Anyone see Jerry Crawford (the Crew Chief) in last night's Yankees-Twins game?

Ruben Sierra hammered one down the left field line. All of the white shirts jumping up in down in the background made this tough, but Crawford signalled it fair, for a home run when he was less than 90 feet away. Santana and Blanco immediately asked the PU, Charlie Reliford and U3, Brian Everitt to change the call. Replays clearly showed it foul and the guys got together to get it right. Big game, big call...it was blown, but egos got out of the way and they did the right thing. In front of over 55,000 unruly hometown fans, they took away a home run and got the call right. I'm proud to see that the MLB continues to demand the best from their staff. We can all argue about getting a better angle, hustling or selling a call. Tha fact is that one of the best in the biz, did all of those things and still was human. What made him standout was how he handled it after the original call!

P.S. Even Torre said that changing the call was the right thing to do.

it was impressive to se no ego involved. i have no prob w/ human mistake and then after considering and consulting to get it right. sure, he make take a little today but just think if he stuck to his orig call.

That is one of those calls that is allowed to be changed. I have still not seen the crew get together to change a called third strike (looking).

Get the call right has it limits.

The other thing about getting it right was that Crawford went to his partners. No PU or U3 came running in saying the call had to be changed. Crawford made a call because he had to, knew from the reactions that he might have missed it, and called in the crew to discuss it. It was handled correctly.

But Crawford initiated the meeting. Until he asked for help, it was his call.

And Crawford changed his OWN call too, after getting input. The PU or U3 didn't overrule him. That's the proper procedure for all sports.

Nice try...
 

Jurassic -
Still pretending to do professional baseball, I see.

I have the game on Tivo and the call was correctly signalled by the home plate umpire, reliford, not Crawford. As he ran back to his position he was jeered relentlessly.

Watch the play again, I just did. The call was made and he had his back to the infield. As soon as he made it, Santana and Blanco turned to Reliford and you can see Santana say, "Now way, go help him." Reliford started towards Crawford and Everitt nodded to him. I took this to indicate that he saw it, as well. The place was going crazy, but not because it was a bad call. The crowd wanted the home run! Crawford saw his crew coming to him and got together with them. Gorman and Wegner kept the coaches and players at bay. That is how it worked and that is what I have proposed all along. Make the call, if it is wrong and your partners can help, put your ego aside and get it right. I have never said that every call is reviewable, so don't tread that slippery slope. I pointed out that we should recognize the need to fix poor calls when it is allowed and applicable. This was a pefect example of one of the best umpires in the world needing help because he kicked it. It looked good and worked!

Re: Nicer try...
 

Windy, still pretending to be an umpire, I see.

Yes, that is what I expected from you. You made a statement that proved wrong and your only means of defense is personal. Once again, you've shown that you opened your mouth without engaging your brain.

I just watched the play again and am trying to see how Jurassic could have interpreted that Crawford corrected his own call. Charlie Reliford was wearing the plate gear and he made the signal and explained it to the benches. replays are a beautiful thing.

Jerry Crawford was interviewed after the game and he offered these fifteen words. "We work to get every call right. It didn't happen, so we made it right." Uh, oh...that sounds an awful lot like what I've been saying for six months now.

Finally,
Basketball - big orange thing
Baseball - small white thing
Don't confuse the two or I'll be forced to pummel you again.

Papa C & HHH...
 

Carl and Peter,
I know you have avowed never to speak to Windy again...however, I am curious to hear your thoughts on the situation in question. After all Peter, didn't you say "real umpires talk situations?" ;)

That call was an obvious miss that never should have happened. Watching it on TV I was embarassed for the profession. However, I was happy that it was corrected.

Re: Papa C & HHH...
 

I did not know that I ever made a vow about Windy but to answer your question:

Jurassic is right regarding officiating from the past. Jurassic's name says it all. The Jurassic period in Earth's history was 80 million years ago and Jurassic's officiating philosophy is ancient.

Windy is correct for the way that things have changed in the last five years of baseball umpiring. Today, we have to get it right while custom, pride, and procedure take a back seat. I trace this change to the destruction of the MLB union after the ill conceived strike. The process was well under way before the strike, but the strike was the final nail in the coffin of the old way of doing business.

The argument that Juarassic tries to put forward that the original calling official changes the call is a red herring. In a perfect world, he may be correct, but that is only window dressing. Other officials are seeing missed calls and one way or another, calls are being changed. Jurassic keeps blowing the horn for an ancient way of doing business, but the argument has already been lost. Today, we have to get it right no matter how it looks. The 2nd base umpire has yet to change a ball/strike call but that day may be coming. :D

Peter

Don't know if Jurrasic started this one, Windy.

The argument that Juarassic tries to put forward that the original calling official changes the call is a red herring

I just don't believe this is true. If Crawford had insisted he were right last night, the call would not have been changed, especially since he is the crew chief here. Do you think Charlie Reliford would have "overruled" Crawford if Crawford insisted he got it right and didn't need help? Not if he wanted to work in the MLB again.

In the words of this board, Crawford is a big dog, Reliford is a (relative) pissant. If Crawford said it was fair and Reliford said it wasn't, it was going to be called fair.

But thankfully, Crawford is a bigger man that heard the reactions and knew he might have missed it. So he got help. If Reliford "announced" it, OK, but it was Crawford that was convinced to change his call. And if he hadn't been convinced, it wasn't going to get changed.

Amen!

This misses the point, actually two points. Suppose that Reliford was the senior official and Crawford was the little dog. Would the call be changed even if Crawford was insisting that it was right? In the Jurassic age, no, today, probably yes. That is because calling officials are very receptive to change which leads to the next point.

The second point is what happens the next day in the press and with the supervisor of umpires. If they change the call, Crawford is off the hook, even if it turns out he was right. However, if he insists on staying with the call and it turns out he was wrong, his career is over.

In other words, if multiple umpires come to the calling official and insist that he got it wrong, the calling official will defer to them. His job is on the line if he does not defer to them. Their job may be on the line if they insisted and the cameras show them wrong. That is why a smart calling official will defer to other officials who insist that he is wrong. He has just been given a free pass.

In the Jurassic age, this scenerio would have never played out, in today's climate, it has become the norm. You can debate semantics on who changed the call all you want, but the bottom line is that Reliford changed the call. If he had kept his mouth shut, we had a home run. Reliford made the decision to open his mouth and initiate the change. In the old days, he would have kept silent even if he saw the miss.

Peter