The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 23, 2013, 07:36pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
2013 World Series Thread

Game 1

PU John Hirschbeck
1B Mark Wenger
2B Dana Demuth
3B Paul Emmel
LF Bill Miller
RF Jim Joyce
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 23, 2013, 08:30pm
9/11 - Never Forget
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,642
Send a message via Yahoo to grunewar
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!
__________________
There was the person who sent ten puns to friends, with the hope that at least one of the puns would make them laugh. No pun in ten did.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 23, 2013, 08:49pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunewar View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 23, 2013, 10:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 01:30am
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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?

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 06:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 07:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
The [URL="http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=31172513"]

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?
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 ????
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 07:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
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?"
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 07:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 131
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 08:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountaincoach View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 08:21am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker

Last edited by Manny A; Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 08:25am.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 08:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountaincoach View Post
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.
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
__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 08:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 08:48am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth View Post
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.
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!"
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 24, 2013, 09:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
2013 Ejection Thread scarolinablue Baseball 45 Sat Mar 16, 2013 05:07pm
World Series Zoochy Baseball 4 Sun Aug 21, 2011 07:34am
N.S.A World Series NEohioref Softball 58 Mon Aug 06, 2007 09:57pm
"Official" unofficial LL World Series Thread SanDiegoSteve Baseball 201 Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:17am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1