I have a question about the disputed Butler homerun in the game against the Yankees. It appears that the umpires missed the call despite looking at the replay. Is this a situation where Joe Girardi and the Yankees could play the rest of the game under protest?To answer this question requires several elements. First is a look at Rule 4.19.
PROTESTING GAMES. Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire’s decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final. Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team’s chances of winning the game.Obviously, Yankees Manager Joe Girardi did not protest the game, but assuming he had, would this protest be allowed? The deciding factor: was DeMuth's instant replay a judgment call or a rules interpretation? To answer that requires a look at Kauffman Stadium's ground rules. Both the Royals and Yankees play in stadiums (Kauffman and Yankee) that do not have ground rules other than the Universal Ground Rules. The third and final stadium with no ground rules of its own is U.S. Cellular Field (White Sox). The Universal Ground Rule concerning home runs: there is none other than "all yellow lines are in play." But Kauffman doesn't have any left field yellow lines.
 |
| View from the spectator's area behind the left field wall at Kauffman Stadium. txrangersfan |
Rule 7.05(a) permits each runner, including the batter, to advance to home plate if "a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight." Accepted interpretations of Rules 6.09(d) and (h) permit the deflection of a fair ball out of the playing area over fair territory to be called a home run. Rule 1.04 defines the outer limit of The Playing Field as a "fence, stand or other obstruction on fair territory." Rule 2.00 FAIR TERRITORY specifies that fair territory encompasses "the bottom of the playing field fence [extended] perpendicularly upwards."
Notice from the picture above, that the chain link fence and padding appears to be slightly recessed from the playing field fence (you may have to look towards the left-center field area to see it). In other words, the ~ three foot high chain link fence and its corresponding padding ("an obstruction") is on the out of play side of the fence defined by Rule 1.04. It is not flush with the wall, is not perpendicular to the ground at the point in which the fence defined by Rule 1.04 begins, and therefore, is not part of the playing field. By virtue of all that rules review, the umpires got it right.
But the question remains, can it be protested? Because Kauffman Stadium has no ground rules of its own and because there are no yellow lines, there are no rules specifically governing that chain link fence. Though we were able to use Rules 1.04, 2.00 FAIR TERRITORY, 6.09(d), 6.09(h), and 7.05(a) to answer the Quality of Correctness question, there is no one rule that specifically states, "the chain link fence above the outfield wall is in/out of play." Therefore, this call falls under Rule 9.01(c), the elastic clause, which is a judgement call and is not grounds for protest (well, Girardi still could have filed the protest, it just might not have been admitted). Still, that didn't prevent MLB Supervisor Steve Palermo from allegedly (and publicly) going out to left field after the game with DeMuth, Kerwin Danley, Doug Eddings, and Chad Fairchild and discussing the play within several feet of where the earlier Butler ball rattled around somewhere above the outfield wall. Perhaps one less stadium will be without its own set of ground rules next season. Either that or the Royals are going to have to invest in some yellow paint.
21 comments :
It's a pretty tough call. It does look like the ball hit on top of the wall and came back.
Joe Torre has publicly said today that the umpires 'erred' in calling this a home run.
Torre has proven himself to be a terrible executive when it comes to officiating issues. He never backs them up, criticizes them when they do get it right (like this one), and ultimately does absolutely nothing. Why was he even hired? Was this just part of Selig's plot to get Frank McCourt out from the Dodgers, by luring Torre away from managing?
So now the call is right? Even hitting the chain link fence, that's part of the wall right? Who cares if it's behind the "vertical plain" or whatever. It's part of the wall and it's a bad call.
Unrelated odds & ends - "Lights out: Ump halts game, instructs fans to dim their clothing"
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Lights-out-Ump-halts-game-instructs-fans-to-di?urn=mlb-wp16203
I think the call was missed. But all of this could be avoided in the future if every stadium makes a yellow line in the outfield.
Straight from the Kansas City Royals page concerning Kauffman Stadium's ground rules:
"Foul poles -- above surrounding fenceline is a home run. Below surrounding fenceline is in play."
That's pretty cut and dry...HOME RUN. Here's the link
http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/kc/ballpark/kc_ballpark_groundrules.jsp
It's easy to see where the ball hit. The small extended chain link fence, which is obviously behind the padded wall, must be the issue. I'm sure the umpires thought that area was a home run and it's most likely not. I would think a yellow line would be below the chain link fence if indeed that was outside the park. Just like when there's a yellow mark below an overhang.
Which fenceline? The chain link or the lower & larger fence? Kauffman basically mirrors the universal rules. When Kauffman was built in the 1970s, there was no outfield seating on that left side where the HR/2B occurred. As you can see from the following picture, with no seating in the outfield area past where that bullpen was prior to renovations, there was no need for a railing. No railing means the outfield fence was at its normal height (the current CF area height). When they added the rail, they didn't bother to change their rules to address it.
Picture here: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1427/892147021_80c64f621d_o.jpg
Every college & HS game I work has an outfield fence with a large yellow pipe sitting atop. I'm sure you all know what I mean. Why didn't the Royals think to put a yellow line in, or at least have a ground rule that specifically addresses how to deal with the recessed chain link fence.
Anonymous said...
Straight from the Kansas City Royals page concerning Kauffman Stadium's ground rules:
"Foul poles -- above surrounding fenceline is a home run. Below surrounding fenceline is in play."
That's pretty cut and dry.
I think it's cut and dry, but it's not a homerun. I think it means it has to go over the wall, period. If there was an exception, it's not mentioned in the above statement.
Just like the pine tar game, the umpires made the corect ruling according to the rulebook and then had a league official (Torre in this case) stick it up their asses
What happens if the ball bounces off the warning track and sits on top of the wall? Does the fielder have to try and get it off the wall? If it has to clear the top rail, which is what MLB is saying, this ball would be in play correct? It would not be a lodged ball, it is in plain sight and not wedged between two objects. What if the field can not jump to get it off the wall, have to wait until a team mate can help them. MLB has got this wrong. The top of the first wall is the home run line.
Since we mentioned the Pine Tar Incident, do you know that it is widely considered one of the ten worst calls in modern baseball history? Apparently what happened is that McClelland called Brett out for using the bat, when all the rule states is that the bat must be removed from play. McClelland is roundly criticized for a lack of knowledge of the rules based on that play.
Wasn't Joe Brinkman the CC of that crew? Maybe it was his decision.
Jon, you can't be serious? Joe was the CC, and I read his book. Maybe you should find it, he details the incident. McClelland was correct in the ruling. If you remember, and I believe it was Lee McPhail, AL president, he said something to the effect that, the "spirit" of the rule wasn't violated. Read Brinkman's book, it there.
When you say "apparently", I take that to mean your not really sure. Also, I'd like you to explain a little better so I can understand you correctly. How is it widely considered one of the worst calls of all time? By who? And When? Maybe in some type of fan poll, that's possible.
You know what? Maybe Joe was not the CC, now I'm not sure.
Also, the interesting thing was, I got to watch the resumed game, live, and it was cool to see Billy Martin come out and appeal Brett touching all the bases on the homerun. Now remember there was an all new crew for the resumed game. Dave Phillips was the CC. Billy appealed to all 4 bases. And on all 4 appeals a safe call was given. So Billy then came out to Phillips and wanted to know how the umpires could signal safe, when they didn't even see the play. Well, Phillips pulls out a signed affidavit from Joe's crew that said Brett touched all 4 bases on the homerun.'
In Brinkman's Book, he say's that somehow the rumor got started that Billy was going to try this, so the league was ready for it. Besides Martin's appeal, the resumed game was uneventful, but still unforgettable.
Regarding the PIne Tar game...it is a ball hit with an illegal bat. By rule, that is an out. The entire crew (including 2 of the best rules officials in the game's history, Brinkman and Bremigan; McClelland was in his first year) got together and ruled Brett out. When MacPhail overturned the crew, he did not reference the rule book. Instead, he talked about the "spirit" of the rule. It is not our jobs, as umpires, to rule on the "spirit" of the rules. It is our job to enforce the rules. Anyone who thinks the crew got it wrong simply does not understand the job of umpires (or is a Royals fan). A ball struck with an illegal bat under the rules is an illegally batted ball and the batter is out.
Anonymous @2:19 am ->
After the Jerry Meals incident a few weeks ago, ESPN re-ran their Top Ten worst umpire calls, which showed the Pine Tar incident at #10. I tried to find the videos or listing online, and found this instead:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-calls-in-baseball-history.php
It lists the same ten calls, in somewhat different order, but with the Pine Tar still at #10.
Now, I never said that I agreed the call was wrong. McClelland is one of my very favorite umpires. But since someone else referenced the game, I was putting this out there.
And the rule in question?
6.06 The batter is out for illegal action when he
(d) He uses or attempts to use a bat that, in the umpire’s judgment, has been altered or
tampered with in such a way to improve the distance factor or cause an unusual
reaction on the baseball. This includes, bats that are filled, flat-surfaced, nailed,
hollowed, grooved or covered with a substance such as paraffin, wax, etc.
No advancement on the bases will be allowed and any out or outs made during a
play shall stand.
In addition to being called out, the player shall be ejected from the game and may be
subject to additional penalties as determined by his League President.
Rule 6.06(d) Comment: A batter shall be deemed to have used or attempted to use an illegal bat if
he brings such a bat into the batter’s box.
The argument listed on the worst calls page says that pine tar doesn't improve bat performance, so isn't covered by that rule. Of course, since the rule says umpire's judgement, then perhaps the protest should have been disallowed . . .?
Well, the rule used to say any foreign substance beyond 18" made the bat illegal. Now, it's still not allowed to have pine tar past 18", but there's no penalty, even after the fact, except to remove the bat from the game. If the bat is wiped off of the excess pine tar, it can be used later in the game.
Jon,
I enjoy reading most of what you say, but that list was a load of crap and a pretty weak reference to back up your earlier claims. Seems like the writer had a particular hard-on for Tim McClelland as well. I have a list of the 10 hottest women in the world, but like the b.s. baseball list I just read, it is pretty subjective. Also, you mentioned in your earlier post and the writer incorrectly states in her article that back in 1983 the penalty for excessive pine tar was to only remove the bat from the game. However, I'm pretty sure that rule 1.10 (c) along with the note and comment (that said you don't eject the player, you don't negate any action caused by using the bat, etc.) were clarified and added after and precisely because of this incident. Can someone confirm? If so, therefore, in 1983 all the rule said was you could not have more than 18 inches of a foreign substance on the bat. If you did, the bat was illegal. If illegal, (everyone seems to know the penalty) the correct call at the time was made. Now if this tid bit was already in the rule book, then I'm full of crap and apologize, but I'm betting it was not at the time. So, to say this was one of the ten worst calls of all-time is a stretch. Worst call of all-time? No! Most entertaining call of all-time? Maybe.
Again, at no point did I agree with the list or its contents, or anything about it. I just said it existed. I just threw some information out there. The list doesn't back up any claims of mine. It's just something I found.
Post a Comment