It was about as clear as Kemp's catch in LF the previous game. Also, while the call against Altuve was big; the Astros blew leads twice in that game and left the bases loaded in the B9. There's no one to blame for that loss that doesn't wear an Astros uniform for a living.
Was Kemp's play even reviewed ? Considering most people/media thought Altuve had the HR, your position is ignorant. The Astros messed up throughout the series, but that doesn't change the fact the umps cheated for Boston.
Yes. You know who agrees with my ignorant position? AJ Hinch. Speaking of ignorant positions, we're back to this, are we?
Most people/media didn't have a problem with the Kemp call. However, Altuve's play was different. Clearly, Hinch took the high road. You know that, yet you still argue.
Listen to his audio; he was not taking the high road. He thought it was a rather silly assertion because je knows games are not decided in the bottom of the 1st inning, and had just watched his team squander multiple opportunities to win, all the way up to leaving the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th with the their best hitter at the plate. Meanwhile, you're bleating about umpires cheating... BTW, here's another quote from Hinch: That was after a controversial Altuve play against the Red Sox... in September. In an ultimately meaningless game. Notice any difference?
Hinch said removing potential runs on an out-safe call is a killer during September, but didn't after a playoff game. High Road
I hope something positive for the league comes from the Altuve (non)HR. Like positioning a couple static cameras near the foul poles at good angles to see these things. AND (not OR) also putting the outfield playoff umps in reasonable positions instead of 40 ft behind the infield ones. I'm less conspiratorial about the calls in this series, including that one. Were tons of them terrible? Yes. Was that one particular BS? Absolutely. I think it was just Joe West being awful or potentially personally biased. The problem with that whole scenario is that the default call in that situation should NEVER be fan interference. That's just so wrong. I think if it had been called a HR, it would've stayed a HR with the camera angles that were available. You can't be prioritizing denial of a home run, a common and important event in baseball, especially with no angle to make the call. If you're going to do that, tell every club to remove all the seats in the first row next to every wall. Replay is good for the sport as a whole, I think, but umps are using it to ignore certain core tenets of the game. Tie is now going to the fielder instead of the runner at close plays at bases. And that's just straight up against the rules of the game. But I don't think it's a conspiracy. It's just lazy and/or shitty umping.
Live, it wasn't an egregiously bad call, IMO. Our seats are club level, above 3B, so it was "right in front of us" and in real time, it looked questionable. Enough to call FI definitively? No; but enough that *either* call would've led to replay. And for the record - and I don't see this often mentioned - Joe West had a pretty good vantage point. That is not a rule. The runner is either safe or out; there are no ties.
Hmm, I had not seen that angle with West before. That is a better vantage point than I thought he had. Still, I think the onus ought to be on proving interference in a close call like that. Ultimately, the league does need to address this, because there aren't going to even be outfield umps in regular-season games, and those boundary calls still matter. Regarding the other thing, you're right, there's only safe and out. I've just always heard "tie goes to the runner" as the constant reminder of how to handle those close calls when I'm playing, so it just sticks in my head. It still does seem that there are a lot more outs versus safes called on the field now on close plays than in the pre-replay era. But maybe that's a good thing. I guess I'd need to see a more substantially-researched comparison between the two eras to see if umps are getting more calls right on the field or just shifting their default assumption.
The onus is to make the right call; I don't think it defaults one way or the other. I think MLB needs to implement more umpire/review discretion because one thing that stands out to me on this particular play: all parties ultimately "behaved" appropriately - Betts jumped up, rather than back, and no fan purposefully interfered with him; nor was their reach - if at all - over and/or down the wall. They naturally reacted to a 100-MPH baseball headed right at them. There is no alternative for them - they have to react because there's no room for them to scatter. If there'd been discretion, that might've gone as a home run as I think reviewers would've seen no one willfully interfered.
It would be pretty easy for MLB to make any interference call have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Make it like the NFL has made the reception rule. Anything skeptical, or not quite 100% clear, and its not interference.. plain and simple. Its such a subjective call as is. There's been countless games impacted by it being called, or it not being called. Its one of those things that should be as obvious as there is (see Maher in 96).... and if there's any doubt on whether or not any fielder would have made a routine play on the ball, you don't call anything. Betts likely makes that catch in a vacuums... why? Because he's freakin Mookie Betts with a 4 foot vertical and amazing athletic ability to dive up and over all fences and rob HR's. I'm fully betting Joe West looked at it from THAT standpoint, and not from whether or not that was a routine catch that any RF should be able to make. And by no means do I think that cost them the game... but with the way the bats were locked in that night (minus the 9th inning, of course), and needing any bit of advantage they could have with Cora having limited bullpen options early, knocking Porcello out sooner could definitely have changed the course of that game and likely series.
Well, the Red Sox, in this recent run of greatness, never won a back-to-back title either. In fact, they didn't win another one for 3 years after they broke through in 2004.... and then had to wait 6 more years between 2007 and 2013. and now another 5 years. Doesn't sound like that much time when you bunch them all together, but all of those teams had a lot of different pieces.
NOPE.... and even if he did, it wouldve been overruled. Eta- after reading your comment again..... West doesn't make that same ruling IN HOUSTON with Betts.... or any Sox player.
BUT, in the same span... Celtics won, Bruins won, and Patriots won multiple. It all matters. Meanwhile, the Rockets miss 27 consecutive 3PTs.
Well put. It didn't literally cost them the game, but it was particularly significant. In hindsight, that call is going to bug me more than most, because the Astros really did subsequently do one of their best jobs I've seen in a long time of fighting back for the whole game. They put up runs in a lot of innings of that game. It became a real back-and-forth punchfest, but that call put them at a significant disadvantage in a game where they were playing at least equally to their opponents. Combining that with those two passed balls by our "gold-glove winning" catcher, and you've basically got 4 runs of damage concentrated in a millstone around the neck of the rest of the team for that game. To their credit, they almost successfully carried that stone to victory. Unfortunately, they didn't, and there's no way to know how the tide of the series would have looked if they had. Just a particularly unfortunate game.
It didn't, though. I agree; it was a significant call and it potentially had ripple effects across the final 8 innings. BUT... the Astros took the lead, subsequently lost it, and took the lead back. They had the bases loaded in the B9 with their best hitter at the plate and failed to tie/take the lead. If the game wound up... 2-0, or 3-2, or even 5-2........ yep, it's a KILLER. But the Astros gave up 8 runs; scored 6. I know the margin ended up being 2 runs..... But the Astros overcame the disadvantage multiple times and either couldn't hold it (twice) or didn't deliver (bottom of the 9th).
We all hate it when everybody assumes everything would happen in the same sequence if one play goes a different way... but in this hypothetical world, had the HR stood, and the Astros proceed to knock out Porcello one or two innings earlier, so you honestly think it would not have a ripple effect for that game? 2-2 is a huge difference from 3-1 (the biggest possible sway, IMO in a seven game series). The Astros had to have that game to give them a better than 50/50 shot to win the series. If you feel that call impacted that outcome, it’s by definition a series changing call.
Let's not forget.... it wasn't ONLY two runs lost on that play.. it also ADDED an out. The missed call on BOS's blatant swing on a check-swing ADDED a baserunner and REMOVED an out. There were also several missed ball-strike calls that went in Boston's favor. Astros screwed up too, but the umps cheated for BOS.
