Dodgers vs Nats - Ump allegedly apologizes for missed call....

[grunewar]

Umpire apologizes to Johnson for missed call | nationals.com: News

Ump had good position to see play....or so it seems.

[BretMan]

Huh? If you initially didn't score the run because you thought that the bases were loaded (implying that you thought the tag play was an inning-ending force out), then wouldn't you have articulated that in the conference with the other umpires and wouldn't at least one of them have told you they weren't?

Then you're right back to square one. You either saw the runner touch the plate before the tag or you didn't. If you're not sure, then you don't know if you made a bad call or not! Why would you be apologizing if you werent sure you were wrong?

Keeping in mind that Johnson's side of it is a second-hand account of a third-rate explanation...if Porter really did apologize, apparently it was for first getting it wrong when he actually had it right (albeit for the wrong reasons), not for ultimately getting it wrong after they huddled up.

Looks like he owes somebody another apology!

[UES]

Despite what people may think, that play was NOT your ordinary time play that we are accustome to seeing. With two outs and a ground ball in the infield, 99 % of the time, will get thrown to the nearest FORCE play base, usually 1st base. When is the last time you ever had a time play occur on a batted ball that DOESN'T leave the infield? Not to mention that it was a bizarre tag play where a runner unexpectedly hurdles the fielder who barely gets the tag on him for the third out.

Whether you're Alan Porter or Tim McClelland, I can totally understand why a plate umpire might not line up this type of play, MLB or little league. My guess is that Porter was totally caught off guard and because he was not sure, he decided to not score the run. Now, his crew chief joins the discussion and he's thinking....well, if the Manager is that adament that his runner touched the plate before the tag and the plate guy has no clue, then as the crew chief, maybe I'll take my chances and just say that I saw the tag occur after the runner crossed and reverse the call. Obviously, he took a gamble and it ended up blowing up into a worse situation.

While I understand why Winters stepped in and I do think his intentions were good, but I think he got fooled into making a "blind" call which turned out to be even worse than Porter's "no call". Sh!t happens guys, even to MLB Umpires and sometimes you just have to learn from the mistake(s) and move on.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by UES

Despite what people may think, that play was NOT your ordinary time play that we are accustome to seeing. With two outs and a ground ball in the infield, 99 % of the time, will get thrown to the nearest FORCE play base, usually 1st base. When is the last time you ever had a time play occur on a batted ball that DOESN'T leave the infield? Not to mention that it was a bizarre tag play where a runner unexpectedly hurdles the fielder who barely gets the tag on him for the third out.

Whether you're Alan Porter or Tim McClelland, I can totally understand why a plate umpire might not line up this type of play, MLB or little league. My guess is that Porter was totally caught off guard and because he was not sure, he decided to not score the run. Now, his crew chief joins the discussion and he's thinking....well, if the Manager is that adament that his runner touched the plate before the tag and the plate guy has no clue, then as the crew chief, maybe I'll take my chances and just say that I saw the tag occur after the runner crossed and reverse the call. Obviously, he took a gamble and it ended up blowing up into a worse situation.

While I understand why Winters stepped in and I do think his intentions were good, but I think he got fooled into making a "blind" call which turned out to be even worse than Porter's "no call". Sh!t happens guys, even to MLB Umpires and sometimes you just have to learn from the mistake(s) and move on.

Oops. I typed my response to the other thread before seeing this. I agree with your assessment.