# Umpire blows Armando Galarraga perfect game.



## yosoyellobo

Umpire admits he blew call. It's about time for more instant replay on some plays, especially at first base. Great game Armando.


----------



## Sixto

Was watching it "live" (thanks to DirecTV MLBEI ) ... Austin made great play, and then Armando got robbed. What a shame.


----------



## webby_s

yosoyellobo said:


> Umpire admits he blew call. It's about time for more instant replay on some plays, especially at first base. Great game Armando.


Hey, I agree with you, the ump made a HORRIBLE call. No Doubt About It! And I am glad to hear he admits to the botched call. They should do more of that (admitting wrong doing)

BUT and this is a serious and loud BUT, do not bring instant replay into the a situation like this in baseball. Home runs, maybe, but outs like this NEVER.


----------



## spartanstew

Really feel bad for Galarraga.

Last damn play of the game (or what should have been), and in actuality it wasn't even that close of a play. He was out by a good 1/4 step.


----------



## yosoyellobo

I have always visualize something like in Collage football were you would have a extra official who could instantly review a close call like the one that occur at this game. 99% he would just agree with the call.


----------



## webby_s

yosoyellobo said:


> I have always visualize something like in Collage football were you would have a extra official who could instantly review a close call like the one that occur at this game. 99% he would just agree with the call.


The fricken ump just should have done his job, I will leave it at that! 

AND I'M A TWINS FAN!!!!! LOL


----------



## webby_s

And the Twins just got a similar call but this was a call at second which got the game winning run to come in.

Umps just do your fracken job, would you and stop watching some other game instead of the one you're umping.


----------



## fluffybear

spartanstew said:


> Really feel bad for Galarraga.
> 
> Last damn play of the game (or what should have been), and in actuality it wasn't even that close of a play. He was out by a good 1/4 step.


According to a news report I saw this morning, there is another camera angle which allegedly shows Galarraga may have bobbled the ball. The story went on to say that Bud Selig would be reviewing everything and might possibly reverse the call.


----------



## mystic7

fluffybear said:


> According to a news report I saw this morning, there is another camera angle which allegedly shows Galarraga may have bobbled the ball. The story went on to say that Bud Selig would be reviewing everything and might possibly reverse the call.


Well whoever gave that news report should be fired. It was made clear last night on MLB Network that the ump said immediately after the game that he made the call because he thought the runner beat the throw. It wasn't because Gallaraga may have missed the bag or that he may have bobbled the ball. Also, they showed all the angles and the one that shows Gallaraga's glove most clearly shows that he did not bobble the ball.

As for Selig reversing the call, normally I would be against that. But in this case, so little in the way of stats would be affected that I see no harm in doing so. Nobody will have a home run taken away, or an error, or a walk. The only difference will be that the batter will have a hit he didn't get taken away, and the next batter will have one less wasted at bat on his record. That's my take anyway.


----------



## Steve

When is baseball going to institute replay for other than home runs? Even if they just let the umps decide when to use it. If he could have, I'm pretty sure the crew chief would have asked for a review of that play last night.

And what's with all the perfectos this year? Have there ever been 3 in a season before? Heck, 3 in a little over 2 months!


----------



## MrDad0330

My feeling is if Selig is a real leader he should give that kid his perfect game. After all, it was a perfect game... he would become one of 20 pitchers in baseball to throw one. How can you take that away from him. In addition, once the ump admitted it, then Selig should reverse the call.


----------



## Motley

I hope it does get reversed. I didn't realize they could do that after the fact but in this case it would be the right thing to do.


----------



## Nick

Actually, the ump made the _right_ call. Gallaraga, covering 1st base, did not have control of the ball at the precise moment the runner touched the bag. If the replay was allowed to run, you could clearly see the ball rattling around in the glove at the moment the runner crossed the base.

And no, no instant replay for baseball...please!


----------



## fluffybear

mystic7 said:


> Well whoever gave that news report should be fired. It was made clear last night on MLB Network that the ump said immediately after the game that he made the call because he thought the runner beat the throw. It wasn't because Gallaraga may have missed the bag or that he may have bobbled the ball. Also, they showed all the angles and the one that shows Gallaraga's glove most clearly shows that he did not bobble the ball.
> 
> As for Selig reversing the call, normally I would be against that. But in this case, so little in the way of stats would be affected that I see no harm in doing so. Nobody will have a home run taken away, or an error, or a walk. The only difference will be that the batter will have a hit he didn't get taken away, and the next batter will have one less wasted at bat on his record. That's my take anyway.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not siding with the call. Everything that I saw appears the runner was out. I also saw the umpires comments and know that he has admitted making a mistake.

Based on this article with Chuck Klonke, the official scorekeeper for the game (http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/art...rer-no-evidence-rule-controversial-play-error) it sounds as if there are more than just one replay which shows Gallaraga bobbling the ball.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Nick said:


> And no, no instant replay for baseball...please!


Why?

Seriously... Why?

Because it will make the game longer? 
Take a look at the NHL, and their replays... you don't even have to go further then last night.

Two replays (that we know about). Both of them dead on correct.
Extended the total clock time by about 5 minutes.... but there is absolutely no argument that the reviews were done correctly.

Football... not a good example, as they don't even follow their own rules that you have a set limited time to review it. I think Football needs to adopt the college (I think) way, but at least the NHL way.... where it is a completely different set of officials up in the booth... on monster sized TV's in HD... review it, and review it quickly.

Baseball... last night.. The ump didn't call a bobbled ball... he called that the runner beat the throw... which was clearly blown... clearly. The umps get even closer calls then that correct 99% of the time.

I don't think anyone is advocating instant replay on balls and strikes.
But on plays at the bases... it is pretty cut and dry. You are out or you are safe. There is usually at least one camera locked onto each base (and if there isn't... the MLB has enough money to add it)... probably even more, when the play is going that way.

Foul balls... if they can do it in tennis with even a higher degree of technology, then why not one of the major sports?

If the "speed" of the game is of a concern...

Then cut down the number of warm up pitches... there is no reason they need that many... When there are two outs, they could be warming up in the tunnel or sideline. But that would mean... less commercial time on the TV... If "kids" can play a 9 inning baseball game in 2 hours... and that includes multiple errors, a lot of walks... then the professionals should be able to do it in 2 hours.... but TV play a MAJOR part in why the games take as long as they do.

But back to the replay stuff.
The technology is there... it is pretty straight forward to implement.
NHL does replay correct.
NBA does replay correct.
NCAA-FF does replay correct.
NFL comes pretty close.
MLB is just so far behind...


----------



## DF Wavelength

Baseball is such a perfect sport for instant replay on close calls at the bases, or whether or not a fly ball was actually caught. You obviously can't do balls & strikes (although there has been some very questionable ball/strike calls over the last few weeks.)
In hockey, when a whistle is blown for offsides, everybody stops skating. You can't go back and decide "Oh, that wasn't offsides. Everybody go back to exactly where they were, and we will restart the game in that same spot."

In baseball, you can reset the game, tell the base runner to go back to first, keep the same pitch count, and start back over right where you left off.
I think it should be done like hockey too, where the referees don't even leave the ice, a set of "Video Officials" make the call from a control room, with the league officials in Toronto monitoring.
Most close calls in baseball can be determined from the first replay angle, these decisions could be made before the On-Deck batter even gets to the plate.
The technology is there, baseball has already accepted using it in some situations.
Why wouldn't you want MLB games to be decided on correct calls?

Also, when a ref or ump misses a call, there is all this outrage toward the official for blowing a call.
When was the last time an official was criticized for using video replay, & overturning a call with the right decision. I think most fans applaud the officials when they make sure they get the right call.
Jim Joyce sounds like he feels terrible about it, but if they went back & corrected the call, Jim Joyce wouldn't even be part of the story.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

DF Wavelength said:


> In hockey, when a whistle is blown for offsides, everybody stops skating. You can't go back and decide "Oh, that wasn't offsides. Everybody go back to exactly where they were, and we will restart the game in that same spot."


Take that a bit further.

Rarely do the officials get an offisdes incorrect though, and it is such a common whistle that most players just know that 99.9% of the time they got it right. And a lot of times the officials do error on the side of caution and let the play continue.

IIRC, earlier this year there was an NHL game... were the officials did call a goal... and the game continued on... but the replay officials continued to look at the play.. about 2 game minutes later, they called down... and said "NO GOAL"..

The game reset like the last 2 minutes never happened.

Last night's Hawks game.... they called an icing, which would have moved the face off to the other side of the ice. They discussed (and TV replay showed that Niemi touched the puck, not sure if it was on the Jumbo or not)... and got the call right, puck moved to center ice... game-on... 30s to get the call right.

It is easy to do... and... and... in hockey... they refs are on skates and moving with the play. Baseball, the umps barely move for the game, except for the poor guy that has to move 45ft at 2nd base... he should have a camel pack for the work he puts into the game.

Now that I think about it.... out of all the sports:

- NHL and NBA officals have to be in almost a good of shape as the players, as they moving with the players all game long.
- MLS - I don't watch a lot of soccer, but pretty sure those guys are running just as much as the players.
- NFL, There are a lot of them, but some have to move with the players 
- MLB, other then 2nd base, and the occasional jog deaper into the outfield... they don't move a whole lot.
- NASCAR... well if they could move at 200mph I bet they would


----------



## scooper

NASCAR has embraced technology for more precise scoring, and it has made it better.

Baseball - I think an appropriate use would clarify things like last night. Even the official who called it said he made a mistake - it's called "BEING HUMAN".


----------



## Rich

yosoyellobo said:


> I have always visualize something like in Collage football were you would have a extra official who could instantly review a close call like the one that occur at this game. 99% he would just agree with the call.


I've always wondered if the official scorer shouldn't have something to do with this sort of thing. That would seem fairer than using an umpire in a booth who might be a bit biased towards the umpires on the field.

I've played a lot of ball and the best umpires are the ones you never remember. Now this guy will never be forgotten.

One of the other things I've wondered about is why the umps can't change a call like that one. He was in a good position to see the play and I can't imagine how he screwed it up, especially in that situation.

The arrogance of umpires has begun to be more noticed in the last few years. Their absolute insistence that they are right borders on paranoia.

By the way, every time I sustained a serious injury, I umpired games and was humbled by how little I knew of the rules. Most players don't seem to pay that much attention to the rules and let the umpires lay the rules out and enforce them. Not the players fault. When you think about it, the umpires really don't have all that much to do in a game (excepting the home plate umpire, of course) and you'd think they'd make more of an effort to position themselves so that they could get clearer views of the plays.

Rich


----------



## Rich

fluffybear said:


> According to a news report I saw this morning, there is another camera angle which allegedly shows Galarraga may have bobbled the ball. The story went on to say that Bud Selig would be reviewing everything and might possibly reverse the call.


Since it was the last out of the game and the pitcher did get the next guy out, that would seem to be feasible, but might set a precedent that could really screw things up.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> When is baseball going to institute replay for other than home runs? Even if they just let the umps decide when to use it. If he could have, I'm pretty sure the crew chief would have asked for a review of that play last night.
> 
> And what's with all the perfectos this year? Have there ever been 3 in a season before? Heck, 3 in a little over 2 months!


I think that umpire is the crew chief.

Rich


----------



## Steve

rich584 said:


> I think that umpire is the crew chief.


Even if he was, had Leyland made a persuasive argument and he thought there was merit, it's not an option... today.


----------



## Rich

Nick said:


> Actually, the ump made the _right_ call. Gallaraga, covering 1st base, did not have control of the ball at the precise moment the runner touched the bag. If the replay was allowed to run, you could clearly see the ball rattling around in the glove at the moment the runner crossed the base.
> 
> And no, no instant replay for baseball...please!


I just watched it more closely and, while he did have the ball in his glove, it didn't appear that he had control of it. Hard to see, but it looked as if it was rattling around in his glove. But the ump should have been looking at the base not the glove. If I was Selig, I'd be looking at it from every angle. The angle they just showed on Yes did seem to show the ball rattling around in his glove. That is not clear possession.

Rich


----------



## DF Wavelength

rich584 said:


> One of the other things I've wondered about is why the umps can't change a call like that one. He was in a good position to see the play and I can't imagine how he screwed it up, especially in that situation.


Yeah, I think officials should be able to get together for a conference to decide if a close call is right. 
I've seen umpires get together for a few calls, but I think it is rare to see them overturn a call.
They do it in football, when one guys sees a penalty & 5 others see a clean play, they pick up the flag.
I think they do it in basketball too, when the ref across the court makes a call on a play that is 5 feet away from another ref.
Hockey does not, once that arm goes up, it won't come back down, and the other ref has no say in the matter, that player is heading to the box.

A ref/ump can never go back & change his call, and he especially cannot change his call because an arguing player convinced him that the call is wrong.
He would lose all credibility, and players would argue every call.
But I do like seeing the entire staff of officials meeting to discuss close calls.

That being said, with the rules in place as they are, I don't see how Bud Selig could reverse this decision without losing credibility. 
Its a bad situation, but it is what it is, and the ending of that game was not quite perfect.


----------



## yosoyellobo

rich584 said:


> I just watched it more closely and, while he did have the ball in his glove, it didn't appear that he had control of it. Hard to see, but it looked as if it was rattling around in his glove. But the ump should have been looking at the base not the glove. If I was Selig, I'd be looking at it from every angle. The angle they just showed on Yes did seem to show the ball rattling around in his glove. That is not clear possession.
> 
> Rich


I don't recall a runner being call safe because the ball was rattling around in the glove.


----------



## Rich

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> 
> Seriously... Why?
> 
> Because it will make the game longer?


I think that's the excuse they've been using for not having IR. Personally, I like the slow pace of baseball games.



> Baseball... last night.. The ump didn't call a bobbled ball... he called that the runner beat the throw... which was clearly blown... clearly. The umps get even closer calls then that correct 99% of the time.


He did say that after the fact. And if he was watching the bag, I don't see how he could have seen the bobbling that I just saw.



> I don't think anyone is advocating instant replay on balls and strikes.


Balls and strikes would be the easiest thing to review. A lot of the BB fields are fitted with cameras that monitor how well the umps call strikes and balls. Questek or something like that. In fact, you could do away with calling balls and strikes if you used a system such as ESPN uses. Far-fetched, but possible.



> But on plays at the bases... it is pretty cut and dry. You are out or you are safe. There is usually at least one camera locked onto each base (and if there isn't... the MLB has enough money to add it)... probably even more, when the play is going that way.


There would be a lot less double plays if the second baseman or SS actually had to touch second base. That "neighborhood" play drives me nuts.



> Foul balls... if they can do it in tennis with even a higher degree of technology, then why not one of the major sports?


I think they do that now. It's part of the home run IR.



> If "kids" can play a 9 inning baseball game in 2 hours... and that includes multiple errors, a lot of walks... then the professionals should be able to do it in 2 hours....


Until they are not really "kids" most of the games are only seven innings and they take a long time too. Baseball's just not a fast paced game. It is the most "explosive" game.



> but TV play a MAJOR part in why the games take as long as they do.


TV wastes more time than anything else.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Even if he was, had Leyland made a persuasive argument and he thought there was merit, it's not an option... today.


Yeah, that's true. Once the ump says "you're out" you're out. No matter how bad the call.

Rich


----------



## Rich

yosoyellobo said:


> I don't recall a runner being call safe because the ball was rattling around in the glove.


It's not something you commonly see, but it does happen, and I think it's in the rule book. It's kinda like the "transfer" rule.

Rich


----------



## kikkenit2

I just posted in the other thread before reading this. It is possible to bobble the ball until the runner touches the base, then solidly grasp the ball in the glove. The runner is safe. I don't think he bobbled it safe this time, but it clearly was a half-caught snowcone from the first base umpires view, before the pitcher opened the glove and repositioned it much deeper into the glove pocket. By that time the runner passed the bag. If the umpire watches the bag he sees the snowcone off to the side and that confused him, causing the incorrect call. If the ball would have been initially caught deep in the glove then I think he would have called him out.


----------



## erosroadie

DF Wavelength said:


> Yeah, I think officials should be able to get together for a conference to decide if a close call is right.
> I've seen umpires get together for a few calls, but I think it is rare to see them overturn a call.
> They do it in football, when one guys sees a penalty & 5 others see a clean play, they pick up the flag.
> I think they do it in basketball too, when the ref across the court makes a call on a play that is 5 feet away from another ref.
> Hockey does not, once that arm goes up, it won't come back down, and the other ref has no say in the matter, that player is heading to the box.
> 
> A ref/ump can never go back & change his call, and he especially cannot change his call because an arguing player convinced him that the call is wrong.
> He would lose all credibility, and players would argue every call.
> But I do like seeing the entire staff of officials meeting to discuss close calls.
> 
> That being said, with the rules in place as they are, I don't see how Bud Selig could reverse this decision without losing credibility.
> Its a bad situation, but it is what it is, and the ending of that game was not quite perfect.


In the late 1980's I went to a White Sox game on a Friday night at Comiskey Park. They were playing the Red Sox. It was Seat Cushion Night as the giveaway.

Halfway through the game, with a runner on first, the Red Sox batter hit a ground ball for a close force out at second. The umpire called it an out. The Red Sox manager ran out to the field, argued with the second base ump and, after a consultation with the other umpires, the second base ump REVERESED THE CALL. Can you guess what happened next? Thousands of seat cushions flew onto the field, delaying the game for over 20 minutes. The White Sox went on the win the game, but that reversal was the first, and one of the few, I can recall seeing in baseball...


----------



## yosoyellobo

Hate to bring this up again but it looks like another umpire blew it again.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/


----------



## Earl Bonovich

The ONLY thing... that I can think he saw, was that the swipe tag missed....
It certainly was close (The swipe tag, as he was way in front of the plate).

In THAT situation... at that point in the game...

I am not even sure instant replay could over turn that one....
but my gosh.... the ump had some serious ^@%@ to make that call.


----------



## Steve

Earl Bonovich said:


> The ONLY thing... that I can think he saw, was that the swipe tag missed....
> It certainly was close (The swipe tag, as he was way in front of the plate).
> 
> In THAT situation... at that point in the game...
> 
> I am not even sure instant replay could over turn that one....
> but my gosh.... the ump had some serious ^@%@ to make that call.


Ya. He said he thought it _might _have been a "phantom" tag, but even so, how often does the SS or second baseman actually touch second on the DP pivot throw to first? ^@%@'s is right!


----------



## spartanstew

link?

nevermind. found it within the link above.


----------



## Steve

spartanstew said:


> link?
> 
> nevermind. found it within the link above.


http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/m...011_07_26_pitmlb_atlmlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=pit


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Ya. He said he thought it _might _have been a "phantom" tag, but even so, how often does the SS or second baseman actually touch second on the DP pivot throw to first? ^@%@'s is right!


The umpiring this year has been consistently bad. All I watch are Yankees games and the umpires have been...just bad. Don't know how else to put it. Good thing about it is that they've been consistent. Both the Yanks and the teams they play seem to get screwy calls that should be obvious. And as long as umps are consistent and don't favor teams it seems to work out pretty equally in the end.

Rich


----------



## Herdfan

Earl Bonovich said:


> The ONLY thing... that I can think he saw, was that the swipe tag missed....
> It certainly was close (The swipe tag, as he was way in front of the plate).


The big issue I have with the whole situation is that some umpires will make the out call if the ball beats the runner. In this case it wasn't even close and the catcher was not stretching back to try and make the tag. They just need to be more consistent.

I wonder what Lord Vader's take on this would be (He is an NCAA ump).

Edit:  MLB admits call blown


----------



## Rich

Herdfan said:


> The big issue I have with the whole situation is that some umpires will make the out call if the ball beats the runner. In this case it wasn't even close and the catcher was not stretching back to try and make the tag. They just need to be more consistent.
> 
> I wonder what Lord Vader's take on this would be (He is an NCAA ump).
> 
> Edit:  MLB admits call blown


I've watched that play on several TVs and each time I've been stunned. The first time I watched it, I really didn't pay that much attention to it, I couldn't find it at first in the first link and then just kinda glanced at it. But during the Yankees game they kept replaying it and it's a perfect example of an umpire making an horrendous mistake and then not having the courage to change his call. I'm sure any members of this forum that are umpires are gonna love what I have to say about umpires.

I think paranoia runs thru the ranks of umpires at all levels. They think they always are correct and that is a ridiculous assumption to make. Nobody is always right. That umpire should have reversed his call. I think he would have been applauded for doing that. But their arrogance stops them from ever doing that. I've seen that arrogance at every level of ball that I've played or watched. They just refuse to reverse an obviously bad call. He had to know he was making the wrong call as he was making the call. He had to.

Bang bang plays I can understand. The umpire has to make a quick decision and does the best he can. But this guy is a Major League umpire. He's worked his way up thru the system to become an ML ump. He should be among the very best of the very best. Those ballplayers you see playing ML ball are so good that the worst of them would simply blow away players at lower levels. I've played with guys that made it to triple A ball and they're head and shoulders above normal players. Can we really say that about ML umps? I'd be surprised if they are that much better than NCAA umps.

Rich


----------



## CBMC

Why make that call. Use some common sense. Say you call him out, then replay shows that the tag missed. I don't think many people would be complaining. The ball beat him, the tag looked to be made. Unless it is blatantly obvious that he missed the tag (which in this case it wasn't) why call him safe? Probably best the game ended though because the little pirates fan in the crowd was on the verge of waking my wife. Plus my cardinals gained a game in the central on the Pirates.


----------



## Rich

CBMC said:


> Why make that call. Use some common sense. Say you call him out, then replay shows that the tag missed. I don't think many people would be complaining. The ball beat him, the tag looked to be made. Unless it is blatantly obvious that he missed the tag (which in this case it wasn't) why call him safe? Probably best the game ended though because the little pirates fan in the crowd was on the verge of waking my wife. Plus my cardinals gained a game in the central on the Pirates.


Because it was so obvious. Lugo looked like he was a couple feet away from the plate when the catcher obviously tagged him. The ump certainly wasn't blocked out.

Rich


----------



## blaqhauq

If this thread is referring to the pirates 19 inning loss. I thought he was tagged but other angles showed maybe he missed. But the angle from the first base dugout you can clearly see the pants from him knee to ankle fly up with the glove indicating he was tagged. It's over now and can't be changed.


----------



## yosoyellobo

blaqhauq said:


> If this thread is referring to the pirates 19 inning loss. I thought he was tagged but other angles showed maybe he missed. But the angle from the first base dugout you can clearly see the pants from him knee to ankle fly up with the glove indicating he was tagged. It's over now and can't be changed.


Yes it is. Apparently the umpire admitted that he made wrong call.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110727&content_id=22380834&vkey=news_pit&c_id=pit

I agree that it's over and can't but I would love to see instant replay on a call like that.


----------



## blaqhauq

I am a huge pirates fan and watched the game after I got home from Kennywood park. I was PO'd at the call. But I do think they need replay only on close calls at the plate.


----------



## spartanstew

blaqhauq said:


> If this thread is referring to the pirates 19 inning loss.


The one from 1 week ago? This thread was started over 1 year ago.

Also, I don't think the pirates had a perfect game going, not does Galarraga play for them.

or did you mean the recent conversation in the thread?


----------



## djlong

blaqhauq said:


> It's over now and can't be changed.


Wrong.

Remember George Brett and the "pine tar" incident?

The Commissioner's office overturned the call on THAT play and the game was resumed at a later date.

Likewise in this case, the game should be resumed from the point where the runner should have been called "out".


----------



## jerry downing

I remember that game. The reversal was not based on an umpires call but an interpretation of the rules. Calls can not be reversed after the fact except by the umpires on the field and only before play continues.


----------



## CBMC

"rich584" said:


> Because it was so obvious. Lugo looked like he was a couple feet away from the plate when the catcher obviously tagged him. The ump certainly wasn't blocked out.
> 
> Rich


Exactly. I had flashbacks of Leslie Nielson in Naked Gun.


----------



## Rich

CBMC said:


> Exactly. I had flashbacks of Leslie Nielson in Naked Gun.


Wonder what the ump thought when he saw the replay?

Rich


----------



## Lord Vader

Herdfan said:


> The big issue I have with the whole situation is that some umpires will make the out call if the ball beats the runner. In this case it wasn't even close and the catcher was not stretching back to try and make the tag. They just need to be more consistent.
> 
> I wonder what Lord Vader's take on this would be (He is an NCAA ump).
> 
> Edit:  MLB admits call blown


Crap! I knew I'd regret stumbling upon this thread (didn't even notice it until today, believe it or not).

So, the statute of limitations on my comments has expired.


----------



## Lord Vader

rich584 said:


> But this guy is a Major League umpire. He's worked his way up thru the system to become an ML ump. He should be among the very best of the very best.
> 
> Rich


Should, yes, but in reality, this is not always the case. I can name a few MLB umpires who did NOT get to the Show based on their umpiring abilities. Trust me when I tell you this, because I have many contacts in pro ball. Some current MLB Umpires were promoted for reasons totally unrelated to their umpiring abilities, and that's a travesty. For the record, Meals isn't one of them.

Not coincidentally, those umpires who got to the Show based on reasons not related to their umpiring are those who continually get involved in botched calls, controversial calls, arguments, ejections, etc.

As far as some NCAA Umpires being better than MLB Umpires, that is true. For the most part MLB Umpires are the best there are, the cream of the crop. However, there are some NCAA Umpires who would easily succeed at the MLB level. Some NCAA guys are far superior to a few MLB Umpires.


----------



## Lord Vader

djlong said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Remember George Brett and the "pine tar" incident?
> 
> The Commissioner's office overturned the call on THAT play and the game was resumed at a later date.
> 
> Likewise in this case, the game should be resumed from the point where the runner should have been called "out".





jerry downing said:


> I remember that game. The reversal was not based on an umpires call but an interpretation of the rules. Calls can not be reversed after the fact except by the umpires on the field and only before play continues.


Actually, Joe Brinkman's crew made the correct ruling and interpretation in that pine tar game. Back then:


A bat that had too much pine tar on it was considered an illegal bat.
Using an illegal bat and making contact with the ball--fair, foul, or foul tip--was called an "illegally batted ball"
A batter who made contact with the ball using an illegal bat--an illegally batted ball--was declared out.
Brett used an illegal bat and was declared out.
It was black and white by the book. The A.L. President reversed the call, saying that while the umpires' ruling was technically correct, it violated the spirit of the rule. Huh? When a rule is that clear, there's nothing else to do.

Interestingly, following that game and its protest, the rules were dramatically changed. Now:


An illegal bat is defined as one that does not conform to specific, manufactured requirements (too wide, too long, not all wood, etc.)
An "illegally batted ball" now refers to a batter making contact with the ball (in any manner) with one or both feet completely planted on the ground outside the lines of the batter's box. It results in a dead ball and an out, but has nothing to do with the bat itself.
Too much pine tar on a bat no longer makes it illegal because pine tar has nothing to do with a bat's manufactured specs. It's mentioned specifically.
Using an illegal bat results in no penalty, even if the result is a hit. The bat is simply removed from the game.
A bat that has been altered--cheating, in other words (corked, waxed, nailed, etc.)--results in the batter being declared out, ejected, and all runners returning to time of pitch bases (except those retired on the resulting play)


----------



## txtommy

Instant replay has become a fact of life. Either MLB should embrace it or ban it from use for any broadcast. It does nothing for the integrity of the game when the umpire makes a bad call and then the tv crew immediately shows him to be wrong by use of modern technology. 

I would be all in favor of moving one of the umpires to a booth where he can view the game on tv and make the correct calls. He would have the right to overrule any call made on the field. There would be almost no delay involved and the calls would be correct. There would certainly be less delay than is caused by extended arguments and ejected players.

Bob Brenley has commented many times about balls and strikes being a problem when everyone watching knows the correct call except the umpire. With computer tracking of pitches it is frequently only the umpire who does not know whether a pitch was truly a strike or ball. I watched a game not long ago where pitch tracking showed the closer striking out 4 batters in the ninth. Unfortunately for the pitcher, the umpire only called two of those batters out and he eventually lost the game giving up a home run. Modern technology has allowed us the ability to get every call correct, lets do it.


----------



## Lord Vader

Bob Brenly's a former manager who doesn't know what he's talking about when he comments on balls and strikes. Replay canNOT determine if a pitch is a ball or strike. Your comment that "everyone watching knows the correct call..." is both stupid and ignorant.

Have you ever bothered to realize that the camera that shows the pitches is about 20 to 30 feet off the center of the plate? The viewer is looking at pitches *from an angle* and from a height some 20 or 30 feet or more higher than the batter.

I am not against instant replay per se in baseball. It can be used in limited circumstances. Determining balls and strikes is not one of them.


----------



## Steve

Lord Vader said:


> I am not against instant replay per se in baseball. It can be used in limited circumstances. Determining balls and strikes is not one of them.


True, but I think a camera could improve balls and strikes accuracy.

E.g., why couldn't a camera centered directly above the plate and pointing straight down accurately (and automatically) determine if a ball caught a piece of the plate? Then the ump would only have to judge the height of the pitch.

And couldn't two cameras exactly perpendicular to the plate, one left and one right, be used to review if a check swing went too far? Maybe each team could be allowed one "check-swing" challenge per game?


----------



## Lord Vader

No, a camera could not help. Furthermore, cameras don't take into account some common sense. For example, at the MLB and even NCAA level that I work, if a pitch comes in _*through the strike zone*_ but drops and the catcher gloves it inches above the dirt, that's a *ball*. No sane plate umpire is going to call that pitch a strike, yet cameras would record it as a strike.

Same thing applies when the catcher drops a pitch that sails right into the middle of the zone. Let's say a fast ball comes zipping in at the knees--it's in the zone. However, the catcher can't hold on to the ball and it pops out of his mitt and rolls away a bit. That's a ball. This may sound wrong or unfair, but you have to understand how baseball is played--and umpired. If I was to call such pitches strikes, I'd never progress to D1 ball where I'm at now. Same thing with professional umpires. They'd never make it out of the minors if they did things "by the book," or in your case, "by the camera."

As far as check swings go, cameras are useless for one big reason: a strike is not judged in pro ball (we call it "OBR," or Official Baseball Rules) by whether the batter "went too far." It's irrelevant where the bat is. It's simply 100% judgment, that being, did we think the batter swung? If yes, it's a strike. If not, no. We consider intent a lot, too.

NCAA Rules, however, make it a little more cut and dry and therefore easier to determine. If the barrel of the bat crosses the front hip of the batter, it's a strike. If not, it's a ball. NCAA used to include the front edge of home plate in there as well, but that was deleted from the rules.


----------



## Steve

Lord Vader said:


> No, a camera could not help. Furthermore, cameras don't take into account some common sense. For example, at the MLB and even NCAA level that I work, if a pitch comes in _*through the strike zone*_ but drops and the catcher gloves it inches above the dirt, that's a *ball*. No sane plate umpire is going to call that pitch a strike, yet cameras would record it as a strike.


Which is why I asked:


Steve said:


> E.g., why couldn't a camera centered directly above the plate and pointing straight down accurately (and automatically) determine if a ball caught a piece of the plate? Then the ump would only have to judge the height of the pitch.


----------



## Lord Vader

And I answered that. Cameras are incapable of judging common sense and other things. Just because a ball has the correct height and width doesn't mean it's a strike. Cameras cannot determine that.


----------



## sigma1914

Lord Vader said:


> And I answered that. Cameras are incapable of judging common sense and other things. Just because a ball has the correct height and width doesn't mean it's a strike. Cameras cannot determine that.


So basically, umpires choose what's a strike and not a strike? Why have a defined strike zone if they can rule a ball going through it is a ball?


----------



## David Ortiz

sigma1914 said:


> So basically, umpires choose what's a strike and not a strike?


Do you watch baseball?


----------



## sigma1914

David Ortiz said:


> Do you watch baseball?


Oh yeah...it was a rhetorical and sarcastic question. :lol: Go Yankees!


----------



## Lord Vader

sigma1914 said:


> So basically, umpires choose what's a strike and not a strike? Why have a defined strike zone if they can rule a ball going through it is a ball?


You're watching your Yankees play. Derek Jeter is up to bat with a full count. A wicked breaking ball comes in at the knees and drops like a rock. The catcher drops to the ground and gloves the ball as it nicks the dirt. The umpire rings up Jeter on the 3rd strike.

You mean to tell me you're not going to be pissing and moaning, yelling, "That pitch was in the dirt! Put some helmets on those worms!"? Of course you will, because that pitch *looked *like a ball. Consequently, the umpire will *call *it a ball. That may not be what the rule book says, but that's the correct way to apply the zone, and no camera in the world is going to know that.


----------



## Herdfan

sigma1914 said:


> So basically, umpires choose what's a strike and not a strike? Why have a defined strike zone if they can rule a ball going through it is a ball?


That is why baseball is special. The nuances and unwritten rules make the game much more interesting to play than to watch.

And the strike zone varies from umpire to umpire. Some have a lower strike zone than others, some have a wider outside zone (always hated those) than others. But as long as they are consistent with it, the players adapt.


----------



## Steve

Lord Vader said:


> You mean to tell me you're not going to be pissing and moaning, yelling, "That pitch was in the dirt! Put some helmets on those worms!"? Of course you will, because that pitch *looked *like a ball. Consequently, the umpire will *call *it a ball. That may not be what the rule book says, but that's the correct way to apply the zone, and no camera in the world is going to know that.


If a strike _looks_ like a ball, it's only because we're _used_ to seeing them called that way. If umps called 'em by the book, we'd get used to that too. Just my .02.


----------



## Lord Vader

There's fantasy and reality. You're living in the former; I'm talking about the latter. Umpires would lose their jobs if they did what you advocate. Even the players understand this, which is why we don't hear THEM complaining. As usual, the only ones who are doing the whining are the fans, almost all of whom have no clue as to how the game is played.


----------



## spartanstew

Lord Vader said:


> No, a camera could not help. Furthermore, cameras don't take into account some common sense. For example, at the MLB and even NCAA level that I work, if a pitch comes in _*through the strike zone*_ but drops and the catcher gloves it inches above the dirt, that's a *ball*. No sane plate umpire is going to call that pitch a strike, yet cameras would record it as a strike.
> 
> Same thing applies when the catcher drops a pitch that sails right into the middle of the zone. Let's say a fast ball comes zipping in at the knees--it's in the zone. However, the catcher can't hold on to the ball and it pops out of his mitt and rolls away a bit. That's a ball.


Bull****.

That may be how you call it, but good Umps don't, and it certainly aint common sense. I see balls go through the zone and end up close to the dirt in games all the time and they're often (usually) called strikes. I've also seen many a strike dropped by the catcher still called a strike. You might be trying to appease the fans by calling balls and strikes the way they appear when caught (or not caught), but don't lump all umpires in with yourself.



Herdfan said:


> And the strike zone varies from umpire to umpire. Some have a lower strike zone than others, some have a wider outside zone (always hated those) than others. But as long as they are consistent with it, the players adapt.


Of course, but an ump is still going to call based on his "zone", not on whether or not the catcher dropped the ball or where the ball ended up after going through the zone.


----------



## Lord Vader

spartanstew said:


> Bull****.
> 
> That may be how you call it, but good Umps don't, and it certainly aint common sense.


Yes they do. I should know. Sevral personal friends of mine are MLB Umpires. I wouldn't have advanced to doing D1 ball had I followed your line of thinking. In fact, when I went to an advanced camp several years ago, many an instructor was heard telling certain students that if they wanted to advance, they better learn what the real strike zone is and how to learn from the catcher. "Let the catcher help make your calls," was a common piece of advice from the instructors.

When I attended professional umpire school it was the same thing.



> I see balls go through the zone and end up close to the dirt in games all the time and they're often (usually) called strikes.


No, they're rarely called strikes, and if they are, that's indicative of poor timing. I've been guilty of it myself, not waiting to see what the catcher does with the ball. Instead, I'm judging it as the pitch is coming in, which is not the proper way to judge pitches.



> I've also seen many a strike dropped by the catcher still called a strike.


Again, it's rare and usually a sign of poor timing.



> ...but an ump is still going to call based on his "zone", not on whether or not the catcher dropped the ball or where the ball ended up after going through the zone.


That is so blatantly wrong it's not even funny. In the upper levels of baseball--college and pro ball (MiLB and MLB)--how the catcher catches it or what he does when he catches the pitch will almost always determine whether the plate ump calls it a strike or a ball. That may seem unfair or wrong, but it's reality.

Then again, you're a fan, so I wouldn't expect you to understand just how the game is played (or umpired). I'll tell you this much--you wouldn't get out of Little League umpiring if you umpired like that.


----------



## sigma1914

spartanstew said:


> Bull****.
> 
> That may be how you call it, but good Umps don't, and it certainly aint common sense. I see balls go through the zone and end up close to the dirt in games all the time and they're often (usually) called strikes. I've also seen many a strike dropped by the catcher still called a strike. You might be trying to appease the fans by calling balls and strikes the way they appear when caught (or not caught), but don't lump all umpires in with yourself.
> 
> ...


Easy now, you know umpires are never wrong. Some of their egos are often so huge...it's almost laughable.


----------



## Lord Vader

Oh, we're human, and wrong at times, but not _*nearly *_as wrong as the fans are, as is illustrated by spartan here.


----------



## sigma1914

Lord Vader said:


> Oh, we're human, and wrong at times, but not _*nearly *_as wrong as the fans are, as is illustrated by spartan here.


Don't be so sure you know he's just some fan.


----------



## Steve

Lord Vader said:


> There's fantasy and reality. You're living in the former; I'm talking about the latter. Umpires would lose their jobs if they did what you advocate.


The *reality *is umpires would only lose their jobs if they didn't do what the league office instructed them to do. No one's sayin' the umps are at fault here. It's the system in place that _requires_ them to be subjective that's at fault. Thanks to technology, there's no longer a need be subjective for things like balls and strikes.

They said computers that play chess would never be able to beat humans, and "they" were wrong. Instant replay has been a great success in the NFL, as has _Hawkeye_ been for tennis "out" calls. There's absolutely no reason a computer and cameras couldn't enforce the "book" strike zone, if the MLB powers that be really wanted to pursue it. Bud's a sweet guy, but he comes from a different era.



> As usual, the only ones who are doing the whining are the fans.


All I need to do is look at the reactions of the coaches and players in the dugout, when they think the ump is squeezing their pitcher's strike zone in a close game, to see they often get _more_ upset than fans.


----------



## Lord Vader

sigma1914 said:


> Don't be so sure you know he's just some fan.


It's clear that he's not an umpire, or not one who works the upper levels.

In my early career, my line of thinking was just like his--presumptive and seemingly knowledgeable, until I realized that if I wanted to be considered a good umpire, I had to dispose of this "by the book" umpiring and learn how the game was really played and umpired.

I was taught by professional umpires and by CWS Umpires, who didn't get to their levels of achievement by calling strikes on balls that go through the zone but are caught inches above the dirt.


----------



## spartanstew

Lord Vader said:


> Then again, you're a fan, so I wouldn't expect you to understand just how the game is played (or umpired). I'll tell you this much--you wouldn't get out of Little League umpiring if you umpired like that.


First, you have no idea what I am or what my history is when it comes to baseball. Secondly, I don't care what your "pro friends" say, it's still wrong, and for every "friend" you have that agrees with you, I could find several that would disagree.

Yes, a catcher can influence many things in terms of balls and strikes, but any umpire that calls a pitch a ball when he KNOWS it traveled through the strike zone is doing a disservice to the game. Any umpire that calls a pitch a strike when he KNOWS it never entered the strike zone is doing an equal disservice and should just hang up his (or her) mask.

Now, that's all I'll say on the matter. You and your friends can continue bastardizing the game to try and appease the fans. As long as you can sleep at night, I guess that's all that matters.


----------



## Lord Vader

Steve said:


> The *reality *is umpires would only lose their jobs if they didn't do what the league office instructed them to do. No one's sayin' the umps are at fault here. It's the system in place that _requires_ them to be subjective that's at fault. Thanks to technology, there's no longer a need be subjective for things like balls and strikes.
> 
> They said computers that play chess would never be able to beat humans, and "they" were wrong. Instant replay has been a great success in the NFL, as has _Hawkeye_ been for tennis "out" calls. There's absolutely no reason a computer and cameras couldn't enforce the "book" strike zone, if the MLB powers that be really wanted to pursue it. Bud's a sweet guy, but he comes from a different era.
> 
> All I need to do is look at the reactions of the coaches and players in the dugout, when they think the ump is squeezing their pitcher's strike zone in a close game, to see they often get _more_ upset than fans.


MLB Umpires will do what their superiors tell them if it meant keeping their jobs and not hearing it from the players, who are the ones ultimately in control of the game. Are you aware, for example, that baseball is the only sport where in order for a rule to be changed, the *players *must approve it? That's insane.

Do you think for a second that the Players Association, which must approve all such changes, would give their OK to the strike zone being interpreted in such a manner that dirt pitches are to be called strikes as long as the ball passed through the strike zone? No frickin' way!


----------



## Lord Vader

spartanstew said:


> First, you have no idea what I am or what my history is when it comes to baseball.


Your litany of misinformation says enough of who you are, or who you are not, and that's somebody not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of baseball.



> Secondly, I don't care what your "pro friends" say, it's still wrong, and for every "friend" you have that agrees with you, I could find several that would disagree.


My friends are MLB and MiLB Umpires, MLB officials, MLB scouts, and other personnel who are involved in the game--not fans, Little League coaches, and others whom you will bring forth to disagree. I've spent 34 years in this game and haven't gotten where I've gotten by following this fantasy world of umpiring you advocate.



> ...but any umpire that calls a pitch a ball when he KNOWS it traveled through the strike zone is doing a disservice to the game. Any umpire that calls a pitch a strike when he KNOWS it never entered the strike zone is doing an equal disservice and should just hang up his (or her) mask.


That would eliminate almost all MLB Umpires and most NCAA Umpires, including many College World Series Umpires, because *that's how the game is played. *You just cannot understand reality. That is baseball. Period. Just because a pitch passes through the strike zone doesn't mean it's a strike, and just because it never passes through the strike zone doesn't mean it's a ball.



> Now, that's all I'll say on the matter.


Thank God. The inability to accept and understand reality on your part is tiresome.


----------



## sigma1914

Lord Vader said:


> ...
> 
> Do you think for a second that the Players Association, which must approve all such changes, would give their OK to the strike zone being interpreted in such a manner that dirt pitches are to be called strikes as long as the ball passed through the strike zone? No frickin' way!


Knuckle pitches go through the zone & hit dirt all the time...they're called strikes. As for the rules...do they even matter since umps are free to call whatever they want? As you said, "I had to dispose of this "by the book" umpiring..." So why even have a rulebook?


----------



## Lord Vader

sigma1914 said:


> Knuckle pitches go through the zone & hit dirt all the time...they're called strikes.


Not in the upper levels of baseball they're not, and if they were, it's because, as I stated above, a sign of poor timing--or an 18-1 game. 



> As for the rules...do they even matter since umps are free to call whatever they want? As you said, "I had to dispose of this "by the book" umpiring..." So why even have a rulebook?


I used to think this way until I progressed through my umpiring career. Like it or not, I knew I couldn't be a "by the book" umpire. I would get crucified and never get out of the Little League or Pony League levels.

Baseball is a very interesting sport. There are rules that are in place that are always followed--by the book, too. There are rules that are in place but are not followed strictly; rather, they're interpreted somewhat loosely. Then there are rules that are almost, if not totally, ignored. They've never been changed or deleted; they're simply overlooked because...well...because they are. Whether I, you, or anyone else likes that or desires that, it's just the way it is.


----------



## spartanstew

Lord Vader said:


> Your litany of misinformation says enough of who you are, or who you are not, and that's somebody not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of baseball.
> 
> My friends are MLB and MiLB Umpires, MLB officials, MLB scouts, and other personnel who are involved in the game--not fans, Little League coaches, and others whom you will bring forth to disagree. I've spent 34 years in this game and haven't gotten where I've gotten by following this fantasy world of umpiring you advocate.


Again, you have no idea.


----------



## Lord Vader

Indeed I do, for I have over 3 decades of first hand experience and the sources to back it up. I wouldn't expect an unknowledgeable fan living in a fantasy world to have the same experience.


----------



## spartanstew

Those who can, do. Those who can't, ump.


----------



## Lord Vader

Not very original there.

Well, I did play the game for several years, too. 

There's a reason why the late Bart Giamatti, perhaps the best commissioner MLB ever had, once said that the smartest people on the ball field were the umpires.


----------



## djlong

Vader: Lots of Tim Wakefield's flutterballs are called strikes.'

What gets me irritated about umpires is when you have the Staff Ace for one team going against a journeyman for the other. Gregg Maddux would get a ball 6 inches outside called a strike yet if the Journeyman paints the black, it's a ball. It's wrong and no amount of talk can justify it.

Most of the time, I've seen the catchers complain when the umpire has a double-standard. It's like "you gave that pitch to him, why don't you give it to my guy?"


----------



## Lord Vader

I agree that all pitchers should be treated equally, but ask yourself this: why do veteran umpires suffer a lot fewer arguments, less being yelled at, etc., than do younger or less veteran umpires? Shouldn't they be treated equally as well? 

As far as Wakefield's pitches, take a look at those being called strikes. Almost all of his flutterballs, many of which drop like rocks, still look like strikes more so than my aforementioned examples of similar pitches that end up in or near the dirt.


----------

