| IRISHMAFIA |
Sat Oct 25, 2008 09:42am |
MLB's response to the strike/ball call.
Quote:
Jimmie Lee Solomon, MLB's executive vice president of baseball operations, said that Danley had ruled ball four before asking Culbreth for help.
"The clear action was that the umpire, Kerwin Danley, audibly said, 'Ball,'" Solomon said. "There was also a checked swing. In his effort to point down to first base and the first-base umpire, he made a confusing mechanical gesture with his arm. He admits that the mechanic he used was a little bit confusing."
|
Rubbish. This explanation is weak, how can it be "clear" about something which is being explained as "confusing" The mechanic he used was the same as every other swinging strike during the game. Nothing was clear about anything in the scenario.
Quote:
Mike Port, MLB's vice president of umpiring, also acknowledged momentary confusion. Though Danley told Port he had verbally called a ball, Phillies manager Charlie Manuel never heard the "ball" call and briefly argued with Danley, while Myers looked in to ask what had happened.
"His intention was to go to first base for help on the half-swing, on a pitch that he had called a ball," Port said. "He just started off with the wrong signal or mechanic, and quickly tried to correct it by going to first."
|
This explanation is much better, but I don't believe for a second that his "intention" was to go for help until he realized his error. Granted, this comment is for the ignorant (fans & media), but how many umpires do you know who wanted have accepted a simple, "brain fart, he said ball and gave a strike signal." And if it wasn't ball four, how many would have really noticed other than the pitcher, catcher and batter?
Quote:
And this is exactly why we give audible ball calls.
;):mad:
|
Yep, but better timing may have helped :rolleyes:
|
