McCarver's idea of a good call

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

So it's an established fact that most people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver? Hmmmmm, my research shows otherwise. Like I said, just Google "Tim McCarver is an idiot" and check out the many websites that contain those very words. Actually, many people, not just me, do not like them.

Slamalamadingdong

Once upon a time, Howard Cosell was both the "most liked" and "most disliked" announcer.

I do find it surprising that anyone takes it so seriously. :shrug:

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Once upon a time, Howard Cosell was both the "most liked" and "most disliked" announcer.

I do find it surprising that anyone takes it so seriously. :shrug:

Cosell was also "most watched".

[Interested Ump]

Hersh almost rehired him after Bennie fired him.

Denny was fun when he was smashed at 0300 and would throw on the lights to show us his "slip pitch"; He once called Tim (not Haag) " a stupid loser who had to pay (Carlton) to stay in the bigs." I often wished I had inquired further.

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And while I've got a harangue, Joe Buck must know better than to call a foul ball a foul tip. Tonight he said, "That's a foul tip" when the batter fouled the ball off the edge of the catcher's mitt to the ground. I don't mind when they say "foul tipped in and out of the glove" or something similar, but to come right out and declare it to be a "foul tip" when it's not is just an unacceptable practice.

Why couldn't Buck just call it a foul ball, or explain what a foul tip really is? I'm sure he knows better. He could actually educate the uneducated fans out there instead of perpetuating their ignorance of the rules.

Steve, bad hair night?

Step back for a minute, read this post of yours. It is much to do about so little of importance. Joe Buck is not gainfully employed to educate, he is a performer. Television spectators do not slip into their easy chairs to watch a World Series ballgame for academic purposes. If you watch professional baseball on television with scrupulous attention to sportscasting detail, you have missed the elephants watching the ants go by.

As umpires, I would firmly suggest that we make higher quality representations of ourselves. We might best serve officiating and the game not by extended, microscopic criticism of broadcast performers but by acknowledging their mistakes with tolerance for their first job requirement.

Entertainment.

Would you (we) not have more influence if your tone is less sharp and the subject less mauled? I believe so.



Surely, a pointed but understated comment would do more than

[greymule]

It's true that the announcers are entertainers first and rules experts probably last. Many of the announcers are living proof (if any proof were needed) that in general players know little more than the average fan—maybe.

If MLB thought that hiring Britney Spears to announce the games would increase the TV audience, they'd put her behind the microphone. (I admit I'm assuming that Ms. Spears is not a rules expert. Maybe she is. And if they ever did hire her, I suspect they would insist that her wardrobe be . . . uh . . . "complete" for on-field interviews after the game.)

But as umpires we have to live with the nonsense spouted back to us by the coaches who get their "expertise" from watching TV. When an announcer says (as I heard three years ago), "As long as the batter is in the running lane, that fielder [with the ball] must stay out of his way, or it's interference," we live with the consequences. Further, while I don't really expect the announcers to know all the fine points, they ought to know the difference between interference and obstruction, and they ought to know what to call a foul tip.

And why isn't that term renamed, anyway? How many times have we had to explain to a coach that a foul tip is not a foul ball? How about a "bat tip" or something else that doesn't have "foul" in it?

[UmpLarryJohnson]

--tipped strike--