Lets see how MLB handles this one....
 

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | STL@CIN: Theriot is ejected after call at second - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Looks like Ryan Theriot is going to get a few days off, doesn't it? Not only for the bump of Muchlinski, but for trying to throw down Winters and/or Guccione too. My guess is five.....

p.s It was a good call, too.....

The 'expected call' fans will probably claim that this was a horrible call. Dinosaur baseball.

Yep, good call. And the call MLB has said they want in this scenario.

I don't think this fits the "expected call" classification at all.

The "expected call" on the "neighborhood play" is one where the infielder just steps around the bag on a pivot to first. That was not the case here. He was pulled off by the throw, thus the need for a proper call.

Cards fan here!

He was off the base. Good call.

Ditto... make a better throw, Skip.

Sure it does, that is why Theriot was upset. That is why Larussa jumped on the call postgame, saying he thought his team was robbed of what others get.

While the throw was high and out, he was still in the neighborhood and some dinosaurs think that it is acceptable to ring that up. Most 'neighborhood' plays have wide throws - either by design to give the receiver a better pivot angle or are simply missed throws. There are a few dozen examples of the Theriot play resulting in outs available in online archives. A few years ago, arrogance allowed these to be called outs. They were and are not.

Its obvious you didn't understand the alleged arrogance of yesterday, and still don't.

A few years ago professional umpires (including myself) were TAUGHT by their bosses (re: PBUC supervisors) to call the neighborhood play. Since I wanted (at that time) to advance "up the ladder," I did what I was instructed. I do not know how my doing what I was told equates to arrogance.

Even in those dark times full of umpiring arrogance :rolleyes:, there was a subtle but understood difference between a middle infielder being "in the neighborhood" while turning a double play and the requirement placed on the middle infielder to hold the bag (like a first baseman) when the only play attempted by the defense was the attempted force at second base.

Since the advent of HD instant replay from 18 different freakin' angles, the "neighborhood" has gotten a lot smaller; the neighborhood's shrinkage has nothing to do with the elimination of purported umpiring arrogance.

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).

+1

To get the expected call, you need to make the expected throw.

Stop the video at 1:42 and you'll see Theriot foot is in contact with the bag.

Doesn't excuse his tirade.

Before he has possession of the ball. Stop the video when it's clear he has possession of the ball and the foot is no longer in contact.

I think the call is outstanding, myself, but I never was fond of giving the pivot guy anything on a bad throw.

ô!ô
 

JR:

Did you watch the same video that I watched?

T

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.

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.

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.

Hmmm,
 

Thanks MrUmpire, we see exactly the same thing.

T

Yup, same thing.

Likewise

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

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.

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.

Two games for Theriot, plus a fine:

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

Meh

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

~Sigh~
 

I look at umpiring as equal parts art and science.

Not unlike the laws of our land sometimes "stuff" is decided by tradition and common sense. Kingfield explained it very well in "The Paper Chase."

If we call games and only consider the written word we would be considered, at best, an overly officious oaf.

While I can respect the "high road" as taken by Mike Strybel it is altruistic in what has become a game based more on tradition.

"Old hides", such as myself, are seeing a game (and a way of officiating) that is changing to fit modern times and it drives us crazy. We hold onto traditions because that is where our comfort lies.

The science of umpiring comes from knowing all the rules and mechanics so they become second nature. The art comes from knowing where to draw lines (no NOT those lines) and take a written rule and understand what it really means to the game.

As umpires we have one basic responsabilty: make sure that there is a level playing field.

Even Mike would agree that we, as baseball umpires, are not robots (leave that to the softball side). Every umpire will have his own strike zone -- not to appease ANYONE -- just because we are all different.

While it would be impossible for anyone to convince me to call a strike on a pitch that passes through the zone but kicks up dust as caught I have learned that things such as the neighborhood play have probably passed to the grave.

As a retired umpire I look at things with a little different tint than when I worked. While I hate the direction of umpiring at the highest level I think that umpiring at our level (high school and college) is better than ever.

T

And as I have posted, umpiring for ratings is something some HAVE to do. It is still sad, but I understand that some feel the need to ignore the rules for personal gratification. That is not a statement of superiority but rather acknowledgement of reality for some. If you find yourself umpiring at the MLB level, consider Mike Port's thoughts regarding QuesTec.

Most MLB guys are ridiculously consistent, QT park or not. The adjustiment you speak of is statistically irrelevant to their scores. You may have noticed that MLB has directed its umpires to make the correct call and not the expected one lately. They still want the correct call, Port merely affirmed that they will alter scores if such a pitch occurs and is called. The ZE system is not highly regarded within the WUA and that concession is wise, but almost useless, given that scores are really high already.

Tim, this is not about altruism. MLB, the NCAA and Fed have all taken major steps to change the way that the game is umpired. A long time ago, I remember reading about a plan to get the call right. The old guard screamed to high heaven that they would not change the way they worked. Some claimed that messing with tradition was sacreligious. Others wrung their hands over any attempt to step on their authority. The anti-get the call right crowd figured they would keep on keeping on. How'd that work out?

Umpiring has evolved. We just saw an NCAA tournament where the committee wanted the games called according to the words in the rule book. Yes, there are inconsistencies in the book and common sense sometimes helps amateur umpires survive. Sticking with what is in the book is always a good shield though. As stated prior, I respect that some umpires have to appease assignors, some coaches and even partners with expected calls. I'm just happy to see that the best in the business are abandoning that effort. Try smiling, sighing is too much work on a hot day (100 here).

Who in the major league office wants a 12-6 curveball that hits the ground called a strike because it "passed through the zone"???

I don't know, call them. I'm pretty sure that plenty of pitchers do.

Do you also ignore the pitch that cuts through the front of the zone but tails away (or in, as it were), making the catcher adjust his mitt outside the zone? I was always under the impression that players and coaches liked to see strikes called.

Actually, I can consider it now as an example that even at the highest level, an "expected" call is still allowed today. I do not need to be an MLB umpire to use this example to contradict some of your previous assertions in this thread.

Not always true.

As I posted above in regards to the death of expected calls, I largely agree with you in that I believe most "expected" calls have died and that MLB wants the "correct" call made. I would add that the significantly improved quality of instant replay has generated this change, not the death of arrogance or anything else.

The bottom line for me in respect to all of your posts in this thread is this:

If you want to say that there were a lot of arrogant umpires in MLB in the 1990's or earlier, I won't disagree. I think their arrogance (and the arrogance of their leadership) directly contributed to the 1999 labor disaster (from the union's perspective). If you were to argue that their arrogance was as large a reason as any anger they may have had toward MLB for contributing to their refusal to start playoff games on time after the Alomar spitting incident...I'd agree with you. If you were to argue that the arrogance of some crew chiefs was the reason that many of them refused to use a unified 4-man mechanic system in MLB prior to 1999...I'd agree with you. Hell, if you were to argue that the late Eric Gregg showed contemptable arrogance after his 1997 playoff fiasco...I'd agree.

In other words, I am not niave to think or argue that there was no arrogance among MLB (or PBUC) umpires at those times. I think there was arrogance and I think they paid a price for that arrogance in a lot of ways. As an aside, I think they paid a price that was far steeper than they should have had to pay.

However, I will disagree that umpires made the "expected call" part of the game because of arrogance. The expected call did not arise and become part of the game because of the arrogance of a few (or many) umpires or umpiring executives. It became a part of the game because that is how players, coaches and managers wanted the game called (as evidenced by the amount of vitriol that came out of the dugouts when "expected calls" were not made) AND umpires deciding that they wanted quiet games rather than dugouts being burned down every night. This led baseball executives to officially tell umpires to call games this way. I do not see how this is has anything to do with arrogance. I will also disagree with any assertion that asserts that "expected calls" were only made by a "few" umpires during that time in baseball's history. I would assert that "expected calls" were made by the vast majority of umpires at this level, including the best umpires.

Nearly this entire debate, however, is an academic exercise in historical matters. Whichever reason one choses to assert as the cause of the "expected call" being used by umpires, for the most part (but not entirely), the expected call has died in professional baseball. I assert (as stated above) that this is a direct result of instant replay's evolution. I would also argue that the "expected call" is dying in lower levels partly because of instant replay (as it is used in college games), but mostly because whatever happens in MLB usually filters its way down to lower levels.

Thanks Rich and Tim. Well spoken.
I really don't mind the direction the game is going. I was taught the "old way" and did well with it. I find the current game a challenge, one that keeps me sharp, to move and adapt as necessary. The college game does not have as much technology bearing own on it so expectations about what should be called vary. It is the art part and I relish working on it.

I had a coach this season in my face telling me "you can't call him safe the ball was there!". He came out later and apologized, admitting his third baseman was late with the tag. After the game one of my partners told me "You still kicked it. The ball was there." I'm fine with what I called.

Mike I do give you credit for your stance. But don't ascribe your reasons for what I do.

That's right....you don't know....

You stated earlier that... Again, I ask who in the MLB office, not a pitcher, (nice try) wants a 12-6 hitting the ground called a strike? Better yet, when is the last time you saw a 12-6 hit the ground and called a strike?

Never mind... most everyone knows this answer.



There is a reason why you don't see arguments on a ball beating the runner and the tag is belt high after the feet hit the bag. It's the same reason why the neighborhood play is called the way it is.

The spats that occur are when it is perceived that the accepted perameters have been exceeded. (bad throw, attempted evasive action by a runner...etc)

Never said it was, but the figures speak for themselves. Look them up and see.


Whew...a lot of words to get through on a sweltering July day. As best I can see it, you agree with me that expected calls are largely ignored by quality umpires now. You contend that instant replay caused the change. I don't disagree but know that recording games at all levels has caused an evaluation of officiating. The push to get the calls right began a decade ago and quality instant replay has been around for almost thirty.

In the end, I prefer to get the calls right or at least do my best to do that. When a coach comes out and tries to argue about a neighborhood play, it reminds me of the guy who yells, "Tie goes to the runner." Neither are impressive for believing things that may have been accepted in the past.

I wish you well on such a hot day.

Grow up. You ask me to answer a question directed at someone else and I honestly addressed it. Stop being a child.

"Contemptable", ain't I ???


You answered my question, which was in response to a claim that you made by saying "I don't know".

When called on it, like always, you name call....

A wise man once said, "when you continuously tell people how much you know, you just told them you don't know very much."

Wear that shoe... I'm sure it fits.

It seemed like a very legit question to me. For awhile, you've regaled us about how quality umpires at the top levels are doing away with the expected call (which I do tend to agree with) and are now just "getting it right" which means by the book. Yet, here's an example of a strike by the clear wording of the book, yet umpires almost always call it a ball and have their evulations retoractively corrected to account for this by the powers that be...and everyone in the sport seems okay with this. Is this a case of the umpires putting their rating ahead of the game for their personal gratification as you put it?

I think we as an officiating community are doing away with "expected" calls in all sports not only due to instant replay...as you pointed out, we've had replay for a while now. I think it's largely being done away with because replay technology has improved immensely in the past decade. There are many more replay angles that weren't available in the past. We have HD largely available for most sports fans. We also have almost every game available on TV somewhere...unlike before where you'd only have the "Game of the Week" shown on TV. That means all 162 games by a team in MLB, 82 in the NBA and NHL, and 16 in the NFL are being scrutinized by the average Joe unlike yesteryear.

I am in the deep south. Every building and house I go in is a cool 72-degrees. LOL

You asked me to answer for someone in a MLB office. I said that I couldn't and suggested you do it, if you are so intrigued. It is hardly name calling to remind you that you are behaving like a child by doing that. As you say, the shoe fits, wear it.

I never once said I know more than anyone else here. I merely stated that expected calls are becoming extinct.

(roll eyes) You think it is legitimate to ask me to answer for a MLB executive? Amazing.

Yes. The WUA demanded the concession.

No, not everyone in the sport is 'okay with this'. A number of pitching coaches, catchers and pitchers have spoken out regarding the strike that isn't called.

Thanks for agreeing.

Really? People in MLB want strikes on breaking pitches where the catchers get dirt? Or when the catcher sets up on the inside corner and has to dive back to stab it on the outside corner?

Well, the old saying is true. You can't always get what you want. Those pitches aren't called strikes at ANY level, so why would they all of a sudden want them at the top level of the game?

Why don't you list the names of the "many" or "a number of"?

Give us a source where we can see who spoke out.

It is?

This is a complete lie. I know this because those same people don't want that pitch called a strike when their team is batting, so they don't expect it to be called when they are pitching.

What I meant is: as instant replay is used on broadcasts of college games. I don't know what part of the country you are in, but we have a lot of games broadcasted where I live. I'm in the heart of SEC/ACC country.

The use of replay in these broadcasts has led many top-level college umpires to adopt the "get it right" mantra (especially on the bases) just like their MLB counterparts. They don't want to get burried on a broadcast, either.

Haven't met one yet, though, who will intentionally call a strike on a breaking ball in the dirt that may have touched the strike zone over the plate.

Okay, I'm with you. I thought you meant instant replay being used by umpires.

I umpire at the college level and I don't know of anyone who calls that pitch a strike either. If they do they won't be around long.

It took less than a second for Google to call this video up - "breaking ball in dirt called strike". The game was between the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees. The 12-6 curve crosses the zone and ends in the dirt. Yes, it was called a strike for the out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svACCO88938

Uh oh...it seems that a couple of you think you are better than a MLB umpire. (sigh and roll eyes) It is truly funny to see this debate twist from the original expected call mentality though. Just like hard slides at second now ending in interference calls, MLB is addressing things that have become issues for dinosaurs. The strike zone is still subject to individuality and is not as blatant as the neighborhood play. Still, some have the stones to call that strike.

I worked with a guy who would never call a pitch a strike if the catcher dropped it. I asked him where it is in the book and he said that a AA guy told him to do it that way. Impressive.

What? An MLB umpire missed a pitch? CALL THE PRESS!

I already know that Mike has trouble comprehending what he reads. Now he takes a fan's video from a TV set, with the fan's comment that the pitch is "pretty much on the dirt", and exaggerates that already biased view to his phrase "in the dirt".

The pitch isn't in the dirt.

Seriously, having a strong EGO is necessary for a good official but, having one that comes from a head size way to large for any hat is another thing all together. If you have to resort to Google ytube videos to try and prove your personal opinion then you have stooped lower than the pitch in the dirt.

The neighborhood play came about because for years it was acceptable to take the fielder "out" at second. You could umpire with the a gladiator mentality and watch players get maimed, put up with the brawls as a result of you forcing a fielder to make sure he touched that bag crystal clear perfectly or do a little pre-emptive officiating and shortening your day without these problems.

Over the years it finally dawned on some that taking the player out was a safety problem. As as result of this the fielders could turn a double and not have to worry if they were going to get there legs broken. So please get off your "high horse" about your opinions about the "expected calls" just because you like the attention from stirring the pot.

I think you and Larry need to start a personal forum for the two of you, because your begining to bore the hell out of the rest of us.

Thanks for that. It led me to this:

‪Another 36 Inch Strike Zone‬‏ - YouTube

I'd work (the bases) with that guy any day. Never a dull moment!

I think you and Larry need to start a personal forum for the two of you, because your begining to bore the hell out of the rest of us.>>>

LOL. I catch your drift. I do think the Posada missed bag play was interesting - you don't see that one everyday. And there did seem to be difference of opinion on the proper mechanic.

Since I spent money and bought unlimited access to all MLB games at MLB.com, in rebuttal I'll now post links to every pitch from every game where a breaking ball in the dirt (or caught just above the dirt) was called a "ball" by an MLB umpire, even though it appeared to "catch the zone" by foxtrack or K zone or whatever.

Oh, who am I kidding? Ninety-nine percent of us on this board know that there are soooooo many examples of such a pitch being called a ball from this year alone that it would take far too long to draft that post.

I'm done with this thread.

No, they don't. Pitchers don't throw that pitch for a called strike, they throw it to get the batter to swing and miss. When was the last time you saw a pitcher argue for a ptich in the dirt to be called a strike? They aren't as clueless as some internet umpires.

Anyone trying to convince that you that professional umpires have been told to call that pitch a strike has not spoken with professional umpires or their evaluators, or is lying.

I hope that AA guy is still on the wagon.

In case you couldn't tell, my post was an attempt at sarcasm.

Yes. I could tell.