Humorous what's the count exchange

[robbie]

Video speaks for itself....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS8CksnUJi8

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by robbie

Video speaks for itself....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS8CksnUJi8

Love the batter's reaction too.

[teebob21]

Oh....no.....

I know a couple of these umpires personally. They are sure going to feel sheepish in postgame and/or when they watch the video. I also know the Houston coach is not always good at saying the right thing when her team's been slighted. She had to be PISSED.

[BoomerSooner]

I'm curious as to how this happened. I mean that from an analyzing the situation perspective, not a critical one. I've tried breaking it down, and I'm just confused.

The only thing I can think of is that everyone got distracted by the
action surrounding the stolen base and missed the strike on the swing. Personally, I feel like the swinging strikes are the easiest to remember, but if that were the case in this situation, then the "forgotten" call would be the last pitch, which should also be pretty easy to remember.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be critical or assign blame. Mistakes happen. I just like coming at things from an analytical standpoint to try to determine the cause and how to prevent it.

[Andy]

Here is the backstory from one of the umpires in the video.

First pitch, swinging strike. PU basically gets caught up in the runner stealing and does not see the swing and calls the pitch a ball. Next pitch is a called strike and the PU gives the count as 1-1....this is when the confusion starts.

Defensive coach questions the count, PU goes to U3, then to coach, offensive coach then comes out, finally all four umpires get together.

The first pitch was ruled a ball...by rule this is a call that can be appealed due to the swing, but the appeal must happen before the next pitch. It didn't. Once the next pitch was thrown, that first pitch is forever a ball. This is what the offensive coach was saying. Once all four umpires got together, they reached the same conclusion. By rule, there was nothing they could do about the first pitch, since another pitch had been thrown.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Andy

Here is the backstory from one of the umpires in the video.

First pitch, swinging strike. PU basically gets caught up in the runner stealing and does not see the swing and calls the pitch a ball. Next pitch is a called strike and the PU gives the count as 1-1....this is when the confusion starts.

Defensive coach questions the count, PU goes to U3, then to coach, offensive coach then comes out, finally all four umpires get together.

The first pitch was ruled a ball...by rule this is a call that can be appealed due to the swing, but the appeal must happen before the next pitch. It didn't. Once the next pitch was thrown, that first pitch is forever a ball. This is what the offensive coach was saying. Once all four umpires got together, they reached the same conclusion. By rule, there was nothing they could do about the first pitch, since another pitch had been thrown.

EXCEPT - only the PU thought is was a ball. No one else thought it was a ball. Look at the TV status display - it shows 0-1. The batter knew. The coach knew. The other umpires knew. There was no perceived need by anyone in the park to appeal so why would there be one? Sometimes you gotta fix things.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

EXCEPT - only the PU thought is was a ball. No one else thought it was a ball. Look at the TV status display - it shows 0-1. The batter knew. The coach knew. The other umpires knew. There was no perceived need by anyone in the park to appeal so why would there be one? Sometimes you gotta fix things.

The problem is that you can't fix it because it wasn't called in the first place. It was a mistake by the PU.

This is why PU's should always give a count after a non-standard play when the ball isn't put in play, such as a steal or passed ball. This not only allows the PU to make sure his/her fellow umpires are on the same page, but also allows the defense (or offense) to question the call on the pitch.

Once the second pitch was delivered, they couldn't go back and appeal the original call which was a ball despite the swing and miss on the pitch. Had he indicated a count of 1-0 after the steal, then I'm sure Houston's coach, the catcher or the pitcher would have questioned it and the rest of the exchange would be non-existent.

[chapmaja]

I see this did not hurt the crew too bad. The PU is working a Super this weekend as is the U3.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I see this did not hurt the crew too bad. The PU is working a Super this weekend as is the U3.

Wonder if he carries an indicator on the bases? J/K

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Mark, Jr., and I saw this video last week on Facebook.

1) The 1st pitch to B4 is a swinging Strike and the PU signaled a strike, 0-1 is now the count.

2) R1 steals 2B on the 1st pitch to B4.

3) The 2nd pitch to B4 is a called Strike as the PU signaled a strike, the count is now 0-2.

4) B4, before stepping back into the Batter's Box, can be seen asking the PU for the count, which he gives as 1-1.

5) Houston HC now questions the PU about the count. PU and BU3 confer and the count is corrected to 0-2; 0-2 IS the correct count.

6) Texas HC now questions the PU about the count. PU and BU3 confer and the count stays at 0-2, which IS the correct count.

7) Texas HC is not happy and requests the PU asks the entire Crew for help.

8) Watching the video, it appears that BU2 is doing all of the talking during the conference, and it appears that from reading her lips that she is telling the PU that his 1-1 count is correct.

9) It appeared to Mark, Jr., and I, from BU2's conduct during the conference that she just might have been the Crew Chief. We are perplexed as to what would make the BU2 come to the conclusion that the 2nd pitch was a Ball.

MTD, Sr.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Mark, Jr., and I saw this video last week on Facebook.

1) The 1st pitch to B4 is a swinging Strike and the PU signaled a strike, 0-1 is now the count. This is where the entire discussion lies. I have watched the video numerous times and never see him signal a strike on this pitch.

2) R1 steals 2B on the 1st pitch to B4. Which was the distraction that caused the PU to never signal the strike on the swing and miss.

3) The 2nd pitch to B4 is a called Strike as the PU signaled a strike, the count is now 0-2. The second pitch was a called strike, but since the PU never called the swing and miss a strike, the delivery of this pitch makes the appeal of the missed call on the swing and miss impossible, thus the legal count is 1-1.

4) B4, before stepping back into the Batter's Box, can be seen asking the PU for the count, which he gives as 1-1. She likely knew he never signaled the first swing and miss as a strike, so she is making sure what her count is.

5) Houston HC now questions the PU about the count. PU and BU3 confer and the count is corrected to 0-2; 0-2 IS the correct count. Based on what happened 0-2 should be the correct count, based on the fact he never signals a swing and miss strike on the first pitch, the legal count is 1-1.

6) Texas HC now questions the PU about the count. PU and BU3 confer and the count stays at 0-2, which IS the correct count. The Texas coach likely also knows the first pitch was never called a strike, thus 0-2 is not the legal count.

7) Texas HC is not happy and requests the PU asks the entire Crew for help. He knows the legal count and the count it should be are not correct, so he wants the crew to get the call correct.

8) Watching the video, it appears that BU2 is doing all of the talking during the conference, and it appears that from reading her lips that she is telling the PU that his 1-1 count is correct. If read her lips, she is saying that the first pitch was not called a strike, so the count has to be 1-1.
How she would know it wasn't called is a question, except we may not see the entire discussion on the video where it was asked if the PU ever signal strike.

9) It appeared to Mark, Jr., and I, from BU2's conduct during the conference that she just might have been the Crew Chief. We are perplexed as to what would make the BU2 come to the conclusion that the 2nd pitch was a Ball. She doesn't. If you read the lips during the end of the conversation, she can be seen telling the Houston Coach "that's the rule", which in this case relates to the fact they could not change the call on the first pitch of the at-bat after the second pitch had been released. The correct count is 1-1, even if it should have been 0-2.

MTD, Sr.

Responses in red next to your post.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

EXCEPT - only the PU thought is was a ball. No one else thought it was a ball. Look at the TV status display - it shows 0-1. The batter knew. The coach knew. The other umpires knew. There was no perceived need by anyone in the park to appeal so why would there be one? Sometimes you gotta fix things.

The problem is the rules don't allow the fixing of the thing that was screwed up in this sequence. For that first pitch to be changed to a strike it would have to be appealed prior to the release of the second pitch, which likely you said, there was no reason to because everyone in the park (I suspect except the batter who never saw the strike call on her swing and miss). This is why, IMHO, any time there is a steal, passed ball, illegal pitch or other out of the ordinary situation, the PU should give the count. Had he done this, Houston likely appeals the swing and miss and the count would be 0-1.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Oh....no.....

I know a couple of these umpires personally. They are sure going to feel sheepish in postgame and/or when they watch the video. I also know the Houston coach is not always good at saying the right thing when her team's been slighted. She had to be PISSED.

I thought she handled it pretty well. I think the crew did a good job of explaining what happened and that they (the PU) had screwed up. You can see the U2 telling her "that's the rule" which has to apply to the fact she could not appeal the swing and miss after the second pitch was thrown. Coaches may not be happy, but they tend to at least understand when a crew screws up and admits they screwed up, which I really think is why she didn't put up more of a fuss than she did.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The problem is the rules don't allow the fixing of the thing that was screwed up in this sequence. For that first pitch to be changed to a strike it would have to be appealed prior to the release of the second pitch, which likely you said, there was no reason to because everyone in the park (I suspect except the batter who never saw the strike call on her swing and miss). This is why, IMHO, any time there is a steal, passed ball, illegal pitch or other out of the ordinary situation, the PU should give the count. Had he done this, Houston likely appeals the swing and miss and the count would be 0-1.

Disagree. It was not a missed call or erroneous judgment call. Everyone in the place had the correct count prior to the second pitch except the PU. And how can anyone question an error if it was not apparent until after the following pitch? After all, the scoreboard had the strike and even the talking heads had it right.

The only thing needing a correction was the PU's indicator.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

it would have to be appealed prior to the release of the second pitch, .

I repeat: There was no perceived need by anyone in the park to appeal so why would there be one?

Sometimes you have to fix things.