Lets see how MLB handles this one....

[greymule]

To me, this isn't a "neighborhood" play. When a fielder is pulled off the bag by a wide throw, how much he's pulled off is irrelevant.

I always considered the neighborhood play to be one in which the fielder simply makes the pivot with his foot close enough to the bag (perhaps behind it) that you can't quite be sure, or maybe he swipes his foot and well, did he get it or not? As long as he's not drawn off, you don't have to see a foot directly on the base to call the out.

I had a rhubarb a few years ago when F4 set up obviously straddling the bag, each foot on the ground at least 12 inches from the base. He simply received the ball from F6 and threw to 1B, without even a "swipe" of a foot toward the bag. I called the runner safe at 2B, and from the reaction you would have thought I murdered a child.

"Aw, come on! You gotta give me that one!" F4 readily admitted he wasn't touching the bag but claimed "that call is automatic." Oddly, it was F7 who ended up getting tossed.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by Tim C

JR:

Did you watch the same video that I watched?

T

I feel like saying the same thing to you.

Rich, I don't see a bobble or lack of possession there. The ball hits the glove while the foot is on the base IMHO. Also, Muchinski I'm sure was looking at the foot to see if it was in contact. He never motioned that there was a bobble, he motioned that Theriot was off the base. It was an incredibly difficult call; I'm in no way criticizing Muchinski, I just don't see how everyone here thinks that his foot was not in contact when the ball arrived.

[MrUmpire]

What I and apparently a few others see is the foot toucing the bag without the ball and the throwing pulling the fielder off the bag prior to receiving the ball.

[Tim C]

Thanks MrUmpire, we see exactly the same thing.

T

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Thanks MrUmpire, we see exactly the same thing.

T

Yup, same thing.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Thanks MrUmpire, we see exactly the same thing.

T

Likewise

[treydawgmt]

I see the same thing with his foot on the bag, and then not when he has the ball. The announcers agree eventually too.

[RadioBlue]

I see the ball going into the glove when his foot is on the bag, but by the time the ball is IN the glove, the foot is off the bag.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Forgive Mike, he's just using this to climb back up on his soapbox.

I thought it was a great call, but what I don't understand is why players go nuclear over a single call. The play at the plate the other night where the catcher went nuts is a great example -- the catcher had no clue whether the tag beat the foot onto the plate and yet he still went nuts and got run (and the talking heads said the umpire had a quick trigger, even though it was clear this would be an ejection at any level of play).

Rich, it is funny that you used that phrase. Being on a soapbox used to be a good thing, one was exercising his/her right to speak. Apparently, around here, there are some who believe you are only allowed to write "+1" in reference to their posts while others take pleasure in ridiculing anyone who takes on the status quo.

The arrogance involved in 'expected calls' is sad. The arrogance I spoke of is being defended as what was expected by the powers that be. Hoistory is filled with examples of those who did what they knew was wrong only to impress others. If you were taught to ignore the proper call, live the dream. As has been stated prior, professional umpires and many amateur umpires have adopted a different set of standards. Whether instant replay caused it or introspection, it doesn't matter. Umpires used to be able to m-therf-cker a player or coach, act as if they were too good to hustle, take the field out of shape and make calls that made players, fans and managament cringe in disbelief. Thank goodness that the arrogance they once displayed is giving way to an attempt to get the calls correct, even at the risk of ridicule. I'm glad to work with guys who put the game ahead of their careers. If some are upset at my use of 'arrogance' to describe making an improper call solely because it is expected, too bad. The exepected call legion is dwindling, thankfully.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Two games for Theriot, plus a fine:

Ryan Theriot receives two-game suspension | MLB.com: News

Meh

[GerryB]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Rich, it is funny that you used that phrase. Being on a soapbox used to be a good thing, one was exercising his/her right to speak. Apparently, around here, there are some who believe you are only allowed to write "+1" in reference to their posts while others take pleasure in ridiculing anyone who takes on the status quo.

The arrogance involved in 'expected calls' is sad. The arrogance I spoke of is being defended as what was expected by the powers that be. Hoistory is filled with examples of those who did what they knew was wrong only to impress others. If you were taught to ignore the proper call, live the dream. As has been stated prior, professional umpires and many amateur umpires have adopted a different set of standards. Whether instant replay caused it or introspection, it doesn't matter. Umpires used to be able to m-therf-cker a player or coach, act as if they were too good to hustle, take the field out of shape and make calls that made players, fans and managament cringe in disbelief. Thank goodness that the arrogance they once displayed is giving way to an attempt to get the calls correct, even at the risk of ridicule. I'm glad to work with guys who put the game ahead of their careers. If some are upset at my use of 'arrogance' to describe making an improper call solely because it is expected, too bad. The exepected call legion is dwindling, thankfully.

I don't know if I cringe more at the arrogance of this quote or the misspellings.
Actually, you've received a reasoned discourse on why some things in baseball came to be. You on the other hand insist on labels and talking down. Why advocate for players, fans and management as well? If the legion is dwindling it is not the "status quo" by the way.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by GerryB

I don't know if I cringe more at the arrogance of this quote or the misspellings.

Sorry, I typed my response on a DroidX while watching my son's football drills. It's nice to know that the spelling police are on patrol though.

Actually, you've received a reasoned discourse on why some things in baseball came to be.

No, I saw a couple people say that they were taught to ignore the rules and call what was expected in order to appease a few arrogant soles and improve their ratings.

You on the other hand insist on labels and talking down.

No, it always makes me smile when others think that being criticized for doing wrong is demeaning. I am not talking down to you unless you feel inferior. Anyone who has lived through pro school knows that criticism helps make you better. Thicker skin will serve you well too.

It is arrogant to do what you know is wrong, simply to improve your place in this world. An umpire is tasked with following the rules, not simply the ones that expedite their promotion. While PBUC advocated this a while ago, it is not done now and for good reason. If you cannot see that, I am truly sorry. It is not a superior stance, it is knowing what my job is - do my best to get the call correct.

Why advocate for players, fans and management as well? If the legion is dwindling it is not the "status quo" by the way.

I have suggested it before, try reading Linda McMeniman's 'From Inquiry to Argument'. Your attempt to mislead the board by misrepresenting what I wrote is contemptible. My comment about the status quo regarded the way this board often operates, not the dynamics of umpire development. Some here feel it necessary to ridicule anyone who deviates from ad populum tact. All I did was point out how professional umpiring no longer embraces 'expected calls' and that it is dinosaur officiating to continue to do so. Around this area, the better umpires emulate what the best in the business do currently. I prefer to work with guys who share the challenge of following the rules and calling what they see, not what helps get them a higher rating.

[Rich]

The way I look at it is this:

When you have a boss that is going to determine whether you get to stay in your job, you either do as you're told or you move on.

It's not arrogant to listen to your bosses -- it's arrogant to have your boss tell you one thing that helps make the group consistent and unilaterally think "I know better" and refuse to conform for that reason.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The way I look at it is this:

When you have a boss that is going to determine whether you get to stay in your job, you either do as you're told or you move on.

It's not arrogant to listen to your bosses -- it's arrogant to have your boss tell you one thing that helps make the group consistent and unilaterally think "I know better" and refuse to conform for that reason.

Rich, in no way am I suggesting that I am superior to anyone here - in fact, I have admitted many mistakes I have made over the years and my hope that they made me better. I do, however, pride myself in having learned right from wrong long ago. It is absolutely arrogant to do what you know is wrong solely to improve your ratings or performance evaluation. The expected call is a dinosaur. But there are still some who cling to it. For example, the high strike, dropped pitch that crossed the plate, and curve ball that passed through the zone but ended up just above the dirt. These things have been discussed endlessly here. Some call them for what they are and others refuse because they know it is expected and will improve their rating. I know you take pride in your abilities and find it difficult to believe you would knowingly ignore a rule solely to advance. I have seen your posts take issue with those who earn post season assignments based on kissing up rather than merit. That is what the EC is all about, after all.

It is not a matter of "I know better". I respect that some of you have to appease assignors who demand ignorance of certain rules. I understand that some of you have to make calls based on performance reveiews and a desire to advance. Complying with directives is a tough call. So are most things about our profession.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

and curve ball that passed through the zone but ended up just above the dirt.

Mike Port has been quoted several times in several media stories that an umpire's zone evaluation (ZE) score (formerly QuesTec) will be changed on such a pitch. I have confirmed the same with several former colleagues who have advanced far beyond me to actually umpire MLB.

That is, ZE will initially mark the umpire as having "missed" the call because the curve ball passed through the zone. However, on such a pitch (where the ball ends up in the dirt, or the catcher has to significantly move his glove to catch it just above the dirt) in the post game analysis MLB evaluators will change the call from "missed" to "correct". This is done because almost no one (umpire, players, coaches, managers) expects that pitch to be a strike.

That is a FACT about ZE procedure...it is not opinion...that is what is done on a nearly daily basis.

So, maybe not all expected calls are quite the dinosaurs you think they are.

As I posted above, I do believe that many of the expected calls, especially on the bases (i.e. ball beat runner so call runner "out" if anything resembling a tag is made) have died due to expanded instant replay. But not all have died.