Incorrect call on replay review in Cleveland

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Rich

There is not a single person on this site qualified to make this statement.

Perhaps, but it is quite possible that he is one of the worst in MLB. One doesn't need to be an MLB Umpire or supervisor to believe a certain umpire is bad, provided one doesn't hold an opinion solely on emotional bias.

[jicecone]

None of us have, been in that position granted, but we are talking about an official that has been there for thousands of games. One who we now know had better video equipment available to him than most if not all of us. And somehow between one, two or three sets of eyes, they could not determine the correct call, after they choose to utilize the replay.

If it was based upon judgement alone, I don't think anyone here would have a problem with the call. But when the Crew Chief decides that the crew will utilize replay and not determine the correct call, that the whole world could get right with amateur equipment, something is wrong.

[CT1]

Now that MLB has admitted that the crew missed the call, the big question is: why?

With the multiple camera angles available, and given the current state of HD video equipment, there's really no reason why the on-field umpires aren't provided with all the information they need. Sure, there may be the occasional screwy play where no definitive angle exists, but I believe those are rare.

It's human nature to see only the "evidence" that supports your call, which is why it makes good sense to use a neutral observer who has no dog in the fight to make the final determination.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CT1

It's human nature to see only the "evidence" that supports your call, which is why it makes good sense to use a neutral observer who has no dog in the fight to make the final determination.

Are you suggesting that the umpires on the field aren't neutral?

The calls belong to the umpires on the field. I see no compelling reason to leave them to guys in their pajamas sitting in a studio hundreds of miles away.

Suppose this had been ruled a HR, and upon review, the video shows the ball didn't clear the yellow line. So the reviewer in some centralized location makes the final call. Does that reviewer then also have to judge where to place the runners? How is he going to be able to do that if he likely has no idea where they were at the time of the call, and there probably isn't any video that will give him any help? In the meantime, you've got three umpires who were tracking those base runners and would be better suited to judge who goes where.

No, I don't care to have reviews done by some "neutral observer" who is nowhere near the stadium. The MLB system in place is fine. This was just one screw-up. We've seen plenty of reviews in the NFL where the announcers watch multiple angles with blow-up "NB-See-it" enhancements and come up with a call, only for the reviewer to come up with the opposite call. No review system is infallible.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Are you suggesting that the umpires on the field aren't neutral?

WRT a call they have already made, of course they aren't. He's not saying they are biased toward a team ... just that it would only be natural to be biased toward the accuracy of your own initial call.

[Rich]

MLB has used Hernandez in the post-season 14 of the last 16 years. In one of those two years, he worked the All-Star game. Many other umpires in the bigs haven't had that level of success.

For example: CB Bucknor has only worked the postseason 3 times (just the division series) in his 17 years as a ML umpire. Tim McClelland (a crew chief) hasn't worked the postseason since 2009.

In other words, our perception of Hernandez and the MLB players' perception of Hernandez doesn't mean a damned thing. At least until now, MLB liked Hernandez -- we'll see if that changes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

MLB has used Hernandez in the post-season 14 of the last 16 years. In one of those two years, he worked the All-Star game. Many other umpires in the bigs haven't had that level of success.

For example: CB Bucknor has only worked the postseason 3 times (just the division series) in his 17 years as a ML umpire. Tim McClelland (a crew chief) hasn't worked the postseason since 2009.

In other words, our perception of Hernandez and the MLB players' perception of Hernandez doesn't mean a damned thing. At least until now, MLB liked Hernandez -- we'll see if that changes.

Exactly. Someone likes him even if I have a different opinion. And you know what they say about people with opinions? And I have not known any official at any level that everyone loves.

Peace

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by Rich

MLB has used Hernandez in the post-season 14 of the last 16 years. In one of those two years, he worked the All-Star game. Many other umpires in the bigs haven't had that level of success.

For example: CB Bucknor has only worked the postseason 3 times (just the division series) in his 17 years as a ML umpire. Tim McClelland (a crew chief) hasn't worked the postseason since 2009.

In other words, our perception of Hernandez and the MLB players' perception of Hernandez doesn't mean a damned thing. At least until now, MLB liked Hernandez -- we'll see if that changes.

and the legendary Marty Foster has only worked two Division Series since his first game 17 years ago. In fact Marty has never worked a post season game behind the plate or at 1B which is probably a pretty good thing.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Rich

MLB has used Hernandez in the post-season 14 of the last 16 years. In one of those two years, he worked the All-Star game. Many other umpires in the bigs haven't had that level of success.

For example: CB Bucknor has only worked the postseason 3 times (just the division series) in his 17 years as a ML umpire. Tim McClelland (a crew chief) hasn't worked the postseason since 2009.

In other words, our perception of Hernandez and the MLB players' perception of Hernandez doesn't mean a damned thing. At least until now, MLB liked Hernandez -- we'll see if that changes.

In other words, if MLB thinks using Hernandez will help them increase revenues as they look to expand in Latin America, that's what they will do. Monetizing the brand is the goal, and if sacrificing excellence in umpiring will further that goal, that's what will happen.

Future growth is in Latin America, not in the USA, and that's the audience that's going to be pandered to.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Are you suggesting that the umpires on the field aren't neutral?

Not at all. See MD's comment above.

Originally Posted by Manny A

Suppose this had been ruled a HR, and upon review, the video shows the ball didn't clear the yellow line. So the reviewer in some centralized location makes the final call. Does that reviewer then also have to judge where to place the runners?

Nope. If it's questionable whether it is a HR or not, the play is left live, so there's no discussion about what "would have" happened. Then if it's overturned to a HR, they don't have a problem.

NFL & NCAA D-I officials have changed their on-field philosophy to accomodate replay. No reason why MLB can't follow suit.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Are you suggesting that the umpires on the field aren't neutral?

Neutral to the team, of course. Neutral to themselves and their own calls, they're only human.

The calls belong to the umpires on the field. I see no compelling reason to leave them to guys in their pajamas sitting in a studio hundreds of miles away.

Suppose this had been ruled a HR, and upon review, the video shows the ball didn't clear the yellow line. So the reviewer in some centralized location makes the final call. Does that reviewer then also have to judge where to place the runners? How is he going to be able to do that if he likely has no idea where they were at the time of the call, and there probably isn't any video that will give him any help? In the meantime, you've got three umpires who were tracking those base runners and would be better suited to judge who goes where.

There is no reason why you would have to put any part other than HR or not to the neutral observer. Once he says no HR, the crew can carry out the rest of the ruling.

No, I don't care to have reviews done by some "neutral observer" who is nowhere near the stadium. The MLB system in place is fine. This was just one screw-up. We've seen plenty of reviews in the NFL where the announcers watch multiple angles with blow-up "NB-See-it" enhancements and come up with a call, only for the reviewer to come up with the opposite call. No review system is infallible.

Obviously not. The view provided in the telecast was obvious enough that it should have been easy to declare a HR. Whether that means a neutral observer, better equipment, better procedure, or better training is up for debate, but the system isn't fine.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Are you suggesting that the umpires on the field aren't neutral?

The MLB system in place is fine.

Exactly What is the MLB System?

Apparently it is not clearly defined with respect to type of video equipment to be used.

Why use a neutral site (reference Tee's post)?

makes sense and is the most cost effective. The alternative would be to have each stadium equipped with similar video equipment plus have a replay booth manned by former MLB umpires which would cost money. Yeah I know baseball is big business but how many questionable HR's do you get a year.

There is already (again refer to Tee's post) a neutral site in NY with all camera angles you need. The people in this neutral site are not making calls or rulings but simply giving the umpires all angles needed to make the final call.

Bottom Line: MLB (where's Bud been but that's another topic altogether) needs to clearly define Replay with respect to video equipment.

Pete Booth