Leaderboard

But we already have that data from a better system. We already know what umpires are better and what their calling proclivities are. Here is my issue (as I am taking a beating on another forum from people who don’t see the problem): I was previously on record as supporting an ABS challenge system versus efforts for a full ABS system. This is not because I am an umpire, it is because the full systems were fundamentally flawed. I believe replay technology can make better umpires, and we have seen that with a generation who has come up with these technologies. It has ended the “call for the bleacher” mentality and trained umpires to call with more precision. This mentality has trickled down, even to umpires who will likely never work with the technology. The issues I have with replay are NOT its role in overturning umpires, but in the goofy gamesmanship in implementing it. Use it or don’t use it, quit picking and choosing and creating problematic situations. This is where we are at now. This system is NOT about “getting the call right.” This challenge system was not created to make umpires better. It was created to make fans happy with fake platitudes and to provide the illusion of “a true neutral arbiter” for the gambling world. The system of the 2D plane is flawed AND is being used to not only villainize umpires, but to actually antagonize fans to attack them. Change the strike zone. Literally go into the book and change the damned zone if you don’t want it called the way YOU (MLB) defined it. I think it’s stupid, but at least it would be honest. Instead, we created this fun little mini-game that gamblers can take part in. We trained the umpires with the 3D strike zone that we have had since the inception of the game. We made them better, and made them better yet with the technology and training. In fact, they are so good that we NEED this disconnect to create a gambling game for people to bet on. We NEED something that will make umpires “wrong” (even when they aren’t wrong) to encourage these micro-bets. We can’t just change the rule, we have to have something that creates this “interest” in the mini-game. I am an advocate of an ABS challenge system. I am disgusted by this traveshamockery that MLB is laughing at us with.

NFHS Example Situations: Play 1: R2, 2 Outs. Batter hits to outfield, R2 obstructed by F5 rounding 3B. BR thrown out trying to advance to 2B prior to R2 being able to reach home plate. Play 2: R1, 2 Outs. Batter hits to outfield, R1 is obstructed by F6 near 2B, but has already rounded 3B when BR is retired behind him at 2B. [What I'm asking with these 2 plays is if there is a difference WHERE the runner was obstructed by a fielder (either F5 tripping R2 or F6 tripping R1) and the runner spends the exact same amount of time on the ground/recovering from the fall, but has ultimately advanced to between 3B and home when the time-play out is recorded on BR behind him.] Play 3: R1/R2, 2 Outs. Hit to OF, relay throw comes in to cutoff man as R2 is rounding 3B. R2 decides he can't score and throws on the brakes, but gets caught in a pickle/rundown, and is eventually obstructed by a fielder without the ball. Immediately following the obstruction, F2 throws to F5 where R1 is tagged having arrived at 3B during the duration of the rundown. In all of these plays, are we justified in scoring the lead runner and ending the inning on the out that was recorded behind them? With Obstruction awards being "umpire judgement" on where a runner would have advanced had obstruction not occurred, how much liberty should we exercise in "fast forwarding" an obstructed runner to home with a subsequent third out ending the inning? Does the NFHS mandate(8-3-2) to "award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond the runner's position on base when the obstruction occurred" impact how this is administered versus other rule sets?

"He didn't catch the F*#King ball" would be clear and concise communication.

The infield fly situation (regardless of verbalization on the field) removes the force on the runners (unless the umpires actually deem this NOT an infield fly for some reason). Second base belongs to R2. Ball hits R2 … dead ball. Batter is out on the infield fly. R1 is sent back to first base. Two outs. Ball hits R1 … R1 is out and the batter is out. End of inning.

Assuming you mean umpire pregame and not the plate meeting... It's more a function of familiarity with the crew and the field. A crew of 4 that are trained the same and have worked together often, at a field they've been to frequently? Nothing special. Have to be there early for extra pomp & circumstance is all. A group I've never worked with minimally, some of whom were trained differently? We're talking through situations in more detail. Maybe not taking a simple nod or yes as enough. In both cases, a new field we've never been to before (especially a messy one)? We walk the field, talking through this that and the other aspects.

I don't disagree with you, and I can make the same statement about the general replay review system. The intent, for both systems, is to correct the egregious errors (like the one Bucknor made on the "missed" first base call last week). If 20 unbiased people look at a play and agree on the call...it should be THAT obvious. I HATE that it's being used to overturn a safe call when the guy stealing the base popped off the bag for half an inch and a quarter of a second. If the ump calls that in real time, great...but don't use replay to look for those. I'd prefer replay review to have a significantly smaller window that does not allow the bench to look at a video...the player/coach better be 100% certain the call was wrong and give him two seconds to tap his head. I think that is one thing ABS got absolutely right. I think some of the gamesmanship will correct itself, especially when you see idiot players costing the team a challenge because they don't want a K on their stat sheet. This will eventually shift to seeing blatant misses significantly outweigh those 0.1 inch misses (which will happen more by accident/luck). Like any sport with a review system, with limited challenges, there SHOULD be a strategy to how/when those challenges are used - I have no problem with that. In the NHL a coach's challenge results in a two-minute delay of game penalty if they're wrong...so you better be damned sure you're right OR the reward far outweighs the risk. I still want framing to be a useful skill in MLB, and I still want the human element of the game, with human umpires, right down to selling a tag. What I don't want is strikes called in the other batter's box, "neighborhood" force plays at second, or any world where good people like Joyce/Denkinger have to feel like SH*# about making an understandable mistake on a high-profile call.

The plate meeting is not meant to be a pontification from the plate umpire. Short and to the point. Introductions, line up cards, ground rules, play ball. That's it. You can add some things in such as time limits, if any. Some organizations such as Little League want the PU to verify who is the official pitch counter and scorekeeper. If your association wants you to say something particular, then go ahead, but keep it short. Around 2 minutes is about all you should need. Why on earth would you ever want to talk about the strike zone? Just no, not ever. The plate meeting is not a rules clinic either. Keep it simple and don't waste your breath. Why? It's not necessary, and the managers are not listening anyway. They are thinking about the game and want to get going. Doesn't matter if it's a playoff or regular season game. Keep it the same and short every time. Did I mention it should be short?😄

So Bucknor did get help from PU Iassogna but most likely he was watching the overthrow and had nothing. Why didn't he get the whole crew together? Two other guys had nothing else to watch.

Machado denying that he didn't try to kick the ball is like Lester Hayes denying he used stickum.

Once I grokked that when it's called is nearly insignificant, I stopped feeling any urgency. I may make it bigger or not nonchalant like a normal 3rd out to ensure PU sees it well, but I don't feel any urgency.

Machado has agreed that what you said, "he was trying to jump over and just did a bad job.", he did. But how do we make that a meme? It would have a million uses going further.

Take a look at 8-4-2-k-1 My bad for not indicating the umpires did signal and call "infield fly."

This assumption is the one to investigate to understand where you went wrong.

You are wrong.

no different than a, did the pitcher intentionally throw at the batter or did he not. or the runner on a hit ball trying to time his stride to miss hitting the ball with his foot or body or intentionally letting it nick his foot or body. take your pick. that's why the umpires are there, right or wrong. like he/announcer said, go back and watch the famous Reggie Jackson play for reference with Frank Pulli and umpire school owner/instructor Joe Brinkman getting involved. and then there is Cole Hamels intentionally breaking the player/manager etc. "code" of silence/plausible deniability and just admitting in the press (stepping up and ending all doubt) that he did intentionally drill the player with a little halo over his head, Bryce Harper and taking the 5 day suspension. And Master criminal Machado no different than Master criminal Gaylord Perry or sandpaper man Joe Niekro, and the inside pitch dodging, the ball hit me, Derek Jeter and on and on.

Guys, guys, guys . . . This isn't betting. Betting has odds and chances and pools and wagers and bookies who facilitate things. This is just a tech company presenting people with an opportunity to purchase a share of a fund of money which could provide a financial incentive should a probable outcome occur, or become valueless if the probable outcome doesn't occur (in which case the tech company keeps the money). See, totally NOT gambling! It's all fine. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to call a service for a privately hired car owned and driven by somebody else (totally not a taxi!) to take me to my short-term temporary residence that I do not own and arranged to pay for on a daily basis (totally not a hotel room).