What is going on with ML baseball umpires

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If the runner turns toward second base (and I don't mean just turns to the left and comes back, which of course is perfectly fine) thinking the ball is overthrown and with every intention of going to 2nd, and then decides to come back to 1st base, only after he sees the ball fielded cleanly, then he did not immediately return to the base, as per 7.08 (c).

That is, of course, your judgment, but a ridiculously technical and extremely overly literal interpretation of the rule, and one that Meals didn't use to make the call. He banged Upton because of the so-called and nonexistent attempt he made toward second.

It's obvious that you think that everything in B&W in the book is to be interpreted literally. That is a dangerous and incorrect approach, especially because there is archaic language in OBR that is not to be taken literally.

I don't care if the runner stops to adjust his helmet, or his wrist bands or something and then returns to the base. That's fine. But stopping to see the disposition of the ball after turning towards second? You're okay with that? You are in the minority here.

Who knows, maybe your "friends" are wrong too.

Batter-runners can stop and see the disposition of the ball without penalty because it depends on what they do. Intent is to be considered when any kind of an "attempt" is made toward second. Too many here are taking the Little League approach to this rule. It's unnecessary.

[SanDiegoSteve]

This describes what I'm trying to say:

From Jaksa/Roder:

2. A Batter-Runner over-running first base who subsequently takes a single step (or steps) toward second base with intent to advance is no longer over-running and can be tagged out while off base. Simply turning toward second base after over-running first does not necessarily show an attempt to advance.

e.g.; A third baseman fields a grounder but throws errantly past first base. The Batter-Runner pivots toward second and commits one step in that direction before realizing the errant throw has been backed up by the catcher. He chooses to walk back to first: such B/R has shown intent to advance and is out if tagged off base.

Jim Evans also says that there is no penalty for turning left, provided the runner immediately returns to the base. If the runner stands around deciding whether or not to run constitutes an attempt. That's why the rules and interpretations say that the runner overrunning first must immediately return to the base. What part of "immediately" is unclear here? Do you think the word is just placed in the rule arbitrarily? Words mean things, and in this case the word "immediately" clearly suggests that you can't stand there for several seconds deciding your next move. Either take off for second, or return immediately to first.

Personally, I've never had any trouble distinguishing an attempt from an immediate return. And considering that less than 5% of the games I worked were of the Little League variety, I don't think I used a "Little League" approach.

[UMP25]

Your citation above contradicts what you had said earlier, which doesn't help your case. I have always looked at a batter-runner's intent, which is why I've never called him out when he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction when it was clear he had no intent to go.

As far as "immediately" goes, yes, its very meaning is arbitrary, for just what does it mean? Do you give him one second? Two? Ten? One tenth of a second? Using your logic, a batter-runner who overruns first base, slows down some 20 feet beyond it, turns, stops for a second or two--perhaps to catch his breath--then proceeds back to first base can be out if tagged.

No frickin' way am I going to call that guy out if he's tagged. Did he "immediately" return? No. Did he make an attempt to advance? No. So which part of the rule does one follow? Answer: the advance part.

As was explained to me at umpire school (Jaksa and Roder happened to be the classroom instructors), the "immediately" part of the rule is considered to be analogous to abandoning his base (before reaching first it's called desertion). One should not call out a B-R just because he's slowly returning to first base, or even if he stops or pauses before returning. That interpretation is way too literal. To take a specific amount of time into consideration incorrectly changes the intent of the rule itself. Moreover, it should be noted that it was suggested by them that the entire phrase dealing with "immediately" ought to be stricken from the rule book precisely because it was misleading and extremely vague.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Your citation above contradicts what you had said earlier, which doesn't help your case. I have always looked at a batter-runner's intent, which is why I've never called him out when he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction when it was clear he had no intent to go.

It doesn't contradict anything I said, it clarifies what I said, or what I intended to mean. How can you say you wouldn't call the runner out if "he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction?" That little impulsive step toward second is what defines an attempt. A runner can't take an "impulsive" step toward second, how can you tell he had no intent to go? Are you the Amazing Kreskin? Carnac the Magnificent? No, you judge intent by the runner's actions, which if he takes an "impulsive" (just to use your term) step in the direction of second, most certainly indicates intent as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by UMP25

As far as "immediately" goes, yes, its very meaning is arbitrary, for just what does it mean? Do you give him one second? Two? Ten? One tenth of a second? Using your logic, a batter-runner who overruns first base, slows down some 20 feet beyond it, turns, stops for a second or two--perhaps to catch his breath--then proceeds back to first base can be out if tagged.

Wow, how anal. When did I say he couldn't stop for a second or two? As a matter of fact, I said I have no problem with a runner stopping to adjust his helmet or his wrist bands, and that courtesy would extend to "catching his breath" as well. I don't have a timetable, that would just be asinine. But if a player waits a considerable length of time just contemplating whether or not to go to second base, then I might consider that an attempt to advance. It's strictly a judgment call, which Meals made and West made the day before. Two days in a row, same call in two different games, by two different umpires. MLB umpires. Umpires who judged an intent to go to second base and that the runners waited too long to "immediately" return to first.

Originally Posted by UMP25

No frickin' way am I going to call that guy out if he's tagged. Did he "immediately" return? No. Did he make an attempt to advance? No. So which part of the rule does one follow? Answer: the advance part.

Didn't he make an attempt to advance? The umpire said he did. I'm going with that explanation.

Originally Posted by UMP25

As was explained to me at umpire school (Jaksa and Roder happened to be the classroom instructors), the "immediately" part of the rule is considered to be analogous to abandoning his base (before reaching first it's called desertion). One should not call out a B-R just because he's slowly returning to first base, or even if he stops or pauses before returning. That interpretation is way too literal. To take a specific amount of time into consideration incorrectly changes the intent of the rule itself. Moreover, it should be noted that it was suggested by them that the entire phrase dealing with "immediately" ought to be stricken from the rule book precisely because it was misleading and extremely vague.

I would never call a runner out for slowly returning to first, or for pausing before returning. I never said there was a specific amount of time to return. Any undue delay, as well as an attempt to advance, should be obvious to even a rookie umpire. It is a judgment call, as as such, is subject to individual interpretation.

And maybe "immediately" should be stricken from the rule book. Perhaps you can start a grassroots movement to do so. Until then, just use your own judgment on how to interpret the word.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It doesn't contradict anything I said, it clarifies what I said, or what I intended to mean.

You should run for office, because your flip-flops and contradictions are dizzying.

How can you say you wouldn't call the runner out if "he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction?" That little impulsive step toward second is what defines an attempt.

By whom? You obviously. If I believe the B-R had no intent to go to second, I'm not banging him out, and I'm not going to go beyond splitting hairs to splitting the atom in order to justify what was a terrible call at the major league level. Those guys screw up, too, you know.

Wow, how anal. When did I say he couldn't stop for a second or two? As a matter of fact, I said I have no problem with a runner stopping to adjust his helmet or his wrist bands, and that courtesy would extend to "catching his breath" as well. I don't have a timetable, that would just be asinine.

As asinine as you saying that he has to immediately return and that you'd call him out for turning, stopping, then continuing on? Your own posts above said this, and now you're flip-flopping.

But if a player waits a considerable length of time just contemplating whether or not to go to second base, then I might consider that an attempt to advance.

Wow. Just wow.

[eagle_12]

I think the immediately part is analagous to the rule in softball that once the pitcher has the ball in the circle the player has to make up their mind as to what they are doing, advancing or returning.

If the ball get overthrown and the BR overruns the bag, and then stops 20 ft down the line and just stands their, looking at the ball, but not making an attempt towards second. Then i think he becomes fair game. If he becomes stationary in a "play threatening postition" then all bets are off. If he becomes stationary and takes a breath, etc, etc. he's fine.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Your citation above contradicts what you had said earlier, which doesn't help your case. I have always looked at a batter-runner's intent, which is why I've never called him out when he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction when it was clear he had no intent to go.

If you are ruling intent, then that is clearly a judgment call. And this is clearly what Upton did in my opinion. Just because you disagree does not make the call incorrect. The umpire saw the same thing I have seen many times before.

The bottom line is we are giving opinions that mean little or nothing. Even if he did not call Upton out, someone would have made a claim that he should have. At the end of the day it really means nothing. And I do not give a damn that the umpire was in the MLB. I do not see MLB umpires as the best of the best. They are people that took a route and accomplished that route. It sounds to me like you are more concerned at who these people are than some of us here that agree with this call. I also know some high profile officials and you can always find someone that disagrees with a call. That is not hard to do.

Peace

[UMP25]

With rare exception, MLB umpires are, indeed, the best of the best. Like every profession in life, some may have gotten there due to politics, but MLB umpires are the top umpires in the world. Sure, there are some top notch amateur guys at various levels, but as I said, MLB guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to umpiring.

They're just not perfect or immune to making mistakes. Some here on this board have never criticized a call and have instead rushed to defend everything MLB umpires do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by UMP25

With rare exception, MLB umpires are, indeed, the best of the best. Like every profession in life, some may have gotten there due to politics, but MLB umpires are the top umpires in the world. Sure, there are some top notch amateur guys at various levels, but as I said, MLB guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to umpiring.

I disagree with that because of how the process to assign MLB Umpires in the first place. Major League Baseball hardly ever gets rid of umpires based on performance like other leagues and the process to get to that level is so narrow minded, that you cannot tell me the people that make it are by far the best umpires. And when some of the current umpires are there because someone was able to pick their successor, how many good umpires were passed over and later got out?

Originally Posted by UMP25

They're just not perfect or immune to making mistakes. Some here on this board have never criticized a call and have instead rushed to defend everything MLB umpires do.

That may be true of some here, but I am not one of them. I have a philosophical problem with going out publicly and criticizing someone that makes a mistake I have made or could make very easily. But I have seen many mistakes by MLB Umpires that I wonder why they are never replaced. I have seen non-pros get fired or suspended from leagues for a lot worse than I have seen MLB Umpires ever get in any trouble. They can make big time mistakes and they are in the playoffs.

Peace

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

As asinine as you saying that he has to immediately return and that you'd call him out for turning, stopping, then continuing on? Your own posts above said this, and now you're flip-flopping.

I never said this. I believe you have misread what I said. If he merely stops, turns to his left, and stops again to do whatever, like catch his breath (he must be really out of shape if 90 feet takes his breath away), or some similar act, he is just fine by me. Only if he takes a hard turn or false step toward second do I consider what he does an attempt. If he stands there like a track star putting his feet in the blocks as if he would go to second, then that's what I call an attempt. In other words, he is giving an indication that he was going to go to second, but changed his mind. Once you appear that you are going to go for second, you are in jeopardy of being tagged out.

Most runners look over their shoulder at the wild throw and decide then whether or not to go to second. They don't usually wait until they stop, turn around, then stand there and decide if they want to go. I agree, if a runner merely overruns the base, turns and then gives no indication whatsoever that he is contemplating making an attempt to second base, he is perfectly within his rights to do so.

I'm still going to take Darling's, West's and Meals' word on the ruling over your vast MLB experience. I'll go out on a limb and say that their interpretation of 7.08 (c) is the more popular among MLB umpires.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I'll go out on a limb and say that their interpretation of 7.08 (c) is the more popular among MLB umpires.

That had better be a strong limb because I agree with UMP25 about you flip flopping throughout this thread..........

[tno]

Originally Posted by bossman72

can anybody post a link to the video replay? i only seen it on sportscenter and from what i saw there, it was a bad call IMO.

I'm new here. I see people are asking for the video.

Here's a link. Click on the thumbnail below the video on the far right side.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index...namlb_tbamlb_1

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tno

I'm new here. I see people are asking for the video.

Here's a link. Click on the thumbnail below the video on the far right side.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index...namlb_tbamlb_1

Well, this is the first time I have viewed the play. Meals apparently felt Upton was making an attempt when he began to round the base and then thought better of it when he saw the ball being fielded. Upton did make a move that indicated he was about to take two on the play as the ball was bouncing up the line, then just after his little move he saw the ball fielded. Judgment call. The ejection on the other hand was priceless. What a jackas$ Maddon is.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Then I watched the Joe West call on Reyes. Reyes most definitely made a move toward second, then stopped when his first base coach told him to get back on the bag. A lot more cut and dried than the Meals call.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Well, this is the first time I have viewed the play. Meals apparently felt Upton was making an attempt when he began to round the base and then thought better of it when he saw the ball being fielded. Upton did make a move that indicated he was about to take two on the play as the ball was bouncing up the line, then just after his little move he saw the ball fielded. Judgment call. The ejection on the other hand was priceless. What a jackas$ Maddon is.

Earlier this evening I asked a ML umpire, who agreed with Meals' call, if this was a good call, why wasn't it made more often. His reply: "Damn few fielders are smart enough to apply a tag. It'll get called more often when the play is made more often."

There are different levels of disagreement. One can disagree with the Meals judgement. One can disagree with the rule as written. But if you accept that Meals perceived what he says, then it is hard to disagree with his ruling.

As for as the claim that some posters never criticize ML umpires, just check out any thread involving Joe West, or better yet, Angel Hernandez.