can we debate the kemp catch

garlan5

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2009
2,684
Virginia
Last edited:

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,667
Pasadena, CA
I was all ready to eat crow, but Michael Hurley must’ve been one of the crazy people in the game thread who couldn’t accept the guy made a great catch. Maybe it’s because I was watching the game with the sound low, but there was a never a doubt.

Edit - am I the crazy one? I do not see what Hurley is claiming to see.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,115
There was some discussion after the game in the game thread where there some video posted that makes it seem like it was not a catch. But I said there, we won, it doesn't much matter.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
20,019
where I was last at
I generally hate replay. However get the call right...

BUT If the play can't be reviewed unless its magnified, or at ultra-slow speed unable to be achieved by normal human eyesight, or at an angle not available by any of the umps involved, or be detected within a few seconds, tough shit, shit happens, play stands.

Having said that

WE WUZ ROBBED!
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The only thing that seems clear to me from the video is that the ball changes direction slightly just before it comes to rest in the pocket of his glove. So there's clearly some kind of bounce or deflection there. But it's not at all clear to me that it isn't already in the glove at that point. I.e., it bounced off the board in the sense that the board was the hard surface causing the deflection, but there was leather separating the ball from the board, and so it was technically in his glove, and so technically a catch. I'm not sure that's the case, but there's nothing in the video that makes me sure it's not the case.

tl;dr -- "inconclusive" is the right word here, so the call stands.
 

RG33

Potty Mouth
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
4,553
CA
It still looks like a catch to me — it looks to me like it hits the webbing of his glove, which clangs against the wall and makes the sound, and then lowers into his glove. Either way, way too close-to-call to overturn in that situation IMO
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I generally hate replay. However get the call right...

BUT If the play can't be reviewed unless its magnified, or at ultra-slow speed unable to be achieved by normal human eyesight, or at an angle not available by any of the umps involved, or be detected within a few seconds, tough shit, shit happens, play stands.

Having said that

WE WUZ ROBBED!
That is generally my feeling about replay. Allow the refs/umps to see the play from multiple angles, because one human only gets one angle, and that angle may be blocked, but make them look at the play in full-speed, normal magnification. If it is obviously wrong enough at full speed, change it. Otherwise, move on.
 

SoxInTheMist

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
186
Woodinville, WA
The only way I could understand anyone thinking that he didn't catch that is if the Sox lost and they were looking through anger glasses. It's also a great reminder that a few inches can drastically change a game.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
12,545
Seattle, WA
Sorry - it's a catch and we should stop dwelling on it. I can't understand why some can't conceive of the ball hitting the glove / glove hitting the wall at the exact same moment (or just before). No head-on angle is going to show the back of the webbing hitting the wall (even the theoretical "split second" before). Also, look at the angle of the ball on its way down. It would need to be near vertical to do the physics that some seem to believe.

Great friggen catch, timed perfectly, top of leap.
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
18,163
pawtucket
As a neutral observer, I watched the catch and replay, then told my wife "I hope the best team wins because this series is becoming really interesting to watch."
Add Bregman's barehanded play to the list. High level of ball being played here.
Oh, and it's easier to watch when you have no skin in the game.
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
15,906
Clearly hits the fingers of his glove and bounces into the pocket. Is this a gold v blue dress type of deal where I can't see what others see?
 

krobe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 4, 2006
122
I thought it was a catch at the time but after seeing this I don't think so anymore.


If you watch the top of the square it moves as the ball goes by and the ball changes direction before it reaches the glove.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
That is generally my feeling about replay. Allow the refs/umps to see the play from multiple angles, because one human only gets one angle, and that angle may be blocked, but make them look at the play in full-speed, normal magnification. If it is obviously wrong enough at full speed, change it. Otherwise, move on.
I don't really understand this. The whole point of having replay is to use technology to get the call right. If looking at it in slow mo means it takes 5 minutes to make the call, OK, that's a problem, but if it's a matter of 10 or 20 extra seconds, take the time and get it right.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,195
Ann Arbor
Put me in the camp of "if it hasn't been overly scrutinized as a baseball version of the Zapruder Film" then the evidence isn't conclusive enough to overturn.

FWIW, I finally do see the bit of padding deflection/shadows people on Twitter pointed out, but it's laughable if you think that is "slam dunk, obvious" to a replay judge. Or even most of us watching the game on 65" HDTVs.
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
15,906
There's this:

Was the ball not spherical? Because a sphere doesn't make a mark like that. Also, there are all kinds of differences between those two images other than the location noted in the red circle.
 

Bergs

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
14,543
It looks to me like it did clip the upper frame of the panel the glove displaces, but I sure wouldn't bet my life on it. I think it was handled correctly. That said, is there a play that better illustrates the "game of inches" cliche?
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
735
Maryland
I thought it was a catch at the time but after seeing this I don't think so anymore.


If you watch the top of the square it moves as the ball goes by and the ball changes direction before it reaches the glove.

From this replay it does look like the ball hits the wall first. And it also explains the tin clank sound we heard much better than it still making this sound from inside the glove. I wonder if they saw this in NY before upholding the call.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
9,570
Based on the video it clearly looks like the ball hits what appears to be a padded scoreboard first thus creating the slight indent shown in the photo/video.

That said I think the call was correctly officiated because MLB games shouldn't require forensic testing to get through a game.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,520
Belo Horizonte - Brazil

I don't think his glove would make the panel bounce around like that.


From this view, I see the ball hit the wall and ricochet into his glove. I don't think it's 100% definitive, but it sure looks like a hit.
 

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,074
Sydney, Australia
Put me in the camp of "if it hasn't been overly scrutinized as a baseball version of the Zapruder Film" then the evidence isn't conclusive enough to overturn.

FWIW, I finally do see the bit of padding deflection/shadows people on Twitter pointed out, but it's laughable if you think that is "slam dunk, obvious" to a replay judge. Or even most of us watching the game on 65" HDTVs.
I am here as well.

It's just as possible that the shingle moving from glove contact causes the shadow and the sound. Even slowed down and zoomed in it's inconclusive.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
12,744

I don't think his glove would make the panel bounce around like that.


From this view, I see the ball hit the wall and ricochet into his glove. I don't think it's 100% definitive, but it sure looks like a hit.
OBE, but that top video clearly shows the ball indenting the wall. Such a bang bang play that I don't fault them for sticking with the ruling on the field.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,161
London, England
Are you all 100% sure there wasn't a 2nd ball fired at the panel from a grassy knoll? If it were the same shade of grey-black of the panel we wouldn't necessarily be able to see it...
 

Flunky

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2009
1,843
CT
I was looking at these this morning and I didn't see it. But now looking at the replays in this thread, specifically the ones posted by krobe and rodderick I see that it deflects off of the panel before going into his glove.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
10,249
Concord, NH
I was ready to pop in and say you're all being crazy. That the sound was from the glove and the ball hitting the wall all at once as he caught it at the exact last possible moment. But, it's clear as day on one of the slo-mo angles. The ball hits the wall and drops straight into the glove. It's unmistakable. But, I'm not mad about it at all. Winning helps, of course.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
12,944
Richmond, VA
Let’s separate three things:
1. ‘move on!’ Look, it’s a game, and we’re discussing it. No big deal. Even at the time I thought ‘well, it might technically be a catch but that’s how he game needs to be called’. We get it

2. ‘Too much CSI for baseball’. Again: who cares? I agree, I guess. If it’s really taking this much analysis then sure, that’s how he game is. But this here isn’t a game, it’s a discussion. We could have a ‘should MLB replays be so technically detailed?’ thread.

3. Was it, in the end, a catch? This is independent of the game score or what we think replay should or should be. I’m fine with how it was called, even when I was still worried we’d lose the game.
I think it hit the wall first. The panel clearly deflected. (A sphere hitting a soft and shifting object at an oblique angle will leave a weird mark).
Question: did the glove cause the panel to move before the ball hit it?
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,408
Rhode Island
Looking at the replays now, it looks clear to me the tip of the fingers on the glove moved the panel. It looks to me that the panel starting moving BEFORE the ball got into the frame. The "deflection" of the ball is an optical illusion caused by the panel moving from the glove contact.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
10,249
Concord, NH
Looking at the replays now, it looks clear to me the tip of the fingers on the glove moved the panel. It looks to me that the panel starting moving BEFORE the ball got into the frame. The "deflection" of the ball is an optical illusion caused by the panel moving from the glove contact.
The glove may have also moved the panel as well, but the ball left a ball-shaped mark exactly where on the panel it hit, which was just above the glove. DrewDog and Rodderick's posts are pretty definitive.
 

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,360
Astoria
I actually am going to be an ass. I think the ball was at least partially in his glove. If you look at the very tip of his glove, the edge of it moves down right when the ball makes contact with the wall. I think there’s evidence showing it both hit the wall and his glove at the same time.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,520
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I actually am going to be an ass. I think the ball was at least partially in his glove. If you look at the very tip of his glove, the edge of it moves down right when the ball makes contact with the wall. I think there’s evidence showing it both hit the wall and his glove at the same time.
The panel deforms on a spot above where his glove is positioned. It's pretty easy to see in slow mo, just pause the video.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
10,249
Concord, NH
I dunno. I thought that at first, but it looks like the ball hits a full ball's width above the glove.

Edit: responding to Crow
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
7,931
Let’s separate three things:
1. ‘move on!’ Look, it’s a game, and we’re discussing it. No big deal. Even at the time I thought ‘well, it might technically be a catch but that’s how he game needs to be called’. We get it

2. ‘Too much CSI for baseball’. Again: who cares? I agree, I guess. If it’s really taking this much analysis then sure, that’s how he game is. But this here isn’t a game, it’s a discussion. We could have a ‘should MLB replays be so technically detailed?’ thread.

3. Was it, in the end, a catch? This is independent of the game score or what we think replay should or should be. I’m fine with how it was called, even when I was still worried we’d lose the game.
I think it hit the wall first. The panel clearly deflected. (A sphere hitting a soft and shifting object at an oblique angle will leave a weird mark).
Question: did the glove cause the panel to move before the ball hit it?
Agree on all of these points. Only the one super slomo makes no-catch apparent. The kicker for me is it doesn’t look like the glove moves back towards the wall which seems odd for a ball traveling that direction that fast. The sound thing is a total red herring.
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
27,349
if you look at the path in that first close up video, it looks like it bends when it would have hit the panel. Use your mouth to slowly move the playhead through, the panel 'bends' and the path is disrupted slightly. There's even a frame where the ball movement is bent:
Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 10.06.25 AM.png

It's too close to call, but I can see it hitting the panel after not really thinking it did yesterday. Bias glasses gone because it doesn't matter anymore, but it looks like the Astros got a break.
 

ricopetro6

lurker
Oct 25, 2013
1,563
obvious deflection off the panel after watching the videos. Hearing it live, the clang sound was ball hitting the wall. I was surprised watching the game live that when he came down that the ball wasn't on the ground. You don't get the loud clang sound from glove hitting the wall.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,278
Berkeley, CA
The clanging sound was curious, indicating the ball hitting whatever the hell is out there. Even after seeing most of the replays, however, I wasn't convinced it wasn't a catch - until the first replay roderick posted. It's clearly a non-catch. So glad we won anyway. Otherwise, I'm muttering something about it along with deflategate on my deathbed.

The pre-game broadcast should have some fun with this and send someone out with a ball and throw it off that wall and record the sound. Then try to duplicate it with a ball in a glove, slapping the wall with a hand, etc. They'll never do it, but it'd be interesting to fans and that's good television. So, they'll never do it.
 
Sep 13, 2006
690
Are you all 100% sure there wasn't a 2nd ball fired at the panel from a grassy knoll? If it were the same shade of grey-black of the panel we wouldn't necessarily be able to see it...
I've thoroughly analyzed the audio using state-of-the-art techniques and there are actually 2 distinct "clanks" which are so closely timed as to be imperceptible by the naked ear in real time. This strongly supports the "2 ball theory" which is gaining a lot of traction online.

Fortunately, we do not root for the Yankees - who have heavily relied upon blown calls to "win" in the post season. Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the Boston Red Sox. They win Championships DESPITE adverse calls, not BECAUSE of them!
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
15,906
If it hits straight on, you are correct. If it's coming down at an angle it may not be a nice round mark.
You are correct. It would make an oval shape. I just don't see how a sphere leaves a mark shaped like Africa no matter what angle.
 

KenTremendous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2006
525
Partridge, KS
It's a perfect optical illusion. If you watch the video and keep your eyes on his glove, the ball appears to go directly into the glove. If you keep your eyes on the spot right above his glove, it appears to hit that spot and then deflect into his glove. You can utterly convince yourself of either version, just depending on where you focus your vision.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
14,399
if you look at the path in that first close up video, it looks like it bends when it would have hit the panel. Use your mouth to slowly move the playhead through, the panel 'bends' and the path is disrupted slightly.
I keep trying to do this, but I am just getting saliva all over my computer. That dress is definitely white and gold, though.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
3,728
San Diego
It's a perfect optical illusion. If you watch the video and keep your eyes on his glove, the ball appears to go directly into the glove. If you keep your eyes on the spot right above his glove, it appears to hit that spot and then deflect into his glove. You can utterly convince yourself of either version, just depending on where you focus your vision.
This is like a step beyond Schrodinger's cat. Not only does observation seem to affect the outcome, but the precise manner of observation seems to reversibly affect the outcome. The catch and no-catch were in a state of persistent superposition. It's a good thing the Sox won and reunified the timeline, thus preventing this tear in the space-time continuum from swallowing the stadium.
 

drbretto

guidence counselor
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
10,249
Concord, NH
It is interesting, but just like the Blue and black dress, I think there's a definitive answer here. The angles where it looks like the ball goes straight into the glove, it looks entirely possible for the ball to be going straight into the glove. But, the other angle doesn't give a whole lot of room for interpretation. It doesn't look like it *might* have hit the wall, it looks definitive. If I go back to the other angle, I can still see how it might have hit the wall.

To me, of course. In case people are actually seeing different things. (This is literally possible. You don't always see what you see, you see what your brain interprets. Like, if you're afraid of spiders, they may look bigger to you than they would to someone who isn't. Or like the moon when it's on the horizon, it's all your brain making it appear larger. It's not like a bending of the light or anything)
 

BlackJack

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2007
1,998
It's a perfect optical illusion. If you watch the video and keep your eyes on his glove, the ball appears to go directly into the glove. If you keep your eyes on the spot right above his glove, it appears to hit that spot and then deflect into his glove. You can utterly convince yourself of either version, just depending on where you focus your vision.
This is spot on. I am now convinced that he both caught and didn't catch it at the same time.

This marks the first observed instance of Schrodinger's Cat(ch) with the completely unexpected result that despite the box being open while we observed it, we still don't know if it's alive or dead.


Edit: Ninja'd - Damn you Kevin Youkulele
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
8,100
Springfield, VA
I am here as well.

It's just as possible that the shingle moving from glove contact causes the shadow and the sound. Even slowed down and zoomed in it's inconclusive.
I'm with you. The glove hit the wall at just about the exact same time that the ball hit the glove/wall. I can't tell whether the wall moved because of the ball or because of the glove. That's about as textbook an "inconclusive" video replay can be.

If they had a better angle it may have been more clear, but I haven't seen one yet.