THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Monday, September 05, 2011

What’s up with the interference call in Florida?

Most of you probably read about or watched the controversial umpire call in the PHI/FLO game yesterday.  If not, here is a recap:

Score tied 2-2 in the top of the 6th.  No outs and Howard on 1st for the Phillies.  Hunter Pence hits a line drive to the wall in RF.  The Marlin’s RF’er goes back and leaps for the ball at the top of the wall.  Some fans ostensibly reach over the wall at the same time.  The ball caroms off the wall and Pence has a double with Ryan on third.

Peterson and some other Marlin players are motioning that the fans interfered with the ball.  The Marlin’s manager comes out and argues with crew chief Joe West.

The umpires get together, view the play on video, come out, and declare Pence out for fan interference and send Howard back to first.

Manuel, the Phillies’ manager comes out of the dugout to argue, gets ejected from the game (I guess you can’t argue replay calls), and files a protest.

The Phillies and their fans are basically arguing that the play is not reviewable since only a “HR call” is reviewable.  They are also arguing, I guess, that even if the play was reviewed as a “HR call,” they cannot then rule on interference based on the replay.

I don’t think there is a clear answer, I don’t know how the protest will play out (protests are rarely upheld), but I have some comments nonetheless:

First of all, I think that the chief umpire, West, lied afterward about several things in order to cover his ass, similar to the way Doug Eddings lied after the “ball hitting the dirt after a K - or not” - episode in the playoffs a few years ago.

For what it is worth, West is generally considered a terrible, arrogant umpire.  Eddings is also considered a terrible umpire (along with C.B. Bucknor and Angel Hernandez).  From many years of watching baseball, I agree with that consensus (about those 4 umpires).

Here is what West said according to MLB.com and other media websites:

“Because the Phillies wanted me to go look to see if it was a home run, I’ve got to judge whether it went over the fence or not,” West said. “But the plate umpire [Chad Fairchild] already thought it was spectator interference. So now we go look at the replay, we have to take all the evidence we get from the replay. That’s why we came out with, ‘This is the correct ruling.’ ”

He said that the Phillies wanted him to see if it was a HR.  Manuel said he did not.  If you watch the video, it does not look like Manuel ever came out of the dugout until after the review.  So who exactly on the Phillies wanted or asked for a review (to see if it was a HR)?  Plus it definitely did not look like a HR so I am not sure why anyone on the Phillies would ask for a review.  If anything, they would NOT want a review because of the possibility of fan interference.  And who else but Manuel could or would ask for a review?  Again, I don’t think he ever came out of the dugout prior to the review.

That being said, according to the rules, no one needs to ASK for a review I don’t think. Here is the rule according to MLB.com:

“Instant replay will apply only to home run calls—whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed.”

The bolding is mine.  Obviously the decision is up to the umpires (the crew chief - West), but the above rule doesn’t say that anyone has to ASK for a review.

That being said, the rule clearly states that replay will only be used for HR calls.  So did West decide to review the play to see if it was indeed a HR (absent fan interference or whatever I guess)?  I don’t think so. I think he wanted to placate McKeon and the Marlins and see whether there was interference or not.  I think that afterward when he realized that he couldn’t do that, he lied about the, “Phillies wanting to review the call to see if it was a HR?”

He didn’t have to use that lie (if indeed it was a lie).  He could have simply said that there was some question among the umpires that it might be a HR, so they decided to review it. That would be perfectly legit, as far as I can tell from the above rule.

Now, let’s say that the review was legit.  Can they review the play as a “HR call” (obviously when they say “HR call” in the rule, they also mean a “double call” which might have been a HR, IOW a “possible” HR) and then also decide whether it was interference or not?  That is the part that is not clear, and I don’t think that there is anything in the rule that suggests they can or they can’t.

In other words, if an umpiring crew properly reviews a “HR call” (fair or foul, over the wall or not, fan interference or not), can they rule on something else that they happen to see (clearly, I assume) in the video?  For example, what if they see that the fielder threw his glove at the ball, which is a penalty in and of itself, and they did not see that in live mode?

Now, the replay rule also talks about fan interference. Here is that part again:

“Instant replay will apply only to home run calls—whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference...”

So maybe according to that, they CAN rule on interference.  The rule says, “whether they (the batted ball presumably) have been subject to fan interference.”

Obviously this ball WAS subject to fan interference, so it seems that they can rule on it, as long as they were reviewing the play based upon whether it was a HR or not, and not whether there was interference or not.

Back to Country Joe’s statements.  Remember he also said this:

But the plate umpire [Chad Fairchild] already thought it was spectator interference. So now we go look at the replay, we have to take all the evidence we get from the replay. ..

I think he is lying about that too!  There was no indication that any of the umpires thought it was interference.  If they did, they would have called the interference right away, I think.  Perhaps, when they got together after McKeon came out to argue, and after the Marlins were complaining about interference, Fairchild said something like, “You know, the fans might have interfered with that ball.” But clearly no one called interfercne right away or at any time for that matter.

Again, even if one of the umpires thought they might have seen interference, or there was some legitimate question as to whether it occurred, they can not, as far as I can tell, look at the replay to clarify that only.  That seems to be what they did.  I don’t think anyone thought that it might be a HR and I definitely don’t think anyone on the Phillies asked for a HR review.

Now, let’s say that they reviewed the play properly and determined (correctly) that there was fan interference.  What is the remedy?

Here is the rule on that:

When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference. If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

Again, the bolding is mine. The first part can not always be clear since an umpire can not always know what would have happened if there was no interference.  If you watch this video and ask 100 people whether Peterson would have made the catch, I think you are going to get something like a 50/50 response, 70/30 at worst (and I’m not even sure in what direction).  But the second part is clearer.  The interference must clearly prevent a fielder from catching the ball.  Sort of like clear and convincing evidence or some such thing.

Was it clear that Peterson would have caught the ball?  I don’t think so, but that is a judgment call.

If MLB decides that the review itself was proper and that the interference call was also proper, I don’t think that they can uphold the protest based on the wording of the interference rule since that is a judgment call.  West and co. can simply say, “We thought that the interference clearly prevented the RF’er from catching the ball,” and that would be the end of the story…