Officiating and the Crowd

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Ahem ...

I had to clear my throat.

Yours is a specious argument that is common, if not forthcoming in every debate of this basic nature.

If the pitch was called a strike, the Angels win. If the pitch is called a ball, the game is tied and the bases remain loaded and the Angels may not go on to win. But, I repeat, if the pitch was called a strike, the Angels win.

The Angels did not win. If the pitch was called a strike, the Angels win.

One call goes one way and the Angels win. The same call goes the other way and they are still alive, but they lose. So it's not a direct loss, but very close.

Who put the Angels in the position where one pitch mattered? How many hits, stikeouts, strikes, bases on balls, catches, dropped balls, instances of bad baserunning, and cases of stupid game strategy did the umpire have?

One pitch called either way does not by itself win or lose a game. One pitch cannot be isolated from the other 249, except, of course, by disgruntled managers, spoiled players and fanboys.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by mrumpire

who put the angels in the position where one pitch mattered? How many hits, stikeouts, strikes, bases on balls, catches, dropped balls, instances of bad baserunning, and cases of stupid game strategy did the umpire have?

One pitche called either way does not by itsefl win or lose a game. One pitch cannot be isolated from the other 249, except, of course, by disgruntled managers, spoiled players and fanboys.

clap, clap, clap, clap,clapping clapping some more, more clapping, standing up and clapping, whistle here, clapping.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Who put the Angels in the position where one pitch mattered? How many hits, stikeouts, strikes, bases on balls, catches, dropped balls, instances of bad baserunning, and cases of stupid game strategy did the umpire have?

One pitch called either way does not by itself win or lose a game. One pitch cannot be isolated from the other 249, except, of course, by disgruntled managers, spoiled players and fanboys.

You have a prejudice and a defamatory name or reference ready at all times, don't you?

I have a vastly more thorough knowledge of this game and how it works than you allow for.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

You have a prejudice and a defamatory name or reference ready at all times, don't you?

I have a vastly more thorough knowledge of this game and how it works than you allow for.

Nothing I posted is intended to be in reference to your vast and thorough knowledge of this game.

Many of those with superior knowledge of the game are fans.

[Kevin Finnerty]

And you have a defamatory name for them ready at all times.

I haven't really felt like a fan for a long time, but I have had plenty work that involved watching games, and I think there's room for the viewpoint of anyone who loves the game and has something worthwhile to contribute. They shouldn't be dismissed with such swiftness.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

And you have a defamatory name for them ready at all times.

I haven't really felt like a fan for a long time, but I have had plenty work that involved watching games, and I think there's room for the viewpoint of anyone who loves the game and has something worthwhile to contribute. They shouldn't be dismissed with such swiftness.

Fan is different from fanboy. Not all fans are fanboys. Fanboys blame the officiating every chance they get. Fanboys say "that wasn't even close" when they see the freeze frame of the third replay angle right after the first two replay angles showed that it was too close to tell.

Fanboys and fans in general do have something worthwhile to contribute but that something is not comments about officiating.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Fan is different from fanboy. Not all fans are fanboys. Fanboys blame the officiating every chance they get. Fanboys say "that wasn't even close" when they see the freeze frame of the third replay angle right after the first two replay angles showed that it was too close to tell.

Fanboys and fans in general do have something worthwhile to contribute but that something is not comments about officiating.

And the person you are addressing is certainly not a fanboy. He is, OTOH, a long-time baseball person who has worked in many capacities of the game. If he tells you that something is a certain way, he can be relied upon for this information. He has now been on the officiating end of things for around 10 years now, and is very qualified to speak of officiating as well.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Ump153

Regardless of your belief of his "qualifications" he has on many occasions proven to be no more accurate or inaccurate than most exprienced posters here. There is no reason to take his word as Gospel. Like most of us, he posts an opinion. And like some, at time he attempts to pass off opinion as fact.

I was merely pointing out that he is not to be confused with your run-of-the-mill "fanboy."

[JRutledge]

One of the biggest myths in all of officiating is this notion that officials are affected by the crowd. It is even crazier to think this happens in baseball of all sports. Yes, the umpire wants to be there an hour longer because the crowd might get upset. Yeah right.

Peace