Getting it right?

I'm not sure you can even say this was at the "insistence from the coaches" because Joe West was headed in to huddle it up before the coach could even get out on the field.

He did get the call right the first time it looks like and then gets "help" and changes the call which appears to have been a mistake. Those things do happen and when you attempt to get a judgement call like that "correct" mistakes are made. If the other umpires have other responsibilities and don't have that call, then they should tell him it's his call.

But this crew continues to amaze me. Someday MLB will wake up..

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
I'm not sure you can even say this was at the "insistence from the coaches" because Joe West was headed in to huddle it up before the coach could even get out on the field.

I said at the "insistence of the Managers." I was referring to the lobbying for this practice by ML managers, and the owners.

It matters not who initiated it on the field. They are doing it in response to instructions by MLB management at this point.

The unintended consequence is, more often that not, changng the right call to a wrong call.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The increased habit of ML umpires huddling to "get the call right, (at the insistence of ML managers) has, according to studies, resulted in changing a good call to an incorrect call more often than changing a bad call to a correct call.

Studies or anecdotal evidence?

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The increased habit of ML umpires huddling to "get the call right, (at the insistence of ML managers) has, according to studies, resulted in changing a good call to an incorrect call more often than changing a bad call to a correct call.

Studies or anecdotal evidence?

According to the presenters at spring, studies..analysis of video. Can't comment on how the videos were chosen or how many.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
According to the presenters at spring, studies..analysis of video. Can't comment on how the videos were chosen or how many.

I'd love to know their sources. It's not that I don't believe it, but I'm skeptical.

MLB has the ability to review anaylyze every game's video. The questions I'd like answered are:

How many calls were examined? How were they selected? How many different crews/umpires were involved? Were there crews/umpires represented significantly more often than others? Were there teams represented significantly more than others? What kind of breakdown on the types of calls was there?

Exactly. If I had the time or needed a good research project, I'd take ESPN's "study" of close calls last year (done right after the Jim Joyce incident), where they said umpires missed 20% of the "close calls" reviewed over a two-week span.

I would ask for their data and I shouldn't have too hard of a time finding the games. It would be a fun project to see how off their calls were.

Personally, if the calls were too close to tell with standard-speed video, getting 50% right would be the standard -- 80% is pretty **** good.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14690335

I won't comment on the first couple of parts to this video because we already know more than enough..

But take the part where they talk about the Dodgers game the other.. what are your thoughts there?

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14690335

I won't comment on the first couple of parts to this video because we already know more than enough..

But take the part where they talk about the Dodgers game the other.. what are your thoughts there?

It is unfortunate but umpires miss calls that impact the outcome of the play. And, these are not "fixable" situations. What do you do with the runners? In this case, it easy to say runners at 2B and 1B. In many cases, that can't be determined. So, it is easier to make all plays universally "unfixable" than to attempt to pick 'n choose which ones can and can't be. If it can't be "fixed", why think about asking for help anyway?

Plus, this is U3's call all the way. He is the closest one. Who else is closer to tell if it hit or not? The bad thing is being closer didn't help b/c he got straightlined on the play. It happens and called what he thought he saw.

Uribe wouldn't drop it so he had to go. Mattingly had to go to save face with his players.

If you just wanted to hear U3 missed it, well, he did. But, there is a good reason he did IMO. And, he can't ask for help to "fix" something like this for so many reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14690335

I won't comment on the first couple of parts to this video because we already know more than enough..

But take the part where they talk about the Dodgers game the other.. what are your thoughts there?

It took video from an angle unavailable to any of the umpires to positively prove the ball hit the ground prior to the glove.

Mattingly lost my sympathy when, during the post game inteveiw, he lied about what U3 had told him.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
But take the part where they talk about the Dodgers game the other.. what are your thoughts there?

I'm a Pirates fan.........

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
It took video from an angle unavailable to any of the umpires to positively prove the ball hit the ground prior to the glove.

There's cameras not available to the umpires for reviews?

Personally, it took the fourth frame-by-frame for me to say "It's highly possible it bounced," and I'm still not convinced. I don't think any umpire would have had a look on it in real-time to determine the true status.

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
It took video from an angle unavailable to any of the umpires to positively prove the ball hit the ground prior to the glove.

There's cameras not available to the umpires for reviews?

Not on that play. We haven't gotten to LL replay standards yet, thank God.

quote:

Mattingly lost my sympathy when, during the post game inteveiw, he lied about what U3 had told him.

So the umpire spoke about it too? I haven't seen that video...

I'm not saying the umpire should have gotten it right because like another person said, it took some good camera work to show definitively that the ball bounce.

If you're not 100% sure, then why not ask?

Bulldog, you have a PM!

Redwing, I got your message but unfortunately I cannot respond to it. Per NCAA rules, it is not allowed because your son would be considered a "prospective athlete" and I would be considered a "booster."


Relating to PROSPECTIVE student-athletes, you are NOT permitted to:

Contact a prospect or his/her parent in person, by telephone or in writing (letters, instant message, message boards, or email) for the purpose of recruiting the prospect. Contact may not be made with a prospect or his/her parents on or off the Southeast Missouri State University campus.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
If you're not 100% sure, then why not ask?

Why ask someone who has a worse chance of being right?

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

Mattingly lost my sympathy when, during the post game inteveiw, he lied about what U3 had told him.

So the umpire spoke about it too? I haven't seen that video...

I'm not saying the umpire should have gotten it right because like another person said, it took some good camera work to show definitively that the ball bounce.

If you're not 100% sure, then why not ask?

Mike never said he was not sure, by any percentage. Mike said he made the best call he could make seeing what he saw.

U3 was the only umpire whose job was to go out and make the call. The other umpires had other tasks taking their time and attention, which is why this is not an "appealable" play, nor one in which a second umpire is put in position to watch, nor one subject to replay review.

There remains both a human element in baseball and an element of "chance." I once read on an old baseball forum a NW umpire wrote, (at least words to this effect) "umpiring has a finite number of solutions for an infinite number of situations."

quote:

There remains both a human element in baseball and an element of "chance." I once read on an old baseball forum a NW umpire wrote, (at least words to this effect) "umpiring has a finite number of solutions for an infinite number of situations."

Personally I think the human element in baseball is a great thing. Obviously replay can show us when an umpire misses a call, but if it takes replay in slow motion at all sorts of weird angles, I can understand missing the call.

But here's one where the home-plate umpire interferes and overrules the 1st base umpire. The video is not conclusive to me as to the right call. I feel like in that case, it should be left as called. Home-plate umpire was down the line changing the call before the play could even finish!

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16242041

If the 1st base umpire is bad enough that you feel like you have to overrule him like that, then he probably shouldn't be umpiring the most advanced game on the planet!

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

There remains both a human element in baseball and an element of "chance." I once read on an old baseball forum a NW umpire wrote, (at least words to this effect) "umpiring has a finite number of solutions for an infinite number of situations."

Personally I think the human element in baseball is a great thing. Obviously replay can show us when an umpire misses a call, but if it takes replay in slow motion at all sorts of weird angles, I can understand missing the call.

But here's one where the home-plate umpire interferes and overrules the 1st base umpire. The video is not conclusive to me as to the right call. I feel like in that case, it should be left as called. Home-plate umpire was down the line changing the call before the play could even finish!

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16242041

If the 1st base umpire is bad enough that you feel like you have to overrule him like that, then he probably shouldn't be umpiring the most advanced game on the planet!

Plate umpire was not down the line changing the call. He provided information that the U1 did not have. U1 changed his call which is why the skipper came to him after the changed call.

When reviewing these replays, it's best to leave the sound off. The announcers were repeating myth's and nonsense over and over.

Everybody knows my feelings on the getting together trend. I think it is done too much and ends in more mistakes than it corrects.

It's a case of be careful of what you wish for.

This trend was not initiated nor moved forward by the umpires, but rather by the team managers and MLB management.

quote:

Plate umpire was not down the line changing the call. He provided information that the U1 did not have. U1 changed his call which is why the skipper came to him after the changed call.

The home-plate umpire initiated the discussion-- not the 1st base umpire and not a manager. That is what I mean. And if you watch the replay the 1st base umpire isn't doing much talking it looks like to me. And if you're that adamant (which is a good thing!) and then you change your call, then I have to question your ability to work that level.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

Plate umpire was not down the line changing the call. He provided information that the U1 did not have. U1 changed his call which is why the skipper came to him after the changed call.

The home-plate umpire initiated the discussion-- not the 1st base umpire and not a manager. That is what I mean. And if you watch the replay the 1st base umpire isn't doing much talking it looks like to me. And if you're that adamant (which is a good thing!) and then you change your call, then I have to question your ability to work that level.

Once again, the plate umpire provided U1 with information he did not have. In response to the team managers and MLB administration's demand for umpires to get together on calls where one umpire, while performing his duties may have seen things differently than the calling umpire, they did.

Plays happen that at first seem to call for the mandate positioning and then develop in a manner that that position is no longer the most advantageous. When there is time, umpires then adjust. When there is not time, they do not.

In either case, the "primary" umpire has to make a call. In today's feel good environment, umpires with a better view may present their information to the calling umpire after the play. That's what happened here.

Get used to it.

30 years ago umpires made their call and lived with it. It's a different world.

Jimmy:
My response is you are correct but I also think progress isn't always a good thing. Look at all the "advances" we have made in teaching methods in schools. Kids are coming out dumber than bricks.

I am not opposed to having them get together. Joe could have been screened out on the play since tag was from behind and runner could have shielded full view of the play.

Having said that it should be really clear to overule the call and I just don't see how the PU could overule Joe since it was such a close play.

Also not sure why Madden gets tossed so early since he has a legitimate beef with the overuule and should allowed to say his peace without going over the top (HTBT, I guess), but then again this is Cowboy Joe so we know Madden wouldn't be around long

1. No one over ruled anyone.

2. PU had a much better angle and most likely could see whether or not there was contact on the swipe tag attempt.

3. PU gave what he ha to U1, U1 change his call.

4. No telling what Madden said. Some topics and words will result in a very quick ejection.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Jimmy:
My response is you are correct but I also think progress isn't always a good thing. Look at all the "advances" we have made in teaching methods in schools. Kids are coming out dumber than bricks.

We are in agreement....especially in the area of math.

I'll drink a toast tonight hoping I NEVER have to watch the lead umpire taking two minutes under an NFL style camera on the sideline review a bang/bang 6-3...

quote:

I'll drink a toast tonight hoping I NEVER have to watch the lead umpire taking two minutes under an NFL style camera on the sideline review a bang/bang 6-3...

Agreed there!

So there we are in the FL/SC CWS game last night and while the call did not affect the outcome it may have helped the PU not face "further review" embarassment.

It was not easy to see in slow-mo so I am sure it was harder in real-time. The ball was foul tip call (although PU did not give the universal signal followed by the out sign. Since the BU (plural) did not see PU give the foul tip signal they did not initiate to come and advise PU the ball hit the ground making it a foul ball.

FL coach comes out and PU's explanation was "he heard one sound," therefore he calls strike-out. FL coach contends it was a foul tip not caught (foul ball) PU thankfully grants umpire meeting and 3BU asks him what call did he have? PU says he has FT-caught (although he never gave the signal). They get it right but it was only by getting together since PU was lost on the call.