Interesting play

[maven]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't know what else had been happening in this game to judge what happened here.

Surely you have an opinion based just on the video? I have no problem qualifying such a ruling with, "this might need revision based on prior events/rulings in the game."

[David B]

Originally Posted by maven

Surely you have an opinion based just on the video? I have no problem qualifying such a ruling with, "this might need revision based on prior events/rulings in the game."

Not that hard to understand what Bob meant - was there words exchanged between players earlier in the game, was there a past history between teams, was there a HBP or something between these two players earlier in the game, maybe a hard tag,

there are so many things that happen in a ball game that fall under "game management" that never show up in a 1 minute video. Obviously by the actions of the F1, there was a problem somewhere between the two players ...

Thanks
David

[bellsjc]

The above link doesn't show the entire 2 events. If you find the video of the entire sequence of events you will see something quite telling. You can tell the quality of the umpire by watching what he does or doesn't do after he grants the batter time. He never puts the ball back into play so judging from that, he probably isn't at the top of the list as an umpire. Here is the entire video with no edit between the granting of time, and the wild pitch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3udryTRvxo

[MD Longhorn]

Maybe it's just me... this new video shows me nothing different.

[bellsjc]

Longhorn, I am addressing the question on why did the pitcher not get ejected for this clearly flagrant act. The video that I posted shows you that the home plate umpire did not put the ball back in play after time was called. An umpire that does not do the most basic thing as put the ball in play after time has been called cannot be expected to make the proper decisions on ejections.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bellsjc

Longhorn, I am addressing the question on why did the pitcher not get ejected for this clearly flagrant act.

I think that he did get ejected, even if the video doesn't show it and apparently neither does some published box score (not that this any kind of official NCAA document)

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think that he did get ejected, even if the video doesn't show it and apparently neither does some published box score (not that this any kind of official NCAA document)

Click on inning 10 of the play-by-play

Berry vs Hendrix - BerryVikings.com

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bellsjc

An umpire that does not do the most basic thing as put the ball in play after time has been called cannot be expected to make the proper decisions on ejections.

Wow, that's one heckuva stretch.

I'm not disagreeing that the pitcher should have been ejected. But to jump to the conclusion that this umpire was poor just because he failed to put a ball into play? I see that happen at many levels, even in the pros.

I'm curious if they counted the run...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bellsjc

Longhorn, I am addressing the question on why did the pitcher not get ejected for this clearly flagrant act. The video that I posted shows you that the home plate umpire did not put the ball back in play after time was called. An umpire that does not do the most basic thing as put the ball in play after time has been called cannot be expected to make the proper decisions on ejections.

He may or may not be a good umpire... but any of us who have been doing this a while and watching our "betters" at the MLB level have seen them fail to put the ball back in play hundreds of times. You've chosen an odd indicator for deciding this guy's worth.

[scrounge]

Isn't Fed the only code that requires the verbal "Play" after dead ball anyway? I thought NCAA and OBR have the implied play rule if no verbal declaration is made.