Hamari too quick?

[stkjock]

http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/05/28/video-mets-dodgers-noah-syndergaard-ejected-throwing-chase-utley-slide

 

obviuously I'm a homer and biased. 

[Welpe]

Judging by Syndergaard's lack of reaction: nope.

[stkjock]

He looked surprised to me and what about Collins?

[krwill96]

Not too quick in my opinion. However, anyone think that the MLB said to this crew, don't put up with anything towards Utley? This is a possibility I believe. 

[stkjock]

If MLB did, wouldn't they let the clubs know?

[krwill96]

A direction towards the umpire to be vigilant and aware not necessarily a warning but be aware. Do they usually tell the teams ahead of time? Like for instance if Rangers/Jays played again would MLB issue warnings or tell the crew to handle it? 

[scrounge]

NS knew exactly what he was doing, as did every single person in the park....Hamari did the right thing at the right time.

[LittleBlue]

1 hour ago, krwill96 said:

Not too quick in my opinion. However, anyone think that the MLB said to this crew, don't put up with anything towards Utley? This is a possibility I believe. 

That's what I think it was. They definitely told the crew to watch for it and Adam didn't let it go.

[stkjock]

Wussification of the game continues...... SMH

[scrounge]

15 minutes ago, stkjock said:

Wussification of the game continues...... SMH

Your fanboy is showing

[gnhbua93]

15 minutes ago, stkjock said:

Wussification of the game continues...... SMH

You are seeing it as a fanatic, not as an umpire.

[HokieUmp]

1 hour ago, stkjock said:

If MLB did, wouldn't they let the clubs know?

Since EVERYone knew this was coming, what exactly were the clubs going to be told? 

C'mon, man.  One EJ in one game, over a 162-game season.  Step back from the ledge.  It's not even like it was even CLOSE to being argued as "uh, it slipped?", so there's not much to stand on.

[Welpe]

He looked surprised to me and what about Collins?

I'm sure he was surprised and wasn't expecting to be run that quickly. But that look on his face tells me he knew what he was doing. This wasn't an accident.

[stkjock]

Oh no doubt it was intentional, but he didn't throw at his head, he missed him intentionally, Noah's control has been very good the last three games.  

 

I'd  have the same view if Kershaw gets tossed tonight with a similar pitch.  The players used to be allowed the leeway to police some of the game themselves.  Utley was expecting it. Hell even he seemed surprised at the ejection, he never even looks at Noah, he's ready to go on with the at bat.

Guess the old school has been taught out of the posters above

[ALStripes17]

Oh no doubt it was intentional, but he didn't throw at his head, he missed him intentionally, Noah's control has been very good the last three games.  

 

I'd  have the same view if Kershaw gets tossed tonight with a similar pitch.  The players used to be allowed the leeway to police some of the game themselves.  Utley was expecting it. Hell even he seemed surprised at the ejection, he never even looks at Noah, he's ready to go on with the at bat.

Guess the old school has been taught out of the posters above

Really? All the rule changes that have legislated a lot of the 'old school' out of the game? We are umpires man. We have to change with the rules. This is just an extension of society now. Utley served his suspension/fine. There's nothing else to take care of in the eyes of MLB and the umpires. I reasonably doubt all the posters above actually agree with how some of the game is changing, but we are still required to adapt to it as umpires.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[TheRockawayKid]

2 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Really? All the rule changes that have legislated a lot of the 'old school' out of the game? We are umpires man. We have to change with the rules. This is just an extension of society now. Utley served his suspension/fine. There's nothing else to take care of in the eyes of MLB and the umpires. I reasonably doubt all the posters above actually agree with how some of the game is changing, but we are still required to adapt to it as umpires.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

No, he didn't. His fine was rescinded. 

As far as my two cents goes, I think we wouldn't have this ejection with a more veteran umpire. Everyone knew something was coming, and I think that AH was ready to pull the trigger at any provocation. 

What I think Syndergaard wanted to do was exactly what he did: a half-hearted effort to move past it. The mighty Thor ends the Utley saga with a well-placed message at home -- basically saying "okay, it's over" while not intending to hit Utley. I really think that.

I would hope that a more senior umpire would think, "okay, that was a purpose pitch." He'd then tell the catcher (and loud enough so Utley could hear), "it's over, right?" See where the next one is, and hope that the next pitch is a real one. If not, then bring out the hook. 

I'd like the opinion of some senior umpires here who have professional or high college experience in whether it's better to pull the trigger immediately or see what happens. Obviously MLB is its own world with written and unwritten rules, but it couldn't hurt. @lawump, I know you've been there. 

[ALStripes17]

No, he didn't. His fine was rescinded. 

As far as my two cents goes, I think we wouldn't have this ejection with a more veteran umpire. Everyone knew something was coming, and I think that AH was ready to pull the trigger at any provocation. 

What I think Syndergaard wanted to do was exactly what he did: a half-hearted effort to move past it. The mighty Thor ends the Utley saga with a well-placed message at home -- basically saying "okay, it's over" while not intending to hit Utley. I really think that.

I would hope that a more senior umpire would think, "okay, that was a purpose pitch." He'd then tell the catcher (and loud enough so Utley could hear), "it's over, right?" See where the next one is, and hope that the next pitch is a real one. If not, then bring out the hook. 

I'd like the opinion of some senior umpires here who have professional or high college experience in whether it's better to pull the trigger immediately or see what happens. Obviously MLB is its own world with written and unwritten rules, but it couldn't hurt. @lawump, I know you've been there. 

He inherently served it by sitting out the next 2 games while his appeal was processed. And with the official appeal being upheld, I would imagine central office gave directive for this scenario. Times are changing and to immediately default to 'well a more senior umpire wouldn't have had this issue' is slightly presumptuous.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[stkjock]

4 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Really? All the rule changes that have legislated a lot of the 'old school' out of the game? We are umpires man. We have to change with the rules. This is just an extension of society now. Utley served his suspension/fine. There's nothing else to take care of in the eyes of MLB and the umpires. I reasonably doubt all the posters above actually agree with how some of the game is changing, but we are still required to adapt to it as umpires.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Yes, really.  So no "judgement" anymore then either?  he could have used his judgement and issued warnings, this is my view, unlikely I will ever be convinced otherwise.   

Cant wait for the NFL to be NFFL, national flag football association.   

[lawump]

2 hours ago, TheRockawayKid said:

No, he didn't. His fine was rescinded. 

As far as my two cents goes, I think we wouldn't have this ejection with a more veteran umpire. Everyone knew something was coming, and I think that AH was ready to pull the trigger at any provocation. 

What I think Syndergaard wanted to do was exactly what he did: a half-hearted effort to move past it. The mighty Thor ends the Utley saga with a well-placed message at home -- basically saying "okay, it's over" while not intending to hit Utley. I really think that.

I would hope that a more senior umpire would think, "okay, that was a purpose pitch." He'd then tell the catcher (and loud enough so Utley could hear), "it's over, right?" See where the next one is, and hope that the next pitch is a real one. If not, then bring out the hook. 

I'd like the opinion of some senior umpires here who have professional or high college experience in whether it's better to pull the trigger immediately or see what happens. Obviously MLB is its own world with written and unwritten rules, but it couldn't hurt. @lawump, I know you've been there. 

MiLB has long (since the 1990's) had a rule that states that if an umpire feels that a pitcher intentionally threw at a batter the umpire should eject him immediately...even if warnings had not been given.

I had it in the minors...with a Mets affiliate no less, LOL.  I knew it was coming.  My dad, who was in the stands sitting behind home plate, told me after the game that, "it was like the pitcher was looking through a scope and lining it up."  The Mets pitcher beaned a guy off the helmet (which really pissed me off.  Don't go head hunting!) after one of the Mets guys had been hit (and injured) earlier in the game (When the Mets batter was hit earlier in the game it was clearly unintentional). 

As I said, before the pitch was delivered I knew it was coming.  I kept telling myself before the pitch to "have balls" and be ready to eject when it happened...and when it did I dumped him immediately.  Unlike last night, however, the batter in my game hopped up and started screaming at the pitcher, who started yelling back.  I grabbed the batter around the waist and said, "Don't be stupid, I've already ejected him," and "let's go to first."  As I was walking him down the first base line, I saw players starting out of the first base dugout.  I don't know what made me think of this line, but out of nowhere I yelled, "if I see anyone out of the dugout, you're ejected and its a minimum $100 fine."  You never saw so many players do a 180-turn so fast in your life (MiLB players are poorly paid.)

Finally, the batter lost the madman glaze in his eyes and he looked at me.  I said, "I've already tossed him, just go to first.  I've got this."  He just said, "okay," and my partner came and escorted him to first base.  I then went in front of home plate and yelled to each dugout, "that's a warning and that's a warning".  The offensive team manager came out and asked me, "did you think our guy threw at their guy on purpose (earlier in the game)?"  I said, "no, but once I toss a guy for intentionally throwing at a batter I have to warn both teams."  He said, "okay," and left.  The Mets manager never came out to argue. 

When it was all said and done, as the next batter was getting into the box, he looked at me and said, "its nice to have someone out here who can control a ballgame."

It was probably the best compliment I've ever gotten from a ball player. 

[jpperez14]

We warn benches because we think the pitcher may be throwing at the hitter, we get bashed because if "we think" he threw at him we should of just ejected him.

We eject the pitcher because we felt he threw at the batter intentionally, we get bashed because there is no way that he was throwing at the hitter.

We don't issue warnings, a brawl breaks out and its the umpire's fault because they failed to take control of the game.

We issue warnings, the umpires are too much involved in the game and trying to make it about themselves. They should let men settle it out like men.

We ejected a player or coach for arguing balls/strikes/safes/outs, we are too much involved and players are entitled to say whatever without repercussions.

We don't eject, were pushovers.

It doesn't matter what we do, there are going to be people that disagree and say we made poor judgement and there are going to be people that agree we made the right decision. Just like with every safe and out call, ball and strike call, and malicious contact.

[blue23ll]

Umpiring is a lot like politics. I paraphrase a quote from Tip O'Neill, "The key to successful umpiring is keeping the 50% who know you are lousy, away from the other 50% who are undecided."

[TheRockawayKid]

11 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

He inherently served it by sitting out the next 2 games while his appeal was processed. And with the official appeal being upheld, I would imagine central office gave directive for this scenario. Times are changing and to immediately default to 'well a more senior umpire wouldn't have had this issue' is slightly presumptuous.

 

 

I don't know if I'd say it was a de facto suspension as much as he wasn't really needed at all, but that's a different story. 

 

My argument, and I may be outside my train here, is a bit like what lawump mentioned about his story. Perhaps Hamari knew something was coming (we all did -- but we didn't know what "it" was), and tossed when it happened because he was keyed for it. As far as rule 8.02 -- that rule is a bit vague. I don't know what rules interpretations say constitutes "at" a batter, but we know intent is a judgement call (and people can make errors in judgement).  If "at" a batter means "in the direction of with the intent of injuring and/or intimidating," then I think we have an answer.

But if we're talking about trying to drill the batter, I don't believe that was what he was trying to do (remember the first pitch of the 2015 WS Game 3 that came in high -- and the Royals thought it was a headshot). 

I mean even this year, there have been plenty of umpires who gave more rope than Hamari did (think the Donaldson ejection after an AB against Phil Hughes). 

Sorry, but I don't think that the ejection was warranted -- as long as that was the end of it, which I think it would have been. 

[Dbellyflop]

9 hours ago, lawump said:

MiLB has long (since the 1990's) had a rule that states that if an umpire feels that a pitcher intentionally threw at a batter the umpire should eject him immediately...even if warnings had not been given.

Here's my problem with this, NS did not throw at the batter intentionally, he intentionally threw behind him. intentionally missing him. so what is the justification for the ejection???

[basejester]

16 minutes ago, Dbellyflop said:

Here's my problem with this, NS did not throw at the batter intentionally, he intentionally threw behind him. intentionally missing him. so what is the justification for the ejection???

A) What would be the point in intentionally throwing behind him?  

B) How can we know he didn't just miss his target?  Maybe he didn't put in enough hours at hit-the-batter practice.  

[Replacematt]

18 hours ago, stkjock said:

Oh no doubt it was intentional, but he didn't throw at his head, he missed him intentionally, Noah's control has been very good the last three games.  

 

I'd  have the same view if Kershaw gets tossed tonight with a similar pitch.  The players used to be allowed the leeway to police some of the game themselves.  Utley was expecting it. Hell even he seemed surprised at the ejection, he never even looks at Noah, he's ready to go on with the at bat.

Guess the old school has been taught out of the posters above

I don't think you know what old school is. 

You can have your self-policing game if you give me back the FYC and full complement of insults at my disposal.