Kemp catch! (or not) ?

[dustcover]

In real time while watching the game, I thought immediately OMG what a catch, indeed a very remarkable one at that. But when they went to replays I hopefully thought that maybe not. But clearly after viewing the slow-motion replay closeup of Kemp's glove against the wall, there seemed to be no doubt that the call of a catch was validated.

 

Any naysayers?

[notin]

It was a great catch, but even if it wasn't, it would hardly be the first close call in MLB history to go the wrong way.

 

Nothng to see here...

[greenwell]

In real time while watching the game, I thought immediately OMG what a catch, indeed a very remarkable one at that. But when they went to replays I hopefully thought that maybe not. But clearly after viewing the slow-motion replay closeup of Kemp's glove against the wall, there seemed to be no doubt that the call of a catch was validated.

 

Any naysayers?

 

I'm mildly confused why this would need a thread. There was no one who thought it wasn't a catch after the replay.

[moonslav59]

IMO- a clear catch.

[moonslav59]

I'm mildly confused why this would need a thread. There was no one who thought it wasn't a catch after the replay.

 

cp claims it was off the wall.

[cp176]

I must be the only person who saw the video of that catch in slow motion posted by weei this morning when i got up. If the video I saw was some sort of fake then someone did one hell of a job. I slow motion the ball hit the wall first. Not a big deal - we won.

[cp176]

cp claims it was off the wall.

 

 

Man I hope you are right - It gets a new thread because cp - hubby hubba

 

I 've been trying to find the video that was posted this morning but it seems to have disappeared. Is this a case of real news being squashed by fake news? lol

For the record, at the time even though I was troubled by the sound, I thought that it was a great catch. Watching the slow motion video says it wasn't. Didn't the sound of the play bother you a little?

[greenwell]

I must be the only person who saw the video of that catch in slow motion posted by weei this morning when i got up. If the video I saw was some sort of fake then someone did one hell of a job. I slow motion the ball hit the wall first. Not a big deal - we won.

 

I stand corrected, I guess there is some debate. I just watched the video on weei and I don't see how it 'clearly hit the wall'.

[greenwell]

Man I hope you are right - It gets a new thread because cp - hubby hubba

 

I 've been trying to find the video that was posted this morning but it seems to have disappeared. Is this a case of real news being squashed by fake news? lol

For the record, at the time even though I was troubled by the sound, I thought that it was a great catch. Watching the slow motion video says it wasn't. Didn't the sound of the play bother you a little?

 

Is this the video

https://weei.radio.com/blogs/rob-bradford/apparent-blown-call-costs-red-sox-chance-build-lead-over-astros

I think the sound is his glove hitting the wall, not the ball.

[notin]

Looks like it goes directly into his glove to me.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/unbelievable-leaping-catch-tony-kemp-killed-red-sox-rally-alcs-game-3-224028491.html

[Beaneater]

As cp said, unless the video I saw was a fake, it was pretty clearly off the wall. How clearly? 85+%, I'd say. His glove lightly hitting the wall at almost zero velocity (since he was at the top of his leap) can't make the whole panel shimmy violently like that. Plus the ball apparently changes direction before settling into the glove, although that is less clear.

.

That said, I couldn't be happier that this is an entirely moot point. Thanks, Steve Pearce, JBJ, and the Sox pitching staff! With a special shout-out to Robert "Insert Joke About Hitting People Here" Osuna!

 

EDIT: Obviously this is one of those Yanni/Laurel things.

[notin]

Is this the video

https://weei.radio.com/blogs/rob-bradford/apparent-blown-call-costs-red-sox-chance-build-lead-over-astros

I think the sound is his glove hitting the wall, not the ball.

 

That's got a pretty good angle that shows the ball might be hitting the frame of the windows for inning scores.

 

Honestly, even if it play occured in the ninth inning with two outs and the Sox trailing by a run with the bases loaded, I wouldn't fault the umpires for calling that out...

[cp176]

As cp said, unless the video I saw was a fake, it was pretty clearly off the wall. How clearly? 85+%, I'd say. His glove lightly hitting the wall at almost zero velocity (since he was at the top of his leap) can't make the whole panel shimmy violently like that. Plus the ball apparently changes direction before settling into the glove, although that is less clear.

.

That said, I couldn't be happier that this is an entirely moot point. Thanks, Steve Pearce, JBJ, and the Sox pitching staff! With a special shout-out to Robert "Insert Joke About Hitting People Here" Osuna!

 

EDIT: Obviously this is one of those Yanni/Laurel things.

 

Thanks for posting this. You and I clearly saw what we saw.

[cp176]

That's got a pretty good angle that shows the ball might be hitting the frame of the windows for inning scores.

 

Honestly, even if it play occured in the ninth inning with two outs and the Sox trailing by a run with the bases loaded, I wouldn't fault the umpires for calling that out...

 

 

I would never fault the umpires for making that call or for the most part any of the others that they make. My fault is with the blind obsession that video replay always gets it right. It doesn't.

[notin]

I would never fault the umpires for making that call or for the most part any of the others that they make. My fault is with the blind obsession that video replay always gets it right. It doesn't.

 

THat is true, but that is because viedo replay has to be weighed against the original call with clear proof that it was wrong...

[cp176]

Is this the video

https://weei.radio.com/blogs/rob-bradford/apparent-blown-call-costs-red-sox-chance-build-lead-over-astros

I think the sound is his glove hitting the wall, not the ball.

 

 

It isn't important but the thought that it hit the wall first should not be simply brushed off. My thought last night when I saw that catch was that of something very hard hitting some very hard metal does not make that sound. It confused me. The video I think pretty much shows that in slow motion it hit the wall first.

[moonslav59]

To me, it looks like a 99.9% catch.

 

I'm trying to assume it hits the wall, but I just don't see it in any of the 3 angles shown here...

 

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=25000739

 

[cp176]

To me, it looks like a 99.9% catch.

 

I'm trying to assume it hits the wall, but I just don't see it in any of the 3 angles shown here...

 

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=25000739

 

 

click on the one that green well posted and objectively tell me what you think. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn but based on what I'm seeing I have some serious doubt that it isn't questionable and that anyone can simply say that they absolutely positive that it was a catch. Don't misunderstand me, I'm ok with being wrong but I do think that it is likely that that ball hit the wall first.

[Slasher9]

ball hit leather, leather hit metal, metal go boom.

catch.

[Slasher9]

click on the one that green well posted and objectively tell me what you think. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn but based on what I'm seeing I have some serious doubt that it isn't questionable and that anyone can simply say that they absolutely positive that it was a catch. Don't misunderstand me, I'm ok with being wrong but I do think that it is likely that that ball hit the wall first.

 

that angle makes it look like it hits the wall first.

NO CATCH

[cp176]

that angle makes it look like it hits the wall first.

NO CATCH

 

It is why I like you on here even if you still really think that it was a catch.

[notin]

click on the one that green well posted and objectively tell me what you think. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn but based on what I'm seeing I have some serious doubt that it isn't questionable and that anyone can simply say that they absolutely positive that it was a catch. Don't misunderstand me, I'm ok with being wrong but I do think that it is likely that that ball hit the wall first.

 

That one greenwell posted does make it look like the ball changes direction very slightly when it passes the bottom bar of the window...

[cp176]

That one greenwell posted does make it look like the ball changes direction very slightly when it passes the bottom bar of the window...

 

thanks i'm feeling better right now. I'm pretty sure that it isn't real conclusive but it does look possible that it was not a catch. The sound really bugged me.

[mvp 78]

Is this the video

https://weei.radio.com/blogs/rob-bradford/apparent-blown-call-costs-red-sox-chance-build-lead-over-astros

I think the sound is his glove hitting the wall, not the ball.

 

I can't tell. Stick with how it was called on the field.

[S5Dewey]

I was convinced this was a non-issue and the right call was made until I saw this slo-mo. I still can't tell from this angle if the ball hits that bar but the thing that gives me pause is that the ball was caught in the palm of the glove. I have to question whether a ball caught in the palm of the glove would have enough force to cause the glove to strike the wall hard enough to make the sound we heard. If it were caught in the webbing, yes, but in the palm?....eehhh...

 

Let's be glad the Sox won or we'd be grousing about that catch for years.

[moonslav59]

That one greenwell posted does make it look like the ball changes direction very slightly when it passes the bottom bar of the window...

 

I watched that view over and over. It looks like a catch to me. It looks like his glove hits the wall as the ball falls into his glove's web.

 

I can see how someone might view it differently.

 

The other angles look even more like a catch than this one.

 

I'll change my 99.9% to 75% catch.

 

I can see how the replay was not "conclusive" to overturn the call on the field.

[Jasonbay44]

I don’t think it’s “clear” either way, whatever it was ruled on field has to stand IMO. I saw multiple twitter accounts debating if it hit the wall, and I honestly can’t tell for certain. It’s one of those plays where I wasn’t even mad, even if it was determined it hit the wall because it is so damn hard to tell. I’m just glad it didn’t matter at all and we won in end.

[Slasher9]

 

Let's be glad the Sox won or we'd be grousing about that catch for years.

 

pre 2004 we lose this game and it adds to our list.

thank god for 2004.....

[mvp 78]

pre 2004 we lose this game and it adds to our list.

thank god for 2004.....

 

Nope

[greenwell]

I was convinced this was a non-issue and the right call was made until I saw this slo-mo. I still can't tell from this angle if the ball hits that bar but the thing that gives me pause is that the ball was caught in the palm of the glove. I have to question whether a ball caught in the palm of the glove would have enough force to cause the glove to strike the wall hard enough to make the sound we heard. If it were caught in the webbing, yes, but in the palm?....eehhh...

 

Let's be glad the Sox won or we'd be grousing about that catch for years.

 

There is also the added force of the fielder jumping towards the wall. I'm not entirely convinced it was a catch, but I am convinced that the sound was not the ball hitting the wall. For the ball to make that sound it would have to strike the wall reasonably hard resulting in a much larger deflection.