Yanks/Tribe...Did it hit the bat?...commentator comments?
 

I had a foul ball here...what did the rest of you have prior to the replays. Also...am I correct in hearing one of the commentators say that if he wasn't offering at the pitch and it hit him in the hand...that would make a difference?? I don't think that was a correct statement...are we surprised?

I was just waiting for "hands are part of the bat" to come out. haha!

Looked to me like it hit the hand, then the bat. However this was a VERY close call.

Hmmm......

To me, it seemed obvious watching live that the pitch hit the bat, not the batter's hand(s). I found the video conclusive that it was so. But, that's just how I saw it.

I found it kind of funny that they brought in the LF & RF Umps in for the ensuing confab.

Ohhh,

And how about the CI that Matsui is claiming?

JM

good point...the LF and RF umpires chiming in on that one...great...now that's two more umpires that the coach can say..."hey, ask your partner..."I don't think I'll ever work a game that has 6 umps...so I won't have to worry about it...I suppose it's something to do with it being a "crew" conversation...Tough call for the PU...I don't think either team could've argued too much either way. No breaks for the pin stripes as of yet...

What is incorrect about the statement?
If the batter swings at a pitch and the ball hits his hand it is a strike.

If he tries to bunt the ball and the ball hits his hand it is a strike.

If he pulls back from the pitch and the ball hits his hand it is a hit batsman.
And the replays clearly showed that is just what happened.

Obviously after all 6 umpires chimed in none saw any evidence that the batter was in the act of swinging at the ball.

T

I see what you're saying...and that makes sense...I was looking at it as "the hands are part of the bat" argument...which obviously is wrong...your post makes more sense.

If he wasn't swinging and the pitch hit his hand first then yes, it makes a difference.

From the replay he was clearly not swinging (offering) so the question is whether it hit hand first or bat first.

Watching it live I thought it hit his bat, but looking at the replay I appears it got his hand. I think they got it right...

Not convinced 100% on that one. It does appear they got it right - too close for slow mo to pick up on the angles they showed -so I'll go with it. I had a foul ball to start with.

On the CI - Matsui clearly hit the mitt - I thought it was obvious in the replay.

I thought it hit his hand. The sound it made was that sickening bone sound more than a wood sound. His hand was also reddened when they showed the close up. I only saw a couple of replays.

He definitely did not offer at the pitch, which is what I thought the argument was about to begin with. I didn't even question whether he was hit or not.

I say that they made the right call. Hit batsman awarded first base.

I thought without question it hit the bat. But that was after the super slow-motion replay that I saw about 5 times before I was sure. That does not mean I am right, but that is what I saw. And the sound of the bat would have likely made me think the bat was hit and not his hand.

Peace

Sounded like hand to me. But I only heard it live and then once on replay. I could be wrong.

The bottom line is that the umpires had one shot at it and ruled the way they did. They don't go watch slo-mo replays thankfully.

Based on the replay, his hand did not look like it was that close to where the ball hit the bat. Without a doubt the ball at some point hit the bat. That was obvious in the replay, but I think the hand could have been hit first. I think it would have been a stretch to say it hit the hand. Then again I have a HDTV and the replay was very good for this play.

Peace

I have no idea how they ruled on the field, nor do I care, but didn't someone here once post a story about how one of the umpire school instructors interrupted a question with the blanket, "It hit the hand first."?

You're a genius. When an announcer is right, and you're not, hang em up.

And what is wrong with going to slo-mo replays

I find it a paradox.

There is the motto "get the call right" yet baseball refuses to use the technology available to Get the call right.

Some say that IR will add time to games that are already lasting 3.5 - 4 hours long. When the umpires "huddle" also takes time. Why "huddle" when you can go to the Replay.

We do not know what would have happened but in last nights game 2 calls would have been over-turned if replay were used.

The Matsui CI and Mussina CLEARLY touching the bag before the runner. (BTW Gerry Davis made the call against the Yanks again)

The tradition of baseball went out years ago. The DH Rule, lowering of the mound ,smaller ball-parks, Wild card Teams, Inter-League play to name a few.

Every major sport has replay even Tennis for God's sake so I do not know what the problem is. At least experiment with it in Spring Training.

Pete Booth

blah mr Pete the homer :rolleyes:



mr Davis is now on my Xmas card list!!! :cool:

Larry, unfortunately I am a MET Fan not a Yankee fan. I was rooting for the Indians.

I just found it quite interesting that Gerry Davis was behind yet another blown call against the Yankees which pompted my response.

Each team got hosed. Mencavich clearly Offered at the Pitch which would have been Strike 3. Mencavich proceeded to walk. Perhaps Bruce was thinking about his retirement. A CLEAR CI on Matsui and Mussina CLEARLY touched the bag before Seizemore.

All in all not a good day for the men in blue or I should say Black

Pete Booth

I wasn't very happy about the hit batsmen call on the bunt. I'm surprised that no one has yet to bring up a very obvious point. I have read here and been told that if you have a doubt about a hit batsmen on a play like that one last night, to just watch the BR reaction. Watch the play again and watch the BR reaction right after the supposed hit batsmen. The BR gets up, calmly strolls over to get his helmet and bat. He had absolutely zero reaction to supposedly taking a 90 mph fast ball off the back of the hand. He didn't wince, grab the hand or try to shake it off.

The BR reaction told me all I needed to know. If that ball hits him and then the bat, his face is going to show it, he's going to instinctively grab his hand, he'll do something to indicate that he just took a fastball off the hand. Yet Culbreath et. all missed that entirely. The BR told you by his reaction that he didn't get hit and not one MLB umpire thought to look for it. Amazing!

I kinda surprised that Culbreath missed the CI on Matsui as well. I listened carefully to th full speed replay to listen for the telltale sound. It was there for all to hear. That coupled with the catchers glove pointing at the pitcher (because it was hit) and the trajectory of the ball, should have made that an easy call.

I also have no idea what Froemming was looking at on that check swing. Doug so offered at the pitch, it wasn't even really close.

its true that mr Davis hosed that call at first no q about it--guess he should give mr Denkinger a call :p

Bruce may have been preoccupied with that nightmare he's been having about retirement. The one where he's lying on the beach in Hawaii and Greenpeace keeps trying drag him back in the water.

Classy. Real classy.

Thank you. Thank you.

I'm here all week.

I know that Mick or Bob is gonna get rid of this, but it's just soooooo appropriate.:D
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Animal/whale.jpg

Yes, they should get rid of that. It's much more like a manatee...

I'm just so happy we no longer have to hear from the absolute worst broadcast team in baseball, John Sterling and his sidekick Susan. What a pair of homer spin doctors. Thuuuuuuuu Yankees lose.

"Listen to the sounds, watch no lips".

Clearly and my opinion is that one more play under instant replay/review would have been overturned. Three critical calls that had important and significant influence on the outcome.

Mr. Booth, MLB does not want instant replay. They have chosen specific technological implementations. Those decisions were affected because MLB believed them beneficial to their profitability.

MLB does not want its MLB umpires open to the type of scrutiny that instant replay/review will expose them. MLB umpires have proven time and time again that they are not ready to have professional standards publicly applied to their performances.

Give it a rest.

MLB umpires are already under the microscope of instant replay and have been for 40 years....and need not apologize to anyone. The calls are nearly always correct.

And MLB already has the technology to make every call on the strike zone perfectly. It is currently used as a tool to make the strike zone more consistent among all umpires.


But, in the interest of never making a mistake, let's turn the game over to technology.

Let's start with the strike zone and have every ball not hit judged by the computer. A series of lights, red for strikes and green for balls, could flash around the diamond and the stadium so the players and the fans could keep track of the count. The plate umpire, no longer burdened by a protector, shin guards, padded shoes and a mask could stand opposite the swing pattern of the batter and watch for half swings, foul tips, hit batsmen, catcher interference, dropped balls by the catcher, etc. He would be close to cover plays at the plate, make sure the plate was clean, throw in new balls and make the necessary scorecard changes.

The same would hold true on the bases. Umpires would no longer need to worry about close plays, a tv replay will make the call. They still would be needed to watch out for obstruction, interference, call the infield fly rule, time the interval between innings, look out for balks, whether the pitcher went to his mouth, and so on.

This would mean MLB no longer needs seasoned veterans who spend 20 years in the minors. Think of the money it can save on salaries for arbiters who no longer have to hustle to get into position. Sure they have to be students of the rules, but Wal-Mart greeters can do that.

Who cares if a rash of close plays slows down the game, after all we want to make sure every call is dead on,right? If tv can't tell, flip a coin. Thoese types of plays always even out, right?

Besides, the time lost on reviewing close plays will be offset by no more of those disgusting arguments between a manager and an umpire.

Just think, under this arrangement Bruce Froemming could umpire for another 30 years.

Which, of course, begs the question, why would he want to?

Absurd
 

I find it utterly ridiculous in your comments about professional standards and the MLB Umpires not being up to them. Just wondering how many games you have done iinfront of 50,000 people and every available angle covered by TV. Not to mention the speed of the game.There is always going to be the human element in the game. But what ever your personal feelings toward them, they are the best at what they do, and they are there based on their ability.There are a lot of guys on this site that are in AA or AAA. Ask them the difference in the game as they move up each level. Then think about your comments the next time you are out on the field working what ever level you work.

Football officials have done games in front of way more than 50,000 people in attendance and , yet the NFL and NCAA has Replay

You said it yourself it's because of the speed of the game.

There is always going to be the human element in the game, but if the ball is truly not a HR or vice versa and there is technology to correct it why not use it.

IMO, it's a Cop out. As mentioned Football / Basketball Officials are the best at what they do but Replay is used. IMO baseball should be no different.

Pete Booth

Ahhhh, but it is. And for many, that's part of its charm.

Then I assume you have no problem with replacing the home plate umpire's duties of calling ball and strikes by using the computer, instead?

After all, MLB has the technology to get every call right, and there would be no delay in the game.

No one at least not I is talking about balls / strikes. According to Bud every Park next year will have queztech in which to evaluate the Home plate umpire.

I am talking about a BIG play ala a HR which IMO is where MLB should FIRST address the replay issue. It's similar to a TD pass in football which is a BIG play.

As far as the "other" type plays that area would be phased in. Perhaps a challenge type system which the NFL has or something along those lines. The BIG question to address would be what type of penalty would you give the manager if his challenge is unsuccessful.

Replay doesn't seem to affect the integrity of the Football officials so why should it effect major league baseball umpires.

Bottom Line: The ONLY area that baseball will probably adopt Replay is on Fair / Foul on a HR or whether or not the ball is truly a HR or book rule double. Also, if a FAN interfered with ball in the field of play or not.


Pete Booth

Basketball and Football are very different. And everything in both sports is not reviewable. In basketball they do not review fouls and violations. And if there was replay in baseball, I doubt this play would be reviewed and it was not conclusive either.

Peace

If you refuse to use the technology that exists to be error free in calling balls and strikes, why use it anywhere else? Nothing happens without a pitcher and a batter and if there is not a consistent strike zone then someone is getting hosed.

Only a few games have disputed home runs and fan intereference, but every game has disputes about balls and strikes.

Don Quixote: Dost not see? A monstrous giant of infamous repute whom I intend to encounter.

Sancho Panza: It's a windmill.

Reflexive, overexaggerative response, no reply to it needed.

The plain facts are that MLB has plays where the correct call could be made with an instant replay/review and MLB refuses to implement the technologies.

As many as you have. I suppose that means we shouldn't speak this subject then?


Absolutely, unequivocally not. The ascension to MLB umpire is not solely performance based by any review imaginable.

90% is under 35 adult baseball comprised of former talented HS, collegiate, minor and major league players. Many of the umpires are former A, AA, AAA, D1 and HS. To a one, we agree on the lack of professional qualities in MLB umpires especially when compared to other sports, futbol in particular.

The most glaring example is the complete disregard for the continued testing and associated courseware that is not required to keep their MLB status.

None. Just limit the challenges.

I see the possibilities on a catch/no catch scenario. Wouldn't it be great if a BU could make a call on a diving fly ball then huddle with PU to see if a request to review is appropriate (catch no catch)?

All or nothing? :D No need for that.

And there are plenty of other plays where instant replay is of no value.
The Padres/Rockies the most recent and obvious.

So you are left with the umpires.

And they are pretty damn good.

Met's, Yankees, either way you would be dissapointed. However, the Mets losing the lead they had is historic and a bigger deal than the Yankees coming from a way back W-L record to make the playoffs.

I guess George will fire Joe and hire Willie (another Yankee) and that will make no sense at all.

Not to mention that if they replaced the umpires with machines they would be smashed with baseball bats inside a week.

I would like to see how technology ejects angry managers.:confused:

Willie just doesn't look "right" in a Mets uniform anyhow.

I see a lot of emotion in the above; I read no content or argument that would disallow any serious consideration of Instant Reply/Review to be used in MLB.

Nice rant!

http://tinyurl.com/3awsmz

The argument that it's "all or nothing" is invalid, let's move on.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I would never suggest that you shoudn't speak out. My point was, and I think validated by you, was that you have not worked in an arena anywhere close to Professional Baseball. That is not to insult you or demean you. But you are offering an opinion based on no experience of what it takes to do that job. Much like sports radio callers, you are talking from what you think, not what is based on facts. I know many guys who work in the over 30 Lgs who feel your way. But the bottom line is you have no clue what working in Pro Ball every night is like

I agree completely with the bolded part of this statement.

Thank you for your opinions on this subject.