Umpiring in MLB
 

Was reading on ESPN website and came across this poll in article about Bonds poor image and the decline in popularity of baseball in general.


13. How would you rate the overall quality of the umpires in Major League Baseball today? (Results from October 2005 in parentheses)
--Excellent, 22 percent (24)
--Good, 57 percent (56)
--Only fair, 14 percent (17)
--Poor, 4 percent (1)
--Not sure, 3 percent (2)
TOTAL EXCELLENT/GOOD -- 79 percent (80)
TOTAL FAIR/POOR -- 19 percent (18)

Source: AP-AOL Sports poll

IMO it shows that TV (replay, announcers etc) are affecting the opinion of umpires. Only 22 percent think its excellent???

I know there are some, but as a whole they are the best.

Thanks
David

Decline in popularity? I believe the Majors and Minors both set new attendance record.

As for the umpires. Unfortunately, the great unwashed American baseball fan believes the "Boob in the Booth" know more about the rules than the umpires. If the commentatators took a rules test, I doubt if any would score higher than 10%. None that I've ever heard knows what a "foul Tip" is. My favorites are, "The umpire wa**** by the foul tip", and "The foul tip went all the way to the backstop". Even Vin Scully, who's been announcing for over 50 years, doesn't know.

Bob

Decline in popularity? I believe the Majors and Minors both set new attendance record.

As for the umpires. Unfortunately, the great unwashed American baseball fan believes the "Boobs in the Booth" know more about the rules than the umpires. If the commentatators took a rules test, I doubt if any would score higher than 10%. None that I've ever heard knows what a "foul Tip" is. My favorites are, "The umpire was hit by the foul tip", and "The foul tip went all the way to the backstop". Even Vin Scully, who's been announcing for over 50 years, doesn't know.

**I tried to delete the previous post, because I ran two words together, and they were censored.

Bob

You can't equate attendance with popularity. How many of the 76 million plus that MLB asserts attended MLB games this year actually attended and sat in a seat (vs. buying a ticket)? How many of those 76 million were the same people who bought multiple game or season tickets?

A better measure for popularity is how much TV networks are paying for MLB coverage vs. other sports.

Now that I think of it, it does seems like in the past few years announcers have been talking and explaining how they think the umpires manual is read.

Couple of factors (IMO):

1. The public has, by and large, accepted the presence of replay review in football and cannot or will not understand why baseball isn't following suit.

2. "knowing the rules of baseball" is something that every American assumes is ingrained by DNA, and it is an affront to man (woman)hood if they are proven wrong. The same people who will patiently listen to explanations of arcane football rules with an open mind will be greatly offended if their cherished (false) notions about baseball rules are exposed.


No other sport is quite like this. Just like that great "That's such a balk!" Bud commercial clip..."ummmm...well. There's a pitcher, see? ..and....a runner....ummmmm" :D

Illustration of point #1:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1325768.php

"Managers would get two challenges per game - just as coaches get in the NFL - and the only plays they could argue are ones that don't require an umpire's judgment: out or safe, fair or foul, home run or not."You know, when your going to present an argument for replay, choose one that has some meat to it. The author of this article establishes criteria for the use of replay and then offers 3 situations that don't meet his criteria.

1. The third strike call would still be holding the game up to this day because it WAS NOT conclusive as to wether it was a clean catch or not. And a GOOD catcher, would have thrown the ball to first.

2. Both of the other calls were judgements calls.

I have no problem with introducing replay into to the game, considering what is at stake and the monetary compensations and rewards. However it needs a lot better argment than this.

Managers would get two challenges per game - just as coaches get in the NFL - and the only plays they could argue are ones that don't require an umpire's judgment: out or safe, fair or foul, home run or not.


Aren't those judgement calls?

Fair/foul is not.

How does fair/foul differ from out/safe in judgement?

It eaither is or isn't. The umpire(s) may not see the result, but the result is there (ball hit the chalk line, top of the wall, etc). If a ball is called one way, and replay "indisputably" (gotta love that word) shows that it was the opposite, then there's no judgment.

Tennis uses this stuff to see if a ball is in/out on the lines...same concept.

Out/safe is a bit more of a reach from fair/foul, but that is more of a technological issue IMO (camera angles n such).

Do not misread me - I am NOT a replay advocate. But I am also realistic, and think that LIMITED replay will eventually come to MLB in some form..and the most logical place first, is on fair/foul calls.

I'm sorry to disagree, but reality requires it.

Fair/foul decisions are judgement calls.

LMan, I think I understand the point that you're trying to make, but fair/foul is a judgment call. The contrast class is a rules question: for example, a coach can protest a game over a rules question but not over a judgment call. Your judgments on ball/strike, fair/foul, and safe/out -- however good or bad -- are not protestable.

The ease of the replay does not make it more or less of a judgement call. Either I judged it landed on the fair side of the line or the foul side of the line....still judgement.

I am against replay also, I think it makes officials try to take the easy way out of things. "What can i call that wont look really bad if it is overturned." It happens in the NFL all the time.

I think the "Baseball Establishment" is strong enough to keep replay out of the game....they have kept the DH out of the NL for this long, keeping replay out should be easy.