And you thought only the batter would charge the mound...

He didn't "go after" anyone or have to be restrained.

Really?  It sure looked like he was quickly walking from his spot behind the plate in a direct line to the pitchers mound while yelling until he was cut off by the catcher.  We could argue semantics, but you can't say this is professional in any way.

 

If you're going to eject Burnett - just do it. Cooper's way of handling the situation turned it in to the "look at me" show.

Saw it live Very unprofessional, too aggressive an approach while yelling and gesturing towards Burnett. I believe if the catcher and the manager had not intervened, he would have been all in Burnett's face with that finger of his. 

 

looking to see if there were any consequences

 

 

I've seen umps take a heck of a lot more guff from batters without any reaction. Are the rules different for pitchers? Burnett's gesture was ill advised, to be sure, but it was clearly a momentary reaction caused by the frustration of a really nice pitch being called a ball.

 

I've seen batters stand there after strike three called and really show up the ump, and get nothing. In other words, intentional and prolonged displays.

 

So that leads me to say this ump had an axe to grind.

Seems to be a growing trend of umps that have an "ax to grind" to quote Rob.

 

Nobody goes to games to see umps.  

 

Did you see the ump that showed up Miggy last week?  All that ESPN showed was Miguel getting tossed after arguing strike 3 then destroying the phone in the dugout.  What espn didn't seem to show was that Cabrera was taking on a 3-0 pitch.  Pitch was up around the neck.  The ump called strike 1 apparently because he didn't like the way Miguel took the pitch .  Cabrera eventually struck out.  A phone was then demolished.  I can't even find video of the 3-0 pitch because all of the highlights are of him after the 3-2 pitch.

 

MLB needs to get control of their umps.

 

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com/bus_tour

www.twitter.com/PlayInSchool

You may have better luck finding that video if you looked for David Ortiz or Big Papi rather than Miguel Cabrera... just saying

 

But yes, MLB needs to get umpires under control.

 

He was a little exaggerated, but it is exactly what we are taught and expected to do when addressing a pitcher engaging in histrionics--take the mask off, come around in front of the dirt circle towards the pitcher, and sternly and assertively tell him.

 

Any consequences from this game should come from the call before, where the crew as a whole failed.

 

Ha...

 

You know how people keep talking about using technology for officiating purposes? You understand that technology you guys keep bringing up showed that every pitch in that AB was called correctly, right? Ortiz disrespected everyone on that field by stepping out when he did.

 

http://www.closecallsports.com...d.html#disqus_thread

 

The sz and pz are taken straight from PitchF/X.

Total BRAIN FART on my part above!  Definitely would have helped to look for video on PIG PAPI!

 

This video should help.  Most of the networks only showed Ortiz crush the phone.  They neglected to show the 3-0 pitch.  Here it is... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/...rikes-045157649.html

 

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com/bus_tour

www.twitter.com/PlayInSchool

 

 

I saw it live and thought the announcers protested too much. Burnett was clearly yapping about balls and strikes, and the umpire was a bit too aggressive, but IMHO, Burnett needed to calm down and control his mouth and body language. But on the other hand, his pitching was sharp!

Just watched classy Mark Ellis of the LA Dodgers get ejected today in Chicago after simply saying "That was very bad" talking about a called third strike that WAS very bad. Don Mattingly came out and was ejected within less than a minute of the conversation. The commentators were shocked Ellis got ejected and more so for not cussing or anything. They felt it was uncalled for and so did I. I feel the umpires are getting WAY too involved with the barking. Either the thick skin is wearing off for them or they enjoy the spotlight a lot more than in years past.

He was tossed for what he did, not what he said.

 

Also keep in mind those same announcers also don't know the difference between a fair call and a no-catch call.

What exactly did he do to warrant being ejected? Also, one of the announcers was Rick Monday. He may know a little about baseball...

Gestured after throwing the bat.

 

And commentators, with very few exceptions, don't know a thing about umpiring. Hell, most of them don't know basic rules. Off the top of my head, I can remember Harold Reynolds saying the hands are part of the bat and Joe Morgan saying ties go to the runner...and those are just national games. The fact that the commentary crew on this game got something so visible incorrect also goes to show you how ignorant most baseball professionals are.

REALLY!? He tossed the bat because it was ball four. Take another look... He was ejected after he turned and said it was a very bad call. Oh, and feel free to read the article about how the ump was "rattled" from the Cubs pitching coach because Woods already walked four batters. It was the fourth inning.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/articl...ews_mlb&c_id=mlb

quote:

Joe Morgan saying ties go to the runner

 Probably not the best example, since OBR is written such that ties do go to the runner and in that sense Joe is right.  What he doesn't know is that a MLB umpire won't permit himself to see a tie.  He'll either see safe or out.

 

At the time he said it, 6.05j wasn't changed to be in line with 7.08e.

I didn't say it was because he tossed the bat.

You said gesture after throwing bat. He was not tossed for that. He was tossed after his statement. Maybe had Ellis just stood in the box starring down the ump for a bit, maybe then he would have stayed in the game? Had he tossed his hands in the air then simply walked to the dugout, he would not have been ejected. Simply put, the ejection was uncalled for imo. The umpire became too emotional and it showed on that particular AB.

Well MLB umpires sure have struggled with this one this year too! And they GET PAID to know these rules!

Thought about this thread while the Red Sox made that improbable come back that was sparked when the Mariners manager raised the wrong arm when calling for his relief pitcher.  

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/0...ost-his-team-a-game/

 

To me, this is another example of the umps putting themselves before the game.  The point of the rule that was "broken" is to keep from deceiving the other team about who is coming in.  IMO, there was no deception here.  The guy raised the wrong arm.... and then very quickly made the adjustment.

 

They eventually lost the game.  He very easily could have brought another pitcher in before letting the game slip away, but that is beside the point.

 

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com/bus_tour

www.twitter.com/PlayInSchool

I've made an effort to search, but can't find the rule. Can anyone help?

It's in the PBUCUM explicitly and implied in the MLBUM.

OK, thanks. I don't have access to those manuals so can't comment. But I do have access to the MLB rules, as follows:

 

 

How many times have we seen the situation where a potential pinch hitter gets loose in the on-deck circle. Team on defense waits until that player is announced before possibly making a pitching change to get a lefty-lefty or righty-righty match up, or whatever. If the defense made a pitching change before the potential pinch hitter was announced, the offensive team could sit him down and send the original hitter or another pinch hitter up, without losing game eligibility for the original potential pinch hitter.

 

Using this analogy I do not see why a potential relief pitcher who has not been announced and has not even stepped on the field or on the "pitcher's plate" must enter the game.

 

Again, without seeing the manuals can't say if what happened in the Mariners-Red Sox game was a bad rule or a bad call. All I know is that it was bad.

The interpretations per those manuals consider the arm gesture as notification of the substitution. Once notification occurs, the sub is in the game.

 

Not saying I agree with it, but the powers that be have made it so.

The MLB rules say the "umpire-in-chief" (home plate umpire) shall announce each substitution. If I recall correctly the home plate umpire in the Mariners-Red Sox game had no involvement in the situation. It was one of the field umps who motioned to the pen after Robby Thompson pointed with his left hand.

 

I guess the umpire manuals' interpretation is that a field ump can take the home plate ump's responsibility in this situation, even though the rules clearly state it is the home plate ump's job?  Certainly the manuals don't say a manager can take the umpire in chief's role, do they?

 

If the umpires in this case just enforced MLB rules 3.07 and 3.08 as they are clearly written, there would have been no controversy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe crew chief's are not always behind the plate in MLB. That may be why the HP ump did not acknowledge.

According to MLB rules, the umpire in chief is the home plate ump, not the crew chief.

 

What makes this "interpretation" from the manual even more galling is to consider the situation after rosters expand to 40 on Sept 1. Unless the ump has an encyclopedic memory he won't know who in tarnation or even the number of the player he is announcing from the bullpen which could be over 300 feet away. But that player, apparently, will officially be in the game as soon as the ump gestures....whoever he is.

http://www.closecallsports.com...lk-managers-arm.html

That article clinches it for me.

 

It was a bad call.

Green Light,

Contrary to a statement in the article,.my copy of the MLBUM (2007 edition) says, "Motioning to the bullpen is to be considered an official substitution for the new pitcher." For me, such a mistake in an article strongly suggests that the author is indulging in confirmation bias.  I wouldn't let such an article clinch anything for me. 

 

IN any case, it isn't clear to me that that motioning to the bullpen necessarily identifies which new pitcher, but for sure it does officially cause the removal of the current pitcher. 

 

 

In that case, your post clinches it for me, 3FG.

 

It was a bad call.

 

I hope you would let such a post as yours clinch something for me.

 

EDIT: Your reference is to a six year old version of the MLBUM, correct? Can anyone out there quote the current version as it pertains to this issue? Any changes?

 

I would rather an ump have a quick trigger than to have to watch a spoiled brat argue and scream like a 2 year old. That is what I hate most about MLB is the need for players and managers to act like spoiled kids that tantrum fits. I didn't pay couple hundred bucks to come watch you scream like a baby who needs his diaper changed. When you hit closer to 1.000 than .300 and no fielding errors, base running errors or throw only strikes; then talk to the umpire. Otherwise; shut your trap and play ball.

$10 to get your very own copy.  Here's one vendor.

Apparently you think it is not worth it to fork over the $10 yourself. That clinches it for me.

So, every source here indicates it was the right call, and that clinches it for you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bobp5OHVsWY

 

For the record, the MLBUM has the same interpretation now as it did then.

Blue, how could it be the right call? The umpire in chief did not announce the left-handed pitcher, yet he was forced to enter the game.

 

As 3FG said above, "it isn't clear to me that that motioning to the bullpen necessarily identifies which new pitcher, but for sure it does officially cause the removal of the current pitcher."

 

If motioning to the bullpen=official substitution of a particular pitcher, what does the MLBUM say about the situation where there are two lefties or two righties warming up? 3FG's take clinches it for me.

 

PS: Your insult in the link you posted is noted. Would have thought umps should be more professional and have more dignity.

 

 

1. Grow some skin. It's a humorous video.

2. The MLBUM states that the signal constitutes a sub. It's no different, in that regard, as a manager saying "Smith for Jones." He doesn't have to specify which Smith, unless he's got more than one. Likewise, if he motions with his left arm, it's indicative of the lefty who's up. If and only if he has more than one does the arm motion require any more delineation.

3. It's really pathetic that you ignore published interpretation by the very people who promulgate the rules, as well as the knowledge of those paid to enforce it.

Thanks for that, Blue.

 

Where is this published interpretation, except for in your post?