from Amazon
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Legal ruling on the Phillies/Marlins HR/interference call
Using my extensive baseball lawyer training from the back streets in Montreal, and having just seen the Larry Flint bio movie last night, this is how I see it.
Since the replay can only be used on “HR calls”, that would mean the following:
1. The call on the field was a HR, and you view the replay to either
(i) affirm the call as a HR, or
(ii) reverse it into something else (interference, double, etc).
2. The call on the field was NOT a HR, and you view the replay to either
(i) affirm the call as whatever the ruling on the field was prior to the replay, or
(ii) make it a HR.
This is what makes the replay viable: it has to be a HR call. Either the call made was a HR, or the eventual call made is to turn it into a HR. This is a pure, strict, legalese interpretation.
Those are your only options. The rule is not “regardless of what the call on the field is, if the play is close enough to a HR, even if it was not originally called a HR, then you get to view the replay, and then make the correct decision, even if it was not to make it into a HR”.
This would be similar in hockey, where the replay is made on goal or no-goal. If in the process of viewing the goal / no-goal, you see some tripping or other penalty, you can’t then call the penalty and nullify the goal call. You do NOT look at “all available evidence” on the replay.
As Andy wrote in the other thread, you can’t stop someone for a broken light, and then inspect his trunk. So, Joe West made a bullsh!t call, based on the rules. It’s the baseball equivalent of an illegal search.
In the play in question, we had situation #2: a non-HR call is what was made on the field. If there are TWO challenges to the play, one based on fan interference, and one based on the HR, then the correct order would be the following:
A: the umpires are to determine if fan interference exists, or not, without looking at the replay. They can then change the initial ruling on the field, from a double into a fan interference, and create a NEW ruling on the field. Joe West could have said: “fan interference!”. The replay could not be used here, because it was not a HR call. Joe West had to first decide if it was a double or fan interference.
B: now that we have a ruling on the field, #2 above STILL applies. The current rule on the field is now (in this hypothetical, presuming step A was followed) fan interference, and the umpires are going to go to the replay for the first time to see if THAT ruling should be affirmed, or whether it needs to be reversed into a HR call.
If the umpires would then have seen that there was NO fan interference, AND that the ball would not have carried over the fence, then it CANNOT be reversed into a double call.
You have to apply situation 1 or situation 2, and the only remedies is what I’ve specified there.