The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Tossin' 'em at Camden! (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/58657-tossin-em-camden.html)

RogersUmp Thu Jul 22, 2010 08:01pm

Tossin' 'em at Camden!
 
Did you see Wiggington get wigged out? Darling and Hohn are bagging and taggin'!!!

johnnyg08 Thu Jul 22, 2010 08:08pm

Yep...Darling missed the call, but man did he blow a gasket on Darling.

Then they must have gone back to the clubhouse to watch the replay leading to the other EJ's.

Good times!

jwwashburn Fri Jul 23, 2010 01:18am

Wiggington is 100% wrong to bump the umpire and obviously will/should get fined. In addition to that, something has to be done about these crap calls on obvious calls.

Is it just me or are they missing an amazing number of EASY calls? How does he miss this call? The tag was on the hand closest to Darling (left hand) and he got him by a lot.

To name a few other horrific ones in recent days

This one was almost as bad as the one from a couple of weeks ago where the Giants 3B taqgged a guy out from the Mariners that had given up and stopped running(the seeds sticking out of the pocket incident)

The Tigers had Josh Hamilton out diving into first-his hand slid right into the first baseman's shoe a few days ago.

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.

yawetag Fri Jul 23, 2010 06:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn (Post 686375)
The Tigers had Josh Hamilton out diving into first-his hand slid right into the first baseman's shoe a few days ago.

So his hand was on F3's shoe (and not the base) when he was tagged? If I mis-read your post, I apologize -- I don't know of this situation.

johnnyg08 Fri Jul 23, 2010 06:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn (Post 686375)
This one was almost as bad as the one from a couple of weeks ago where the Giants 3B taqgged a guy out from the Mariners that had given up and stopped running(the seeds sticking out of the pocket incident)

I know you're arguing principle, so I hesitated writing anything...but I think that call went against the Twins not the Giants...but there may have been another play you're referring to.

I think the "all of the missed calls" is a myth. The camera coverage and the media coverage is better so it seems like there are more misses. There have always been missed calls

That's what makes MLB umpiring so difficult. Every single call you make gets replayed over and over again in super slow motion and the regular fan who's never umpired thinks you're terrible because they "saw on replay that he was clearly safe"

Stupid.

Rich Fri Jul 23, 2010 07:14am

Back in the old days, before every play had 20 replays and angles, Darling would've just called the runner out regardless of whether there was a tag and life would've gone on. Like many of us do in our games now.

Sure, he missed it. But the only reason they have to see whether a glove gets a finger is because they get flambeed every time they make what used to be an expected call if that call isn't "right."

grunewar Fri Jul 23, 2010 07:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 686389)
Back in the old days, before every play had 20 replays and angles, Darling would've just called the runner out regardless of whether there was a tag and life would've gone on. Like many of us do in our games now."

Kevin Blackistone said it well (below).......

mbyron Fri Jul 23, 2010 08:05am

Three Orioles ejected in wild seventh inning | orioles.com: News

grunewar Fri Jul 23, 2010 08:33am

"The crowd of 20,108 issued a loud chorus of boos for several moments following the play and the tension continued to build at Camden Yards."

Actually, a pretty nice sized crowd for Camden Yards.......and usually not that much excitiment or anything to cheer/boo about.

yawetag Fri Jul 23, 2010 08:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 686385)
That's what makes MLB umpiring so difficult. Every single call you make gets replayed over and over again in super slow motion and the regular fan who's never umpired thinks you're terrible because they "saw on replay that he was clearly safe"

Not to mention that only the bad calls are shown over and over.

jwwashburn Fri Jul 23, 2010 09:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yawetag (Post 686381)
So his hand was on F3's shoe (and not the base) when he was tagged? If I mis-read your post, I apologize -- I don't know of this situation.

I did not explain it all that well.


It was a line drive to ss and t they had him doubled off. He dove back and the replay f(even at full speed) showed Hamilton being tagged because his hand was on the 1B 's foot.

yawetag Fri Jul 23, 2010 09:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn (Post 686405)
I did not explain it all that well.


It was a line drive to ss and t they had him doubled off. He dove back and the replay f(even at full speed) showed Hamilton being tagged because his hand was on the 1B 's foot.

And he was called safe, I presume? Now that re-read your initial post on it, it makes sense. I originally thought you said "He was called out, but his hand was on the foot."

tiger49 Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn (Post 686375)
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.

”No, no, no!” Mattingly heard plate umpire Adrian Johnson shout. ”You can’t go back.”

By then, however, Mattingly had covered the two steps back onto the mound.


Sounds like they were on it to me. Alot of the confusion was over if it was an emergency as defined in the rulebook to allow for as many warmup pitches as deemed necessary.

mbyron Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger49 (Post 686407)
[I]”No, no, no!” Mattingly heard plate umpire Adrian Johnson shout. ”You can’t go back.”

Johnson nailed that. Mattingly heard him, but probably didn't have time to process it in the 2 steps it took him to get back to the dirt. Or he just ignored it.

IMO, that's not bad at all for a fill-in who had already had an extremely rough night (pitchers hitting batters, warning dugouts, tossing Joe Torre, etc.).

REFANDUMP Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:51am

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 !!!

Berkut Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP (Post 686409)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP (Post 686409)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn (Post 686375)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP (Post 686409)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 03:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 686414)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 686414)
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 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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 04:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn (Post 686455)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 04:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 686459)
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 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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 04:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 686463)
If you tell somebody to not do something and they do it anyway, wouldn't that be deceiving?

Um... no. Got a dictionary?

johnnyg08 Fri Jul 23, 2010 04:28pm

Obviously not. :-)

"Disobey?" "not listen to"

MrUmpire Fri Jul 23, 2010 04:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 686461)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 05:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 686467)
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 Fri Jul 23, 2010 06:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 686469)
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.

bob jenkins Fri Jul 23, 2010 07:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 686476)
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.


I'm pretty sure that there's something in MLBUM/PBUC/NAPBL/JR/Evans that says that if, for some reason, the manager isn't warned that he isn't ejected / removed, but that the penalty still applies to the pitcher (pitch to the current batter and then be removed).

MrUmpire Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 686481)
I'm pretty sure that there's something in MLBUM/PBUC/NAPBL/JR/Evans that says that if, for some reason, the manager isn't warned that he isn't ejected / removed, but that the penalty still applies to the pitcher (pitch to the current batter and then be removed).

Not in JEA, but could be elsewhere.

My only intent is to illustrate thre rule as written. In the MLB release, McClelland states this is the first time in his career this rule has come up in one of his games, and with a call up at the plate at that. I think remembering the rule as written and taking the time to attempt to enforce it fairly deserves more credit that what some here have posted, especially those who themselves do not know how the rule is worded.

I note that after taking the time to talk with the supervisor, McClelland still believed they enforced it properly as do several other MLB umpires.

UmpJM Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:20pm

bob,

It's the MLBUM:

Quote:

NOTE: If through umpire oversight or inability to warn the manager or coach, the manager or coach is inadvertently allowed to go to the mound a second time while the same batter is at bat (without the manager or coach being warned that he cannot do so), the pitcher then pitching will be required to pitch to the batter then at bat until the batter is retired or gets on base (or the side is retired). After the batter is retired or becomes a base runner (or the side is retired), this pitcher must then be removed from the game. However, because the umpire did not warn the manager or coach that a second trip to the mound was not permitted while the same batter was at bat, the manager or coach is NOT ejected from the game in this situation. It is only when the manager or coach ignores the umpire's warning of no second trip that the ejection applies.
JM

LeeBallanfant Sun Jul 25, 2010 07:26pm

What happens if the pitcher who has to stay in the game decides to rant and rave at the umpire and gets ejected. Does he still have to pitch to next batter?

MrUmpire Sun Jul 25, 2010 08:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant (Post 686609)
What happens if the pitcher who has to stay in the game decides to rant and rave at the umpire and gets ejected. Does he still have to pitch to next batter?

Day game or night game?

Matt Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant (Post 686609)
What happens if the pitcher who has to stay in the game decides to rant and rave at the umpire and gets ejected. Does he still have to pitch to next batter?

He won't get ejected until ball four on that batter.

tjones1 Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 686408)
Johnson nailed that. Mattingly heard him, but probably didn't have time to process it in the 2 steps it took him to get back to the dirt. Or he just ignored it.

IMO, that's not bad at all for a fill-in who had already had an extremely rough night (pitchers hitting batters, warning dugouts, tossing Joe Torre, etc.).

Mr. Johnson isn't a fill-in... he's a full-time ML umpire - hired at the beginning of this season.

MrUmpire Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjones1 (Post 686650)
Mr. Johnson isn't a fill-in... he's a full-time ML umpire - hired at the beginning of this season.

At the beginning of the season, MLB announced that three AAA umpires would be promoted to full time MLB positions to replace retiring umpires and that the fourth, Adrian, was replacing an umpire who was taking a year's leave due to an inury.

It was acknowledged that the umpire on leave would not be returning and that Adrian would remain in his spot after his official retirement, however, that retirement would not officially take effect until the end of the season.

Has this changed?

MD Longhorn Mon Jul 26, 2010 02:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 686539)
I note that after taking the time to talk with the supervisor, McClelland still believed they enforced it properly as do several other MLB umpires.

So we're supposed to believe that the intent of this rule was that if a manager visited a pitcher, requiring to finish the current batter, and then changed his mind, all he had to do was go out there again? Um ... I think that's absurd and these guys are just CYA.

tjones1 Mon Jul 26, 2010 05:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 686652)
At the beginning of the season, MLB announced that three AAA umpires would be promoted to full time MLB positions to replace retiring umpires and that the fourth, Adrian, was replacing an umpire who was taking a year's leave due to an inury.

It was acknowledged that the umpire on leave would not be returning and that Adrian would remain in his spot after his official retirement, however, that retirement would not officially take effect until the end of the season.

Has this changed?

Well...not according to this article.
Four new umpires appointed; four new crew chiefs named | MLB.com: Official Info

It was my understanding that Chuck Meriwether's (on the DL) spot would be filled by a AAA fill-in and another appointment would be made at the beginning of next season.

Maybe not; however, according to that press release, Johnson is on the full-time staff.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1