2013 World Series Thread
 

Game 1

PU John Hirschbeck
1B Mark Wenger
2B Dana Demuth
3B Paul Emmel
LF Bill Miller
RF Jim Joyce

Like the way they got together and overturned the call at second base early in game one. Even though Demuth was demonstrative, clearly an error - safe at second.

Tough for STL to argue when the Umps got the call right!

Did you hear what Joe Torre had to say just now? What did you think of it?

Also, Shane Victorino is very unhappy with the strike zone. I don't see what he has to complain about, he is leaning over the whole plate.

Sure coach, I will be happy to huddle with my 1 partner. Oh, never mind, we have signals too, and since he didnt converge on me, the call stands. WTF.

The MLB video of this play has a section of audio from the conversation of manager Mike Matheny and PU John Hirschbeck (starting at 1:58). To summarize:

John Hirschbeck: "There's five of us out here, ok. And all five of us say we are 100% sure that that was not a catch. Our job is to get it right."

Mike Matheny: "But how many...![cut off]"

Many of the comments I have read/heard from people (even the various announcers) commenting on this play say "that call never gets overturned". And I would wager Mike Matheny is saying the same thing before the audio in the above clip gets cut off. Disregarding the legitimacy of these peoples opinions regarding baseball umpiring, is there any shred of truth to this belief?

<iframe src='http://wapc.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=31172513&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

For a run of the mill game in early June, that probably doesn't get overturned. Game 1 of the WS? Yea, they're going to go to extra lengths to get it right.

Never, is a bit of exaggeration here. As far as a "shred of truth", I am sure if you were to hire some DC politician they could talk most people into believing this though. Now, if your quoting the announcers, then their is most likely a good chance that its just a WRONG statement.

I can understand from the umpires view of that play how he may have believed that it was a catch and transfer however, it just didn't happen that way so, they got it right ????

I guess this can lay to rest that old saw about "if the ball goes straight down it was dropped and if it goes out to the side it was on the release."

I'm not sure I like them getting together on this, though. What if "all five of us are 100% sure that the runner beat the tag?"

When I see issues like this, I think about what the lasting legacy of something like that could be in either direction. If they let the call stand, the name of the umpire who made the call becomes a household name for decades as the "guy who blew such an easy call, yada yada". If the call is discussed and overturned in a meeting of the man's peers (which happened), it becomes the topic of conversation for about the next 24 hours until Game 2 is played, and the umpire goes on to live his life in peace and continue with his career. I say BRAVO to all of the people involved. They got the call correct. The pressure that has historically been applied to baseball umpires to maintain autonomy and not ask for help is just simply too much.

Yep, this was a "lead on Sportscenter" kind of call, as in if they don't reverse such an egregious miss, it's the lead on Sportscenter and the start of a new meme. That doesn't mean every close play has to be huddled - indeed, there were other close plays in that game. But that wasn't just a whale of a miss, it was a brontosaurus.

The MLBUM has a section on Getting the Call Right. If memory serves (since I don't have a copy available right now), the recommended "signal" that Joe Torre alluded to would come when another umpire(s) has additional information that the calling umpire may have missed. An example given in the MLBUM is when a calling umpire may be blocked from seeing that the catcher dropped the ball on a tag play at home.

I have no problem accepting that. But in this situation, DeMuth had the whole play in front of him. He was just victimized by shitty judgment. And shitty judgment, IMHO, is not the time when other umpires come to the rescue of their partner.

That's exactly why Jim Joyce's call stood against Armando Galarraga. And Tim Welke's call stood against Jerry Hairston. Those were egregious misses that all three other umpires likely saw, but they didn't "seek to reverse" the call by walking toward them or giving them some other signal. Joyce and Welke knew better, and I'm surprised Demuth didn't stay his ground as well here.

{Edited to add} This will undoubtedly have repercussions down the ranks to us amateur umpires. Now when we have a clear miss on a play that's right in front of us (and we all have them on occasion), coaches will point to this play to argue their cases that we must go for help. An unfortunate precedent has been set, IMO.

Last night's play is a BIG reason why IR is needed. IR will actually speed up the game not take away from it.

You had John Farrell the Red Sox skipper come out and argue the call. Then the umpires huddled, call reversed and out comes Matheney and the umpires have to explain why they reversed the call. This took at least 10-15 minutes (maybe longer I didn't have a stop watch). If IR was used - 2 minutes tops as this was a no brainer of a call reversal.

Also, IMO if the game were played in St. Louis perhaps the call would not have been reversed. I doubt the Cardinal contingent would have replayed the play on the BIG screen like they did in Boston.

IMO, one of the umpires looked at or least glanced at the replay and saw that the call was blown BIG time.

IR is needed.


Pete Booth

But will that play be subject to review? I don't think it should be. Replay should be used for points of fact - fair/foul, out/safe, catch/no catch. Yes, there is judgment in an out/safe, but at its heart it's still a point of fact. Release or not is pure judgement, like obstruction/interference, etc. The football equiv is using replay for catch/no catch but for pass interference.

I don't think it's the end of the world if this is open for review, but I don't think it's as clear cut a candidate as other calls. Still, if they must review it, I do agree that it could actually take less time than the argue/counterargue cycle.

They DID?? I always thought that it was MLB policy that stadiums would not replay bangers, disputed calls, etc., on scoreboards. I know that's always been the case in every pro game I've attended, even when the call goes in favor of the home team.

Are you sure it was shown on the screen, Pete? I never saw Farrell point to the scoreboard during his argument with Demuth as if to say, "Dana, they just showed the play up there, and it's clear you missed it!"

That would have punched his ticket to the locker room. I know they gave him a long leash but not when you say something like that.