Tossin' 'em at Camden! - Page 2

Berkut · #16 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 11:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

I'm a Twins fan, but that's a horrible call. I can't believe MLB stands behind these guys when they miss calls like that !!!

What does that mean?

How should MLB respond to these terrible travesties?

Shoot them?

johnnyg08 · #17 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 11:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

I'm a Twins fan, but that's a horrible call. I can't believe MLB stands behind these guys when they miss calls like that !!!

That's right, you must do everything perfectly every time at split second speed or you get fired from your job too. Ridiculous statement sir. Nothing a human does will ever be perfect every single time...ever.

Move out of your glass house. Yes, it sucks to miss calls, we all agree on that. What fun it was to watch the $hitstorm that ensued though. (As a spectator anyway)

Skarecrow · #18 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 11:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

A couple of nights ago, the crew in the Dodgers game did not know the rule about two visits in an inning. I knew the rule watching that game live and, oh by the way...I am not a professional umpire. MLB umpires should literally have the book memorized.

The Blue got this totally right! You can't go back, or it's considered a second visit. They nailed it, and more importantly, he had the balls to call it....He got it right!

bob jenkins · #19 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 11:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

I'm a Twins fan, but that's a horrible call. I can't believe MLB stands behind these guys when they miss calls like that !!!

You do know that MLB publically admitted that the umpires got it wrong, don't you? what else should they do?

jwwashburn · #20 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 03:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

The Blue got this totally right! You can't go back, or it's considered a second visit. They nailed it, and more importantly, he had the balls to call it....He got it right!

The rule states that Mattingly is tossed, the pitcher pitches to that batter then is removed. They kicked it. How could they not know this rules?

MD Longhorn · #21 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

The Blue got this totally right! You can't go back, or it's considered a second visit. They nailed it, and more importantly, he had the balls to call it....He got it right!

I guess it's you that didn't know the rule then. Mattingly left the mound which FORCES the pitcher to pitch to the next batter. The 2nd visit doesn't trump that. The pitcher not only CAN keep pitching, but by rule MUST pitch to this batter. THEN he has to come out - after this batter.

johnnyg08 · #22 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:10pm

The ejection portion of that rule is for a manager who deliberately deceives the warning to not go back to the mound. The warning and Mattingly going back to the mound occurred at basically the same time. How could Mattingly deceive a warning he didn't know he was going to get until he steps on the mound and simultaneously hears the warning with 30,000 fans in the stands? To EJ w/o a warning, would also not be following the rule.

An EJ there would not have been appropriate and IMO a misinterpretation of the rule.

The crew's only mistake was not requiring Broxton to pitch to the next batter.

MrUmpire · #23 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

The rule states that Mattingly is tossed, the pitcher pitches to that batter then is removed. They kicked it. How could they not know this rules?

That penalty exists when the coach is warned not to back and defiantly does so. McClelland has stated that the crew did not believe that the "No, No" that the PU managed to get out before Mattingly crossed the mound was sufficient for that penalty.

The umpires knew the rule and the different penalties and made a decision. You may disagree with how they interpreted the situation, but you cannot accurately claim they did not know the rule.

MD Longhorn · #24 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

but you cannot accurately claim they did not know the rule.

I can. I claim they did not know the rule. Or if they did, they chose to ignore it. Broxton MUST pitch to that batter - they removed Broxton from the game instead. Kind of leads me to believe they didn't know the rule (or forgot it at least).

I agree re: the non-ejection.

PS - johnny ... what the heck does "deceive the warning" mean? How does one deceive a warning? I'd call it a typo but you said it twice.

johnnyg08 · #25 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:22pm

If you tell somebody to not do something and they do it anyway, wouldn't that be deceiving?

MD Longhorn · #26 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

If you tell somebody to not do something and they do it anyway, wouldn't that be deceiving?

Um... no. Got a dictionary?

johnnyg08 · #27 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:28pm

Obviously not. :-)

"Disobey?" "not listen to"

MrUmpire · #28 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I can. I claim they did not know the rule. Or if they did, they chose to ignore it. Broxton MUST pitch to that batter - they removed Broxton from the game instead. Kind of leads me to believe they didn't know the rule (or forgot it at least).

Again, according to McClelland, the crew's interpretation is that the requirement of the pitcher to pitch to the current batter comes into play when the manager ignores the warning. They did not believe the manager ignored a proper warning. Thus they did not require Broxton to pitch.

And again, you may disagree with their interpretation..their supervisor did...however they continue to maintain their interpretationis correct.

They knew the rule. Once again, you may disagree with their interpretation of enforcement for that situation, but they knew the rule and chose that enforcement for that situation.

MD Longhorn · #29 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 05:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Again, according to McClelland, the crew's interpretation is that the requirement of the pitcher to pitch to the current batter comes into play when the manager ignores the warning. They did not believe the manager ignored a proper warning. Thus they did not require Broxton to pitch.

And again, you may disagree with their interpretation..their supervisor did...however they continue to maintain their interpretationis correct.

They knew the rule. Once again, you may disagree with their interpretation of enforcement for that situation, but they knew the rule and chose that enforcement for that situation.

I have not heard that they said that. if they did, that's even worse. It does not make any sense at all that whether the manager ignores the warning or not would have any effect on which pitcher is required to pitch. If they really said that - I seriously question their abilities to digest the rules. That's not what the rule says, nor could it be stretched to mean what you say they said. I don't buy it.

MrUmpire · #30 (**permalink**) Fri Jul 23, 2010, 06:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I have not heard that they said that. if they did, that's even worse. It does not make any sense at all that whether the manager ignores the warning or not would have any effect on which pitcher is required to pitch. If they really said that - I seriously question their abilities to digest the rules. That's not what the rule says, nor could it be stretched to mean what you say they said. I don't buy it.

From 8.06 Comment:

In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base.