I Don’t Think Replay Review Would Have Helped the Yankees in Game Two

After finally watching the slow-motion video replay from Friday night’s controversial play in the Indians win over the Yankees, I do not believe that a replay review would necessarily have gone the Yankees’ way. The reason is in the standard needed to overturn the call in the field. That standard is clear and convincing evidence.

To review, it was the bottom of the sixth inning. The Yankees were ahead by a score of 8 to 3. Lonnie Chisenhall came to the plate, with two men on base and two out.  The count was no balls and two strikes. Yankees pitcher Chad Green throws high and inside. The umpire signals that the ball has hit Chisenhall’s hand. Catcher Gary Sanchez, who caught the ball, immediately points to the dugout to signal his belief that manager Joe Girardi should request a replay review. If the call were overturned, the result would have been a foul tip strike out and the inning would have been over. Instead, of course, the inning continued any grand slam home run brought the Indians to within one run.

Fans, announcers and pundits alike believe that the call was wrong.  If Gerardi had just signaled for a replay review, the Indians would not have had an epic comeback, putting the Yankees’ back against the wall. 

Respectfully, I disagree. Now, I’m not saying that the majority of you who think the ball hit the knob of Chisenhall’s are wrong. What I am saying is that there was not clear and convincing evidence on replay. 

This should really not be too surprising. In all of the years where we’ve had replay review in baseball, there have been plenty of times where the vast majority of fans, announcers and pundits watching the game have thought that a play should be easily overturned, only to hear that the play stands as called. This is not to say that the fans were wrong. But it does reflect that even with our advanced technology, there are plays that are still too close to call for certain.

Going back to the Chisenhall play, I have watched the super slow, high-definition replay several times now. You can see it for yourself at the article linked to this sentence. I can see how someone would conclude that the ball hit the knob of the bat. But I can also see how someone can conclude that the ball first grazed Chisenhall’s glove before it hit the knob of the bat. If it hit Chisenhall’s glove first, thebn it was a dead ball before it hit the bat. Thus, even with the distinct sound that many say is proof that the ball hit the bat, Chisenhall could still have been hit first. Reasonable can differ. Ergo, there is no clear and convincing evidence. 

This is not justification for Girardi failing to trust his catcher and failing to call for a review. A manager needs to use all of the tools as his disposal to win the game. But even if he did, my conclusion is that it would not have made a difference because the video evidence just did not reach the clear and convincing standard. 

William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Hall of Fame Should Reverse the Slight to Dick Allen

Jimmy Rollins: The Best of the Phillies Shortstops

Dick Allen: Integrating Philadelphia’s Baseball Culture