Top of eighth, runner on third one out, tie game.

Japan batter hits a short fly-ball to left. LF makes the catch and comes up throwing home. Throw not close and Japn takes a one run lead.

USA appeals runner leaving third early. Second base umpire takes the appeal and rules him safe. Buck Martinez ask HP Umpire Bob Davidson to check the call. Davidson calls over the second base umpire, Brian Knight, talks to him and then Davidson rules the runner at third out for leaving early.

Replays show that original call was probably correct, run should have counted.

The rotation on the play was U3 goes out on fly ball, U2 came over and took the tag-up at third.

[Edited by gsf23 on Mar 13th, 2006 at 09:27 AM]

"The rotation on the play was U3 goes out on fly ball, U2 came over and took the tag-up at third."

But Buck Martinez was smart enough to the that U2 has the PLAY at third, but not the tag-up. That belongs to the PU. He was also smart enough NOT to go to the guy who made the call, and go directly to the guy who SHOULD have made the call.

A tip 'o the combo hat to Buck. Nice job skipper.

Can you appeal an appeal? Serious question here.

It's not an appeal, it's a request for help. What Buck did was he went to the PU with two things. First, that's not U2s call to make on the appeal, he shouldn't have answered it. Plus, the PU had a far better angle on it, could he help out on the call. Now the second request should have gone to U2, but the chance of U2 admitting it wasn't his call in the first place would be remote. Buck played the odds, and won. Pretty smart for a manager to know umpire rotations.

Cheap Cheap Cheap
 

Not to hijack the thread, but what is the deal with the plate umpires wearing adjustable hats? It looks absolutely horrific!! You would think Selig or somebody could have sprung for some decent gear, including fitted hats for the umpires. The teams all have them, so why shouldn't the umpires?

And those god-awful ugly field jackets......

Actually, the umpire was Balk-a-day Bob Davidson.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the yellow numbers on the sleeves or the black ball bags with navy shirts. What's the WBC stand for? "We're Broke Constantly."

This is what Davidson had to say after the game about the play.

<font color="#FF0000"><i>"It's a tag-up situation," Davidson said in a postgame statement. "In a bases-loaded situation, our mechanics [are] that it's the [home plate umpire who] lines up the tag. Brian Knight hustled over to third, where he's supposed to be, but he doesn't have the tag-up call. It's the plate umpire's call.

"I had it lined up. The wrong umpire made the initial call. It's the plate umpire, which is me, and I had him leaving early and called him out." </font></i>



Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Mar 13th, 2006 at 04:39 AM]

Does anyone know what Japanese sports websites say about the play?

Edit: Just saw the re-play. Looked to me like the runner tagged properly.

I think they say "Whatta rotta clap."

Reminds me a bit of the '72 Olympic basketball championship game.

Personally, Brian Knight screwed up the appeal responsibility (it was Davidson's call). However, Knight got the call right (originally ruling the runner tagged properly). The replays clearly show that the runner did not leave early so I'm confused as to why Davidson over ruled Knight.

Moreover, seeing that Knight already made the call and was in decent position, all Davidson had to due is tell Buck Martinez something like ...

"Buck, you are right, the tag up was NOT Knight's call - technically it is my call to make. However, I agreed with the original call that the runner did NOT leave early so I'm not going to change the call."

Knight got the mechanic wrong but the call RIGHT. Davidson got the mechanic right but got the call WRONG. To avoid a sh!t house, Davidson should have just stayed with the original call and had Knight buy him a couple "pops" after the game for stepping on his di@K. Just my opinion

Sal, Sal
 

I didn't see it, but I don't think that BK messed up at all. He was in position and he got the call right from what you guys have said. It was Davidson's call and when he saw the appeal he didn't step up and make it, so BK probably did. I don't think BK ran over to third and said, let me, let me. Davidson didn't step up so BK did. The question shouldn't be why he made the call, it should be why didn't Bob?

DITTO right back to you Chris. Davidson actually was hands on knee set (why? I don't know) waiting for the play in the dirt area in front of home plate. I agree with you that he should have been first base line extended to line up the fly ball to left field and then been coming into the play after the ball is released and the runner is coming home.

It's one thing to screw up a mechanic because 9 times out of 10, no one else knows it except for us (umpires). But when you reverse a call that was correct to begin with, AFTER the manager "talks" you into it, really makes UMPIRES look bad.

<i> Originally posted by gsf23 </i>

<b> Replays show that original call was probably correct, run should have counted.

The rotation on the play was U3 goes out on fly ball, U2 came over and took the tag-up at third. </b>

Below is the Link to the WBC website where you can view for yourselves.

What does ths play show?

Not to start another thread, but here we had 2 umpires making different calls. Sound Familiar Remember the HUGE debates on over-turning your partner? Whose to say another umpire had a better view of the play than you did.

Personally if R3 did leave early it was by milli-seconds. A Horrible call for a PROFESSIONAL Umpire. Can you imagine if this had been in the World Series.

Bottom Line: Make your OWN calls and Do not STEP in as U2 did when the call IS NOT Yours. Also, for the thread about multiple umpires watching the ball. Here we had 2 umpires watching the ball but obviously saw things differently.

Pete Booth

http://www.worldbaseballclassic.com/...ex.jsp?sid=wbc

Yes, have to say that PU strung up his U2 there, don't know why.

My first season, one time I got confused behind the plate and asked for help on a checkswing after I had called it a strike (oops).....my partner in A looked askance at me, but he had my back by agreeing with my call (LOL). Just a topic for the post-game, nothing more.


Likewise, Davidson could have said, "Skip, you are correct, its not his call, its mine, but while we are on that topic my call agrees with his."

End of story, and U2's 'jurisdiction' error stays with the umps and Buck Martinez. Instead, Davidson oven-roasts Knight for the 'world' to see.....

Knight should be one angry mofo about now. Yes, he goofed, but it doesn't look like a 'gross miss' that HAD to be 'overturned'

Pete,
You're right, U2 (Knight) messed up and stepped in when he shouldn't have. But why make matter's worse and overturn the call? Now instead of a blown mechanic and little, if any controversy, you have a blown mechanic AND and blown call AND a whole lot of controversy.

It's hard enought as umpires to fight public perception and scrutiny, but Davidson basically cut his own throat and made it worse for everyone.

From what I have seen, and I did not see it live, but through replay it shows the runner starting his move but that he did not leave the base until the left fielder made a play on the ball. If the UIC was in the position he was at the time R3 crossed the plate, then I would assume that once he saw the catch and then glanced at the runner and saw him moving then he assumed the runner left early. To make the matter worse, the wrong umpire was asked to appeal the play.

Re: Re: Cheap Cheap Cheap
 

Why is this allowed? This troll making fun of my post is okay with you guys? But I stand up for myself, and I get deleted? Like the idiot rats say, call it both ways!

I need no remind everyone of the 'get the call right' theory of umpiring. Davidson knows what it is like to have to make the toughest calls in the game. We had a war of words over how impossible it is for amateur umpires to consider working AAA baseball. Now, the hordes are swarming on a man who works AAA and in the Show. My, my...

Hindsight is twenty-twenty. I'm fairly certain that if any of our games were scrutinized in slow motion and split screens, we'd look pretty bad.

If Davidson truly believed that he had the call, it was his to make. Don't give me any of that 'influenced by Buck' nonsense either. He HAS to wait for the appeal and of course Buck is going to be hot. Watch the replay in real time speed. Check the reaction of the team on the bench, they all jumped up and started pointing. They must have witnessed something too.

That was a difficult call to make. Like the balk in the CWS Supers, it takes incredible courage to do what you think is correct. He did not cut his throat on that call. He proved that he has the stones to take the heat on a tough call. The Japanese showed amazing restraint but they always do. Oh is a classy skipper, even when angry.

Big games are usually decided by mistakes. Sometimes the players make them while others are determined by the umpire. Davidson must have been convinced that his call was correct and that is all that matters. He does not have the luxury of instant replay.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Check the reaction of the team on the bench, they all jumped up and started pointing. They must have witnessed something too.

If I make calls, especially on appeal plays, based on how the coaches & players react, I would get about 90% of them WRONG. They always go apesh!t to try and influence the call.

He proved that he has the stones to take the heat on a tough call.

The difference between the CWS call and Davidson's call is that the CWS call was actually correct. Davidson's actually reversed a correct call to an INCORRECT call.

I hope the "When one umpire is 100% convinced he saw something the other umpire didn't see he shouldn't wait to be asked to offer help" crowd was watching this.

Just because one umpire thinks he's right and his parnter is wrong, doesn't mean he's right and his partner is wrong.

Yep, it should have been Davidson's call to begin with, but like Jim Evans says, as soon as he let the other umpire make the call, it wasn't his anymore.

Davidson is trying to work back into the majors and wants to be noticed. Well, he got noticed.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 14th, 2006 at 02:43 AM]

My mistake. I should have said Davidson would be pleased as punch to remain in the minors after being a major leauger. He's hoping no one notices his work so he can avoid a promotion.

Is that better? Gawd.

Actually, I heard he wanted to be released to make room for some new guy. Maybe my source was wrong

It's late and I'm bored, so here's my last salvo of the night.

Sal, shame on you for twisting my words like that. I simply pointed out that another camera angle showed the reaction of the USA bench. When they all leapt up and started yelling, it was what some of us call a tell. I'm sure that Davidson doesn't base his calls off of every reaction, but veteran umpires do make calls based on tells. Please don't tell me that you don't look for a double clutch tag or a batter that winces in pain when you can't tell if the ball hit him or the bat. The simple fact of the matter is that Davidson blew the call based on your keen sense of instant replay. It was his call to make and when the appeal was made, Knight kicked it. He should not have made the call and it fell to Davidson to do what he thought was correct. Hindsight is 20/20 folks. I don't believe that any of you wouldn't have called it any differently, given those circumstances. The pressure is incredible and the scrutiny unrelenting. He made that call based on what he saw. Maybe it was incorrect after looking at it in slow motion, but at real time speed, the runner flinched on his front foot and it looked like he left early.

As for those who think that Davidson is doing something to get noticed, hahahahahaha! He made an incredibly difficult call that he justified after the game. He is already a fill-in and gets plent of action in the Show. While he may yearn for the chance to dance again, he would be unwise to go about it as you suggest.

Team USA got beat by Canada and Korea. It took a controversial call to give them a chance against Japan. If there was a conspiracy theory at works, the odds makers wouldn't have put Venezuela and the Dominican Republic ahead of the USA. I need a drink.

Oh, I just can't wait for Windy to get a load of you!!!

He's gonna rip you a new one, boy!!!http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

Steve,

I would, but I'm quite certain that he needs a translator more than the Japanese manager.

The fact that in real time that call is a ***** to make is compounded by the skill of the players executing it and the pressure of the game. Arguing about which angle gives you the better approach is moot; he lined it up and even squatted to see the catch/tag. Maybe it didn't look like the text book, but few professionals ever make calls exactly like the PBUC manual states. He must have thought that it was a pretty good angle considering his actions. We've witnessed unorthodox mechanics from most pros. Plate calls are made from both sides of the dish. Even strike outs are susceptible to the varied action of the arbiter (Edmonds).

None of you can say that you would have called it any differently and be taken seriously. If you are better than Davidson, you would have been noticed by now and would be working those games! I may or may not like his call, but the temerity he displayed befuddles those who can't accept the MLB mechanic he used. He was the crew chief and over ruled his partner's blunder. Now, you may think that the replay showed otherwise, but he is charged with getting the call right to the best of his ability. It was his call to make and Knight foolishly offered his opinion, rather than wait for the correct umpire to call it. Knight later acknowledged that he erred in ruling on the initial appeal.

What was Davidson supposed to do? He was convinced the runner left early and was asked to rectify the situation. It never fails to amaze me how many young umpires think they know more than the guys actually doing the job. When an umpire kicks a call, he is usually called incompetent. Headlines are screaming that he is a homer. Bob Davidson could umpire circles around anyone on this board. Where are his AMLU brethren now? They seemed to take great glee in letting this board know how difficult it is to work AAA baseball. Now they are nowhere to be seen - that's the type of support many will give them when they walk out.

If someone can translate the previous poster's tirade, I'd be glad to address those points individually. Until then, they appear to be similar to one thomasbwhite's crude rantings. It's time for an Ambien.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Mar 15th, 2006 at 05:00 AM]

Windy....serious question....

You went on a lengthy tirade(s) in the past re: getting the call <b>right</b>. Here's a case where Davidson's partner may have blundered in <b>making</b> the call, but his partner still had the <b>right</b> call after he did make it. Making the <b>right</b> call doesn't really seem like a "blunder" to me. Davidson then reversed the <b>right</b> call into an <b>incorrect</b> call. Now, that's seems completely at odds to me somehow with the concept of "getting the call right".

What am I missing? :confused:

Is it possible to actually get a call like this "right" without using replay?

<i> Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue </i>

<b> I may or may not like his call, but the temerity he displayed befuddles those who can't accept the MLB mechanic he used. He was the crew chief and over ruled his partner's blunder. Now, you may think that the replay showed otherwise, but he is charged with getting the call right to the best of his ability. It was his call to make and Knight foolishly offered his opinion, rather than wait for the correct umpire to call it. Knight later acknowledged that he erred in ruling on the initial appeal.</b>

First his partner did NOT Blunder. He demonstrated BAD mechanics but his call was CORRECT. The MAIN POINT IMO, (read Garth's response) is that we have had many a Debate on "Getting the Call Right" <b> AT ALL COST </b> and the aforementioned play CLEARLY demonstrats that umpires need to make their OWN Calls PERIOD, RIGHT or WRONG.

Whose to say one umpire had a better view of the play than another, yet we have had responses concerning getting the call right which stated otherwise and they would interject to get the call right.

It might be Outdated, but I still follow Papa C's infamous FAB V of when calls can be changed. Papa C posted it about 4-5 yrs ago and when he posted it, many of a debate followed, but more often then not as we have seen STICK to your OWN calls and Learn.

<b> Knight later acknowledged that he erred in ruling on the initial appeal.</b>

You are not that naive are you? Of Course Knight is going to back his partner. You remember last years ACLS on the imfamous dropped not dropped third strike in the Angels/White-Sox series. The Crew Chief backed the call. What do you think he was going to say so your statement about Knight is absurd. He wouldn't say anything different.

Bottom Line: The theme of the thread IMO was in response to the many threads we have had on those in favor of "Getting the call Right" which has been talked about ad nausem many a time in this Forum.

Pete Booth

I swear I had this exact same call Monday night.

Kids game, working two man. Bases loaded, one out, and fly ball to F8. Throw comes to the plate off-line, and everyone and their grandmother is yelling to throw it third. I had it all the way, reared back and punched him out just as my BU signals safe. Yikes! We got together, got it right, and then I had to explain it to the O manager. What are the odds?

Perhaps I'm not as good as Balkin' Bob. But my mechanics are much better. My timing is much better. My positioning on tag-ups at 3B are definitely better (as we have seen that his are horse****). My appearance is more professional than his. His stance and strike call look Smittyish at best. He looks like many of the umpires in my former association. I am certainly not a MLB jock-sniffer that thinks these guys can do no wrong. If I see an area to critique, I will without apology. You don't have to be a surgeon to tell a botched operation when you see it.

Davidson has way more experience than any of us have. But I know plenty of folks who have been doing jobs for years, but are still not that good at it, and have not improved their skill over those years. This extends to umpires as well. I don't understand how Bob got his job back, and I don't really care. As far as Tom Hallion and Ed Hickox, I feel they do deserve to be up there, and are by far superior to Davidson.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Windy....serious question....

You went on a lengthy tirade(s) in the past re: getting the call <b>right</b>. Here's a case where Davidson's partner may have blundered in <b>making</b> the call, but his partner still had the <b>right</b> call after he did make it. Making the <b>right</b> call doesn't really seem like a "blunder" to me. Davidson then reversed the <b>right</b> call into an <b>incorrect</b> call. Now, that's seems completely at odds to me somehow with the concept of "getting the call right".

What am I missing? :confused:

JR, as oft before, we disagree. I will be polite about this since you are beginning in the same vein. 'Getting the call right' is about making sure that the call that should be made gets made. You have an umpire who admittedly made the improper appeal call (many would call that a blunder, but some are confused by the synonym). That was his mistake and he admitted as much. The appeal call should have been handled by the PU, but Knight jumped the gun in his zeal to perform. Bob Davidson who was charged with making the call and is desgignated as crew chief, saw it much differently. He was convinced that the player gained an unfair advantage and when asked, went to his partners and informed them of what he saw, then he penalized it. As proferred before, in real time this play was much more difficult.

Is it possible to actually get a call like this "right" without using replay?

Yes, you know it is. Although you are not a baseball umpire, you see split second timing calls on the basketball court all of the time. Two officials can see the same play and call it differently. (This is illustrated at numerous winter clinics.) However, in MLB a crew member is designated as chief and required to correct any improper ruling. An umpire on Davidson's crew incorrectly ruled on the appeal play. Davidson was charged with 'getting it right.'

Imagine how it would feel when you saw the same thing. You are absolute in your convictions - the runner left early and the appeal is coming. The pitcher toes the rubber...the toss to the base...AND YOUR PARTNER INTERJECTS HIMSELF WITH THE OPPOSITE CALL! Knight is lucky Davidson didn't pee himself laughing at that blunder. I'm not privy to Knight's biography, but how much four man mechanics do you have to work before you know who handles the runner on third? There are people here who knew the mechanics and work a handful of four man in their lifetimes.

As for replay, I've mentioned it before and I'll reiterate; it is a necesary evil of the future. This is a prime example and Davidson would surely have seen what all of us did in slow motion. If you insist that Davidson did this just for ego sake, he would gain as much 'glory' by interpeting the replay correctly as he did by stepping in here. Replay was designed for plays just like this - I would love to be able to read a Japanese newspaper to see the reaction.

I can guarantee that if I said that I saw Andy work a game and that his mechanics were horsepucky, I'd get a response.

I don't believe for a second you worked AAA baseball. Your comments about my resume show how green you are.

Why would anyone take those games?
1) To prove to themselves that they can do it.
2) To earn extra money.
3) Because they love the game and the players deserve to play it.
4) It will be entertaining - in many communities, this field is all they've got.
5) To earn a way back into the good graces of the owners.

Nothing is in it for me. I've only mentioned a few dozen times that I wouldn't work those games, but don't begrudge anyone who chooses to do so. I'm certainly old enough to be your father and my best years have slipped by. There is little need for me to hurt myself or the game by accepting those assignments. If the boys in the AMLU decide to walk away then they've made their decision. If someone else wants that job, who are they to object at that point? You really should read more before you spout off. I've made these points before and they have nothing to do with Davidson's call.

If the MiLB umpires were truly as loyal to each other as they want us to be to them, they would be touting the fact that Davidson did his duty. He stepped in and made a tough call to the best of his ability. They won't because once he is gone, someone gets to move up. That is the dream many of them will soon abandon.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Mar 15th, 2006 at 05:49 PM]

There's the problem right there though, imo. The call that should have been made didn't get made. Davidson properly (I guess) interjected himself into the play, but he still <b>didn't</b> get the play <b>right</b>. Now, I certainly can't really knock Davidson for that either. Bottom line, it's a judgement call- and there ain't an official in the world in any sport that can truthfully say that they've never been wrong on a judgement call. Now, after Davidson kicked the call though, should Knight have come to him and said "Who there, Big Guy, I'm sure that he didn't leave early"? And, if he did, where do you go from there? As I said, can you end up getting this call "right" now without using replay? Or do you simply end up going with the person who (shoulda) made the original call- Davidson- and get the call wrong?

Good Lord, you just can't help it; of course, Knight blundered. He never should have made the appeal call. Davidson would simply have called the runner out for leaving early. It was his call to make after all - that is elementary four-man mechanics. HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE HIS OWN CALL - PERIOD!

There would have been less controversy if the other umpire had just read the book. You are trying to give him a pass, but Davidson is charged with correcting the mistakes of his crew. When his partner messed up, the controversy was compounded. Stop pretending that Knight wasn't at fault. He didn't have a choice but to acknowledge his mistake. Anyone with a basic knowledge of four man mechanics knows he f-ed up. Equating it to the Championship or World Series' is profoundly absurd. The wrong umpire made an erroneous call versus a blown strike out or running out of the baseline call.

Papa C. had a great mechanic for amateur umpires - if you screw up, who cares? Most of us realize that the most important person on the field isn't the grey haired guy behind the catcher. If you see a player miss home plate, a ball land inches foul or a player tag a runner with the mitt but the ball is in his hand and ignore them, you are inept. If you take the money to do the job, you should take some pride in getting the correct call made. Eating the bad ones just makes you look bad, especially when just about every governing body allows some sort of conferencing of officials. Suggesting that you adhere to an archaic princple out of loyalty is silly. But then again, I've never been accused of being a kiss *** here. The rule and mechanics books change every year for a reason. They help older umpires shed their misconceptions.

J.R., I can't believe that we are actually dialoguing without catty remarks...what is going on? Let me try to answer your points. The idea that the umpire gets the play right versus ignoring it is the basis for the principle I espouse. I have never championed changing calls just to insert yourself into the game. If you truly believe that the call was made incorrectly AND the rules allow for conferencing/debate, you should do it. The MLB rules require it now. In Davidson's opinion, the runner left early. It is and will forever be his call to make. Can we all agree on that? Knight made this a cluster f--- by jumping in when he shouldn't have. While Davidson may have taken the shaft for this call, it would have all been on him. Now, he has to clean up his partner's mistake and right the wrong. Again, I never said that the call was correct or not. I simply said that the calling umpire did not get the chance to make it until after Knight SNAFU'd it. Getting teh call right is more about talking it over and having the crew chief do what is appropriate. In this case, it was his call in the first place. If Knight had waited until Davidson had signalled, it would all be moot. Could Knight have told Davidson that the runner was fine? Certainly, but after getting his hand smacked so publicly, he probably bowed to the greater ego. After the game, Knight was quoted as saying that he should never have made the appeal call. That is all I'm concerned with.

Without replay, Davidson's call would stand up. The only reason we are debating this is because it was stop actioned to death. However, the use of instant replay for contests like these and plays like this is obvious. A thirty second look by the umpire in the booth and it is all over. While judgement is the human part of the game, technology has advanced to make an umpire better, not weaker. Look at the NFL and those guys don't make calls with replay in mind. They call the play and if it is challenged, then the scrutiny begins. Baseball at this level will use some sort of replay in the future, count on it. There is simply too much money at stake.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Edited by bob jenkins on Mar 16th, 2006 at 08:39 AM]

There have been two triple plays in the World Series. Thanks to Balking Bob Davidson, you will only see in the records.

On the other hand, an excellent ball and strike umpire.

Gents... FYI...

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/sports/20060316TDY24004.htm

This was on ump news today. Although I agree that Davidson made the wrong call, I find it amusing that a journalist would publish an article, referring to a rule that he has wrong. Quote:

"Davidson erred badly in the eighth inning by calling a runner out in a situation where other umpires never do. The rule in the books says a runner must wait for the catch before advancing. However, if he leaves at more or less the same time as the catch, major league umpires rarely, if ever, uphold appeals on the play.

Tsuyoshi Nishioka's upper body was in motion as he turned to watch left fielder Randy Winn make the catch. Davidson said he saw Nishioka leave early. If he believed so, he had the duty to apply the rules impartially--in the manner in which they are typically applied. In this case, the accepted call would be "safe."

Team Japan played by the rules as they are observed and was punished by Davidson. United States manager Buck Martinez goaded the ump into making his own call after Martinez was unhappy with second-base umpire Brian Knight's call. Davidson later covered his *** by asserting the call was his to make all along--even though he only took that stance after undergoing Martinez's assertiveness training session."

Personally I found this article hilarious. Davidson could have done some 'preventative' umpiring and avoided the entire situation, and international press bashing. He could have warned the pitcher before balling him. And could have backed up Knight's call, as Sal suggested, seeing as he was not in any position to make that tag up call in the first place. Yes Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right. It was a former MLB umpire, and apparently a 'homer' who got it wrong.

Just My 2 Cents Worth

"Personally I found this article hilarious. Davidson could have done some 'preventative' umpiring and avoided the entire situation, and international press bashing. He could have warned the pitcher before balling him. And could have backed up Knight's call, as Sal suggested, seeing as he was not in any position to make that tag up call in the first place. Yes Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right. It was a former MLB umpire, and apparently a 'homer' who got it wrong."

I suggest some reading materials; the Jaksa/Roder, PBUC Manual, Evans' Manual or any local program that includes four man mechanics.

I don't believe Sal suggested that Davidson should not have handled the tag up. He questioned where he was standing, but that point is immaterial. He had an angle that allowed him to see both the catch and runner. Watch it again and you will see, though unorthodox, it was still his call to make. Only through the use of instant replay was Davidson's call proved otherwise. Do they allow instant replay use in Canada?

And not to mention that the author doesn't know the rules. The runner does not have to wait for the ball to be caught before leaving the base. How about when the ball is first touched? This is another case of a member of the media that thinks he's a baseball expert.

I don't believe Sal suggested that Davidson should not have handled the tag up. He questioned where he was standing, but that point is immaterial. He had an angle that allowed him to see both the catch and runner. Watch it again and you will see, though unorthodox, it was still his call to make. Only through the use of instant replay was Davidson's call proved otherwise. Do they allow instant replay use in Canada? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry if my wording was poor. I was responding to Sal's comment that "Knight got the mechanic wrong but the call RIGHT. Davidson got the mechanic right but got the call WRONG. To avoid a sh!t house, Davidson should have just stayed with the original call and had Knight buy him a couple "pops" after the game for stepping on his di@K."

And by "Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right" I meant the call, not the mechanic.

I'll make sure I edit better next time.

Anyways, thanks for the reply. Good Canada bash...lmao...I appreciate it.

Sorry if my wording was poor. I was responding to Sal's comment that "Knight got the mechanic wrong but the call RIGHT. Davidson got the mechanic right but got the call WRONG. To avoid a sh!t house, Davidson should have just stayed with the original call and had Knight buy him a couple "pops" after the game for stepping on his di@K."

And by "Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right" I meant the call, not the mechanic.

I'll make sure I edit better next time.

Anyways, thanks for the reply. Good Canada bash...lmao...I appreciate it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bashing Canada is not fun...just something to do when you have games scheduled and rain mixed with snow is on the way.

I addressed Sal earlier, but to reiterate - by avoiding a sh!thouse (as he put it), would mean he was ignoring something he thought was incorrect. Like ignoring a missed plate on a home run, we don't have the luxury of choosing which rules we like to enforce. His job was to make the calls - not avoid controversy. I agree that the replay shows his foot still in contact with the bag when the ball is touched. Davidson saw otherwise and didn't have the luxury of a big screen and slow mo. I'll stick by the man that is taking the heat here. He wasn't being a homer, he was being an umpire.

Let's clear something up here. First, I'm not throwing Davidson under the bus - I think we all are trying to learn from the mistake(s) that were made on this particular play. And second, other than the Japanese, I don't think anyone in their right mind feels like Davidson is a homer or deliberatly changed the call to help team USA. With that said, let's not beat a dead horse any longer and end this thread. Anyone second that motion?

He wasn't being a homer, he was being an umpire.

Yeah I agree. Despite how much I disliked his call, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. My homer reference was referring to the article. I have been called such before, needless to say they never stayed around for long. I particularly found it interesting that I was working a game with two teams that I had no hometown association with whatsoever. Anyways hope the weather clears up. We start up here next week.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye

The ayes have it.

Thanks SDS - OK Moderator... Lock it up! ;)

Balkin' Bob Davidson in another controversy??? No! You're kidding me, right? :D

Oh, my...
 

:eek: The guy that everyone mocked and bantered about his career being over...

yeah, that was him working First Base on the Championship. Hallion did a nice job on the dish, too.

Hallion looked good back there. Bob had an uneventful game. They had a right field umpire to help him out down the line.:D