Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
beerguy55

Ump gets shown up by batter, batter doesn't like ump's response

Recommended Posts

This happened in a game I was playing in.

Pitcher throws the first pitch, ump calls strike.  Yeah, it was a full ball width outside, but this umpire had been around for ten years and everyone and their dog knew this guy had a wide strike zone...wide and short...he even would tell people that during games.   It wasn't a secret, and should not have been a surprise.  Nobody liked it, but it was consistent for all batters, on both teams...and ten years later he still calls that way.  

Plus, this was the last inning of the league semi-final - so not only did this batter have all season to see this ump's strike zone, he had all game...but I digress.

The batter does the old draw-a-line-in-the-sand-in-the-opposite-batters-box trick.  The umpire says, you better be swinging now.  The catcher hears this and lines up about eight inches outside.  Pitcher hits the glove "strike two".  Batter does the "come on, really?" routine, and ump says "you better be swinging".  Last pitch crosses the opposite batter's box at about eye height - "strike three".  

Bat slam, random curse word, ejection.

I'm sure it goes against any instruction any umpire has ever received, but I loved it.  There's just no upside to showing up an umpire.  Before saying or doing anything to an umpire, asking yourself what you're trying to achieve.

Having said that, I'm assuming most of you would have tossed him after the line in the sand, and bring in a new batter with one strike, rather than creating an out for the other team first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
16 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Having said that, I'm assuming most of you would have tossed him after the line in the sand, and bring in a new batter with one strike, rather than creating an out for the other team first?

You bet. Don't soil your integrity or the integrity of the game because the batter is showing you up. Deal with it with an ejection and let the game be played the way it should be. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the way it was handled. I think it could have been handled way better and not looked to toss the batter. 

 

Not saying to let the batter get away with it, but this just has the feel of "well, I'm ejecting you this AB, no matter what"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we baseball officials need to understand, is that we have not only a huge responsibility, but a huge amount of discretion as to when to eject or not eject… but "retaliation" by widening the strike zone or stretching it up & down does, in fact, (as STK004 stated) harm our credibility and the game's integrity.

Brett Lawrie has already played for three teams, and is a hothead, but the situation that got him a four-game suspension was the fault of veteran Plate Ump Bill Miller.

Strike two was a few inches out.

Lawrie really didn't show him up. He ran out of the box on an obvious ball four.

to "retaliate," Miller called strike three on a pitch 18" up and away.  It's wrong. It's an abuse of power we don't have. Miller should have been reprimanded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts:

IMO, an ejection was immediately warranted by the drawing in the sand (no excuses); however, my issue with the OP more so comes with using 2 pitches to teach a lesson. I have no problem letting a batter know that he may want to swing at the next pitch after showing me up in some way that may not necessarily warrant an immediate ejection. This gives the batter an opportunity to create his own destiny with a second chance. I do believe this sort of leniency should be used VERY rarely and will change or be non-existent depending on the level of ball you're working.

As for the Lawrie bit, 18" is a stretch on that 3rd strike call (although still high by standard) but you still can't show up the umpire. I would have given a pass on the 'going to 1B' pitch - It happens *shrug* just an unfortunate series of snowball events BUT.... there's never an excuse to spike the helmet in the umpire's direction as Lawrie did.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

A few thoughts:

IMO, an ejection was immediately warranted by the drawing in the sand (no excuses); however, my issue with the OP more so comes with using 2 pitches to teach a lesson. I have no problem letting a batter know that he may want to swing at the next pitch after showing me up in some way that may not necessarily warrant an immediate ejection. This gives the batter an opportunity to create his own destiny with a second chance. I do believe this sort of leniency should be used VERY rarely and will change or be non-existent depending on the level of ball you're working.

As for the Lawrie bit, 18" is a stretch on that 3rd strike call (although still high by standard) but you still can't show up the umpire. I would have given a pass on the 'going to 1B' pitch - It happens *shrug* just an unfortunate series of snowball events BUT.... there's never an excuse to spike the helmet in the umpire's direction as Lawrie did.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Well said.

Edited by udbrky
Imagine that - beer throwing in Toronto. Most classless fanbase imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Miller was using a pro technique known as the FYC. It is not appropriate at any level of amateur baseball. With replay, its use seems to have diminished in pro ball.

We should address misbehavior by any participant immediately and in an appropriate fashion (for the level, heat of the game, and all other variables).

There are no shortcuts or hard/fast rules to good game management: it requires experience, awareness, and good judgment. That said, drawing a line in the sand generally requires an immediate substitution.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

As for the Lawrie bit, 18" is a stretch on that 3rd strike call (although still high by standard) but you still can't show up the umpire. I would have given a pass on the 'going to 1B' pitch - It happens *shrug* just an unfortunate series of snowball events BUT.... there's never an excuse to spike the helmet in the umpire's direction as Lawrie did.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I would say his run to first had no intent to show up the umpire...he thought it was a ball, and didn't immediately hear a strike call, so ran to first.   I've done the opposite as a catcher...strike three (or what I thought was strike three) crossed the plate, and I immediately threw down to third base...only to hear "ball"...I just turned around and said "my bad, should have waited."   The other side of the argument is just like a catcher framing a pitch, both actions work to "sell" the pitch to the umpire.  

There are a few MLB umps that need thicker skin....I think Miller was a little too sensitive on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

There are a few MLB umps that need thicker skin....I think Miller was a little too sensitive on this one.

You're going to have to clarify because Lawrie spiked his helmet right at Bill Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

You're going to have to clarify because Lawrie spiked his helmet right at Bill Miller.

I'm talking about before that.  The called third strike (which was further out of the strike zone than the called second strike) was, to me, a reaction and retaliation to Lawrie running to first on strike two/ball four.   Miller also threw Lawrie out before he threw his helmet - don't know what exactly Lawrie said after he was rung up but Miller was pretty quick on the draw - looked premeditated.

Frankly, I think Lawrie should have got more than four games for throwing his helmet AND Miller should have been reprimanded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said many times on this site: we can't judge a pro ball incident based on one short clip. Some of the history between players, between umpires, between umpires and players, can go back a decade or more, when they were both in MiLB. We might think it "unprofessional" to nurse a grudge that long, but of course if it happens in pro ball in a way that defines the relevant sense of professional. The culture of pro ball is what it is.

Where we can comment is how what we see translates into amateur ball. My previous post tries to do that, as do some others here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

&batterX=71&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3

Pitch 5, outside the zone a few inches

Pitch 6 was in the zone

Why should Miller be reprimanded for missing one pitch by less than 6 inches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Lawrie was suspended 4 games not for running out of the box or getting dumped. He got 4 games for spiking his helmet that bounces off of Miller. Also, if I remember correctly, did he also not make contact with Miller in the ensuing argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StevenCraze said:

Pitch 6 was in the zone

Why should Miller be reprimanded for missing one pitch by less than 6 inches?

I don't believe in the tracking you show.  Looking at the visual, it was off speed, (announcer called change up), you can see it drop, catcher still catches it up around the letters.

The high end of the strike zone has never been "by the book" for decades. Midpoint between the shoulders and the belt? No way. Not even in college. Not even in High School (although that pitch should always be called a strike in HS).

i do, however, retract my statement about Miller. It wasn't out by 18" and Maven has given me the perspective I lacked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to tell you if you don't believe the brooks baseball graphic. They're pretty accurate.

 

Remember, the camera is coming from 30 feet up in the air, 400 feet away, and not centered.  You can't trust the graphics  on the screen.

 

Regardless, it is much closer than you claim, and too close to take if you just got done showing up the umpire.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, maven said:

Bill Miller was using a pro technique known as the FYC. It is not appropriate at any level of amateur baseball. With replay, its use seems to have diminished in pro ball.

 

Maven - can you please explain FYC? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stkjock said:

Maven - can you please explain FYC? 

Well, it is defined on the acronyms page as "something you should never do," which is true (for those of us not working pro ball), but not illuminating.

It's a F-you call. I take it as a good sign that so many people have inquired.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, a book from a lawyer..    :D

 

where's my shocked face...   I'll read it on the train on the way home...  Thx LU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, StevenCraze said:

I don't know what to tell you if you don't believe the brooks baseball graphic. They're pretty accurate.

 

Remember, the camera is coming from 30 feet up in the air, 400 feet away, and not centered.  You can't trust the graphics  on the screen.

 

Regardless, it is much closer than you claim, and too close to take if you just got done showing up the umpire.

First, this graphic indicates that the strike zone is 20-21 inches wide (graph shows ~1.7 feet).  Home plate is 17 inches wide.   Even when you consider the width of the ball (just under 3 inches) that doesn't make the strike zone 23 inches wide.  It just means the strike zone is 17 inches wide, and the outside of the ball can touch the outside of the strike zone.  So the strike zone is either 17 inches wide, with a sliver of the ball catching it...or it's 23 inches wide and must include the entire ball.

On height - I'm thinking 24 inches is too high....21 inches is probably more accurate.  Might even be able to drop the low end a couple of inches.

I wished they'd shown the overhead like they did on pitch 5.  You do see at 0:58 that the pitch crosses above the armpits.   Catcher frames it by dropping his glove 4-6 inches (catches it above his eyes, drops it below his chin).

Based on the video, and some minor adjustments to the graph, the pitch looks 6 inches high, and at absolute best nicked the outside corner.   However, it also could mean that pitch 4 should have been a strike....maybe making pitch 5 a makeup call?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17" plate + 2.875 x 2 for width of the ball on either side = 22.75 width of an area a ball can be within and be a strike.

 

as long as any part of the ball touches the 17" width its a strike, so the center of the ball can be nearly 1.5" off the plate and it's a strike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, stkjock said:

wow, a book from a lawyer..    :D

 

where's my shocked face...   I'll read it on the train on the way home...  Thx LU

I'm not the author, and the author (RIP) was an English teacher.  So, its not just us lawyers who are to blame!!!:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, this graphic indicates that the strike zone is 20-21 inches wide (graph shows ~1.7 feet).  Home plate is 17 inches wide.   Even when you consider the width of the ball (just under 3 inches) that doesn't make the strike zone 23 inches wide.  It just means the strike zone is 17 inches wide, and the outside of the ball can touch the outside of the strike zone.  So the strike zone is either 17 inches wide, with a sliver of the ball catching it...or it's 23 inches wide and must include the entire ball.

On height - I'm thinking 24 inches is too high....21 inches is probably more accurate.  Might even be able to drop the low end a couple of inches.

I wished they'd shown the overhead like they did on pitch 5.  You do see at 0:58 that the pitch crosses above the armpits.   Catcher frames it by dropping his glove 4-6 inches (catches it above his eyes, drops it below his chin).

Based on the video, and some minor adjustments to the graph, the pitch looks 6 inches high, and at absolute best nicked the outside corner.   However, it also could mean that pitch 4 should have been a strike....maybe making pitch 5 a makeup call?

You may want to read up on the basis of these graphics before making those sorts of comments.

The pitch may look at armpits, when the batter crouches. He's no longer in his natural stance at that point. I'm not arguing against the conclusion of your point, only the means by which you got there.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to remember that the strike zone is - as the batter strides, not standing straight up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×