|
Wed Oct 20, 2004, 02:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/ne...news&fext=.jsp
Click on the link to the Randy Marsh interview about a third of the way down the page. Interview goes about 9 minutes. As for last night, Marsh says Mientkiewicz stepped in front of him and screened him from the slap. Francona comes out and originally tried to go to West. West, who obviously had the information Francona wanted, did not talk to him, but sent him to see Marsh. Marsh then walked to West, West did NOT come volunteer information until asked, did not approach Marsh until asked, did not offer anything to Francona, EVER. Marsh's partners helped him out (both West and Kellog (RFU) both told Marsh they saw the slap), so Marsh overturned his own call. It was not done by anyone other than the umpire that made the original call. Windy, I certainly never said that umpires should not huddle when asked. I never took the "live with the call no matter what", and I don't even think there were many people on the board who did. But I also said that the huddle should not be held unless the original calling umpire asks, and that ONLY the original calling umpire can make the change. I know others that were advocating umpire huddles and help to partners that were certainly that far over to the "help" side, to the point of volunteering information, and stepping on your partner's calls if need be. I'll look later, but I believe it was HHH who said, "I won't let a little dog f*** up my game", or something to that effect. As for the change in umpires changing calls, in the interview, Marsh says they always did on the obvious calls, but they have been encouraged to do so even more since Sandy Alderson took over, and specifically, they were asked to do so in 1999. He gives total credit to Alderson for instituting the "change". |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004, 03:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I suspect Windy remembers it as 50-50 because the few that were in the minority were a very vocal group that posted often and vociferously (often rudely as well). But I think it was more like 80-20 advocating the "get it right" side of the argument. I think they handled both sitches great last night, and have heard the same from infinitely wise radio talk-show guys today as well.
|
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004, 03:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004, 03:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004, 04:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guys, guys, guys...did you miss the part in Marsh's interview where he said that they huddled "to get the call right". The Chicago Tribune had excerpted it and Marsh said that the climate of umpiring has changed. He admitted that the new procedure of huddling to get all of the facts is for the goood of baseball and umpiring.
West was quoted on ESPN as saying that he saw it the whole way. He waited for Marsh to make his call and when he saw what happened, he knew that the procedure was to correct the issue. He said that his first concern was to maintain control and keep his partners away from the players and coaches. Marsh admitted that he did not see the interference in the huddle and corrected his call. As we know, there are always two stories. Professional umpires know the protocol. As we've seen here, some amateur guys are so reluctant to ask for or offer assistance that the problem becomes one of arrogance. We have enough problems on the field. We've been handed another tool to resolve problems. I would think that however you choose to engage the system of redirect, you should embrace it. |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004, 04:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
----------------------------- Garth; I do not recall the article which you are talking about and it appears to refer to a rules issue rather than a judgment call which is a horse of a different color. Let's get back to basics. There is an issue that most of the responders seem unable to grasp. I hate to sound like Windy here, but I have come to the conclusion one needs to have umpired at a high level for more than 10 years to understand the transformation that baseball has undergone with regards to changed calls. Ten years or so ago, I was umpiring a college game. I was the PU and there was a play at first where the first baseman clearly trapped the ball and quickly picked it up. I saw it, the third base coach saw it, but the BU and first base coach were blocked out. The BU called an out, the first base coach, thinking that it was the right call, said nothing. The third base coach charged across the diamond breathing fire. When this occurred (about 1994), there was no way that I was going to go to my partner to tell him what happened. There was no way that my partner was coming to me for help. Because it was college baseball and the coaches knew the umpire protocols, the third base coach (he also was the head coach) never even asked the BU to get help. He and the BU went at it for a minute or so before he got ejected. The call never got changed and we never discussed it (until after the game.) The evaluator met us in the parking lot, acknowledged the bad call and instructed the BU on ways to get into a better position to see dropped balls. The issue of checking with the plate man never came up. It was inconceivable to everyone (umpires and coaches) that a plate man would have an reason to insert himself into a dropped ball call at first. (Swipe tags and pulled foot were the only acceptable calls for help.) Had that play occurred today, the third base coach would never have had to cross the diamond. I would signal my partner, wave off the third base coach, and the call would be changed before anyone had a chance to argue. Had I not done that, the evaluator would have met us in the parking lot and we both would have got an earful. It was simply inconceivable 10 years ago that an umpire would insert himself into a play and strongly suggest that a call be changed. To quote rule 9.02c is disingenous at best. The pro rules have not undergone any major changes in 20 years, yet the interpretations and philosophy behind them have undergone radical change. The posters here, with few exceptions, have not been working NCAA or minor league baseball for 10 years or more. They cannot appreciate the sea change in philosophy that has taken place. So, they endlessly argue semantics about who changes the call and how it is changed. From my perspective, Reliford changed the call and initiated the change. Crawford acquiesced because he knew the consequences of sticking to his guns. Finally, rarely are we dead sure of a call. On all close ones, there is always some doubt unless we are delusional. To raise the issue of being dead sure is another red herring. If I am dead sure, usually so is everyone else and we would not be having the argument. Peter ------------------------------- I have clearly written that there has been a dramatic change in the last five years regarding getting help and changing calls. I traced it to the 1999 umpires' strike and Sandy Alderson getting control of the umpires. Pete Booth responded that he disagreed and said that it was due to multiple camera angles showing calls to be wrong in MLB. Whatever the reasons, umpiring has undergone a change and I have changed along with it. I request help and I help my partners or I would not be umpiring NCAA baseball in 2004. I do not have the option of remaining in the Jurassic age. Peter |
|
Wed Oct 20, 2004, 07:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I read the baseball forum because I like baseball. The sitchs are interesting and I love officiating in general.
Yes, I called balls and strikes for 2 years about 10 years ago, so I'm not completely oblivious to umpiring, but I do know this: as a casual observer, I pretty much ignore anything that WCB and H^3 say.
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004, 07:21am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Therefore, I must conclude that you ARE, more "oblivious to umpiring" than you think. |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004, 08:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very good point
Quote:
I think the problem with many especaially young officials is the reluctance to ask someone what they saw on a play that might need clarification. Given there are only a few plays in all of baseball that would require a coach asking for help (in real baseball) and we saw two of those in the last few games played. The problem we will have in the local HS/summer leagues is coaches asking for an umpire to "get help get help" when help is NOT required. Balls/strikes, safe/out, fair/foul are not up for question. Many umpires though will feel like they have to "ask for help" when they don't need to. That is an area that we will have to cover in our pre-season meetings. Thanks David |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004, 08:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Juggling Referee,
Maybe you should become more than a casual reader. You might learn something then. It's funny, I have only encountered opposition to this mechanic from people that don't really work above HS ball. I had a war of words with Sal the other day, and was pleased to see that even he acknowledges that this is where we are going. Triple H has stated similar feelings. I have not seen too many others that work Minor, D-1 and D-2 ball and have acontrary opinion. The tide is turning and you'll either be swept away or learn to swim. |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004, 09:12am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There's a difference in knowing baseball rules and communicating with people. I don't mind being oblivious to officiating baseball. Or even if you think I'm more oblivious than I think I am. However, I'm not oblivious to communicating, and I just don't like their style, as seen via messages here at of.com.
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004, 09:13am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guys,
Bottom line the umpires did a great job in the ALCS. The calls they reversed were done "by the book" (the new book that is, as written by the powers at be of Major League Baseball). It's obvious that the "get it right" philosopy has arrived in MLB and regardless of what us amateurs think, it is here to stay. Yes, it may not look pretty sometimes and yes, it goes against the old pro ball mentality of "live and die" with your own call - but the reality is, the game of baseball wants it done this way and this is the way it it's going to be. We have already adopted this philosophy in NCAA baseball and like everything else that starts at the MLB level, this accepted practice will filter down into all levels of amateur baseball. Are there +'s and -'s to this.... Ofcourse there are - just like when there's a change in mechanics (ie - 3 man: guy in the middle going out on trouble balls). Umpiring, like the game of baseball, evolves and changes with time. And just like the game of life, if you can't embrace change, life (or the game) will pass you by. I think we all agree that "huddling" to get the call right is not the issue but rather WHAT type of calls, WHEN to get together & HOW to go about doing this are the questions to focus on. In my amateur opinion, the big leaguers not only "got it right" in the ALCS, but they way they went about it (the WHAT, WHEN & HOW) was on target as well. I guess that's why they're professionals and we're amateurs. |
|
Thu Oct 21, 2004, 09:31am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
PS: Go BoSox!
__________________
Pope Francis |
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
