Braves now playing under protest on IFF call

[Jocko]

Well we certainly have lots of 'by the book' blues here. Tell y'all what, from now on you better start calling your strike zone by the book. No more one ball out or in that ball better get a piece of the plate or else. Any umpire who has been doing upper level ball knows that effective game management has a lot to do with making 'the expected call'.

Sure sometimes we have to make unpopular calls and then have to explain them to the coaches but that's part of being an umpire. You want to argue that we can't pick & choose what rules we enforce? Fine, go back to that strike zone again. Every pitch better catch some dish or you better ball it.

In the case of this IFF if Holbrook doesn't call it and the Cards manager comes out all he has to say is, "Too deep coach" and it's over. Chances are he wouldn't have to explain it at all. Everyone in the ballpark saw it was too deep , everyone except Holbrook who started a ****storm with his "technically correct" call. Good idea Sam!

I am only addressing the third paragraph, the rest of the quote is just senseless rant. If he doesn't call it he simply says, "Not ordinary effort." The depth is not a consideration in no shape or form. The depth may cause there not to be ordinary effort, here is not a case of it, but it would not be said to a manager because that is not what you are judging. This is part you don't seem to be grasping. Ten feet in the grass or fifty, the distance is not a consideration. The infielder's ability to get to it is and should be the only thing brought up in the discussion.

Years of service means jack about knowledge, it is a argument I will not consider. I have been doing this for 37 yrs, have attended many clinics taught by some excellent pros, have spent years on the internet discussing rules and mechanics. None of that has squat to do with this discussion. We are discussing if Holbrook called an IFF properly. This is simply answered, yes. This has been confirmed by one of the pro schools, so in the long run that's the answer. I have made a similar call but normally we won't see that in our games because of lack of ability. If you think you won't, go for it, that's your judgement. What the guys here are trying to tell you is base that judgement on the correct criteria.

Judging from most of your comments, it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems you are stuck on the depth of the ball which is irrelevant information, and the length of time it took to call it, again not relevant. Did he get there with ordinary effort, in this case yes, so how far out or how late has no place in the call.

I'm going to say this one last time

Good. I for 1 am tired of the broken record

[Mr Umpire]

Well we certainly have lots of 'by the book' blues here. Tell y'all what, from now on you better start calling your strike zone by the book. No more one ball out or in that ball better get a piece of the plate or else. Any umpire who has been doing upper level ball knows that effective game management has a lot to do with making 'the expected call'.

Sure sometimes we have to make unpopular calls and then have to explain them to the coaches but that's part of being an umpire. You want to argue that we can't pick & choose what rules we enforce? Fine, go back to that strike zone again. Every pitch better catch some dish or you better ball it.

In the case of this IFF if Holbrook doesn't call it and the Cards manager comes out all he has to say is, "Too deep coach" and it's over. Chances are he wouldn't have to explain it at all. Everyone in the ballpark saw it was too deep , everyone except Holbrook who started a ****storm with his "technically correct" call. Good idea Sam!

I am only addressing the third paragraph, the rest of the quote is just senseless rant. If he doesn't call it he simply says, "Not ordinary effort." The depth is not a consideration in no shape or form. The depth may cause there not to be ordinary effort, here is not a case of it, but it would not be said to a manager because that is not what you are judging. This is part you don't seem to be grasping. Ten feet in the grass or fifty, the distance is not a consideration. The infielder's ability to get to it is and should be the only thing brought up in the discussion.

Years of service means jack about knowledge, it is a argument I will not consider. I have been doing this for 37 yrs, have attended many clinics taught by some excellent pros, have spent years on the internet discussing rules and mechanics. None of that has squat to do with this discussion. We are discussing if Holbrook called an IFF properly. This is simply answered, yes. This has been confirmed by one of the pro schools, so in the long run that's the answer. I have made a similar call but normally we won't see that in our games because of lack of ability. If you think you won't, go for it, that's your judgement. What the guys here are trying to tell you is base that judgement on the correct criteria.

Judging from most of your comments, it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems you are stuck on the depth of the ball which is irrelevant information, and the length of time it took to call it, again not relevant. Did he get there with ordinary effort, in this case yes, so how far out or how late has no place in the call.

Of course you're going to dismiss it because you don't have an answer for it.

I'm going to say this one last time:

If you've ever balled a pitch in the strike zone because the catcher didn't glove it or called a strike on a pitch that you knew was off the plate then you've got no room to talk about how technically right this call was. Fact is if you've ever made a judgement call that was not "technically" 100% by the book then stop with the "It met all of the criteria therefore it was the right call". It was just another judgement call and that's why the protest was denied. In my opinion Holbrook made a piss poor judgement call just like we all have at 1 point or another since we've been umpires. Just because they're pros doesn't make them perfect as we all know.

It was not poor judgment. Just poor execution on the defense. If F7 did get it on one bounce and threw to 3B and then went to 2B, there is a possibility of R1 being doubled up on a DP, especially if he thought about tagging up instead of going halfway to 2B. And, since the umpire does not have the luxury of "guessing how the offense is going to play it", he has to go with what is available and what the rule is in place for.

Just b/c the defense screwed up the play does not mean the rule wasn't applied correctly both "technically" and "spiritually". The play met the criteria and the possibility of a DP makes this call correct in every sense of the rule.

The rest of your rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with the call or discussion of the rule.

[BillB1960]

Well we certainly have lots of 'by the book' blues here. Tell y'all what, from now on you better start calling your strike zone by the book. No more one ball out or in that ball better get a piece of the plate or else. Any umpire who has been doing upper level ball knows that effective game management has a lot to do with making 'the expected call'.

Sure sometimes we have to make unpopular calls and then have to explain them to the coaches but that's part of being an umpire. You want to argue that we can't pick & choose what rules we enforce? Fine, go back to that strike zone again. Every pitch better catch some dish or you better ball it.

In the case of this IFF if Holbrook doesn't call it and the Cards manager comes out all he has to say is, "Too deep coach" and it's over. Chances are he wouldn't have to explain it at all. Everyone in the ballpark saw it was too deep , everyone except Holbrook who started a ****storm with his "technically correct" call. Good idea Sam!

I am only addressing the third paragraph, the rest of the quote is just senseless rant. If he doesn't call it he simply says, "Not ordinary effort." The depth is not a consideration in no shape or form. The depth may cause there not to be ordinary effort, here is not a case of it, but it would not be said to a manager because that is not what you are judging. This is part you don't seem to be grasping. Ten feet in the grass or fifty, the distance is not a consideration. The infielder's ability to get to it is and should be the only thing brought up in the discussion.

Years of service means jack about knowledge, it is a argument I will not consider. I have been doing this for 37 yrs, have attended many clinics taught by some excellent pros, have spent years on the internet discussing rules and mechanics. None of that has squat to do with this discussion. We are discussing if Holbrook called an IFF properly. This is simply answered, yes. This has been confirmed by one of the pro schools, so in the long run that's the answer. I have made a similar call but normally we won't see that in our games because of lack of ability. If you think you won't, go for it, that's your judgement. What the guys here are trying to tell you is base that judgement on the correct criteria.

Judging from most of your comments, it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems you are stuck on the depth of the ball which is irrelevant information, and the length of time it took to call it, again not relevant. Did he get there with ordinary effort, in this case yes, so how far out or how late has no place in the call.

I'm going to say this one last time

Good. I for 1 am tired of the broken record

Nice argument there Jocko.

[BillB1960]

It was not poor judgment. Just poor execution on the defense. If F7 did get it on one bounce and threw to 3B and then went to 2B, there is a possibility of R1 being doubled up on a DP, especially if he thought about tagging up instead of going halfway to 2B. And, since the umpire does not have the luxury of "guessing how the offense is going to play it", he has to go with what is available and what the rule is in place for.

Just b/c the defense screwed up the play does not mean the rule wasn't applied correctly both "technically" and "spiritually". The play met the criteria and the possibility of a DP makes this call correct in every sense of the rule.

The rest of your rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with the call or discussion of the rule.

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports.

[Mr Umpire]

It was not poor judgment. Just poor execution on the defense. If F7 did get it on one bounce and threw to 3B and then went to 2B, there is a possibility of R1 being doubled up on a DP, especially if he thought about tagging up instead of going halfway to 2B. And, since the umpire does not have the luxury of "guessing how the offense is going to play it", he has to go with what is available and what the rule is in place for.

Just b/c the defense screwed up the play does not mean the rule wasn't applied correctly both "technically" and "spiritually". The play met the criteria and the possibility of a DP makes this call correct in every sense of the rule.

The rest of your rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with the call or discussion of the rule.

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports.

What a crock argument. Is that how you defend your position? Talk about someone who has some interesting EJ reports. Making things up as you go.

[BillB1960]

It was not poor judgment. Just poor execution on the defense. If F7 did get it on one bounce and threw to 3B and then went to 2B, there is a possibility of R1 being doubled up on a DP, especially if he thought about tagging up instead of going halfway to 2B. And, since the umpire does not have the luxury of "guessing how the offense is going to play it", he has to go with what is available and what the rule is in place for.

Just b/c the defense screwed up the play does not mean the rule wasn't applied correctly both "technically" and "spiritually". The play met the criteria and the possibility of a DP makes this call correct in every sense of the rule.

The rest of your rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with the call or discussion of the rule.

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports.

What a crock argument. Is that how you defend your position? Talk about someone who has some interesting EJ reports. Making things up as you go.

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

[Mr Umpire]

It was not poor judgment. Just poor execution on the defense. If F7 did get it on one bounce and threw to 3B and then went to 2B, there is a possibility of R1 being doubled up on a DP, especially if he thought about tagging up instead of going halfway to 2B. And, since the umpire does not have the luxury of "guessing how the offense is going to play it", he has to go with what is available and what the rule is in place for.

Just b/c the defense screwed up the play does not mean the rule wasn't applied correctly both "technically" and "spiritually". The play met the criteria and the possibility of a DP makes this call correct in every sense of the rule.

The rest of your rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with the call or discussion of the rule.

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports.

What a crock argument. Is that how you defend your position? Talk about someone who has some interesting EJ reports. Making things up as you go.

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

Did I say I did any of that?

[johnnyg08]

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

I actually get what you're saying here. You make some good points.

[BillB1960]

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

Did I say I did any of that?

OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go?

I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow.

[BillB1960]

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

I actually get what you're saying here. You make some good points.

Thanks, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth the fact that the call wasn't reversed on the field certainly indicates that the other umpires supported Holbrook. I don't know what kind of a crew chief Kellogg is but I think that if he didn't have a concensus he wouldn't hesitate to tell Holbrook to change the call and put the BR on 1B.

[Mr Umpire]

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

Did I say I did any of that?

OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go?

I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow.

If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read.

As you said, wow...just wow.

[Mr Umpire]

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

I actually get what you're saying here. You make some good points.

Thanks, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth the fact that the call wasn't reversed on the field certainly indicates that the other umpires supported Holbrook. I don't know what kind of a crew chief Kellogg is but I think that if he didn't have a concensus he wouldn't hesitate to tell Holbrook to change the call and put the BR on 1B.

Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully.

[BillB1960]

Thanks, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth the fact that the call wasn't reversed on the field certainly indicates that the other umpires supported Holbrook. I don't know what kind of a crew chief Kellogg is but I think that if he didn't have a concensus he wouldn't hesitate to tell Holbrook to change the call and put the BR on 1B.

Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully.

So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it?

[Mr Umpire]

Thanks, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth the fact that the call wasn't reversed on the field certainly indicates that the other umpires supported Holbrook. I don't know what kind of a crew chief Kellogg is but I think that if he didn't have a concensus he wouldn't hesitate to tell Holbrook to change the call and put the BR on 1B.

Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully.

So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it?

You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill.

[BillB1960]

I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

Did I say I did any of that?

OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go?

I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow.

If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read.

As you said, wow...just wow.

You lost me. Are you setting yourself up so you can't see off the plate? Are you calling it even though you can't see it?

[Mr Umpire]

OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go?

I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow.

If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read.

As you said, wow...just wow.

You lost me. Are you setting yourself up so you can't see off the plate? Are you calling it even though you can't see it?

Again, reading skill? Doesn't seem hard to lose you in this thread. You seem lost from the beginning.

[BillB1960]

Thanks, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth the fact that the call wasn't reversed on the field certainly indicates that the other umpires supported Holbrook. I don't know what kind of a crew chief Kellogg is but I think that if he didn't have a concensus he wouldn't hesitate to tell Holbrook to change the call and put the BR on 1B.

Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully.

So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it?

You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill.

You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive.

[BillB1960]

OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go?

I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow.

If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read.

As you said, wow...just wow.

You lost me. Are you setting yourself up so you can't see off the plate? Are you calling it even though you can't see it?

Again, reading skill? Doesn't seem hard to lose you in this thread. You seem lost from the beginning.

I see, when you can no longer find a reasonable argument you resort to personal insults. Reminds me of some coaches.

[Mr Umpire]

So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it?

You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill.

You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive.

Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule".

[BillB1960]

So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it?

You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill.

You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive.

Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule".

So do you call strikes off the plate and dropped strikes balls or not?

[BRUMP]

Guys these debates can continue on forever but the bottom line is that there is no chance it will change anyone's mind.

[Mr Umpire]

You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive.

Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule".

So do you call strikes off the plate and dropped strikes balls or not?

Not worth an answer either way. I call my zone as I see fit and how I see it. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Stay on point. This has no point related.

[Mr Umpire]

Guys these debates can continue on forever but the bottom line is that there is no chance it will change anyone's mind.

Actually, the debate was over posts ago once it left the topic. I just wanted to see if it would make it to 200. I'm done.

[BillB1960]

You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive.

Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule".

So do you call strikes off the plate and dropped strikes balls or not?

Not worth an answer either way. I call my zone as I see fit and how I see it. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Stay on point. This has no point related.

So regardless of the book you call your zone. That's what I thought. Thanks.

[Mr Umpire]

So do you call strikes off the plate and dropped strikes balls or not?

Not worth an answer either way. I call my zone as I see fit and how I see it. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Stay on point. This has no point related.

So regardless of the book you call your zone. That's what I thought. Thanks.

Don't read very well. Do you? Now, I am done. I had to get that last one in since it seems to be a reoccurring theme with you.