612gdt

Postby jerseyhoya » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:58 am

Bill McNeal wrote:Couldn't they put those remote control cameras on top of the foul poles, like the ones they use in the NHL above the glass at the redline or NFL in the middle of the uprights? I gotta think it would be worth it for a call like tonight's game and the TV broadcasts could use it for high angle shots of plays in the outfield as well.


If Bettman wasn't such a joke of a commissioner, they'd have this figured out by now.
User avatar
jerseyhoya
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 89786
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Southwest DC

Postby CalvinBall » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:59 am

I will read through this thread tomorrow but the offense was miserable tonight. Rollins needs to be benched for a week.
User avatar
CalvinBall
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
 
Posts: 52681
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: Out There

Postby Bill McNeal » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:59 am

jerseyhoya wrote:
Bill McNeal wrote:Couldn't they put those remote control cameras on top of the foul poles, like the ones they use in the NHL above the glass at the redline or NFL in the middle of the uprights? I gotta think it would be worth it for a call like tonight's game and the TV broadcasts could use it for high angle shots of plays in the outfield as well.


If Bettman wasn't such a joke of a commissioner, they'd have this figured out by now.


wait... what? Does the NHL have a patent on the technology?
man I drew all these penises for nothing - housh
User avatar
Bill McNeal
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 20814
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:05 pm
Location: A Place To Be Somebody

Postby PSUsarge » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:00 am

Bill McNeal wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Bill McNeal wrote:Couldn't they put those remote control cameras on top of the foul poles, like the ones they use in the NHL above the glass at the redline or NFL in the middle of the uprights? I gotta think it would be worth it for a call like tonight's game and the TV broadcasts could use it for high angle shots of plays in the outfield as well.


If Bettman wasn't such a joke of a commissioner, they'd have this figured out by now.


wait... what? Does the NHL have a patent on the technology?


Conspiracy
User avatar
PSUsarge
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 4699
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:14 pm
Location: 215

Postby mozartpc27 » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:12 am

So, I went out for beers with friends, and saw this at the bar. i've been on slow burn about this all night. Why - if they have replay at all - in the name of GOD didn't they look at it? I realize that it was unlikely to be overturned, given that it was over the foul pole and I don't think you can over turn it based on what it looked like it might have done, but still? I #$!&@ HATE THE RED SOX. They actually make me like the Yankees, that's how much I hate them and their douchebag cock-sucking fans.

For once, I actually missed the Vet tonight: its foul screens went all the way up to the top, and the ball would have caught one of those things.

#$!&@.
"I'm in a bar with the games sound turned off and that Cespedes home run still sounded like inevitability."

-swish
User avatar
mozartpc27
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 24628
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Baseball Heaven

Postby mozartpc27 » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:21 am

The Phillies had better win tomorrow or I am asking for my money back from the commisioner. That ball was fair. #$!&@.

I hate the Red Sox and their stupid fans. Good night.
"I'm in a bar with the games sound turned off and that Cespedes home run still sounded like inevitability."

-swish
User avatar
mozartpc27
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 24628
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Baseball Heaven

Postby jerseyhoya » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:23 am

It probably wasn't fair, but I think you're a better poster when you're drunk.
User avatar
jerseyhoya
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 89786
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Southwest DC

Postby mozartpc27 » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:27 am

Here'e the thing: the sound was off at the bar, and I was far from the TV anyway, but I jumped up 4 different times during the night because I was sure the Phillies had taken the lead. Rollins, Stairs, Ibanez, and Dobbs. The Phillies should have won that game eight ways from Sunday. That ball was fair because someone somewhere owed us a break on that. But of course it wasn't called that way.

I made the terrible mistake of inviting a Red Sox fan to come to the game tomorrow with me. I'm going want to throw him and his #$!&@ grin about this game tomorrow headlong from the third deck. AAAAAAARRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. The Phillies won that game, I don't care what Kyle Kendrick has to say about it.
"I'm in a bar with the games sound turned off and that Cespedes home run still sounded like inevitability."

-swish
User avatar
mozartpc27
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 24628
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Baseball Heaven

Postby mozartpc27 » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:27 am

Now, really, good night.
"I'm in a bar with the games sound turned off and that Cespedes home run still sounded like inevitability."

-swish
User avatar
mozartpc27
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 24628
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Baseball Heaven

Postby VFB » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:19 am

DOBBS???
User avatar
VFB
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 16541
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: SAFE AND SECURE AT SECOND BASE

Postby Rococo4 » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:35 am

laf837 wrote:just saw it on sportscenter. terrible angle, ball was $#@! crushed. looked like a homer from that bad angle but the fan reaction was not positive


like most i agree it should have been reviewed, but the fan reaction was really not that of a game winning homer...though in their defense they probably had no idea either
User avatar
Rococo4
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Ohio

Postby FTN » Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:30 am

being realistic, we shouldnt have even had a chance for kendrick to flush this one down the tubes.

lester pwned us
User avatar
FTN
list sheriff
 
Posts: 47429
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:42 pm
Location: BE PEACE

Postby phatj » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:24 am

This is really a moot issue, but I'd like to take one more shot at explaining why I think review is useless for a ball hit over the pole.

The simplest way that review could determine this conclusively is if the camera is perfectly aligned with the baseline, and if the ball is hit perfectly straight. Then you can simply extrapolate the line of the foul pole upwards and determine on which side of the line the ball passes. However, even if the camera is aligned, it's hard to determine if the ball is hit straight (which I would think it practically never is).

If there's any hook or slice to the ball, it will cross the plane of the baseline at some point. With the camera angle behind homeplate along the baseline, there's no way to tell if it hooks in front of the line of the pole (which in Dobbs' case, would have been foul) or behind it (fair)? (Or of course if the path of the ball would have actually intersected the line of the pole, such that the ball would have hit the pole if it were higher.)

The second problem is if the camera isn't perfectly aligned with the baseline. (This appears to have been the case in last night's game; it looks like the camera was up the first base line somewhat.) If it's not, this introduces parallax problems, so that even if you have the hypothetical perfectly straight ball and it appears from the camera to pass directly over the foul pole, it actually does not.

The other possibility would be to use triangulation from two different, perfectly-synchronized cameras. Suppose in addition to the camera (roughly) behind the plate, there's another camera somewhere down in the left field corner that was pointing towards right field at the time. If the frames are time-synched, and if the exact position of both cameras is known, simple trigonometry can be employed to determine the location of the ball in several frames as it passes close to the pole, and thus the path of the ball. However, I seriously doubt the review facility in New York is equipped to do this.
they were a chick hanging out with her friends at a bar, the Phillies would be the 320 lb chick with a nose wart and a dick - Trent Steele
User avatar
phatj
Moderator
 
Posts: 19448
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Andaman Limp Dick of Certain Doom

Postby Slowhand » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 am

:lol:
How dare you interrupt my Lime Rickey!
User avatar
Slowhand
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 18611
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:26 am
Location: Fake news

Postby Ace Rothstein » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:33 am

i dunno , maybe im a homer but that looks fair to me


watching the video on mlb.com on the dobbs near homer highlite



watching this at 1:10-1:12 while just clicking the play/pause button it looks fair to me
User avatar
Ace Rothstein
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 74087
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Tangiers Sportsbook

Postby Philssj » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:32 am

The more I see the replays, the ball was more over the pole than outside of it. I just don't understand what the harm was in taking a look at? Maybe the homeplate ump had a look at it too and thought it was a homer. Replay was put in place for these specific reasons, use it. They have no problem looking at disputed HR's the Mets have hit this year.
My quick smells like French Toast
User avatar
Philssj
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 1750
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:43 am
Location: South Jersey

Postby CalvinBall » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:34 am

Rococo4 wrote:
laf837 wrote:just saw it on sportscenter. terrible angle, ball was $#@! crushed. looked like a homer from that bad angle but the fan reaction was not positive


like most i agree it should have been reviewed, but the fan reaction was really not that of a game winning homer...though in their defense they probably had no idea either


I was sitting in 110. It was really hard to tell from there.
User avatar
CalvinBall
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
 
Posts: 52681
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: Out There

Postby drsmooth » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:47 am

phatj wrote:This is really a moot issue, but I'd like to take one more shot at explaining why I think review is useless for a ball hit over the pole.

The simplest way that review could determine this conclusively is if the camera is perfectly aligned with the baseline, and if the ball is hit perfectly straight. Then you can simply extrapolate the line of the foul pole upwards and determine on which side of the line the ball passes. However, even if the camera is aligned, it's hard to determine if the ball is hit straight (which I would think it practically never is).

If there's any hook or slice to the ball, it will cross the plane of the baseline at some point. With the camera angle behind homeplate along the baseline, there's no way to tell if it hooks in front of the line of the pole (which in Dobbs' case, would have been foul) or behind it (fair)? (Or of course if the path of the ball would have actually intersected the line of the pole, such that the ball would have hit the pole if it were higher.)

The second problem is if the camera isn't perfectly aligned with the baseline. (This appears to have been the case in last night's game; it looks like the camera was up the first base line somewhat.) If it's not, this introduces parallax problems, so that even if you have the hypothetical perfectly straight ball and it appears from the camera to pass directly over the foul pole, it actually does not.

The other possibility would be to use triangulation from two different, perfectly-synchronized cameras. Suppose in addition to the camera (roughly) behind the plate, there's another camera somewhere down in the left field corner that was pointing towards right field at the time. If the frames are time-synched, and if the exact position of both cameras is known, simple trigonometry can be employed to determine the location of the ball in several frames as it passes close to the pole, and thus the path of the ball. However, I seriously doubt the review facility in New York is equipped to do this.


I think they should use lasers.

big ones
Yes, but in a double utley you can put your utley on top they other guy's utley, and you're the winner. (Swish)
User avatar
drsmooth
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 47349
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Low station

Postby Bakestar » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:55 am

Image

FOUL BALL!
Foreskin stupid
User avatar
Bakestar
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 14695
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:57 pm
Location: Crane Jackson's Fountain Street Theatre

Postby mozartpc27 » Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:20 am

phatj wrote:This is really a moot issue, but I'd like to take one more shot at explaining why I think review is useless for a ball hit over the pole.

The simplest way that review could determine this conclusively is if the camera is perfectly aligned with the baseline, and if the ball is hit perfectly straight. Then you can simply extrapolate the line of the foul pole upwards and determine on which side of the line the ball passes. However, even if the camera is aligned, it's hard to determine if the ball is hit straight (which I would think it practically never is).

If there's any hook or slice to the ball, it will cross the plane of the baseline at some point. With the camera angle behind homeplate along the baseline, there's no way to tell if it hooks in front of the line of the pole (which in Dobbs' case, would have been foul) or behind it (fair)? (Or of course if the path of the ball would have actually intersected the line of the pole, such that the ball would have hit the pole if it were higher.)

The second problem is if the camera isn't perfectly aligned with the baseline. (This appears to have been the case in last night's game; it looks like the camera was up the first base line somewhat.) If it's not, this introduces parallax problems, so that even if you have the hypothetical perfectly straight ball and it appears from the camera to pass directly over the foul pole, it actually does not.

The other possibility would be to use triangulation from two different, perfectly-synchronized cameras. Suppose in addition to the camera (roughly) behind the plate, there's another camera somewhere down in the left field corner that was pointing towards right field at the time. If the frames are time-synched, and if the exact position of both cameras is known, simple trigonometry can be employed to determine the location of the ball in several frames as it passes close to the pole, and thus the path of the ball. However, I seriously doubt the review facility in New York is equipped to do this.


I get you, and I said in to my friend last night as well as in my initial post on the subject that I realize that there was no chance they could overturn that call based on the visual evidence they had. It boils down to this: I could be mad at the Phillies, whom I like, for not building the pole higher, or the umpires, whom I don't like, for being umpires. I'll take the latter.

I realize there are others on here who felt very strongly there should have been a review and so this wasn't necessarily directed at me, but there's my reasoning.
"I'm in a bar with the games sound turned off and that Cespedes home run still sounded like inevitability."

-swish
User avatar
mozartpc27
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 24628
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Baseball Heaven

PreviousNext

Return to 2009 Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron