Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
jkumpire

Detroit/Cleveland game, Young Umpire Didn't Dump 2 F'2s?

Recommended Posts

jkumpire    100

Hi men,

Sorry to bother you here and our good friend Gill, but I am ill and sat home all day. Lucky for me I got to see the Tribe get #21 in a row.   :cheers::clap::HD::yippie:

But I was off the TV when something happened I didn't like at all, and I'm hoping I just missed something.

Detroit was all hyped up to win which I understand. However after supposedly being squeezed by PU Quinn Wolcott the F2 for Detroit, James McCann, got dumped and Brad Ausmus ejected himself shortly thereafter for arguing balls and strikes. Then, according to a replay I saw and a report by David Schoenfield of ESPN, the replacement F2 intentionally (in my view)/unintentionally missed an inside pitch and it hit Wolcott in the shoulder and knocked him down.  

If I am the PU I am dumping the F2 and the R1 the moment I get up if I saw it correctly. The replacement bum of an F2 named John Hicks ought to be suspended by MLB. 

Now if I'm wrong about what I saw please let me know and I will apologize, but if you saw it and/or can post video so we can all see it tell me what you would do here.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by jkumpire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
jkumpire    100

Sorry, slow typist.

But I am still curious what people here think about the call, the thread had universal calls for multiple guys to excuse themselves for the rest of the day. .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gil    293

At best, the catcher appears not to have any compassion; his actions both in the immediate aftermath and upon seeing the injurious result of the pitch are consistent with a person amenable to the outcome of another person on the ground in pain. A slight more sinister interpretation places the catcher's reaction in the realm of schadenfreude.

The pitcher's post-game Twitter comments and replies to several people suggests a similar lack of genuine concern. His responses are inconsistent with a concern for Wolcott's status and suggest a defense to a charge that wasn't even levied.

Ausmus' postgame comments similarly convey a lack of levelheadedness, likely due to the team's struggles. Just another case of classic umpire scapegoating; the strike zone was not discrepant as he so alleges. Detroit was actually +1 on ball/strike calls this game.

At worst, this was a calculated act where the catcher is most responsible for the outcome.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grayhawk    3,148
14 minutes ago, Gil said:

At best, the catcher appears not to have any compassion; his actions both in the immediate aftermath and upon seeing the injurious result of the pitch are consistent with a person amenable to the outcome of another person on the ground in pain. A slight more sinister interpretation places the catcher's reaction in the realm of schadenfreude.

The pitcher's post-game Twitter comments and replies to several people suggests a similar lack of genuine concern. His responses are inconsistent with a concern for Wolcott's status and suggest a defense to a charge that wasn't even levied.

Ausmus' postgame comments similarly convey a lack of levelheadedness, likely due to the team's struggles. Just another case of classic umpire scapegoating; the strike zone was not discrepant as he so alleges. Detroit was actually +1 on ball/strike calls this game.

At worst, this was a calculated act where the catcher is most responsible for the outcome.

@Gil, curious to know the +/- on ball/strike calls to that point in the game.  One could argue (not me), that if Detroit was on the short end prior to Ausmus' ejection that he was able to affect Wolcott's zone for the rest of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gil    293

Farmer himself was at +0 (1 called strike out of zone, one called ball in zone) through three innings. Clevenger was also +0 (also 1 and 1) at that point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UMP45    300
6 hours ago, johnpatrick said:

I'm giving Major League ball players the benefit of the doubt in a situation like this.  I'm chocking it up to a cross-up.

Then you are confused!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderheads    2,370

are you kidding guys??   That's NOT intentional!  Bases loaded, (that's why he didn't attend to Wolcott) and Hicks is a rookie ....he screwed up, they got crossed up, and ........FARMER isn't that good to hit anyone!  Come on guys ..... that's a stretch at best that guys like Hicks and Farmer did that :rolleyes: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beerguy55    180

Looked like a cross up to me.  For me, the most important opinion here is Wolcott's.  I see no indication that he even considered this to be intentional, and he's the one who would have the biggest reason to do so.   You also have three other pro umps who saw the pitch, and none of them judged it to be intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawump    713

If you watch the game (which I can do as I pay for the MLB.tv extra-inning package), you can see (and hear) F2, when he returns to the plate area after having walked out to the mound, ask Wolcott, "are you okay?"  Wolcott gives a nod of the head and says, "yes" (or something similarly affirmative), and then reaches out with his right hand and gives F2 a pat on the back.

Wolcott's non-verbal communication (the pat on the back) was clearly Wolcott telling F2 that "we're good" and that there were no issues between them.  This is the only logical conclusion after watching Wolcott and the F2 interact with one another after this incident, but before the next pitch was thrown.  It is clear that Wolcott did not feel that this was intentional.  The communication between them (both verbal and non-verbal) when F2 returned to the plate area convinces me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Wolcott did not consider this to be intentional.  If Wolcott did not consider this to be intentional, then that is good enough for me.  (And I initially believed this was intentional.)

(For what its worth, Wolcott did not get hit immediately after having ejected the starting F2 and manager.  Rather, after those ejections, F1 faced another batter...a batter whom he proceeded to walk on four non-controversial pitches that were wild and all over the place.  Only after walking that batter did Wolcott then get hit.  The pitch that hit Wolcott was F1's fifth consecutive pitch that was no where near the strike zone.  So, is it believable that a struggling F1 could add to his struggles by getting signals/signs crossed up with an F2 who just entered the game minutes before?  I think the easy answer is: Yes.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beerguy55    180
1 hour ago, lawump said:

So, is it believable that a struggling F1 could add to his struggles by getting signals/signs crossed up with an F2 who just entered the game minutes before?  I think the easy answer is: Yes

And conversely.  A pitcher who hasn't hit anywhere near the strike zone in the previous four pitches hasn't demonstrated any ability to intentionally hit any umpire at all....on any part of his body.

Not to mention we're talking about having a catcher intentionally missing a pitch with the bases/loaded?!?!?!  Even if that was intentional, and they did succeed in hitting the umpire (and not have it sail back to the fence)...the ball could go anywhere after hitting him?  Are people really suggesting that they risk allowing one, maybe even two, runs here?

This is just as bad as an ump who tosses a pitcher for "intentionally" hitting a batter on an 0-2 curveball with bases loaded in a tie game....but it looks like some of the umps here would draw that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jms1425    25

The pitcher may be telling the truth - he did not intentionally hit the umpire. But the catcher is another story.

Whenever the ball hits the umpire, the catcher checks on the umpire to make sure he's ok - whether the catcher got crossed up or not. At the very least, Hicks' actions show a wanton disregard for the PU's well-being.

I mean, really? The guy gets hit with a 92mph fastball and the catcher doesn't even have the common decency to turn to him and make sure he's ok?

F*%k that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister B    102

From what I understand the #2 F2 is usually a #3. Most of the time, the #2 is in the bullpen. Of course, this is coming from a bullpen catcher, so it may be biased. 

Anyway, I don't see the #3 getting a ton of reps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grayhawk    3,148
3 hours ago, lawump said:

If you watch the game (which I can do as I pay for the MLB.tv extra-inning package), you can see (and hear) F2, when he returns to the plate area after having walked out to the mound, ask Wolcott, "are you okay?"  Wolcott gives a nod of the head and says, "yes" (or something similarly affirmative), and then reaches out with his right hand and gives F2 a pat on the back.

I also believe it wasn't intentional, but I do think F2 showed a lack of class (or good sense) by just walking to the mound while Wolcott was lying on the ground, rather than staying with him until the trainer got there.  You just ole'd the pitch (I don't care why) and you just leave the umpire who saved a F*#King run for you lying on the ground?  F*#K you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawump    713
14 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I also believe it wasn't intentional, but I do think F2 showed a lack of class 

Agreed.  Just because I am of the opinion that I don't think it was intentional doesn't mean that I don't think they are still RATS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UmpJeff    265
9 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

are you kidding guys??   That's NOT intentional!  Bases loaded, (that's why he didn't attend to Wolcott) and Hicks is a rookie ....he screwed up, they got crossed up, and ........FARMER isn't that good to hit anyone!  Come on guys ..... that's a stretch at best that guys like Hicks and Farmer did that :rolleyes: 

What he said...:clap:

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

×