Mets / Braves - Top 5th

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by fitump56

To Old Guard:

Don't ever tell me agian that Replay doesn't have a place in baseball.

On such plays, no, it doesn't have a place in baseball. This was a rather stupid example for you to cite. A better example would have been a ball that goes around the foul pole and was incorrectly called.

[cookie]

A question on mechanics with reference to this play:

Did the U3 (Dreckman) ask for help and therefore, there was a conference that ultimately led to a reversal of the call?

OR did the crew chief (I believe Davis) on his own call for a conference, and that ultimately led to the reversal (Dreckman changing his call)?

The report I read in the paper indicated that Davis called for a conference among the umpires first. If it did occur this way, is this an acceptable procedure for umpire crew (whether 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, or 6-man) to at least start a discussion?

[lawump]

Gentlemen,

Correct me if I'm wrong: But if I'm not mistaken precedent was set two seasons ago when a crew changed a "foul" call to "fair" (NOT on a homerun or ground rule double).

Up until that point, we had had reversals of "fair" to "foul" (which are easy to do because all the umps have to do is put everyone back to their TOP base and add a "strike" on the batter's count).

But I believe this play was the first time we had the opposite: A "foul" changed to "fair" (when the ball did not leave the playing field), all pursuant to the "get it right" mantra.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves me correct, this was a big to-do two seasons ago.

If my memory IS correct...then I believe that game truly serves as the precedent in which MLB umpires told the world that, "we're gonna get it right...no matter what".

[mattmets]

Indeed it happened in 2006, involving Randy Marsh, the Mets, and the Phillies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/sp...ll/29mets.html

[jkumpire]

Men,

Personally I thought the cat was out of the bag with the disputed run in the Baltimore-Cleveland game last year. Now it is get it right, no matter how many innings later....

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by lawump

Gentlemen,

Correct me if I'm wrong: But if I'm not mistaken precedent was set two seasons ago when a crew changed a "foul" call to "fair" (NOT on a homerun or ground rule double).

Up until that point, we had had reversals of "fair" to "foul" (which are easy to do because all the umps have to do is put everyone back to their TOP base and add a "strike" on the batter's count).

But I believe this play was the first time we had the opposite: A "foul" changed to "fair" (when the ball did not leave the playing field), all pursuant to the "get it right" mantra.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves me correct, this was a big to-do two seasons ago.

If my memory IS correct...then I believe that game truly serves as the precedent in which MLB umpires told the world that, "we're gonna get it right...no matter what".

I have your back on this lawump, one more reason that Replay is on its way in and Old Guard on their wau O-U-T

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

are you seriously a fan of replay on stuff like this? I hear your argument but I don't think that replay is applicable on plays like this. That takes the human element out of the game. The human element is very much needed in baseball umpiring. Perhaps more than any other sport, IMO.

That seems to be the argument "taking out the human element of the game" but the game should not be decided if there is technology to fix things.

All other major sports have replay. Also, the NCAA uses replay for basketball / football

Let's take last night's NCAA Championship game between Memphis and Kansas.

Rose the Memphis point guard hit an incredible shot as time was expiring. He was originally credited with a 3 point field goal.

However, later on the play was reviewed and changed to a 2 point field goal (the proper ruling because Rose when he took the shot had one foot inside the 3 point circle)

The game eventually went into over-time. Had that call not been reversed Memphis might have won the game by that 1 point.

Personally I do not understand most people not wanting replay in baseball. The game has changed from what it was in the so called "glory days" so IMO it's time to add IR to baseball.

IMO, it will not add time because the umpires already huddle and discuss.

Pete Booth

[lawump]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

Personally I do not understand most people not wanting replay in baseball. The game has changed from what it was in the so called "glory days" so IMO it's time to add IR to baseball.

IMO, it will not add time because the umpires already huddle and discuss.

Pete Booth

Since, its been implied by a certain poster that I'm in some "new guard", I'll post my 2-cents:

I'm in favor of replay in some form for plays that don't require the umpires to have ask one another in their huddle, "now that we reversed the call...what would have happened had we called it right originally?"

For example: It is very easy to change a "fair" call to "foul" after the play is over if one is using replay. Just put all the runners on their TOP base and the batter back at-bat with a "strike" added to his count.

However, if the umpires were to change a "foul" call (hit down the line (but NOT over the outfield fence) ) to "fair" via replay...they now have to play GOD to determine "what would've happened". That, IMO, should not be allowed under a replay system.

[David B]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

That seems to be the argument "taking out the human element of the game" but the game should not be decided if there is technology to fix things.

All other major sports have replay. Also, the NCAA uses replay for basketball / football

Let's take last night's NCAA Championship game between Memphis and Kansas.

Rose the Memphis point guard hit an incredible shot as time was expiring. He was originally credited with a 3 point field goal.

However, later on the play was reviewed and changed to a 2 point field goal (the proper ruling because Rose when he took the shot had one foot inside the 3 point circle)

The game eventually went into over-time. Had that call not been reversed Memphis might have won the game by that 1 point.

Personally I do not understand most people not wanting replay in baseball. The game has changed from what it was in the so called "glory days" so IMO it's time to add IR to baseball.

IMO, it will not add time because the umpires already huddle and discuss.

Pete Booth

Pete I see your point, but you're not comparing apples to apples. In basketball the change from a 3 to a two is done often without replay.

One official signals three, the other has two and changes. Even the use of the replay didn't affect any of the playing action.

In baseball so much of the playing action hinges on the call that is made at that time - a catch, missed ball, fair/foul etc.,

Watching the game unfold the other day at Atlanta was bad, it looked bad, and all of the players were speechless.

As mentioned, even Bobby "eject" Cox had nothing to say bad about the call or the umpires.

Thanks
David

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

are you seriously a fan of replay on stuff like this?

Very seriously and IU, myself and others have chimed in with specific prposals when to and not to use it.

I hear your argument but I don't think that replay is applicable on plays like this. That takes the human element out of the game. The human element is very much needed in baseball umpiring. Perhaps more than any other sport, IMO.

The human element, if meant to mean mistakes that could be undone with using technology, you can have it. I'm for calling the game so that thbest team wins and officiating mistakes are minimized.

and who is this "old guard" you keep speaking of? i think all of us that are out there for the betterment of umpiring everywhere are really on the same team and are not divided up by "old guard" and whoever their archrival is. (?New Guard?)

Here's a wake up call. You're dreaming. Or your MITB has gone terminal.

These statements are growing old. Seriously just comment on the situation and say what your opinion is. Don't label or stereotype people the way you are.

Youth grows old, one day you will wake up and:

1) When a DR tells you to rest, yo will rest
2) You will listen instead of buying junk protecive gear and endangering your health
3) You will clearly recognize the Old Guard because you will see them as you or not you.

Love,
The Deej "new Guardian"

"New Guardian Rules

We don't attack or diminish the youth
We don't take anything at face value without constant (re)inspection
We do assume everything can be changed since all comes from hoomans
We do expect that there will be resistance
We don't dribble in our cups like the Old Guard.

[lawump]

This whole thread needs RIGHT GUARD (tm) because something stinks.

[David B]

Originally Posted by cookie

A question on mechanics with reference to this play:

Did the U3 (Dreckman) ask for help and therefore, there was a conference that ultimately led to a reversal of the call?

OR did the crew chief (I believe Davis) on his own call for a conference, and that ultimately led to the reversal (Dreckman changing his call)?

The report I read in the paper indicated that Davis called for a conference among the umpires first. If it did occur this way, is this an acceptable procedure for umpire crew (whether 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, or 6-man) to at least start a discussion?

I was watching the game and never did understand the mechanics. If U3 was unsure he should have looked to U2 who had a much better view of the play.

But upon watching the replay U2 was acting like he did not see anything.

The other thing from what I saw is that U3 was surprised by the catch attempt and did not go out hardly at all which put him in a straighline since the F8 was coming right at him.

But once U3 asked for help I'm sure that U2 and U1 both had seen the no catch.

I can understand the award of one base, but since the passing of runner is a live ball play, (ball is not dead) then he could have been called out.

Shortly after this PU missed a close pitch and allowed Hudson to vent and Cox. I thought that was unusual but I'm sure they all felt like they had enough egg on their faces.

thanks
David

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by David B

Shortly after this PU missed a close pitch and allowed Hudson to vent and Cox.

How does one "vent and Cox?"

Never mind. I don't want to know.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by David B

But upon watching the replay U2 was acting like he did not see anything.

That would be Brian Gorman, who acts that way all the time. Hustle is not in his vocabulary.

(Note: In a 4-man crew it's not the second base umpire's call on such a fly ball when U2 is in the infield. My lack of hustle comment refers to the many times I've seen Gorman look totally lazy out there.)

[Dakota]

PMFBI... As a fan of MLB, I disagree strongly that replay should be used. I also do not like the use of the QuesTec for controlling the strike zone.

One of the reasons (IMO) baseball is such a good game is due to the officiating by completely human umpires, including their skills and their approaches to the game.

If using technology to call the "perfect" game was such a good thing, why did Curt Schilling take a bat to one of the QuesTec cameras recently?