Jimmy that makes more sense. When less than the "full story" is what you get, then you don't have a choice but to take it. If what you report is what was happened (which I would assume) then he deserved it. All the public who wasn't at the game could see was the equipment thrown and the very delayed ejection. If he threw equipment again, then he deserved it.
quote:Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Jimmy that makes more sense. When less than the "full story" is what you get, then you don't have a choice but to take it.
You always have the choice of to whom to give the benefit of doubt until all the facts come out, at aleast not to rush to judgment.
quote:Originally posted by otownmike:
Absolutely agree with Wklink......k-zone, high-def, super slow motion, enhanced field level audio, etc definitely makes it tougher to be an umpire today. Additionally while you do not see the Weavers, Martins, Pinellas, Bobby Cox, managers who would intentionally argue to get tossed so their players wouldn't I believe today you see many more players verbally challenging the strike zone which is the unwritten rule.....there are ways to get the point across and the players are crossing the line so maybe is seems like more are getting tossed than before.
1. Bobby Cox is still around and Ozzie Guillen and Ron Gardinhire have shown an eagerness to replace Pinella and Weaver.
2. Nothing unwritten about that penalty.
3. Ejections as measured per game or per umpire are not significantly different than 20, 30, or 40 years ago. They have increased, however, from three years and two years ago. MLB felt that umpires had gotten "soft" a couple of years bacj and players and managers had begun running roughshod over them. They enouraged umpires to get them under control.
So. To get back to the original question re quality of ml umps... How can MLB accept the quality of umping that was on display for the alds yesterday?
In yankees twins game the strike zone of the home plate ump was simply appalling. Balls 5-6 baseball widths off the plate outside were consistently called stikes for lefties, balls for righties (batters). Pitches clearly over the plate on the inside othe plate were consistently called balls.
This was when both starters, lefties, were in. Umps zone changed entirely as soon as right handed relievers came in.
TBS had their pitch tracker running and left the pitches up, with balls labelled 1,2,3 etc. What was also striking was Rivera and other pitchers hitting exactly the same spot multiple times with the balls virtually superimposed on each other, resulting in ball/strike calls that were inconsistent, seeming to vary more with the count than the location.
And the golson catch ruled no catch? 6 umps? A conference after what was obviously a catch on real time view was ruled no catch that still gets it wrong? wtf?
In yankees twins game the strike zone of the home plate ump was simply appalling. Balls 5-6 baseball widths off the plate outside were consistently called stikes for lefties, balls for righties (batters). Pitches clearly over the plate on the inside othe plate were consistently called balls.
This was when both starters, lefties, were in. Umps zone changed entirely as soon as right handed relievers came in.
TBS had their pitch tracker running and left the pitches up, with balls labelled 1,2,3 etc. What was also striking was Rivera and other pitchers hitting exactly the same spot multiple times with the balls virtually superimposed on each other, resulting in ball/strike calls that were inconsistent, seeming to vary more with the count than the location.
And the golson catch ruled no catch? 6 umps? A conference after what was obviously a catch on real time view was ruled no catch that still gets it wrong? wtf?
Here's what I find interesting. The people at the game and on field level and with similar angles as the umpires: the Yankee manager, yankee players, coaches, have gone on record as saying that the play was difficult to see and they can see and understand how the call of no catch was made.
The complaining is coming from fans and others who saw the play via a camera at an angle not available to those on the field.
So, those to who it mattered most are realize the umpire made an error on a tough call and have moved on. Those sitting on the couch are extremely agitated.
Go figure.
The complaining is coming from fans and others who saw the play via a camera at an angle not available to those on the field.
So, those to who it mattered most are realize the umpire made an error on a tough call and have moved on. Those sitting on the couch are extremely agitated.
Go figure.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Here's what I find interesting. The people at the game and on field level and with similar angles as the umpires: the Yankee manager, yankee players, coaches, have gone on record as saying that the play was difficult to see and they can see and understand how the call of no catch was made.
The complaining is coming from fans and others who saw the play via a camera at an angle not available to those on the field.
So, those to who it mattered most are realize the umpire made an error on a tough call and have moved on. Those sitting on the coach are extremely agitated.
Go figure.
I think if you ask the Yankees what they thought before the next batter, their answer would have been totally different.
As for those sitting on the "coach", I think that depends on what he is doing!
Well, no, really.
SOME of the players and coaches asked for comment by the media types said they were not in a position to see, eg Girardi and A-rod (over at third)
Those with similar angle to fieldumps eg Cano And Texeira were quite clear that they saw catch not trap.
Point about the camera angle is well taken but it doesnt explain the miss tbh
SOME of the players and coaches asked for comment by the media types said they were not in a position to see, eg Girardi and A-rod (over at third)
Those with similar angle to fieldumps eg Cano And Texeira were quite clear that they saw catch not trap.
Point about the camera angle is well taken but it doesnt explain the miss tbh
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Well, no, really.
SOME of the players and coaches asked for comment by the media types said they were not in a position to see, eg Girardi and A-rod (over at third)
Those with similar angle to fieldumps eg Cano And Texeira were quite clear that they saw catch not trap.
Point about the camera angle is well taken but it doesnt explain the miss tbh
So what was Girardi and A-Rod telling the umpires over at 1st base directly after the call, "hey I could not see it, but what ever you think?"
It is reported, well in fact I have seen a video clip where A-Rod, stating that he could not see the play did want to point out that there were no grass stains on the ball. Sorta like shoepolish evidence in reverse 
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Well, no, really.
SOME of the players and coaches asked for comment by the media types said they were not in a position to see, eg Girardi and A-rod (over at third)
Those with similar angle to fieldumps eg Cano And Texeira were quite clear that they saw catch not trap.
Point about the camera angle is well taken but it doesnt explain the miss tbh
No one had Guccione's angle. U2, following proper mechanics was on the move to prepare for a potential play at second. Only PU would have been looking and he was too far away.
U6's view was from the back of the glove. The default call if you are not 100% sure is "no catch." The mechanic is then to get together if anyone had a clear view. They did not. Mechanics were followed and a mistake was made. Unfortunate, but not incompetent.
And after re-reading the quotes after the game, I re-iterate....the people who least understand are the ones watching TV. Nobody involved in the game is making as much an issue of this as are fans on an internet board.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Well, no, really.
SOME of the players and coaches asked for comment by the media types said they were not in a position to see, eg Girardi and A-rod (over at third)
Those with similar angle to fieldumps eg Cano And Texeira were quite clear that they saw catch not trap.
Point about the camera angle is well taken but it doesnt explain the miss tbh
No one had Guccione's angle. U2, following proper mechanics was on the move to prepare for a potential play at second. Only PU would have been looking and he was too far away.
U6's view was from the back of the glove. The default call if you are not 100% sure is "no catch." The mechanic is then to get together if anyone had a clear view. They did not. Mechanics were followed and a mistake was made. Unfortunate, but not incompetent.
And after re-reading the quotes after the game, I re-iterate....the people who least understand are the ones watching TV. Nobody involved in the game is making as much an issue of this as are fans on an internet board.
Well duh why would they?
Next guy flew out. Game over. What is the point?
Contrast, however, the situation today on the tampa bay web site THEY ie maddon and players ARE bitching about the 1st inning call "against" PENA.
So even tho we are just fans on a message board we are not necessarily idiots nor are we the only ones upset by the call. Frankly, my team won; Im not upset at all.
Why start this topic if you are going to berate us for posting?
BTW what about the strike zone called by the yanks/twins plate ump? What am I failing to understand there?
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:Balls 5-6 baseball widths off the plate outside were consistently called stikes for lefties
6 baseballs - that's about 18" - a foot and a half - more than an entire plate. Care to revise your statement?
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Why start this topic if you are going to berate us for posting?
BTW what about the strike zone called by the yanks/twins plate ump? What am I failing to understand there?
I didn't start this topic. The topic I started was a comparison of today's umpires with those in the past. If you want to see who started this topic check the first post of the day or look in a mirror.
I didn't respond to your ridiculous statement of the strike zone because I didn't one pitch in the middle of the opposing batter's box as you claim. Sounds like you subscribe to the philosophy of "when in doubt, make sh!t up."
quote:Originally posted by dash_riprock:quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:Balls 5-6 baseball widths off the plate outside were consistently called stikes for lefties
6 baseballs - that's about 18" - a foot and a half - more than an entire plate. Care to revise your statement?
Well yes I would. For the purpose of this discussion lets make it 3 baseball widths ie 9 inches at outside. Again. Why is it ok to call this a strike when the ball on the black inside is not called a strike. And ya I get it umps have different zones, find the umps zone etc. I understand how it works. What I dont get is why is it tolerated?
Jimmy: the first post this subject is yours. You are the op that started thread.
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Jimmy: the first post this subject is yours. You are the op that started thread.
Ture. But you referenced this topic, not this thread. They are two completely different things. This current topic was begun by you...strike one.
And nine inchs off the plate is still well in the opposite batter's box. Didn't happen....strike two.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Jimmy: the first post this subject is yours. You are the op that started thread.
Ture. But you referenced this topic, not this thread. They are two completely different things. This current topic was begun by you...strike one.
And nine inchs off the plate is still well in the opposite batter's box. Didn't happen....strike two.
LOL
See thats the point. It did.
And Cmon, pitch on wrong side of batters box line is
not uncommonly called a strike; its in the batters box, it cant be reached and its called a strike.And thats fine, mistakes etc.
My question earlier, and what i dont get, concerns the plate ump in yesterdays game. His zone was reliably and regularly 3 balls off the outside of the plate WHEN a lefty was at bat and A lefty was pitching. Right handed batter same pitch a ball. Other side of the plate (inside to a lefty) ball had to be on the white not the black. This is easily observable, watch any recorded replay of the tbs broadcast, their pitch tracker was up and showing seqential pitch locations virtually whole game. Maybe we wont agree on how many baseball widths off the plate but you will have to see the discrepancy inside vs outside is real. And reliable. ANd predictable. And measureable if you had access to the pitch track system. Which MLB clearly has. Thats my question. Why is it not addressed/corrected by mlb? Why is it tolerated?
I don't think it is tolerated because it's not happening. What games are you watching? I'm not going to say I've seen every pitch of every game but the ones I've seen there is no way what you are saying is going on. First you said it was 6 balls outside and now you're down to 3 balls outside - so which is it? Are you embellishing to try and make your point or what? Where is your credibility when you start out claiming pitches were cutting through the innter third of the batters box and then change it just inside the batters box?
First time you lost credibility with me - when you said the ump was calling balls in the batters box strikes.
Second time you lost credibility with me - when you said it was 6 balls off the plate
Third time you lost credibility with me - when you changed it and said it was 3 balls off the plate
First time you lost credibility with me - when you said the ump was calling balls in the batters box strikes.
Second time you lost credibility with me - when you said it was 6 balls off the plate
Third time you lost credibility with me - when you changed it and said it was 3 balls off the plate
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
This is easily observable, watch any recorded replay of the tbs broadcast, their pitch tracker was up and showing seqential pitch locations virtually whole game.
We all know how reliable pitch trackers are.
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Jimmy: the first post this subject is yours. You are the op that started thread.
Ture. But you referenced this topic, not this thread. They are two completely different things. This current topic was begun by you...strike one.
And nine inchs off the plate is still well in the opposite batter's box. Didn't happen....strike two.
LOL
See thats the point. It did.
And Cmon, pitch on wrong side of batters box line is
not uncommonly called a strike; its in the batters box, it cant be reached and its called a strike.And thats fine, mistakes etc.
My question earlier, and what i dont get, concerns the plate ump in yesterdays game. His zone was reliably and regularly 3 balls off the outside of the plate WHEN a lefty was at bat and A lefty was pitching. Right handed batter same pitch a ball. Other side of the plate (inside to a lefty) ball had to be on the white not the black. This is easily observable, watch any recorded replay of the tbs broadcast, their pitch tracker was up and showing seqential pitch locations virtually whole game. Maybe we wont agree on how many baseball widths off the plate but you will have to see the discrepancy inside vs outside is real. And reliable. ANd predictable. And measureable if you had access to the pitch track system. Which MLB clearly has. Thats my question. Why is it not addressed/corrected by mlb? Why is it tolerated?
1. Pitch track relies on cameras that are not centered on the plate. Even MLB management understands it does not accurately reflect pitches.
2. You cannot provide any evidence that pitches nine inches off the plate (three inches inside the opposite batter's box) were called strikes, because, as it has been pointed out by others, it didn't happen. Trust me, if it did, it would be shown front and center on "Baseball Tonight" and "Sports Center". Consider the hissy fit they had over a border line pitch in the Twins game.
Strike three.
quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Balls 5-6 baseball widths off the plate outside were consistently called stikes for lefties, balls for righties (batters). Pitches clearly over the plate on the inside othe plate were consistently called balls.
This was when both starters, lefties, were in.
I decided to check this through Brooks Baseball. If you haven't seen the graphs they make for each pitcher, it's amazing. One of the graphs shows the information on each pitch: ball, called strike, swung at, etc.
You can see the results at http://www.brooksbaseball.net/...aStr=|10/06/2010|New York Yankees @ Minnesota Twins
He did call a fair number of strikes on the left size of the zone.
Edit: Link above didn't work. Try this tinyurl: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bzk2xs
quote:Originally posted by yawetag:quote:Originally posted by NoReplay:
Balls 5-6 baseball widths off the plate outside were consistently called stikes for lefties, balls for righties (batters). Pitches clearly over the plate on the inside othe plate were consistently called balls.
This was when both starters, lefties, were in.
I decided to check this through Brooks Baseball. If you haven't seen the graphs they make for each pitcher, it's amazing. One of the graphs shows the information on each pitch: ball, called strike, swung at, etc.
You can see the results at http://www.brooksbaseball.net/...aStr=|10/06/2010|New York Yankees @ Minnesota Twins
He did call a fair number of strikes on the left size of the zone.
Edit: Link above didn't work. Try this tinyurl: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bzk2xs
You would have to completely ignore the description of methodology and disclaimers to see any value in the diagrams.
I'll give the plate umpire more than the benefit of the doubt on whether or not a 90 mph fastball with 8-10 inches of sink and AS Run is on the black or is 2 inches off the plate.......as for catches drops/fair or foul/safe or out/etc I think they should be better.....the argument that the Yankees players didn't see it either sucks....IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO SEE IT.
quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:
as for catches drops/fair or foul/safe or out/etc I think they should be better.....the argument that the Yankees players didn't see it either sucks....IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO SEE IT.
The point made is that the only angle that provided the view of a clean catch was not available on the field to the responsible umpires or even players in better positions.
We know who's job it is. We know the prescribed mechanics and why umpires are where they are, do you?
The same problem occured on Posley's steal of second. The prescribed positioning of U2 put him the position of being partially screened by the body of the sliding runner. He would have had a much better view from outside the infield, but he is not allowed to take calls there becuase, while it would have been better on this play, it is worse on 90% of the others
We still compromise in mechanics and play the odds.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:
as for catches drops/fair or foul/safe or out/etc I think they should be better.....the argument that the Yankees players didn't see it either sucks....IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO SEE IT.
The point made is that the only angle that provided the view of a clean catch was not available on the field to the responsible umpires or even players in better positions.
We know who's job it is. We know the prescribed mechanics and why umpires are where they are, do you?
The same problem occured on Posley's steal of second. The prescribed positioning of U2 put him the position of being partially screened by the body of the sliding runner. He would have had a much better view from outside the infield, but he is not allowed to take calls there becuase, while it would have been better on this play, it is worse on 90% of the others
We still compromise in mechanics and play the odds.
I actually do know the 2 man/3 man/4 man/6 man mechanics very well. Don't assume you know my background anymore in the game than I know yours.
Watch the replay and tell me Mariano Rivera wasn't pretty sure he caught the ball........or how do you think the players knew to have them check the ball for a grass mark (weak argument but still) what good would it do to rip the umps in the press after a game you won? Everyone knew he caught the ball but the 6 guys charged with making the call.
Bobby Cox is still around and Ozzie Guillen and Ron Gardinhire have shown an eagerness to replace Pinella and Weaver.
2. Nothing unwritten about that penalty.
3. Ejections as measured per game or per umpire are not significantly different than 20, 30, or 40 years ago. They have increased, however, from three years and two years ago. MLB felt that umpires had gotten "soft" a couple of years bacj and players and managers had begun running roughshod over them. They enouraged umpires to get them under control.
Gardinhire rightly got tossed las night since the son of the great Wendlestadt failed to call a pitch down the middle strike three resulting in a next pitch run scoring double.
Not sure what you mean about unwritten penalty as I was talking about arguing balls/strikes. a good umpire has to be able to take some ribbing but every umpire has the break point where someone is gonig to get tossed for it
Additionally why are you bailing out the umpires who missed the trap catch when there is RF line (playoffs) and 1B umpire right there with a RH throwing fielder so they are looking right at the glove?
2. Nothing unwritten about that penalty.
3. Ejections as measured per game or per umpire are not significantly different than 20, 30, or 40 years ago. They have increased, however, from three years and two years ago. MLB felt that umpires had gotten "soft" a couple of years bacj and players and managers had begun running roughshod over them. They enouraged umpires to get them under control.
Gardinhire rightly got tossed las night since the son of the great Wendlestadt failed to call a pitch down the middle strike three resulting in a next pitch run scoring double.
Not sure what you mean about unwritten penalty as I was talking about arguing balls/strikes. a good umpire has to be able to take some ribbing but every umpire has the break point where someone is gonig to get tossed for it
Additionally why are you bailing out the umpires who missed the trap catch when there is RF line (playoffs) and 1B umpire right there with a RH throwing fielder so they are looking right at the glove?
cuz bailouts is what they do in this sandbox??
OK:
how good is the pitchtrack? Adverts on tv tell us within 1 inch, mlb was apparently using some variety of same to monitor umps zones at least part of the time; that implies some accepted level of reliability. You can mock me all you want (its your sandbox) buts its as plane as the nose on the face of anyone who is willing to look that the umps are either missing calls or creating their own zones etc.
PLease realize I am not trying to bash on your ump fraternity. Im trying to get some insight as to why these obvious problems dont seem to addressed by mlb. Or are they being addressed?
Its an interesting phenomenom. People, including players,coaches and media, ie not just idiot "fans on a messageboard" see and comment upon a clearly observable issue. Some of them (me) come to a message board frequented by people who could reasonably be expected to have some insight to ask why this issue seems to be ignored.
The response: There is no such issue. You are the issue. The tools you reference are flawed. The tools others reference are even worse. There can never be an issue. Your senses are lying to you. Drink this koolaid.
Ya thanks.
OK:
how good is the pitchtrack? Adverts on tv tell us within 1 inch, mlb was apparently using some variety of same to monitor umps zones at least part of the time; that implies some accepted level of reliability. You can mock me all you want (its your sandbox) buts its as plane as the nose on the face of anyone who is willing to look that the umps are either missing calls or creating their own zones etc.
PLease realize I am not trying to bash on your ump fraternity. Im trying to get some insight as to why these obvious problems dont seem to addressed by mlb. Or are they being addressed?
Its an interesting phenomenom. People, including players,coaches and media, ie not just idiot "fans on a messageboard" see and comment upon a clearly observable issue. Some of them (me) come to a message board frequented by people who could reasonably be expected to have some insight to ask why this issue seems to be ignored.
The response: There is no such issue. You are the issue. The tools you reference are flawed. The tools others reference are even worse. There can never be an issue. Your senses are lying to you. Drink this koolaid.
Ya thanks.
yawetag: Nice find on the Brooks Bros. stuff. Very interesting site.
I have looked at this site before and it tells me absolutely nothing.
quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:
I actually do know the 2 man/3 man/4 man/6 man mechanics very well. Don't assume you know my background anymore in the game than I know yours.
If that's true you wouldn't be asking why U6 didn't see the catch.
quote:Everyone knew he caught the ball but the 6 guys charged with making the call.
I thought you said you knew mechanics? There wasn't six guys charged with making the call...just one.
And everyone knew? That comes as a surprise to a number of players on the field.
Bottom line, the only the angle that CLEARLY showed the catch was the camara positioned on the mezzanine level. U6 had no such angle. He was looking at the back side of the glove.
Had there been a four man crew, U1 would have had a good angle.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:
I actually do know the 2 man/3 man/4 man/6 man mechanics very well. Don't assume you know my background anymore in the game than I know yours.
If that's true you wouldn't be asking why U6 didn't see the catch.quote:Everyone knew he caught the ball but the 6 guys charged with making the call.
I thought you said you knew mechanics? There wasn't six guys charged with making the call...just one.
And everyone knew? That comes as a surprise to a number of players on the field.
Bottom line, the only the angle that CLEARLY showed the catch was the camara positioned on the mezzanine level. U6 had no such angle. He was looking at the back side of the glove.
Had there been a four man crew, U1 would have had a good angle.
At no point did I say it was U6's job to make the call....if you think nobody in a 6 man crew is in a good position to see a fly ball that brings the RF straight in then you know less about umpire mechanics/rotations then you let on.
quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:
I actually do know the 2 man/3 man/4 man/6 man mechanics very well. Don't assume you know my background anymore in the game than I know yours.
If that's true you wouldn't be asking why U6 didn't see the catch.quote:Everyone knew he caught the ball but the 6 guys charged with making the call.
I thought you said you knew mechanics? There wasn't six guys charged with making the call...just one.
And everyone knew? That comes as a surprise to a number of players on the field.
Bottom line, the only the angle that CLEARLY showed the catch was the camara positioned on the mezzanine level. U6 had no such angle. He was looking at the back side of the glove.
Had there been a four man crew, U1 would have had a good angle.
At no point did I say it was U6's job to make the call....if you think nobody in a 6 man crew is in a good position to see a fly ball that brings the RF straight in then you know less about umpire mechanics/rotations then you let on.
But, it WAS U6's call to make. And if you think that in a six man crew it the job of non-calling umpires, except BU to view the catch, I've got a mechanics book I'be willing to sell you.
I will offer only one off topic thought.
"I'm glad there aren't 16 camera's watching me do my job every day."
I will now withdraw from this discussion.
"I'm glad there aren't 16 camera's watching me do my job every day."
I will now withdraw from this discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:
I actually do know the 2 man/3 man/4 man/6 man mechanics very well. Don't assume you know my background anymore in the game than I know yours.
If that's true you wouldn't be asking why U6 didn't see the catch.quote:Everyone knew he caught the ball but the 6 guys charged with making the call.
I thought you said you knew mechanics? There wasn't six guys charged with making the call...just one.
And everyone knew? That comes as a surprise to a number of players on the field.
Bottom line, the only the angle that CLEARLY showed the catch was the camara positioned on the mezzanine level. U6 had no such angle. He was looking at the back side of the glove.
Had there been a four man crew, U1 would have had a good angle.
At no point did I say it was U6's job to make the call....if you think nobody in a 6 man crew is in a good position to see a fly ball that brings the RF straight in then you know less about umpire mechanics/rotations then you let on.
But, it WAS U6's call to make. And if you think that in a six man crew it the job of non-calling umpires, except BU to view the catch, I've got a mechanics book I'be willing to sell you.
I'm going to go back to my original argument then let this one go.....every umpire is quick to defend every other umpire.....bottom line it was a clear catch, why can't you just say "bad call, they blew it" and move on???????? If umpires in general would do that, there wouldn't be near the problems in the game....instead it's "players/managers aren't perfect blah, blah.....difference is players are ACCOUNTABLE to managers/teams/fans and managers are ACCOUNTABLE to teams/players/fans....just admit mistakes and move on, people will be very forgiving.
If u screw up admit it dont defend it. Here is a good story
Back when you could question umpires
I went out to argue a call with the base umpire. I had my say.No tough guy on his part. He listened etc etc. when I was done I returned to the dugout. An inning or 2 later I went out again to discuss one of his calls. I protested etc etc. he did not say anything. His silence was pronounced he then said to me I know I kicked the first one but I got this one. I went back to the dugout.
Back when you could question umpires
I went out to argue a call with the base umpire. I had my say.No tough guy on his part. He listened etc etc. when I was done I returned to the dugout. An inning or 2 later I went out again to discuss one of his calls. I protested etc etc. he did not say anything. His silence was pronounced he then said to me I know I kicked the first one but I got this one. I went back to the dugout.quote:Originally posted by Will:
Situation
Shane victorino called out on check swing. replay showed it was questionable ok that happens. He banged his helmet. Ok 3rd base umpire notes it and says fine for throwing equipment. victorino is walking away towards the dugout. He tosses him. I guess he showed him?
This is an old event that has been discussed here in another thread. What the broadcast cameras didn't show was the entire event.
After tossing his helmet at U3's call, U3, as required, notified him of the fine. Then, before heading to the dugout, Shane tossed his bat, a second equipment violation, which MLB has ruled carries a MANDATORY ejection penalty. Accordingly, and as he was required to do, U3 ejected Shane.
Please folks, before blasting an umpire for doing his job, seek out the whole story. Asking a question about what happened is so much better than making an accusatory statement.
There are other instances in which umpires are carrying out MLB directives that fans go nuts over without taking the time to find out why things went as they did. It's always best to ask "why" first. Then you'll know the proper party to slam.
quote:Originally posted by bsballfan:
I'm going to go back to my original argument then let this one go.....every umpire is quick to defend every other umpire.....bottom line it was a clear catch, why can't you just say "bad call, they blew it" and move on???????? If umpires in general would do that, there wouldn't be near the problems in the game....instead it's "players/managers aren't perfect blah, blah.....difference is players are ACCOUNTABLE to managers/teams/fans and managers are ACCOUNTABLE to teams/players/fans....just admit mistakes and move on, people will be very forgiving.
This will always fall under "People are going to see what they want to see." Many umpires do question other umpires but we don't see it as a "bad" call. It is an incorrect call and we look at why it is. We don't get hung up on the call so much as to why it was done.
Many times, we just explain why the call happened. Also, in many cases, the umpire wasn't "wrong" based on what they saw during the play. They just saw it incorrectly.
If you want a simple "He missed it", then here you go. He missed it. No one is denying we make mistakes. However, our mistake is not the call b/c it was called as seen and that is what you want to hear. The mistake, if there truly was a mistake, is what led up to the call: Poor positioning or whatever. But, the mistake is usually NOT the call itself.
Oh, and don't use words like "every", you don't know every umpire and not every umpire, even on this board, has answered every thread on this site. When is the last time you hung around after a game with a group of umpires and listened to their conversations? Or, have you gone to a mainly umpires site unlike this one? There are many out there and you will see umpires questioning umpires plenty on these sites, including MLB umpires being questioned. It happens far more than you know.
When you take an exam in school I was told an incorrect answer was a wrong answer
You just gotta love umpire double talk---he didnt get the call wrong --it was just incorrect
You just gotta love umpire double talk---he didnt get the call wrong --it was just incorrect
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
When you take an exam in school I was told an incorrect answer was a wrong answer
You just gotta love umpire double talk---he didnt get the call wrong --it was just incorrect
I think, if you re-read my post, you MAY understand it a little better. I said nothing about the call being "wrong" or not. There is no double talk in my post. I specifically used "bad call" which is not the same as "wrong/incorrect call". Not even close. Again, the call is "correct" base on what the umpire saw but the information given was incorrect (or, if it makes you feel better, wrong).
You want to change my words and use synonyms just to make yourself sound better. Go ahead. Want to make it more subjective feeling than objective like umpires are (objective). Go ahead. Misrepresenting things still doesn't make yours correct. So, go ahead.
Mr Umpire
At my age I am what i am--I am not looking to make myself sound better---I am trying to make the Men in Blue sound better---all you guys do is double talk to explain yourself
At my age I am what i am--I am not looking to make myself sound better---I am trying to make the Men in Blue sound better---all you guys do is double talk to explain yourself