Clueless Umpiring

[Islandboagie]

I'm not an anti-umpire guy and at this point in our pathetic season I don't really care that much if a call goes against us or not, they'll find a way to lose regardless. But I'm still curious how Crawford's homerun was ruled a ground rule double? You could look at that video a hundred times and never would it remotely appear as a ground rule double. The only question was it fair or foul. It looked to be fair to me, but I wouldn't have been outraged if it were called foul, at least some sense could have been made from a foul call.

The only explanation would be if the video guy in New York didn't understand the ground rules at AT&T. But if he doesn't understand the ground rules, then why should he be tasked with being the final say in close calls? Was this not explained to him?

Also, aren't they supposed to just look at the call in question? I doubt anyone on the field believed that was a ground rule double. The call in question should have been fair or foul.

This leads me to wonder if the people looking at the replays are qualified to do so.

[klaiggeb]

Boagie, I've asked myself that same question dozens of times.

Then again,I don't believe they are always totally objective. It's my opinion that they make decisions prior to a game, and then ENSURE that they make those calls, so my opinion is prejudiced.

boly

[donk33]

dk..possible explanation is they caught the ball in front of the foul pole....and the ball could have gone foul.....the biggest problem is the foul pole is behind the roof and the ball is fair if it hits the roof but foul if it misses the roof and curves around the foul pole...maybe the Giants should spend a couple of bucks and move the foul pole to the front edge of the roof....