Business as usual...

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

The biggest issue I have with the replacement umpires is that many feel endebted to the home team. I've witnessed newbie umpires at almost all levels fall for this. They aren't necessarily playing favorites, just letting certain things slide. It is certain that this is occuring in the Minor Leagues now.

But, before we get all high and mighty...we all do this. We have favorite skippers, players, fields and subconsciously justify our calls and behavior.

Since none of us was there, we don't know what was said or not. If warnings were issued or whether the crew was even aware of the bad blood is immaterial. New AMLU crews aren't anymore aware of a potential flareup than the replacements. These guys walked right into one.

Originally Posted by BenedictArnold

I can see why this happened. The one thing no one thinks about unless you have been in the game is that these players have been playing against each other for years. Warnings should have been issued in this game...they weren't. I am sure this is a combination of the strike and bad umpiring. AMLU umpires would have handled this a lot differently. That is what they are trained to do. And I am sure that the farm director knew exactly what to expect when he pulled his team off. A lot of press and to prove a point in that press. If you think they don't want AMLU umpires back you are wrong.

How can you say that it was bad umpiring? Were you at the game? I guess you've never umpired a game that had a bench clearer. I've seen plenty of fights in my days and none of them was my fault.

SOME may want AMLU guys back, but it's not happening. At the Instructional levels they aren't even missed. In another two weeks, the D1 guys will have empty schedules and be ready for anything that comes their way. Stop pretending that amateur umpires are inept. I don't see asterisks by those standings.

[BenedictArnold]

WWTB,

Here you go again. This is the problem with you. You quoted me, but you only took the part you wanted to quote. I stated that I wasn't there and that I needed to be there to speak about the umpiring. On the contrary to what you said, I have had several bench clearers. I have been in the middle of it. I have seen some coming, and others have jumped up on me. What I said is that never before have I ever seen benches clear twice in one inning and no warnings issued. Get a clue. Warning should have been issued, plain and simple. Then they decide to eject two players from one team. Hello, they were pushing and shoving each other. They may have got every pitch right in this situation and may have nailed every play on the bases. But as for this..."non routine"...situation, this was poor umpiring at best. They screwed this up.

You try to argue that AMLU guys are inexperienced. We heard you the first time. But here is a different view. AA guys are not inexperienced. This was a AA game. These umpires, no matter how long they have been umpiring High School and College, are not prepared to work before 8,000 in AA. Even D1 guys admit that every D1 umpire cannot walk onto a AA or AAA field without problems. If this was the Appy League or the NYP League then maybe you have a point. But AA guys are not inexperienced. They are TRAINED. But then again, even with the AMLU guys you see this all the time. Except for the part about the farm director coming on the field and the manager forfeiting the game. But now you can go and cut out my post here and use the part you want...that being where I said even with the AMLU guys you see this all the time. But this time, don't forget about the end of that statement.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Why would I reply to your entire post, when I only wished to address part of it? Are you that narcissistic?

* How do you know that no warnings were issued?
* I've seen benchs clear and the batter and pitcher stare each other down and no one got tossed - and yes, this was when I was in the Minors.
* This kind of dust-up will destroy even the most seasoned of crews. Don't give me any nonsense that a guy with two years of A and is in his fourth week of AA would know how to handle this any better.

This game was an aberation and the league will take issue with the talent, not the officials. While we all agree that the replacements may have handled it better, it is always easier to be a monday morning quarterback. I guess you are the only umpire, in the history of the sport, who called pefect games his entire career. It must be nice being you. Go back to sleep, I am.

[MrB]

This from a team that is winning.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...566615277.html

I guess it plays into their feelings about the situation.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by MrB

I guess it plays into their feelings about the situation.

Exactly...the team's front office official (i.e. the team's President in the that story) says, "everything's going great. The replacements are doing just as good a job." (to paraphrase). Of course he would say that, he's clearly on the managment side of the MiLB/AMLU debate. His immediate boss, and the person he represents, is the team owner(s) who will have to pay the umps more. I haven't seen one team or league President (or team owner) say anything different.

However, in the same story, his own on-the-field manager says, (to paraphrase again) "No one should worry about the replacements, but we need the regulars back." Of course, he won't say anything bad about the replacements ...he's worried they'll read what he says because he still has to deal with them every day. But, there's no hiding that he clearly states that he wants the regulars back.

Seems to be that's another story of an on-field manager, coach or farm director saying we need the regulars back, despite what the person who signs their paycheck thinks.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by lawump

Exactly...the team's front office official (i.e. the team's President in the that story) says, "everything's going great. The replacements are doing just as good a job." (to paraphrase). Of course he would say that, he's clearly on the managment side of the MiLB/AMLU debate. His immediate boss, and the person he represents, is the team owner(s) who will have to pay the umps more. I haven't seen one team or league President (or team owner) say anything different.

However, in the same story, his own on-the-field manager says, (to paraphrase again) "No one should worry about the replacements, but we need the regulars back." Of course, he won't say anything bad about the replacements ...he's worried they'll read what he says because he still has to deal with them every day. But, there's no hiding that he clearly states that he wants the regulars back.

Seems to be that's another story of an on-field manager, coach or farm director saying we need the regulars back, despite what the person who signs their paycheck thinks.

Let's be fair! If managements positive comments about replacements are going to be disregarded because of their financial motives, then let's be sure to disregard the on-field managers remarks because he certainly has a vested interest in making nice to the regulars. No manager wants to be on the wrong side of the regulars when they finally come back.
Once you start justifying a position based on cynicism and conspiratorial thinking remember it goes both ways.

When I make a call on a banger I predictably have half the players, coaches and spectators thinking I'm a great umpire (for the moment anyway) and half think I blew the call. I really believe that most on either side of the call truly believe they're right. They saw the action and interpreted it for the outcome they desired. A runner can be out by 8 inches and the offensive team will truly believe he was safe.
This is exactly what's happening in this debate. Those with a vested interest in the regulars succeeding in their strike are going to interpret all action on the field as bad umpiring by the replacements. Management on the other hand certainly will tend to view things slightly different. Those without a dog in the hunt may be able to be a bit more objective.
I certainly hope for the best for the regulars. Unfortunately, if their success depends on the failure of the replacements I'm afraid they won't be too happy with the results. I'm with Justme on this one, there are many more than 220 capable umpires out here willing to work at the current scale. Supply and demand is an economic reality, not a theory that can be easily discarded.

[lawump]

Let's be fair! If managements positive comments about replacements are going to be disregarded because of their financial motives, then let's be sure to disregard the on-field managers remarks because he certainly has a vested interest in making nice to the regulars.

I don't know if I agree with that. HOWEVER, I DO (even though I'm pro-AMLU) disregard most (not all) of the union members' comments in the media, just as I disregard the management's position. I laughed, for instance, when a certain AMLU member suggested that the whole situation with Mr. Young could have been avoided if an AMLU member was umpiring the game. I disregard most comments by the AMLU guys and most of the comments by management.

As to the "vested interest"...yes he does. But let's not forget a lot of successful pro managers have a strong dislike for umpires, period. And during normal times, many of them can give a horses' behind what the umpires think of them, and many of them don't try to hide their feelings. For these individuals to be saying we need the regulars back does mean something. (I have no idea what the manager in this particular story is normally like...I never worked a game he managed.)


When I make a call on a banger I predictably have half the players, coaches and spectators thinking I'm a great umpire (for the moment anyway) and half think I blew the call...

...This is exactly what's happening in this debate. Those with a vested interest in the regulars succeeding in their strike are going to interpret all action on the field as bad umpiring by the replacements. Management on the other hand certainly will tend to view things slightly different. Those without a dog in the hunt may be able to be a bit more objective.

To a large extent you are absolutely right. I hope, however, that the word "slightly" was used in a sarcastic manner. I'll add, however, that the closest we'll get to having someone be "objective" AND having some sort of say in this labor dispute are the managers, coaches, players and farm directors. What I mean is, they're not management and they're not AMLU members, but they are in minor league baseball. I personally think both sides would love to have members of this "objective" group giving quotes supporting them.

Note: I did not say managers, coaches and players ARE objective...I'm saying that of all the groups who may have an actual affect on the resolution of this dispute, they're the group who is probably most "objective". Another possibility is the media.

Supply and demand is an economic reality, not a theory that can be easily discarded.

Absolutely true. And to a large extent, this will come down to how large a supply of umpires there are to work these games. This, in my opinion, will also be determined by what management decides is acceptable standards in a replacement (little league umpire? high school? college...DIII, DII, DI only? must have pro experience?) I mean the size of the available pool of replacements is dependent on what criteria management says a replacement must meet. I'm not saying they have, but if management says registered little league umps can work their games...then they'd have a much larger pool than if they say only D.1 umps can work.

Of course, conversely, management's large pool of replacements could (I did not say "will") be narrowed if on-field personnel and others (farm directors) complain that a certain set of criteria must be met in order to umpire these games. It goes without saying that AMLU is hoping that enough of these people will state (either directly, or by implication by stating that none of the replacements are getting the job done) that only pro-school and PBUC graduates (AMLU members) meet the criteria to work these games.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by lawump

Exactly...the team's front office official (i.e. the team's President in the that story) says, "everything's going great. The replacements are doing just as good a job." (to paraphrase). Of course he would say that, he's clearly on the managment side of the MiLB/AMLU debate. His immediate boss, and the person he represents, is the team owner(s) who will have to pay the umps more. I haven't seen one team or league President (or team owner) say anything different.

However, in the same story, his own on-the-field manager says, (to paraphrase again) "No one should worry about the replacements, but we need the regulars back." Of course, he won't say anything bad about the replacements ...he's worried they'll read what he says because he still has to deal with them every day. But, there's no hiding that he clearly states that he wants the regulars back.

Seems to be that's another story of an on-field manager, coach or farm director saying we need the regulars back, despite what the person who signs their paycheck thinks.

We're apparently not disagreeing about much here, but if the managers don't care what the regulars think then why would they care what the replacements think?
And yes I was being slightly sarcastic.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

What umpire actually cares what a player or skipper thinks about his call?

All of this handwringing over a few skippers saying that the umpires are awful - good Lord, that's been going on for 100 years! George Steinbrenner just chastised an MLB umpire and said that his team deserves better! The LL trvelling coach at the rec field thinks he deserves a WUA crew too.

Listening to what players and skippers say about umpiring...you guys make me laugh.