hogsfan787

I agree with the ejection and obviously not letting a manager tell you what you can and cannot do on the field, but the pointing during and before arguments and walking towards the manager looks very unprofessional IMHO at any baseball level. I mean what do you think his ejection report consistented of?

I know they're in the majors, but this can't be the right way to handle this at all. Pointing, walking towards a manager and then getting in his face screaming. Looks exactly like he's baiting him and completely unprofessional. I don't think this acceptable in any baseball.

Easy! I love his runner scoring mechanic from third

Great Positioning on a close Play http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=29015699

Watch this Amazing catch, but notice at the end of the video the Umpire takes his brush out for 3rd base!

Thanks I clearly see it now

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=28866619 Can y'all help me see this one, because I don't know what he did wrong

Is mike wearing a mike and turned it off before the argument?

http://wap.mlb.com/play?content_id=28951741

http://wap.mlb.com/play?content_id=28941401 http://wap.mlb.com/play?content_id=28962379 Good for Brett for owning up to his mistake and saying how he put the Umpire and his team in a tough position

Looking at the rulebook, the only time it is INT on the umpire is when he gets in the way of the catcher. Anywhere else the batted-ball must hit the umpire for the INT call. Am I missing something? I meant to say and if it hit him also my bad!

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=28894711 Still can't tell

Maven after looking at the video again, yeah I'd have INT, he was in front of F6 if fair

I meant if it was called fair and it's U3, it's past an infielder so no INT

Even if it did hit him, he's past the infielders with no other opportunity for them to make a play on the ball so no call, right?

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=28853191

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=28851369 Ignore the Announcers http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=28857251&topic_id=vtp_manager_postgame&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_28857251&v=3 1:04, Still doesn't understand a simple rule

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=28846873

Not sure what he was trying to argue anyway, looked like it was on the inner third. You've gotta swing at that

A catch only refers to a batted ball. A gloved ball refers to throw and in this case the OP refers to a tag (of a base). A tag unlike a catch only requires secure and complete possesion while the catch requires the fielder show some form of voluntary release of the ball. Well that being the case what would you call if you've got a fielder on the ground with his hand on top of the ball and the ball still on the ground? With the ball still on the ground would you call that COMPLETE possesion? I think it's a HTBT, but I think it is still possible to have complete control of the ball with it being on the ground and might call an OUT in that situation

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=28827985 Start watching at 1:55 My Opinion: I don't like the way Dan shoos Matt Adam's to the dugout, but I also have no idea what is said. And it still does not give Matheny the right to act like he did after the game

A catch only refers to a batted ball. A gloved ball refers to throw and in this case the OP refers to a tag (of a base). A tag unlike a catch only requires secure and complete possesion while the catch requires the fielder show some form of voluntary release of the ball.

This is from the book, You're the Umpire by Wayne Stewart On August 6, 2004, in the last half of the tenth inning of a 1-1 contest. speedy Carl Crawford was the runner on third in a bases loaded situation for Tampa Bay. Tino Martinez lifted a fly ball to left field, apparently deep enough to score Crawford, who then edged back toward thrid base to tag up. Meanwhile, the Mariner's shortstop, Jose Lopez, believing he had nothing to lose, intentionally placed himself where he would screen Crawford's view of Raul Ibanez's imminent catch. If Crawfor's tagging up from third was delayed a second or so by his impaired vision, Lopez calculated, perhaps he would either hold up or be shot down at the plate. Is this ploy a legal one? Answer: The move by Lopez certainly was not kosher. It was a case of Obstruction. Lopez was charged with an error, Crawford was awarded home, and the game ended with a Tampa Bay victory.

The runner should never have to move because of a nonprotected fielder. If the runner would be at the bag a half second sooner because of the actions of this fielder (possibly being out now on a pickoff) how is that not hindering the runner?

http://wap.mlb.com/play?content_id=28751115 Good and Easy Call!