Monacan 9 Oakton 8.
Anyone who attended please give some details, sounds like a fun game to watch (unless you were a pitcher).
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The big thing you'll hear about is that the game ended on a highly controversial call. Though I was there pulling for Monacan (from our district with lots of kids we know), I have to admit it was a pretty terrible call.
Monacan had been up 9-5, but Oakton got 3 in the 6th to make it 9-8 going to the 7th. Both teams seemed to be searching for a pitcher who could close out the game. Monacan put Chris Duty on the hill at the end, even though he had thrown 5 innings Tuesday and a complete game on Friday. Duty got the final out of the 6th on one pitch, then came back for the 7th.
First pitch of the 7th was hit right at 3B but booted, Monacan's 5th error of a sloppy game. After a clean hit and an outOakton had men on 1st & 2nd with one out. Duty got a grounder right at 3B, but in and away from the bag so that he had to throw to 2nd. He got the out there but the relay to first skipped by the first baseman so that the tying run appeared to have scored with two outs.
BUT, the umpire ruled interference on the Oakton runner sliding into 2nd, awarded the DP, game over.
I think the call was that the runner, though he did slide directly into the bag, had his hand up high. But it sure looked clean to me. It was, quite frankly, a terrible way to end a championship game and yet another example of how some umpires think the game is all about them.
I would've rather seen it go to the bottom of the 7th in a tie game.
I didn't keep a scorebook on this one so I can't give you names and details, but there were two homers for Oakton in the third, and if they hadn't been playing on a college field there would've been at least 2 more for Oakton and at least 2 for Monacan as well over the course of the game. In fact the score closed to 9-8 in the 6th on a 2-run double off the wall in right that would've cleared the fences at any HS field.
Another play that Oakton may regret was in their second inning, then tied at 1-1, bases loaded, one out and 2 strikes on the batter. Oakton went for the surprise squeeze despite the force play. The bunt was popped to the pitcher, who caught it and ran it to third himself to get the DP and end the inning without further damage. I'd bet they'd like to have that decision to do over again right now.
Monacan had been up 9-5, but Oakton got 3 in the 6th to make it 9-8 going to the 7th. Both teams seemed to be searching for a pitcher who could close out the game. Monacan put Chris Duty on the hill at the end, even though he had thrown 5 innings Tuesday and a complete game on Friday. Duty got the final out of the 6th on one pitch, then came back for the 7th.
First pitch of the 7th was hit right at 3B but booted, Monacan's 5th error of a sloppy game. After a clean hit and an outOakton had men on 1st & 2nd with one out. Duty got a grounder right at 3B, but in and away from the bag so that he had to throw to 2nd. He got the out there but the relay to first skipped by the first baseman so that the tying run appeared to have scored with two outs.
BUT, the umpire ruled interference on the Oakton runner sliding into 2nd, awarded the DP, game over.
I think the call was that the runner, though he did slide directly into the bag, had his hand up high. But it sure looked clean to me. It was, quite frankly, a terrible way to end a championship game and yet another example of how some umpires think the game is all about them.
I would've rather seen it go to the bottom of the 7th in a tie game.
I didn't keep a scorebook on this one so I can't give you names and details, but there were two homers for Oakton in the third, and if they hadn't been playing on a college field there would've been at least 2 more for Oakton and at least 2 for Monacan as well over the course of the game. In fact the score closed to 9-8 in the 6th on a 2-run double off the wall in right that would've cleared the fences at any HS field.
Another play that Oakton may regret was in their second inning, then tied at 1-1, bases loaded, one out and 2 strikes on the batter. Oakton went for the surprise squeeze despite the force play. The bunt was popped to the pitcher, who caught it and ran it to third himself to get the DP and end the inning without further damage. I'd bet they'd like to have that decision to do over again right now.
Bottom line is, Chris Duty made a strong case for AAA state player of the year this season and this week in particular.
quote:Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
Bottom line is, Chris Duty made a strong case for AAA state player of the year this season and this week in particular.
For player of the year it will be hard not to pick Jeremy Jeffress.
People slide into second with hands up some all the time and it is never called, so I would agree that would be STUPID time to decide to call it.
I never have thought umpires in any sport were the brightest apples on the tree. They want to be too involved in the game.
My biggest pet peeve is the home plate umpire who has to make a production of a called strike out. Just call strike three and be done with it.
Channel 8 news in Richmond was the only station with film and they had the controversial play on tape. They even aired it with a stop-action shot. Unusually good coverage, kudos to them!
I guess you could get biased views from both sides, but as a nearly unbiased observer, I would say it was a terrible call. The runner was slightly to the left but mostly over the bag. He only got one hand up, the other was down, and the truth is the throw was away before he was really close to the second baseman.
I guess you could get biased views from both sides, but as a nearly unbiased observer, I would say it was a terrible call. The runner was slightly to the left but mostly over the bag. He only got one hand up, the other was down, and the truth is the throw was away before he was really close to the second baseman.
As for player of the year, I would say Jeffress may be the most celebrated player of the year, but he did not go above and beyond to deliver a state championship for his team the way Duty did.
The Times-Dispatch reported this week, in covering the draft, that Jeffress threw only 37 innings all season. Can that be right? Wouldn't be the first time the RTD got it wrong. But if it's true, no way can he get a big award without taking on a bigger load.
Plus, Duty was great as a hitter, too. Was Jeffress?
P.S.
I wouldn't blame Jeffress if he took it easy on his arm. If I had $2 million plus coming my way, I'd be careful, too.
The Times-Dispatch reported this week, in covering the draft, that Jeffress threw only 37 innings all season. Can that be right? Wouldn't be the first time the RTD got it wrong. But if it's true, no way can he get a big award without taking on a bigger load.
Plus, Duty was great as a hitter, too. Was Jeffress?
P.S.
I wouldn't blame Jeffress if he took it easy on his arm. If I had $2 million plus coming my way, I'd be careful, too.
Well just goes to show the central region is much more affluent and willing to pay the ump pockets (JUST KIDDING). I can't imagine a game ending this way let alone a championship game.
I'd have a heart attack or restraining order...how long cana kida arms be that that would be a factor.
I'd have a heart attack or restraining order...how long cana kida arms be that that would be a factor.
quote:Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
As for player of the year, I would say Jeffress may be the most celebrated player of the year, but he did not go above and beyond to deliver a state championship for his team the way Duty did.
The Times-Dispatch reported this week, in covering the draft, that Jeffress threw only 37 innings all season. Can that be right? Wouldn't be the first time the RTD got it wrong. But if it's true, no way can he get a big award without taking on a bigger load.
Plus, Duty was great as a hitter, too. Was Jeffress?
P.S.
I wouldn't blame Jeffress if he took it easy on his arm. If I had $2 million plus coming my way, I'd be careful, too.
I will try to get Jeffress stas for you. I thought he was 10-0 ( so the 37 innings sounds bogus. The one game I watched he was 2 for 3 with a homer. He didn't pitch that game as he had pitched 2 nights before. But he cunned a runner our from the hole in short on what I thought was a sure hit.
In 2002 or so, a semi-final AA game ended exactly the same way-bad call, alleged interference, team gone from playoffs.
Maybe with 4 umpires, the guy at second has too much time and too few calls to make so he's perhaps looking too hard. What a horrid way to end a state title game. Unless it's blatantly obvious, that's not a call that's made. That ump deserves the flak that he'll receive as umps are to call the game, but not become part of it.
Maybe with 4 umpires, the guy at second has too much time and too few calls to make so he's perhaps looking too hard. What a horrid way to end a state title game. Unless it's blatantly obvious, that's not a call that's made. That ump deserves the flak that he'll receive as umps are to call the game, but not become part of it.
quote:Originally posted by hokieone:
In 2002 or so, a semi-final AA game ended exactly the same way-bad call, alleged interference, team gone from playoffs.
Maybe with 4 umpires, the guy at second has too much time and too few calls to make so he's perhaps looking too hard. What a horrid way to end a state title game. Unless it's blatantly obvious, that's not a call that's made. That ump deserves the flak that he'll receive as umps are to call the game, but not become part of it.
IF it was a blatent call there would be no conversation now. However,this one's sounds questionable enough that it should not have been called.
So you are saying a correct call in the 1st inning does not have the same weight as a call in the 7th inning... The umpires should change their judgement late in the game...???
I don't know what you want to read into what other people may have said. From where I sat, and from what I saw on the TV news, the call was wrong and would've been wrong at any time under any circumstances.
Given the game situation, I would have at least liked to have seen the 2B ump let the play go through, then make the call. This would have allowed a situation where he could confer with his colleagues before making such a critical mistake, yet preserve the play's result in case the conference with the other umpires changed his call.
So I would say this guy erred twice. Once in blowing the call, the second time in being so arrogant as to do it in such a way that there was no way to correct the mistake. Basically one umpire made himself the focus of the state championship game and yes, I do consider that unforgivable.
Given the game situation, I would have at least liked to have seen the 2B ump let the play go through, then make the call. This would have allowed a situation where he could confer with his colleagues before making such a critical mistake, yet preserve the play's result in case the conference with the other umpires changed his call.
So I would say this guy erred twice. Once in blowing the call, the second time in being so arrogant as to do it in such a way that there was no way to correct the mistake. Basically one umpire made himself the focus of the state championship game and yes, I do consider that unforgivable.
quote:Originally posted by 3OUTSNORUNS:
So you are saying a correct call in the 1st inning does not have the same weight as a call in the 7th inning... The umpires should change their judgement late in the game...???
If you are asking me when it comes to judgement call, yes ones that determine a game is over carry alot more weight. Are both important absolutely, but one that ends the game has to be considered to carry more weight.
I am sure the umpsprefer to calla simple game too, but that is not the case most of the time.
X-Spy, the Richmond Times-Dispatch has chosen Chris Duty as its Metro Player of the Year. The RTD award encompasses all AAA central region (public) schools as well as area private schools and A and AA teams in the surrounding area, e.g., Powhatan and Goochland.
Central Region Player of the Year award went to John Bivens of Prince George, but that voting took place before the regional and state tournaments, where Duty really proved his worth.
Central Region Player of the Year award went to John Bivens of Prince George, but that voting took place before the regional and state tournaments, where Duty really proved his worth.
I heard about this controversial call today actually. I was at a showcase camp and a kid from Oakton was there. I was talking to him about the game and such and he was actually the runner who was called for interference. He seemed quite ticked about the call and how it ending a game of such meaning.
BAD CALL!!!
BAD CALL!!!
I found out recently that the umpire on this one was somebody I know ...
Still think it was a terrible call, though.
Still think it was a terrible call, though.
It is appalling to me as an umpire, that when in doubt, blame the ump.
If the force play slide rule was violated then the correct call occurred. Regardless if it's the 1st inning of the 1st game of the year or the last inning of the last game of the year.
Mildo you cannot even decide (Unbiased as you say)what actually happened.
On Jun 10th you said:
"I think the call was that the runner, though he did slide directly into the bag, had his hand up high. But it sure looked clean to me. It was, quite frankly, a terrible way to end a championship game and yet another example of how some umpires think the game is all about them."
On Jun 11 you said:
"The runner was slightly to the left but mostly over the bag. He only got one hand up, the other was down,"
So in reality you do not know how the runner slid into 2nd base. You want to assume you had a better view and angle than an umpire who was 15 feet away. He probably had the call correct. Both of you observations are valid reasons to enforce the the rule. Interference does not have to be intentional or blalant to make the call.
But for some reason, because we enforce the rule, we are the "bad guys". If the ump ignored the rule, would that be taking the game into his own hand?
As Hokieone said "umps are there to call the game, but not become part of it."
Any umpire who has umpired quality games at some point in time will have to make a call that decides the game. Whether you like it or not, that is why we are there.
If the force play slide rule was violated then the correct call occurred. Regardless if it's the 1st inning of the 1st game of the year or the last inning of the last game of the year.
Mildo you cannot even decide (Unbiased as you say)what actually happened.
On Jun 10th you said:
"I think the call was that the runner, though he did slide directly into the bag, had his hand up high. But it sure looked clean to me. It was, quite frankly, a terrible way to end a championship game and yet another example of how some umpires think the game is all about them."
On Jun 11 you said:
"The runner was slightly to the left but mostly over the bag. He only got one hand up, the other was down,"
So in reality you do not know how the runner slid into 2nd base. You want to assume you had a better view and angle than an umpire who was 15 feet away. He probably had the call correct. Both of you observations are valid reasons to enforce the the rule. Interference does not have to be intentional or blalant to make the call.
But for some reason, because we enforce the rule, we are the "bad guys". If the ump ignored the rule, would that be taking the game into his own hand?
As Hokieone said "umps are there to call the game, but not become part of it."
Any umpire who has umpired quality games at some point in time will have to make a call that decides the game. Whether you like it or not, that is why we are there.
I've never had any trouble saying it was a terrible call. I said so from the start and the TV video confirmed it.
I said "I think" the call was about the high hand not because I had any doubt, but because I couldn't tell, upon seeing it live, exactly what the umpire was basing his call on. It's not like he made an announcement to the stands. Frankly I didn't see anything to justify his call at the time.
Upon seeing the TV replay, which included some super slo-mo and stop action, I unequivocally stated above that the call was terrible. And I still think it was.
The umpire told me when I chanced across him about a month ago that he made the call not because of the hand being up, but because he thought the runner slid far away from the bag. The video unequivocally showed that this was not the case. What's more, the video showed clearly that the throw was away before the runner arrived. So the throw went bad on its own, not because of anything the runner did.
Sorry if you have some sort of tender nerve about umpires coming in for criticism, but if you're going to contend that all umps are wonderful and infallible, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In real life, some folks do their job better than others. Many umps are fabulous, some are not so great, and others seem to make it their business to cause problems at games. Anyone who's not an umpire knows exactly what I'm talking about.
But let me be clear that in this case I know the ump in question and I think he's a great guy, not typically a problem guy, but in fact a guy with a great and well earned reputation. I've known his family for about 30 years. I still think he erred in this one case. We all make mistakes, myself included. I'm just sorry he made this one at such a critical time. I think it'll be a long time before people forget about it.
I said "I think" the call was about the high hand not because I had any doubt, but because I couldn't tell, upon seeing it live, exactly what the umpire was basing his call on. It's not like he made an announcement to the stands. Frankly I didn't see anything to justify his call at the time.
Upon seeing the TV replay, which included some super slo-mo and stop action, I unequivocally stated above that the call was terrible. And I still think it was.
The umpire told me when I chanced across him about a month ago that he made the call not because of the hand being up, but because he thought the runner slid far away from the bag. The video unequivocally showed that this was not the case. What's more, the video showed clearly that the throw was away before the runner arrived. So the throw went bad on its own, not because of anything the runner did.
Sorry if you have some sort of tender nerve about umpires coming in for criticism, but if you're going to contend that all umps are wonderful and infallible, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In real life, some folks do their job better than others. Many umps are fabulous, some are not so great, and others seem to make it their business to cause problems at games. Anyone who's not an umpire knows exactly what I'm talking about.
But let me be clear that in this case I know the ump in question and I think he's a great guy, not typically a problem guy, but in fact a guy with a great and well earned reputation. I've known his family for about 30 years. I still think he erred in this one case. We all make mistakes, myself included. I'm just sorry he made this one at such a critical time. I think it'll be a long time before people forget about it.
Super slo-mo and stop action.
Umpires are not above criticism.Of all people they should be able to take the heat.It is part of their job description isn't it?If not get out of the kitchen. Bad call.
Pirate Fan-
First, I was NOT at this GAME.
Second, I did NOT see the video.
Third, I was a HS FOOTBALL official for 10 years.
Officials get paid to administer the game, according to the rules. Some plays require interpretation of the rules, some require judgement.
Last I checked, officials are humans. As such, they are not perfect.
I can buy the fact that this umpire based his call on what he "SAW" at the time.
But, what I wish I could do, is sit down with this ump, watch the video WITH HIM, and then hear what he has to say. IF the video is as conclusive as Midlodad states, then he should simply admit the fact that he blew the call. Nothing more, nothing less.
I realize this umpire did not have the benefit of the replay on the field. But, if we are to become better at our vocation or avocation for that matter, we need to be willing to learn from our mistakes.
As Midlodad stated so well, we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, I have little tolerance for individuals who are not willing to admit that they made a mistake. And it APPEARS, in this case, that is what we have.
First, I was NOT at this GAME.
Second, I did NOT see the video.
Third, I was a HS FOOTBALL official for 10 years.
Officials get paid to administer the game, according to the rules. Some plays require interpretation of the rules, some require judgement.
Last I checked, officials are humans. As such, they are not perfect.
I can buy the fact that this umpire based his call on what he "SAW" at the time.
But, what I wish I could do, is sit down with this ump, watch the video WITH HIM, and then hear what he has to say. IF the video is as conclusive as Midlodad states, then he should simply admit the fact that he blew the call. Nothing more, nothing less.
I realize this umpire did not have the benefit of the replay on the field. But, if we are to become better at our vocation or avocation for that matter, we need to be willing to learn from our mistakes.
As Midlodad stated so well, we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, I have little tolerance for individuals who are not willing to admit that they made a mistake. And it APPEARS, in this case, that is what we have.
I wasn't present for the call but was present when the National High School Federation rules committee modified rules regarding contact at second base when involved in a force out/double play situation. The original intent was to halt the deliberate attempts by the runner of going after, roll blocking, sliding outside of path to the bag or in general to break-up by physical contact the ability for middle infielders to complete double plays. Prior to this ruling there were a number of injuries on this play to both fielders and runners and it was the intent to reduce such injuries. Prior to this ruling middle infielders were taught to protect themselves by developing a number of pivots and making sure they cleared the path of on coming runners as well as to drop down arm angle on throw to first and force runners to get down early or get out of way of course this also led to runners who continued to stand up or slide late causing them to be struck by the ball on it's way to first. The NCAA and the National High school federation rules committees are revisting this rule again this winter because of complaints by coaches and umpires alike that the rule has changed in its application on the field to be something that was original not intended. In are area we were able to coach and teach our middle infielders that they did not even have to clear the bag but could come accross the bag flat or hang back over it in situations where a double play would not normally be turned and have even incidental contact with runners who were sliding straight into the bag and we would get the second out call at first as well. Even the pop-up slide became a out which I believe is also on the table this winter to be allowed. John Winkin University of Maine has a great article in Collegiate baseball regarding this exact play and how it's being called on the field is the opposite of original intent. When we teach sliding we do it with and eye towards proper mechanics for speed as well as safety. I personally teach and have seen instructed sliding with hands up and out of dirt not to impede turning a double play but for runner safety from abrasions and being stepped on. I kinda wanted to take the thread a different direction and look at the application on the field of a rule that allows for what appears to more subjective then need be and a situation ripe for questions regarding intent. I have heard about this particular play numerous times since the AAA playoffs and have met no one who has said it was a good call but that being said I have been coaching in high school games where field umpires rang up consistently any form of intrusion by runners to the double play process and it can be fixed. Hopefully the committee defines better whats been happening around the bag at second this winter in hopes that safety is maintain and fairness is accomplished.
Exactly the direction this conversation should go, IMO.
Just to be clear, JBB, I am not indicting the umpire generally. He called what he thought was right, and he has stuck by his call. I don't know that he's ever had a chance to see the video. I don't challenge his integrity. I do disagree with the call, however.
I know this guy and he's a good guy. I'm not one to mince words when someone is a problem, but this guy is not a problem. All I'm saying is that it's a shame the game had to end the way it did. First, I think Oakton got cheated of a chance to win, either then and there or in extra innings. Second, I think Monacan may face people who feel their win was tainted, which takes some of the shine off their accomplishment.
At this point I'm kind of sorry this all got dredged up again, and sorry to have fueled it. Let's let sleeping dogs lie.
I know this guy and he's a good guy. I'm not one to mince words when someone is a problem, but this guy is not a problem. All I'm saying is that it's a shame the game had to end the way it did. First, I think Oakton got cheated of a chance to win, either then and there or in extra innings. Second, I think Monacan may face people who feel their win was tainted, which takes some of the shine off their accomplishment.
At this point I'm kind of sorry this all got dredged up again, and sorry to have fueled it. Let's let sleeping dogs lie.