McCarver's idea of a good call

[SanDiegoSteve]

Tim just said that Laz Diaz' call was a good call since Lugo was out of the batter's box when the bunted ball hit him. Lugo's front foot had yet to touch the ground when the ball bounced off his leg. He should have called it foul, but he called Lugo out for getting hit out of the box. Bad call.

[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.

[bobbybanaduck]

more mccarver...in one word he continued to show how much of a moron he is.

"changeup"

after okajima threw a nice 11-5 sweeping curve.

good work, tim.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

more mccarver...in one word he continued to show how much of a moron he is.

"changeup"

after okajima threw a nice 11-5 sweeping curve.

good work, tim.

He can't read Matsuzaka's pitches either. Threw a nifty 87 mph slider in the ALCS. McCarver: "That's a wicked changeup!"

[David Emerling]

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.

This type of criticism, in my opinion, is unfounded. Everybody watching the game knew exactly what Joe Buck was talking about when he used the term "foul tip."

It just so happens, from an umpire's perspective, the term "foul tip" has a certain, important, meaning.

I'm quite certain that Joe Buck understands the "rule."

If you think about it, the very term "foul tip" is a horrible description from what we, as umpires, understand it to be. Why use the word "foul" when the ball is not foul? It's a bad term that leads to some minor misuses.

Big deal.

I don't think any less of Joe Buck as a result - and neither should you or the viewers.

I knew what he meant - and so did you.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I'm quite certain that Joe Buck understands the "rule."

Really? I'm not quite certain. Joe Buck (AKA Dumb) and his partner (AKA Dumber) have shown time and again that they don't understand a great many of the rules.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Big deal.

It is a big deal. There are other ways to state it, such as "foul ball."

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I don't think any less of Joe Buck as a result - and neither should you or the viewers.

You're right. I coudn't think any less of Joe Buck than I already do. His father was a great announcer. There is not much resemblence.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I knew what he meant - and so did you.

You and I and the other umpires around the world knew, but some fans will think that it is a foul tip when the catcher drops the sharp, direct foul. Some of these same fans will be screaming at their local umpires as a result. That's what makes it unacceptable.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Joe Buck (AKA Dumb) and his partner (AKA Dumber) have shown time and again that they don't understand a great many of the rules.

Apparently your negative assessment of their commentating abilities has completely eluded the networks since Joe Buck and Tim McCarver do an incredible amount of broadcasting. You should know that networks only care about one thing - RATINGS.

Believe me, if the networks thought, for one second, that they would be losing viewers simply because of their selection of announcers - they would have different announcers.

The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. Personally, I think they do a pretty good job even though they may not know the rulebook as well as most of us. Substantively, it does not take away from their body of work.

I dare say that we (as umpires) know even less about how to succeed as a sports commentator.

We are not the "typical" fan when watching a game.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[UMP25]

I highly doubt the network's announcers will have any real impact upon the ratings.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

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

[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--

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Tim just said that Laz Diaz' call was a good call since Lugo was out of the batter's box when the bunted ball hit him. Lugo's front foot had yet to touch the ground when the ball bounced off his leg. He should have called it foul, but he called Lugo out for getting hit out of the box. Bad call.

Is this a kind of passion, to point out that T-Mac is an idiot? Fish-barrel-shoot? He's a self-absorbed slobbolla and has been since hde was banging cheerleaders at CBHS.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Is this a kind of passion, to point out that T-Mac is an idiot? Fish-barrel-shoot? He's a self-absorbed slobbolla and has been since hde was banging cheerleaders at CBHS.

We will duly note that you do not like Tim McCarver.
Feel better?