of Smart insert sewn into the glove with some kind of NFC tech that syncs with the data from the base sensor.

 

Remember: it doesn't have to be perfect to be a massive leap forward in accuracy (and gameplay time-savings) over our comically limited real-time eyesight judgments. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see automated calls at 1B implemented before computerized balls/strikes.

[JoeCarter]

To put it in subjective numbers, in football they have to be 99% sure to overturn a call. In baseball if they are 75% sure they sometimes overturn it.

 

Those are ballpark #'s that I'd tend to agree with in approx terms based on what I've seen. And that's a big problem. Why? Because the rules governing baseball replay say that "in the absence of “clear and convincing evidence” the original ruling should stand."

 

'Clear and convincing' is, unsurprisingly, not defined. But while the Saunders play is close (in real-time i thought he was out), there is absolutely no way that the angle on mlb.com meets a reasonable understanding of "clear and convincing." There just isn't.

[Spanky99]

I thought he was out but if that's the definitive angle they used I'm not so sure that it should have been overturned. You can't even see wear Saunders' foot touches the bag because the view is obstructed by Teixera.

 

It shouldn't have been overturned mate, that is NOT conclusive, lol. What a joke.

[JFD]

That clip is the definition of inconclusive but I'm not surprised we got screwed.

[Spanky99]

Is this a new thing?

 

It's been on the MLB site since replay has begun this season, I'm not sure it was there last season.

[JoeCarter]

I watched the clip a dozen times, and took some slow-mo screen-caps. You be the judge. You can get a pretty good look at the moment the ball impacts 1B's glove, captured in pic below. Given angle of Saunders' foot and the fact that ball would have touched the inside-back of the glove a few microseconds before the bulge is visible from the back of the glove...you know what? If I were being impartial, I'd tell you that I think it's more likely than not that he was out. But That's. Not. The. Standard. required to overturn a call on the field. That video angle isn't "clear and convincing" by any native English speaker's standard.

[admin]

Should have been safe from this angle. Too close to overturn. Even if he was originally called out, it could have been overturned to safe as at the very least it looks like it was the same time (as above image shows).

[John_Havok]

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/70467870/v1147737983/tornyy-yanks-get-saunders-after-call-overturned/?query=definitive

 

I think a very simple rule tweak would make things much easier to stomach for fans.

 

It's simple. When a call is challeneged, the replay officials IGNORE what the call on the field was and simply review the play as to what the call should be. If its one of those plays where it could go either way, the offense gets the call to go their way.

 

Done

[ChrisS]

He was likely out by a couple hundreds of a second but there is in no way conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field going by what I've seen this year imo

[43211234]

It's been on the MLB site since replay has begun this season, I'm not sure it was there last season.

 

It was there last year.

[Stangstag]

The inconsistency will always be there until they have a permanent umpire crew dedicated to replays. As it is right now, there are different umpires in the replay booth each night.