Smittyisms

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

Do you realize you've made these comments to an employee of Major League Baseball? I watch games for a living. It's my job to pay attention to every pitch. It's my job to work closely with broadcast teams. It's my job to scrutinize every pitch and compare each location around the strike zone to what the PU is calling.

All I can say is the proof of what you say cannot be found in the pudding. MLU's are still calling individual strike zones. They're still rewarding pitchers. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays are still being called regularly. I know because I see it everyday.

You're comparing cheese and chalk. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays OUGHT to be allowed in pro ball because they are devices of self-preservation. Amateur codes penalize the offense (FPSR and MC rule) for doing what the pro game allows. There's no good reason to allow gross misses of tags of either a runner or a base in amateur codes. I'm with you on minor misses of the base on force plays; I'm with rei all the way on tags of the runner.

Interestingly, for all the sound and fury to the contrary regarding how our way will impede one's career, mine looks a lot like his. 20+ years, moved up to d3 ball several years ago, and the NCAA coaches whine about those calls a lot less than internet forums would have you believe.

[lawump]

This whole concept can be summed up as "making the expected call".

I'll give you an example from my minor league days:

I had a "whacker" at first base on an infield ground ball with two outs and multiple base runners (I was in "C").

The play was very, very close, and I was using very, very good timing (that is taking a long time) to make up my mind. Finally, I decided the runner was "safe". Before, saying "safe" or giving my mechanic, I noticed F3 throwing the ball back to the pitcher's mound (not to F1), the fielders trotting off the field, and the B/R taking off his helmet and batting gloves and with the first base coach waiting to take them back to the dugout.

Now what would you the base umpire do in this situation?

I think some posters in this thread would say: "You had a good long look at the play...you determined by examining all the evidence (watching the base, listening for the ball to hit the glove) that he was "safe", so call him "safe"."

Others, would do what I did: "He's out."

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by Publius

You're comparing cheese and chalk. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays OUGHT to be allowed in pro ball because they are devices of self-preservation. Amateur codes penalize the offense (FPSR and MC rule) for doing what the pro game allows. There's no good reason to allow gross misses of tags of either a runner or a base in amateur codes. I'm with you on minor misses of the base on force plays; I'm with rei all the way on tags of the runner.

Interestingly, for all the sound and fury to the contrary regarding how our way will impede one's career, mine looks a lot like his. 20+ years, moved up to d3 ball several years ago, and the NCAA coaches whine about those calls a lot less than internet forums would have you believe.

FPSR and MC rule still don't penalize a runner for sliding spikes first into an arm or ankle. Even at the NCAA and high school levels, there is still an element of self-preservation to those plays.

But that doesn't matter. I'm talking about an umpire making a call he thinks he sees when everyone (and I mean everyone) believes the exact opposite occurred. You can recognize when that happens. It is a technique that can be developed and honed for getting the call right -- not making the wrong call just because you think everyone isn't going to believe you.

[BretMan]

Interesting thread. It just so happens that I'm reading it as I'm watching a rare afternoon game, Chicago at Cleveland.

The White Sox had a runner on second who attempted a steal of third. The throw beat the runner by a wide margin. F5 had the glove down on the ground as the runner started his slide directly into the bag.

"Yes!", I'm thinking. "He's out by a mile!". (I'm an Indians fan.)

My, ummm, expectations were quickly quelched by a big safe signal from the third base umpire. Replays showed that the tag was missed, with the runner sliding about six inches to the side of the outstretched glove.

So I guess the Major League umpire making that call can expect his walking papers any day now?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Interesting thread. It just so happens that I'm reading it as I'm watching a rare afternoon game, Chicago at Cleveland.

The White Sox had a runner on second who attempted a steal of third. The throw beat the runner by a wide margin. F5 had the glove down on the ground as the runner started his slide directly into the bag.

"Yes!", I'm thinking. "He's out by a mile!". (I'm an Indians fan.)

My, ummm, expectations were quickly quelched by a big safe signal from the third base umpire. Replays showed that the tag was missed, with the runner sliding about six inches to the side of the outstretched glove.

So I guess the Major League umpire making that call can expect his walking papers any day now?

Did you actually read the thread? Seriously, you did not read this entire thread at all did you?

Not only might did the replay likely show what you suggested, but they are working 4 man mechanics. Every play at a based or a plate there is an umpire all over the damn play.

Peace

[jkumpire]

I was at that Sox-Indians game today, Section 153, Row Z, seat 9. That's about 20-25 rows from the field, on the 3B foul line, about half way up the line.

The guy from Chicago beat the throw to 3B, no matter what angle the TV monitor showed you on STO. It was an easy call for Tim Chetah, the 3B umpire to make. He stole the base on F1, Martinez would not have thrown him out if he had a cannon instead of an arm. I had him safe from my angle, and I had a great one to watch the play. The foot was on the back of the bag before Blake got the ball there. It was not a bad throw at all, but the expected call would be safe.

[BretMan]

That's not how it looked on the STO multiple replays, slow mo's and tight zooms.

They also showed Eric Wedge's perplexed and agitated reaction in the dugout. My impression was that the call didn't meet his expectations.

But, hey, you were there (lucky dog!), I wasn't, and as the spectators always let us know the view from the stands is always the best view in the house!

[jkumpire]

Sadly, STO had no camera view of the play from a 90 deg angle to the throw, and the 3B ump would block out the camera from the LF foul pole/line.

I had almost the same view as the Indians dugout would have seen it from, and Wedge was down 4 runs at the time, he wouldn't like anything but out in that case. To my eye it weas an easy safe call, the ball did not beat R2 to the bag by any margin for a tag to get down. I amy look at a game replay tonight or tomorrow to see what STO showed.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BretMan

So I guess the Major League umpire making that call can expect his walking papers any day now?

Why would you think that? I haven't read any post in this thread that recommended that an out call would be appropriate in the play you describe.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Interesting thread.

what's really interesting is the number of umpires who will argue for calling what is expected by players/coaches/and (heaven forbid) fans who will just as gleefully post in other topics how little the players/coaches/fans know about the rules and the functions of umpiring.

Originally Posted by Mike L

what's really interesting is the number of umpires who will argue for calling what is expected by players/coaches/and (heaven forbid) fans who will just as gleefully post in other topics how little the players/coaches/fans know about the rules and the functions of umpiring.

Indeed!!!

[JRutledge]

What is interesting how people on this board (usually newer) that take one comment from one situation and applying it to another situation that is not related to the original topic.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What is interesting how people on this board (usually newer) that take one comment from one situation and applying it to another situation that is not related to the original topic.

Peace

Indeed

[BretMan]

Yes, I really did read every post on this thread. Seriously!

Did you seriously not see the little blue smiley that, according to the tags, equates to "sarcasm"?

I don't post here often, but have read just about every thread on this board since I joined three years ago. If that makes me a "newbie"...then I guess I'm a newbie!

This isn't my first exposure to the whole "expected call" debate. Responses here ranged from "that's an out" to "that's not an out". Some say that there has been a big change in how MLB umpires make the "expected call", others claim it's business as usual. Both sides of the fence were pretty well covered.

And one post most certainly did imply that a professional umpire was dismissed for making a call other than the "expected" one.

Along the way, there was a dose of chest thumping and a dash of name calling. Which, of course, doesn't really prove that I read anything. That applies to most every other thread on the board.