Det/Oak Gm 2
 

Anybody see the balk Wendlestedt called in the first inning? I guess Leyland wasn't allowed to talk to him about it because just as he started out on Hunter, he pointed toward his knee & then waved his mask in a motion like "don't come out here". Leyland stopped in his tracks, turned around and walked back in the dugout. Respect or Red A$$? :confused:

Of course, the Fox experts confused it even further for me.

The replay showed a flinch, then a pickoff throw THEN the balk call. Steve Lyons said that the flinch was the balk. But Harry was pointing at the knee.

That being said, Leyland was not screaming and hollering. Why not explain your call to him?

Go Tigers!

Joe

i missed the play. was the flinch the balk? where did he flinch? was the balk call delayed?
thanks

Assuming the balk call was a "step balk," i.e., a balk for failure to step to 1B before throwing there, Wendelstadt's call was textbook, straight out of the MLB Umpire Manual:

(d) Official Baseball Rule 8.05(c) requires the pitcher, while touching the pitcher's plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without actually stepping, or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk. See Section 7.6 (Stepping to a Base). NOTE: The pitcher is required to step directly toward a base when feinting a throw to a base. Umpires should indicate balks called under Official Baseball Rule 8.05(c) (no step) by slapping the side of their leg after calling the balk. This indicates the balk is for failure to step directly towards a base.

(e) A manager, coach, or player may not come onto the field or leave his position to protest the call of a balk as defined in Official Baseball Rule 8.05(c) (failure to step directly towards a base before throwing there). If such protest is made, the manager, coach, or player shall be ejected from the game.

Wendelstadt slapped his leg to indicate the balk, and clearly told Leyland "don't come out here" and Leyland did a 180 and went straight back to the dugout.

Textbook.

wait.... a balk was called in MLB baseball?????


...no wonder it's news

Is that what you meant? :p

It looked like a spin/no step pick to me, and I was 2828 miles away so did not see knee flinch.

I think Chris Hickman exactly understood my post. It's not the call, it's the way he handled the situation after the call. Wendlestedt acted like Leyland was coming out to argue balls & strikes. Unless the balk is obvious, managers/head coaches will generally come out to get an explanation.... if for nothing else, just to give his pitcher time to get himself back together.
Since Leyland already made his way out of the dugout, I was a little surprised at how aggressive Wendlestedt handled the situation (by not letting him to come out). Just an observation and opinion

I'm not sure it would have been a long term discussion (probably just a clarification) but never the less, if this is how balks are handled at the MLB level, I hope this mentality filters it's way down to the NCAA ranks. Personally, I agree that balks are pretty cut & dry (ie, no stop, no step, started and stopped, etc) and for the most part, shouldn't require a visit for explanation. Unfortuneately, the head coaches at the NCAA level don't necessarily see it that way.

At the NCAA level, I have called a balk for whatever reason, and the head coaches almost always come out on me for clarification. I will let them come and ask "What did he do?" Once that question is answered, that's pretty much the end of the conversation. Some times they'll try to prolong it, but it's my job as an umpire to get the game moving again, so that's what I do.

BTW- I've never told an NCAA coach, "Don't come out here." But I have said that to coaches and managers at lower levels.

MLB is different
 

Obviously Leyland understood and got all the info he needed. There is no need for a coach to argue or talk about a balk. I've always told F1 what he did and moved on.

A coach might ask what he did, but I'm not going to allow them to discuss it, there's nothing to discuss.

That's the way I"ve always handled it in my games college and HS. I'm sure there's even less to talk about at the MLB level.

Thanks
David

Enough said.

Bob

OTOH, I am enjoying the commentary of Piniella and Brennerman (sp?). Lou will/would make a good 'color' guy once his managing days are done.

Brennaman is almost as painful to listen to as McCarver. I will agree that Piniella actually does bring some very good insights to the broadcast, which is enlightening.

I didn't suprise me that Hunter cut him off. Several years ago, I went to a Rockies game in Denver. Hunter was the PU. He pulled the old "let's talk about the lineup card" gag with Clint Hurdle during the half inning (Hunter approached Clint instead of the other way around). Clint didn't play along has he threw up his arms and said a couple of words. I could tell Hunter was probably telling him to shut up about something (lineup card routine) but I really didn't know what it was. Anyway, Hurdle shut up, stayed in the game and things went on...


Lawrence

I noticed that Wendlestedt still uses the scissors stance (at least, I think that's what I saw). Old habits die hard, I guess.

It's a pretty relaxed scissors that keeps his head considerably higher than most guys who work the scissors. It's almost more of an EXTREME heel-toe stance (with a foot or so between the heel and the toe).

You say this as if there is something wrong with the stance. I thought he looked pretty sharp in it. I used the same exact "more relaxed scissors" type stance from around '93 to '04, and really liked it alot. If I go back to doing HS Varsity again next year, I think I will re-visit that stance.

It puts much less strain on the back, legs, and neck area than does the traditional, more upright scissors.

I've heard this stance referred to as "the Tank" before by some pro school grads. I never thought that sounded so good, so I never adopted that description.

Isn't there? As I understand it, MiLB has banned it, "relaxed" or otherwise. Do you suppose that was whimsy on their part? Arbitrary exercise of authority?

As for Wendelstedt's stance being "relaxed," I noticed that as well. For my part, a primary goal of a plate stance is to get my head in position to call the pitch. If the "relaxed" scissors raises my head (to eliminate neck strain), then it risks taking me out of position. Although I might be able to achieve some equilibrium point where my neck is not too strained and I'm not too out of position, this stance does not work for me.

Others, naturally, will do as they see fit.

IIRC, it was because their insurance company was pissed there were so many back/neck injuries because of it. Although I would think later on they will have quite a few knee claims from the box.

Given the long history of the "box" and stances similar, and the fact that more MLB umpires have employed that stance than the scissors, if it caused near as many problems as the scissors, you'd have heard about it before now.

I used various styles of "scissors" for many years, and had no physical discomfort or injury whatsoever. In fact, the stance provided relief for my back, which I have only found elsewhere in the GD stance, which I'm not all that crazy about.

I think you mean the "taint" - It taint the box and it taint the scissors. It's some variation (sp) of the two mixed together.

Yeah, I thought that might have been what they were saying, but I wasn't sure. I can't get my body into a traditional scissors because my back won't do that reverse "C" thing like the early Johnny Miller. This is my version:
http://123pichosting.com/images/6068Copy of 98.jpg

I've seen a lot of MLB umpires hiding behind the catcher lately, in any kind of stance (except Wally Bell's kneeling). The catcher moves for an outside pitch, there they go moving out there with him and hiding.

If I was getting the money they are, I'd be proudly set up in the slot, totally exposed and willing to take the shot. Besides, they are sitting behind professional catchers. These guys don't let the ball hit the umpire very often. Man, I'd be in the scissors and never flinch once if I had that luxury.

heh heh heh heh...He said "taint."

Fox lets Lyons go
 

Not sure if anyone was aware of the incident during Game 3. Here are the details.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

Thought Detroit fans would pause.

Wow, what a weak reason to get rid of Lyons. People need to lighten up a bit. It was a joke, for cryin' out loud! What a bunch of overly sensitive wusses at Fox.:mad: And he didn't even know that the guy in the stands was blind on that one, either. You can't say anything anymore without offending somebody somewhere. But insult fat people, oh, be my guest...open season 24/7.

People at Fox are "overly sensitive wusses?" Bill O'Rielly? Sean Hannity? The network of "fair and balanced" is overly sensitive. Oh, my.

Imagine firing someone who has a history of publicly insulting Jews for observing their religious holidays. I mean what the heck, it's not like they're Christians. Wow.

And he didn't know that kid was nearly blind. He just knew he was wearing really thick and strange glasses, so it was only natural to make fun of him. I mean, who wouldn't?

And now he's canned over a remark questioning the honesty of Latinos? Makes no sense. C'mon, everybody knows that Latinos can take a ribbing about stealing wallets.

And, not only all of this, but the poor schmuck get's fired before he got to his "A"material. Man. I'm tempted to write a very pointed letter to Fox. I still haven't heard his opinion of Black players or Italian players or Asian players yet.

Say, reminds me, stop me if you've heard this one....two Jews, a mentally retarded kid, a pregnant Latino and the emperor of Japan are in a row boat......

In all seriousness, Steve, the rules are different when one is broadcasting on the public airwaves.

I didn't expect you to agree. Fox's regular programming is totally liberal-biased, while their news network is conservatively-biased. I'm sorry, I missed the memo on who it was that publicly insulted Jews. I am a very pro-Israel Christian, as the Bible commands us to be, so I don't know anyone that is a true "Christian" who would dare say anything like that. Perhaps a Skinhead, or other such radical group, but not any mainstream Christians that I know of.

I don't have to be politically correct. I don't see things that way. If Pinella opened it up by speaking Spanish (which I speak fluently, as I have a Spanish Minor from SDSU) on an English speaking broadcast, in a country where English is the official language (at least the voters said so), then he is inviting comments, no matter how stupid or insensitive, from his colleagues.

They said that he butchered the Spanish language because of his conjugation of the word hablar, by saying "hablaing Espanol." Well, trust me, I live among many Mexican-Americans, and illegal aliens from Mexico, and they butcher both Spanish and English with regularity.

Can't Latinos take a ribbing about stealing wallets? It seems like Paul Rodriguez and Carlos Mencia constantly make stereotypical remarks about their own race in their "jokes." Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Red Foxx all made careers about poking fun at their own, and every other race under the sun. Oh, it's not funny if a white guy says it? Bullshizle.

You wouldn't be so cavalier about firing people if it was your butt on the line. You might think that leniency was in order, and just be given the chance to apologize on the air, and move on. I'm sure glad I don't work for you, or you would have to fire me every week.

It's not just Fox, how about CBS?

I was against the firing of Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder for his remarks about black athletes, which, while true, were deemed insensitive.

I was against the firing of Ben Wright for his remarks about females' breasts and their relationship to the golf swing, which, while true, were deemed insensitive.

I was against the firing of Gary McCord for his remarks about the greens at Augusta National being bikini waxed, while, while true, were deemed offensive to Hootie and the Blowhards at the Masters.

It is my opinion that the only two taboos in speech should be:

1) yelling "fire" in a crowded building, and

2) threatening any act of terrorism.

This is just my opinion, and not one bit of it was done with sarcasm.

But Steve, this harkens back to a recent thread which developed a discussion on freedom of speech. Fox Sports has every right to fire whomever
they choose, and to decide what comments are "inappropriate" when
broadcast on their network.

Absolutely. They have every right to fire whomever they choose. I just think they overreacted. Like I said, that's just my own opinion.

Steve, apparently you didn't read the last lines of my post...the only ones that were serious.

When broadcasting on the public airwaves, unlike joking around with the guy at the bar, you don't know your audience and the smart broadcasters understand this. Lyons did not. From insulting a Jewish ball player for observing the holidays to his remark about/to Pinella, who is partially of hispanic heritage, he was oafish and, as Fox decided, being inappropriate.

This has nothing to do with people not being willing to take a joke at their expense (many are not) and everything to do with not alienating the audience Fox is attempting to reach. This was a business decision, pure and simple.

As I tell coaches, "fair" has nothing to do with the rules. They are what they are and intelligent people understand that going in.

I had never heard about Lyons insulting a Jewish ball player about holiday observances. I would find that very offensive as well. If he has a pattern of insulting remarks, then perhaps Fox was justified. I do feel that Pinella opened himself up for remarks by speaking Spanish on an English speaking broadcast. If it had been Richard "Frenchy" Fuqua, speaking French, a surrender joke could well be in the offing. I didn't use the SAP function on my TV for a reason. I didn't hear Jose Mota speaking Spanish tonight.

I'm still trying to figure out the punch line.:D