The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 12:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong View Post
Good article on the protest. Looks like this guy got it right from the start.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Rules Fuel Phillies Protest Controversy: Fan's Take - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
Thank you for that article. I originally thought that it was incorrect that Joe went to the IR but not knowing the ground rules of that park, I now have to agree with Joe. Simply put, all one of the crew has to suggest is that the ball may have been a HR and the crew must user the IR if there is any doubt.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 12:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzy6900 View Post
Thank you for that article. I originally thought that it was incorrect that Joe went to the IR but not knowing the ground rules of that park, I now have to agree with Joe. Simply put, all one of the crew has to suggest is that the ball may have been a HR and the crew must user the IR if there is any doubt.
The problem is the crew didn't show any doubt at first and seemed willing to let the play stand until McKeon came out to argue for interference.
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStrybel View Post
I used the word "directive".
Except in the first sentence of your post: "Yes, that is what the rule says". So you actually called it both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStrybel View Post
The mechanic for handling a need to employ Instant Replay does not need to be stated rule. Mechanics are not rules.
Exactly. Are mechanics employed by the umpires protestable?
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 251
Its actually pretty simple unless you dont want to see it.

West asked his crew what they had after he was questioned on what happened with the ball in play (not what happened at a different base). Pretty standard stuff for umpires. Crews dont run to other crew members if they see something, they wait until asked. Plate guy had something different than West and stated that it may even have been a home run. This is when West went to check the replay. He would have been resoundingly second guessed if he had not done what he did. Now if you want to accuse West of lying about his PU then go ahead. Seemed pretty clear after the umpires huddled up he went straight for the replay of that specific play of that specific batted ball.
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 02:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong View Post
Its actually pretty simple unless you dont want to see it.

West asked his crew what they had after he was questioned on what happened with the ball in play (not what happened at a different base). Pretty standard stuff for umpires. Crews dont run to other crew members if they see something, they wait until asked. Plate guy had something different than West and stated that it may even have been a home run. This is when West went to check the replay. He would have been resoundingly second guessed if he had not done what he did. Now if you want to accuse West of lying about his PU then go ahead. Seemed pretty clear after the umpires huddled up he went straight for the replay of that specific play of that specific batted ball.
No one is saying he's lying. We're taking him at his word. But changing THIS call based on replay was not within the purview of the Replay "rules". It really is that simple.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 02:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
No one is saying he's lying. We're taking him at his word. But changing THIS call based on replay was not within the purview of the Replay "rules". It really is that simple.
This discussion is much like what happened (or would have happened had Al Gore invented the interwebs back then) on the Fisk - Arbruster play. The ruling wasn't consistent with the "rules book" but was correct by interpretation given to umpires (and maybe teams) before the event. Since no one else had the interpretation, there was much handwrining and gnashing of teeth. But, the umpires were right.
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 340
Confusing mechanics here. Ozzy opines that the crew "must" use replay. Yet the PU needs to remain silent about his view until West asks for it in a conference. And the conference was not convened until after McKeon came out. That just doesn't seem a consistent procedure.
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 04:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
No one is saying he's lying. We're taking him at his word. But changing THIS call based on replay was not within the purview of the Replay "rules". It really is that simple.
You do realize that MLB says it is? So yes it is that simple.
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 07:35am
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry1953 View Post
Confusing mechanics here. Ozzy opines that the crew "must" use replay. Yet the PU needs to remain silent about his view until West asks for it in a conference. And the conference was not convened until after McKeon came out. That just doesn't seem a consistent procedure.
The crew didn't have the chance to get together before McKeon came out. He's pretty quick for his age!
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 09:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong View Post
You do realize that MLB says it is? So yes it is that simple.
Just because MLB says it is, doesn't make it so. We have the replay directive. What West did is not allowed by that directive. MLB can say the sky is green as much as they want but it doesn't make it so.

Obviously one of two things is going on here: MLB has issued a new, nonpublic directive that permits more extensive use of replay than we've been lead to believe or West went off the reservation but MLB is unwilling to reign him back in.

MLB has suffered for years from being overly secretive so neither one would surprise me.
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 09:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong View Post
You do realize that MLB says it is? So yes it is that simple.
You're funny.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 09:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastshire View Post
just because mlb says it is, doesn't make it so. We have the replay directive. What west did is not allowed by that directive. Mlb can say the sky is green as much as they want but it doesn't make it so.

Obviously one of two things is going on here: Mlb has issued a new, nonpublic directive that permits more extensive use of replay than we've been lead to believe or west went off the reservation but mlb is unwilling to reign him back in.

Mlb has suffered for years from being overly secretive so neither one would surprise me.
+1
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 10:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
Just because MLB says it is, doesn't make it so. We have the replay directive. What West did is not allowed by that directive. MLB can say the sky is green as much as they want but it doesn't make it so.

Obviously one of two things is going on here: MLB has issued a new, nonpublic directive that permits more extensive use of replay than we've been lead to believe or West went off the reservation but MLB is unwilling to reign him back in.

MLB has suffered for years from being overly secretive so neither one would surprise me.
What part dont you understand? The PU questioned whether the ball would have been a home run less the fan interference. Thus the replay. Just like the directive states. Even without replay the umpires could have got together and the information from the PU could have changed the call without the replay. Sounds like it might have been ruled a home run with the information provided by PU but with the replay the umpires were able to get it right. Will the directive be re worded? Probably, but give West credit for this one, we all know he needs one once in a while.

Heres a quote from a Philly paper,

Quote:
It appears those that do study the rules intently found that once a review is being used to determine the boundaries of a home run call, which is what umpire Joe West said was the intent and reasoning behind the replay use, that the umpire can then make an interpretive call on the play if something different appears to be the case. In this situation, West and the league contend that the ruling of the recalled double came after replay revealed fan interference on a ball West deemed catchable by the defender.
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 10:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry1953 View Post
The problem is the crew didn't show any doubt at first and seemed willing to let the play stand until McKeon came out to argue for interference.
So what?
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 10:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry1953 View Post
Confusing mechanics here. Ozzy opines that the crew "must" use replay. Yet the PU needs to remain silent about his view until West asks for it in a conference. And the conference was not convened until after McKeon came out. That just doesn't seem a consistent procedure.
Spoken by a real "want to be" umpire! Tell me, when was your last baseball game that you really officiated? You blurt out your vomit on this board trying to be "one of the gang" and we all know that you are an "arm chair umpire". You still haven't gotten the picture that things are not cut and dried by the printed rule. Of course, if you really officiated, you would realize this.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy

Last edited by ozzy6900; Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:46am.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phillies 23, Cubs 22.... ASA/NYSSOBLUE Baseball 8 Mon May 18, 2009 11:33am
Phillies - Brewers Interference SRW Softball 14 Tue Oct 07, 2008 04:56pm
Phillies & Braves, 7/11 mrm21711 Baseball 3 Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:11am
protest ruling Wallyjay Baseball 6 Thu Jul 25, 2002 03:17am
Ineligible Pitchers Protest--Ruling Help jpshaughnessy Baseball 11 Mon May 28, 2001 10:39am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1