ESPN doing a great job of piling on

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't think the pictures are conclusive either way. Hell, they make it look like if the ball was in play then Alou had absolutely zero chance of catching it since he's reaching into the stands.

You're either trolling or the hardest-headed person in existence. And I'm really not sure which.

 

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v20/n1/images/scientificamericanmind0510-56sp-I8.jpg

 

Look at the picture on the left. Is it a closed, intact triangle? If you think so, look at the picture on the right. It's the same structure, but viewed from a different angle. Knowing that, look back at the picture on the left. Do you still think it's a closed, intact triangle?

 

 

PERTH!!!

[CubmanPi]

Right. And combining the angles shows that Bartman's hands and Alou's glove make contact over the field of play.

No they do not. That conclusion is, and forever will be, pure speculation.

 

Heck I have yet to hear anyone even ask, let alone answer, the question of where the stands end and the field of play starts. At the railing? At the edge of the concrete wall? At the outermost edge of the padding?

 

I'm pretty convinced the ball, glove, and hands were above one or more of those potential, imaginary boundary lines.

 

To borrow a phrase from football, there is not conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

The signs all over the field telling you not to reach over the railing and into the field of play make the division pretty clear. And I even conceded that there's no conclusive video evidence. However, simultaneous photographic evidence from two angles, separated by 90 degrees, makes it pretty clear that, unless the grass in foul territory fits into the grey area you're describing, the ball was over the field of play.

 

You're good now, Nuts. Davearm will pick up your stance from here.

[CubmanPi]

PERTH!!!

I knew I was baiting you into saying something.

[davearm2]

Right. And combining the angles shows that Bartman's hands and Alou's glove make contact over the field of play.

No they do not. That conclusion is, and forever will be, pure speculation.

 

Heck I have yet to hear anyone even ask, let alone answer, the question of where the stands end and the field of play starts. At the railing? At the edge of the concrete wall? At the outermost edge of the padding?

 

I'm pretty convinced the ball, glove, and hands were above one or more of those potential, imaginary boundary lines.

 

To borrow a phrase from football, there is not conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

The signs all over the field telling you not to reach over the railing and into the field of play make the division pretty clear. And I even conceded that there's no conclusive video evidence. However, simultaneous photographic evidence from two angles, separated by 90 degrees, makes it pretty clear that, unless the grass in foul territory fits into the grey area you're describing, the ball was over the field of play.

 

You're good now, Nuts. Davearm will pick up your stance from here.

Haha really? You can look at one or more of those pictures and determine where the ball is in relationship to the grass? That's comical.

[Sammy Sofa]

Right. It marked where he was along the wall. In the image where it appears as if he's reaching into the stands, he would have to be reaching over the railing where the red line farthest from home plate crosses the railing. The new angle from the documentary, where I drew the red line across the railing in the exact same position, shows that he clearly wasn't reaching over that portion of the railing. The fat red line I drew on the railing itself is much closer to the part of the railing closest to Alou's glove. He clearly was not reaching across that chunk of railing into the stands.

 

I don't know how much more clear I can make this.

 

I genuinely have no clue how you're coming to the definitive conclusion he's not reaching in to the stands from those photos. If you could explain how you're drawing from any of those photos that one can conclusively say he is or isn't reaching into the stands I would appreciate it, because none of those seem to allow one to conclude for sure either way. I really don't understand at all how those lines you drew show anything besides his positions along the wall in those photos and how they do anything to show whether or not he was over the wall. The angles of the photos seem to preclude coming to such a conclusion, especially since we can't seem to find any showing the same moment from different angles.

 

I'm not trolling, and maybe I am just dense, but to me it seems like you're making a leap and I don't understand how you got there with the evidence available.

[rocket]

who gives a [expletive]. if it's not completely obvious if the ball was in the field of play or not, fan interference will never get called.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I see a lot of little lines on a flattened 2D representation of a 3D situation, and I'm still not sure how the little lines are supposed to mean anything more than just looking at the picture did. It's inconclusive.

[Tracer Bullet]

Sorry, I don't know how that's supposed to be conclusive either.

[OleMissCub]

I don't really have an opinion as to whether Alou was in the stands or not, I can't tell, but I will say that the angle from that new tape that was filmed from above him in the stands surprised me with how far he stuck his arms out.

[CubmanPi]

who gives a [expletive]. if it's not completely obvious if the ball was in the field of play or not, fan interference will never get called.

There was a pretty detailed debate from page 1, and I revived it with the new angle from the documentary. (Blame whoever bumped the thread, not me.)

Alou was clearly reaching over the railing to attempt to catch the ball

since he's over the railing that means interference can't be called, right?

sure looks to me like the ball/alou's glove are over the railing.

I never argued fan interference should have been called. Fan interference is grounds for ejection and trespassing, so the call should only be made on blatant offenses, which this was not. All I'm doing is countering the above assertions with an argument that wasn't available at the time.

 

Combining the two angles shows that claiming he was clearly over the railing is inaccurate, and that the original angle creates a misleading perception of the relative positions of his glove and the railing.

[Sammy Sofa]

It seems like something is missing (at least when it comes to my understanding) for you to be able to say this:

 

In the picture below, in order for Alou to be "clearly reaching into the stands," his glove would have to be reaching over the red vertical line on the right.

 

That seems like a somewhat arbitrary declaration on your part since none of the photos present an angle that actually shows whether that is true or not. Without a photo clearly showing that this is the case how can we come to this conclusion?

 

I guess what I'm asking for is for you to effectively show your work since re-reading it it doesn't seem like it amounts to more than "well, this looks right" + visual aids. I'd appreciate it if you could break it down as such because I really do feel like I'm missing something here.

[Guest]

The measure of whether I think Alou would have caught that ball or not goes back to that one time when a ball rolled to the outfield wall and instead of picking the ball up and tossing it back in to keep the hit to a double, he used his foot to further hide the ball in the ivy, allowing the hitter to get an inside the park home run. One of the worst and laziest outfielders I ever watched. And it's sad because I was really excited when they originally picked him up.

 

There is simply no way to know whether he really would have caught that ball. Too much is in play. The fans are sitting much higher than the field of play, arms can reach without jumping to the same point Alou is trying to get his glove to, awkward place the ball is traveling to and a bad fielder. Couple that in with a not so obvious non call of fan interference on what would most definitely have been ruled a foul ball if neither fan or glove caught the ball. It's not the difference maker in the outcome of the game. It was just the ignition switch for the weirdness that followed.

[SouthSideRyan]

The measure of whether I think Alou would have caught that ball or not goes back to that one time when a ball rolled to the outfield wall and instead of picking the ball up and tossing it back in to keep the hit to a double, he used his foot to further hide the ball in the ivy, allowing the hitter to get an inside the park home run. One of the worst and laziest outfielders I ever watched. And it's sad because I was really excited when they originally picked him up.

 

 

What? Him trying to deke the umpire into buying it's a ground rule double means he wouldn't catch a ball he was close to?

[Abe Frohman]

The main point is that we will never truly know who was where, and it doesn't matter. That was October 2003.

 

However, I have always felt that Alou had that ball tracked, timed, and that he was going to catch it. Who knows if he would have, but you can't say either way.

 

Even with those pictures, look at Bartman. He is leaning on the wall, arms fully extended out towards the field of play. Alou jumped up, and it is close - but difficult, if not impossible, to say his glove drifted into the stands. The placement of Bartmans arms and body support that Alou was in the field of play.

 

It should have been a fan interference call. It is in the past, and not the reason the Cubs lost the game or the series.

[KingCubsFan]

Interesting that it doesn't take multiple angles, cameras, witnesses and a Moises Alou temper tantrum to see that Alex Gonzalez botched an easy double play, and that's what primarily caused the collapse.

[Guest]

The measure of whether I think Alou would have caught that ball or not goes back to that one time when a ball rolled to the outfield wall and instead of picking the ball up and tossing it back in to keep the hit to a double, he used his foot to further hide the ball in the ivy, allowing the hitter to get an inside the park home run. One of the worst and laziest outfielders I ever watched. And it's sad because I was really excited when they originally picked him up.

 

 

What? Him trying to deke the umpire into buying it's a ground rule double means he wouldn't catch a ball he was close to?

 

I said it then and I'll still say it today. His defense was so horrendous out there on a daily basis, I have absolutely no reason to believe he would have caught that ball. In my eyes, it would have had to been a tremendous catch because I believe the ball would have landed in the stands if it dropped, which meant he not only had to leap high, he also had to bend his arm up over the wall to get a glove on it, and that's beyond my comprehension of his fielding capabilities. Sure, he could have gotten lucky and made a great play, because even the worst fielders can make a great play. I just can't buy into the theory that he absolutely would have caught it.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm not saying he absolutely would have caught it, (I'm not sure he'd get the glove open and at the right angle to secure it) but you're acting like he wasn't even in the area to catch it.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Alou was pretty terrible on defense, and I'm still convinced he would have caught that ball. As bad as he was, he was still better than me, and I would have caught it.

[Guest]

I'm not saying he absolutely would have caught it, (I'm not sure he'd get the glove open and at the right angle to secure it) but you're acting like he wasn't even in the area to catch it.

 

From the angle you see from home plate zoomed in, the ball looks like it's 3 or 4 inches behind his glove, which has always seemed like the best angle to view the play. That's the angle the ball was traveling and the glove never seems to quite get to that line, IMO.

[Guest]

I'm not saying he absolutely would have caught it, (I'm not sure he'd get the glove open and at the right angle to secure it) but you're acting like he wasn't even in the area to catch it.

 

From the angle you see from home plate zoomed in, the ball looks like it's 3 or 4 inches behind his glove, which has always seemed like the best angle to view the play. That's the angle the ball was traveling and the glove never seems to quite get to that line, IMO.

[Guest]

I'm not saying he absolutely would have caught it, (I'm not sure he'd get the glove open and at the right angle to secure it) but you're acting like he wasn't even in the area to catch it.

 

From the angle you see from home plate zoomed in, the ball looks like it's 3 or 4 inches behind his glove, which has always seemed like the best angle to view the play. That's the angle the ball was traveling and the glove never seems to quite get to that line, IMO.

[CubmanPi]

It seems like something is missing (at least when it comes to my understanding) for you to be able to say this:

 

In the picture below, in order for Alou to be "clearly reaching into the stands," his glove would have to be reaching over the red vertical line on the right.

 

That seems like a somewhat arbitrary declaration on your part since none of the photos present an angle that actually shows whether that is true or not. Without a photo clearly showing that this is the case how can we come to this conclusion?

 

I guess what I'm asking for is for you to effectively show your work since re-reading it it doesn't seem like it amounts to more than "well, this looks right" + visual aids. I'd appreciate it if you could break it down as such because I really do feel like I'm missing something here.

Re-did it, working on photobucket/explanation.

 

Interesting that it doesn't take multiple angles, cameras, witnesses and a Moises Alou temper tantrum to see that Alex Gonzalez botched an easy double play force out at second, and that's what primarily caused the collapse.

The most generous you could be is that the play at first would have been very close if it were turned perfectly. The ball was hit too slowly to make this assertion. Still, getting that one out changes that inning a lot.

[KingCubsFan]

The most generous you could be is that the play at first would have been very close if it were turned perfectly. The ball was hit too slowly to make this assertion. Still, getting that one out changes that inning a lot.

I'm sure Miguel Cabrera would have run that out.

[CubmanPi]

Here's take two on the photo-combining effort.

 

Everything I'm showing hinges on the fact that truly vertical lines will appear to be truly vertical regardless of from which angle you view it. In the pic with no fans in the seats (I'll refer to it as the documentary angle), Alou's glove, head, and his shoulder where it contacts the wall all appear to be roughly vertical. In the angle used in all the pics from page 1 of the thread (from now on I'll call it the traditional angle), it's clear that those three points don't align vertically, so you can only assert that they fall on the same plane, not on the same vertical line.

 

I used where the division of the padding connects to the top of the wall to draw vertical lines to the railing. This introduces slight margin of error, as the railing is centered on top of the brick wall, as opposed to flush with the edge. That distance is probably about 2 inches. (Correcting this margin of error would slightly shift Alou's mitt and Bartman's hands farther away from the stands and toward the field of play.)

 

I took half of the chunk of railing between the red lines, and I color-coded it into four more sections. These sections of color are on approximately the same pieces of railing in both pictures. Knowing that there is slight margin for error, this isn't perfect, but they provide reference points to draw conclusions the same way I concluded that Alou's head, glove, and shoulder are all on the same plane.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/cubbybear314/newangleversion2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/cubbybear314/traditionalangleversion2.jpg

 

The only reference point on Alou's glove clearly visible from both angles is the part I circled. From the documentary angle, it appears to be closer to home plate than the yellow line. From the traditional angle, it appears to be further from home plate than the back red line. All this means is that we can assert that this point of his glove is somewhere over the field of play.

 

The picture below shows this, though it is nowhere close to scale. The big black spots are the undefined locations of where the cameras were, the green line is the railing, the dots on the railing represent the vertical lines drawn above, and where the lines intersect represents the previously-determined spot on Alou's glove.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/cubbybear314/overheadview.jpg

 

What my fantastic MSPaint skills also show is, if a vertical line drawn over the traditional angle object X with spot Y on the railing, and a verticle line drawn over object X on the documentary angle aligns it with a spot on the railing closer to home plate than spot Y, then object X is over the field of play, with the black lines intersecting to the right of the railing. If object X when viewed from the documentary angle appears to be farther from the home plate than spot Y, then the intersection is to the left of the railing, and into the stands.

 

Due to the angles, it's not possible to take any part of Alou's glove that's closer to the railing and make the same comparison. You can, however, make if-then assertions. In the documentary angle, the back edge of Alou's glove clearly lines up on the same plane as the blue-coded chunk of railing. I approximated the same line in the traditional angle. It's impossible to know for certain, but if that line in the traditional angle lines up with the exact same spot on Alou's glove, then that piece of his glove is directly above the front edge of the railing.

 

To me, I think that exact spot on his glove used in the documentary angle lines up just barely closer to home plate when viewed from the traditional angle, which would put the very tip of his mitt above the top of the railing. (With the margin of error I described before, it would shift the color-coded pieces of railing slightly toward home plate and therefore the tip of Alou's glove slightly toward the field of play.)

 

With the reference point of his glove resulting in so much variation, and this impossible-to-determine point being somewhere pretty close to right above the railing, it puts both Bartman's hands and the well of Alou's glove (likely where the ball was headed, since they're both reaching there) probably somewhere above the face of the padding to just in front of it.

 

In order for Alou's glove to be "clearly reaching into the stands," this undetermined spot on his glove would have to appear to be, from the traditional angle, directly above some part of the green chunk of railing, in order to be able to plot it out on the MSPaint diagram with an intersection to the left of the railing.

 

At most, you can claim a small part of Alou's glove was over the railing, with nearly all of it over the field of play.

 

"Alou was clearly reaching into the stands" is false.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

tl;dr