Officiating and the Crowd
 

There was an interesting discussion this morning on ESPN regarding the crowd's effect on official's calls. The discussion was brought about by the close 3-2 pitch in the Red Sox game that was called a ball and forced in the tying run (the pitch looked borderline to me - could have gone either way). But the discussion was about whether a loud home crowd has an effect on the officials. The former player seemed to think that officials were influenced by the crowd, the professional announcer felt otherwise.

Personally, as a former coach now official, I highly doubt that officials in any sport are significantly influenced by the crowd. Would an umpire really decide to change a call just to please fans? I can't imagine. What I would say is that an official can get caught up in the emotion of a play. For instance, a home team defender makes a diving stop, the crowd roars, and there is a bang bang play at first. The home team may get that call, simply because the umpire is caught up in the emotions of the moment.

So a home team may get a call every once in a while at home because of the crowd, but the great majority of the time, the officials base a call on what they see. I can't see a high level official allowing the emotions of the crowd influence his calls on a regular basis.

First of all, there are only 2 people on the field that can call a pitch and they are the Catcher and the Plate Umpire. No one else (including the Pitcher) are in a position to see the pitch in its true form. Now the center field camera and all of those strike zone things that are used on TV are useless because they are not lined up with the pitch yet everyone is an armchair umpire because the think they are seeing the real pitch. Like I said, only 2 people on the field get that view.

As far as crowds go, we all hear them, it's hard not to. But we don't concern ourselves with the crowd. The old saying goes, "They paid their money, they gets their say!" and that is exactly how we deal with it. We focus on what is going on between the lines because that is what we are there for.

We really don't care who wins or looses either. At the plate, we live pitch to pitch and on the bases we live play to play. We listen to coaches and managers who always have a "better view" even though we are within feet of the play. We listen to players complain and managers moan about pitches and we still do our jobs. With all that going on, who the hell has time to pay attention to the crowd? :D

Fuentes was all over the place, then he throws one at the bottom of the zone, borederline low, and all of a sudden the umpire is supposed to call it a strike? The Angels gave the game away with bad pitching, bad defense, and leaving a ton of runners on base nearly every inning in which they didn't score. Scioscia can blame the umpires all he wants, but he knows the umpires didn't lose that game for him. The ESPN pundit (Kruk I think) saying that the umpires were scared of the Fenway fans was way off base. As has been stated before, the umpires don't care who wins your stupid baseball game.

Geez, what did Scioscia say?

I'm as big an Angel follower as I can be, and I was never more disappointed in a game all year. And I have to say, all that's on Fuentes. I can't think of another Angel I've detested more than him in all the years---not even Jose Guillen. He is an accident waiting to happen and a malcontent and a loser when things go wrong.

Scioscia was heartbroken that a close pitch cost him a ballgame, and if it missed, it dodn't miss by much and could easily have gone either way. But he didn't pop off like you hear others pop off, AND when the umpires went to walk off the field, Mike herded Butcher and some players away from them so they could go up the runway without being berated in public.

Scioscia is as classy a baseball man as you'll find. I thought he held onto it pretty damned well after losing one like that.

What did Scioscia say? He said to the PU after the game, "what's the count now, 3-4?" The umpires have gone on record that they were verbally abused following the game by the Angels coaching staff. He should have been yelling at his lazy a$s left fielder for not diving for that ball to save the game. If he would have dove, he probably would have caught the ball. It looked like he just gave up on it with the game on the line. Easier to blame the umpires, I suppose.

Regarding the K-Zone fad (or whatever your local network calls it), I have a buddy who worked for the Orioles TV station first as an intern, and now in sort of a freelance position whenever they need help (perhaps first game of a series to set up graphics, etc.)

One of his jobs was to draw, yes, literally draw, that box that is used on those replays.

He would literally take his mouse, and draw a box where he felt the strike zone was. From at bat to at bat, he would simply make the box bigger or smaller depending on the batter. I asked him what he thought the definition of a strike was. Now he's a baseball guy, and knew what I was getting at. He cut me off and said he knew it was completely bogus and he couldn't even see the plate from where the angle he had to draw that box, let alone the batters position in relation to it. "A complete guess" is the way he put it.

Then, he explained more: his job was to go back on every pitch, view a replay, and "click" when he felt the ball reached the front edge of the plate - his producers instructions. This is what creates the freeze on the tracking, and then viewers can see if that dot is in or outside the box. Sometimes, he would click incorrectly depending on fastball, change etc. (he'd have one shot at it before the replay would be used). Even when he would yell to the producer it was messed up, it went on the air.

Even worse, there were times he said, maybe 3 or 4 times a game, where his "click" would catch some other arbitrary movement, perhaps the catchers glove, a fan in the background, glimmer off sunglasses etc. The technology would indicate that the pitch was in the most ridiculous places, behind a batter's head, etc.

Of course he admitted he trusts the same 2 people you all have mentioned, the catcher and the umpire.

All right, we're talking about almost two different subjects. I thought Rivera should have laid out for that ball. It would have not been as sure a grab as you hinted at---more like a near-miracle grab.

The pitch that tied the game was definitely disputable, and a pitch right before that appeared to be missed. The zone was pretty unpredictable all night, so there was bound to be tension.

I'll tell you one thing, I would respect Scioscia a whole lot less if he wasn't upset by calls like those, or the one that ended the game in particular. What are you a baseball manager for?

Defending umpires is fine, but going after a guy like Scioscia isn't necessary in order to defend the umpire's right to call a borderline pitch a ball instead of a strike to end a ballgame.

And if you knew more about the guy, you would know that he would never blame one of his players for anything. He blames himself and/or the whole team. Last night, he said that they should have never been in the position to lose the game like that, and pointed out the two innings when they didn't cash in, and the two mistakes on defense during the Sox's big inning. That's customary. He said the same thing after that Doug Eddings fiasco four years ago.

Umpires wished more catchers were like Scioscia when he caught and they wish more managers were like him now.

He caught the ball on one hop. If he had laid out for it he probably would have at least drawn leather on it. It would have been far easier than a "near-miracle." But he didn't try for the ball, which is the whole point.

The pitch looked low to me. I don't trust the network's pitch track. As Tuss said, it is subject to where it is drawn on the screen and is used for comparison purposes only, not as the actual strike zone of a hitter. I looked to me like the pitch was similar to where Reed had been calling it a ball all game long. I also think that Kellogg, in real time without slowing it down on a replay, got the check swing call right. I think the batter held up. And Timmons got the dropped ball call right in my estimation as well. It looked like Aybar never controlled the ball and that it dropped from his glove as he reached in for it, which I'm sure is what Timmons told Scioscia. It wasn't "on the transfer.," he just clanked it..

Well, he can get upset, but he should have been more upset in how his team managed to choke the game away.

I didn't go after Scioscia, I just reported what was said and that the umpires publicly stated that they were verbally abused following the game by the coaching staff. I like Scioscia. He was a helluva catcher and a really good manager.

Well, good. He should take the blame for that and for the Eddings game, if he doesn't want to blame the boneheaded mistakes his team made.

I agree with you on that one. I wish I would have had Mike in front of me on Saturday and Sunday!;)

IMO, Kruk is one of the biggest rats out there. Anything that comes out of his mouth regarding umpires is dead to me.

Kruk is a deadpan, and most of his angst is part of his schtik.

Players and announcers know little about officiating. The more I learn about officiating, the deeper becomes my grasp of this axiom.

The entire discussion is moot. The only way to sort the issue would be to play a large number of games with and without fans to control for the alleged fan effect. And where's the profit in that?

[QUOTE=Kevin Finnerty;625998]Geez, what did Scioscia say?


Scioscia was heartbroken that a close pitch cost him a ballgame,


Yikes, One call cost him the game. New one on me. I've kicked my share and saw them kicked I've never seen a call cost a team a game. Too much happens before that that would have made the seemingly "bad call" a moot point.

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.

The Angels don't give up any one of the 7 other runs, the Red Sox don't tie the game. Juan Rivera makes an effort to catch the ball, they may not lose. In a 9-8 game, there's plenty of blame to go around, none of it to Rick Reed.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

You know, what you say is thoroughly and completely true!

I often wonder if the spectators knew that they are utterly insignificant to any seasoned umpire, would they even say some of that crap? I actually like hearing most of it, because I find it amusing when someone is screaming in public about something in which they are not even a factor.

And there is complete and total evidence to the contrary that umpires/officials could not care what the crowd thinks. But this myth keeps being repeated over and over and over again in all kinds of sports. And it is more absurd in baseball because the claim is that an umpire would not call a strike against a home team player simply because they want to not hear the crowd. Well that walk the umpire just called for this reason not just added more time to the game. This is one of the dumbest things I hear and it is based on nothing more than people's own fears of being an official.

Peace

It's fear blended with a serious dose of inability. It's like not being able to relate to the level of devotion and brilliance of a symphony conductor, so common critics or observers dismiss him as "temperamental" or "eccentric" or "pretentious," and wait eagerly for him to make a single mistake.

And I will assert that a symphony conductor couldn't care less what a common critic thinks of his work.