Old School - Darling and Glavine

[JaxRolo]

Just looking through some videos. Here is one.

 

 

[grayhawk]

I didn't see much of a reaction from Glavine to prompt that kind of response from Darling.  I have to think there was something going on before that to have Darling on edge.

[JaxRolo]

I didn't see much of a reaction from Glavine to prompt that kind of response from Darling. I have to think there was something going on before that to have Darling on edge.

According to the announcers seems the was something going in before hand.

[umpstu]

A big problem was that back then they were calling that pitch a strike. Looking at it once it was clearly outside. The same thing happens now when people refuse to call a high strike and everybody else get's crap when they call it. We have a guy who says he can't call the high strike. So then stop referring to it as a strike. For a while he would call 3 ft lane interference even if there wasn't a throw to first. HUH? 

[dumbdumb]

August 9, 1996. Glavine ended up losing, 6-4 and was yanked in the 6th, after being ahead 2-0 before this 5th inning.

 

The history:

 

Back on June 8, Cox was tossed in the game against Colorado with Glavine pitching in a 13/12 slugfest. Glavine lasted 5 innings giving up 12 hits and 9 runs and Darling was the PU.

[Thunderheads]

at :48 you can clearly see Glavine say something ............

 

plus ...that's about a foot and half outside!!!!!! wow!

[Richvee]

Glavin's going to the Hall of Fame for getting that called a strike for 22 years. Not saying I think it's a strike nor do I think he's a HOF'er, but these are the facts. Mussina a much better pitcher IMO. 

[Mr Umpire]

I can't stand those announcers.  Those 2 are some of the worst homers in the business.  I have listened to them far too much.  Not everything has to be verbal.  Who cares if he didn't say anything, his actions did all of the talking.  And, at this level, that little smirk does not go unnoticed.  Especially if there is history with it.

 

Cox is just a tool.  That is pretty much how MLB managers are.  Just tools used by the players so they don't get ejected themselves.

[UMP45]

And they say today's umpires are to confrontational!

[afaber12]

It looks to me like the only thing Glavine said just before the smile was "ball". Even if it was actually "bull" (or heard that way even if it wasn't), I can't see how this type of reaction from Darling is reasonable, unless there's been a heck of a lot worse going on already in the game; and if Glavine, the Braves or everyone is on a short leash and has been warned because of prior shenanigans, then I would've thought the right reaction was to toss immediately. Again maybe context changes this a little, but there's been plenty of times where I've made a pitch somewhere close to one of the edges of the strike zone, at least as far as I'm concerned close enough to possibly be called but not get the call, and I've "oooh"-ed at how close it was, and have followed it up with a smile, an intentional one, just to show that I'm not disagreeing with the call or think that the umpire was actually wrong or otherwise trying to show him up somehow.

 

Surely if anything was said or done that was worthy of some sort of reaction here, it would only have been to give the stare down, with mask on? Telling Glavine "Tommy, the ball was outside" while the his back is turned seems just a little over the top.

[Mr Umpire]

And, you are referring to a whole different level of ball.  Amateur baseball and professional baseball are 2 different worlds.

[UMP45]

It looks to me like the only thing Glavine said just before the smile was "ball". Even if it was actually "bull" (or heard that way even if it wasn't), I can't see how this type of reaction from Darling is reasonable, unless there's been a heck of a lot worse going on already in the game; and if Glavine, the Braves or everyone is on a short leash and has been warned because of prior shenanigans, then I would've thought the right reaction was to toss immediately. Again maybe context changes this a little, but there's been plenty of times where I've made a pitch somewhere close to one of the edges of the strike zone, at least as far as I'm concerned close enough to possibly be called but not get the call, and I've "oooh"-ed at how close it was, and have followed it up with a smile, an intentional one, just to show that I'm not disagreeing with the call or think that the umpire was actually wrong or otherwise trying to show him up somehow.

 

Surely if anything was said or done that was worthy of some sort of reaction here, it would only have been to give the stare down, with mask on? Telling Glavine "Tommy, the ball was outside" while the his back is turned seems just a little over the top.

Hate to tell you but you just told him you thought he missed the pitch. You showed him up. Either be an umpire or a player.

[afaber12]

 

It looks to me like the only thing Glavine said just before the smile was "ball". Even if it was actually "bull" (or heard that way even if it wasn't), I can't see how this type of reaction from Darling is reasonable, unless there's been a heck of a lot worse going on already in the game; and if Glavine, the Braves or everyone is on a short leash and has been warned because of prior shenanigans, then I would've thought the right reaction was to toss immediately. Again maybe context changes this a little, but there's been plenty of times where I've made a pitch somewhere close to one of the edges of the strike zone, at least as far as I'm concerned close enough to possibly be called but not get the call, and I've "oooh"-ed at how close it was, and have followed it up with a smile, an intentional one, just to show that I'm not disagreeing with the call or think that the umpire was actually wrong or otherwise trying to show him up somehow.

 

Surely if anything was said or done that was worthy of some sort of reaction here, it would only have been to give the stare down, with mask on? Telling Glavine "Tommy, the ball was outside" while the his back is turned seems just a little over the top.

Hate to tell you but you just told him you thought he missed the pitch. You showed him up. Either be an umpire or a player.

 

 

Batter hits a fly ball down the right field line, but lands a metre foul. No one is in any doubt that its foul - its close in terms of only a minor change in the angle the ball was hit at keeps it fair, but not a tough call to make. The batter, who's been trying to put some body english on it to keep it fair, has just missed out on a stand up double, maybe even a triple. As he turns around to head back to the plate, he shakes his head, maybe lets out a whistle. You can't seriously tell me that in doing that he's showing up the umpire.

 

Maybe if other things have happened in the game, you might have a legitimate reason to think you're being shown up in either the video situation or the one I've just described. But taken in isolation, to take very small things that are open to a significant amount of interpretation as being a negative reflection on you and your judgement seems wrong.

 

When I'm playing, I play hard and want to win, no matter how little in dollar value the prize might be for winning. When I'm umpiring, I understand that the players will likely be playing hard and wanting to win just like me, and I understand that with that comes reactions to plays that could be interpreted as reactions to calls. When I'm umpiring, I don't suddenly become telepathic and able to read the intent behind every sound and every muscle movement from every player.

 

If someone no longer wants to be in the game, I'm more than happy to help them along their way. But I'm not going to go looking for it; if they want to go they'll let everyone know it. This seems to be the equivalent to listening for the whispered conversation in the far corner of the dugout.

[UMP45]

 

 

It looks to me like the only thing Glavine said just before the smile was "ball". Even if it was actually "bull" (or heard that way even if it wasn't), I can't see how this type of reaction from Darling is reasonable, unless there's been a heck of a lot worse going on already in the game; and if Glavine, the Braves or everyone is on a short leash and has been warned because of prior shenanigans, then I would've thought the right reaction was to toss immediately. Again maybe context changes this a little, but there's been plenty of times where I've made a pitch somewhere close to one of the edges of the strike zone, at least as far as I'm concerned close enough to possibly be called but not get the call, and I've "oooh"-ed at how close it was, and have followed it up with a smile, an intentional one, just to show that I'm not disagreeing with the call or think that the umpire was actually wrong or otherwise trying to show him up somehow.

 

Surely if anything was said or done that was worthy of some sort of reaction here, it would only have been to give the stare down, with mask on? Telling Glavine "Tommy, the ball was outside" while the his back is turned seems just a little over the top.

Hate to tell you but you just told him you thought he missed the pitch. You showed him up. Either be an umpire or a player.

 

 

Batter hits a fly ball down the right field line, but lands a metre foul. No one is in any doubt that its foul - its close in terms of only a minor change in the angle the ball was hit at keeps it fair, but not a tough call to make. The batter, who's been trying to put some body english on it to keep it fair, has just missed out on a stand up double, maybe even a triple. As he turns around to head back to the plate, he shakes his head, maybe lets out a whistle. You can't seriously tell me that in doing that he's showing up the umpire.

 

Maybe if other things have happened in the game, you might have a legitimate reason to think you're being shown up in either the video situation or the one I've just described. But taken in isolation, to take very small things that are open to a significant amount of interpretation as being a negative reflection on you and your judgement seems wrong.

 

When I'm playing, I play hard and want to win, no matter how little in dollar value the prize might be for winning. When I'm umpiring, I understand that the players will likely be playing hard and wanting to win just like me, and I understand that with that comes reactions to plays that could be interpreted as reactions to calls. When I'm umpiring, I don't suddenly become telepathic and able to read the intent behind every sound and every muscle movement from every player.

 

If someone no longer wants to be in the game, I'm more than happy to help them along their way. But I'm not going to go looking for it; if they want to go they'll let everyone know it. This seems to be the equivalent to listening for the whispered conversation in the far corner of the dugout.

 

Now you are comparing apples to oranges. Try again. You also have confirmed what I was thinking. When you umpire you think like a player. Play or umpire.

[afaber12]

 

 

 

It looks to me like the only thing Glavine said just before the smile was "ball". Even if it was actually "bull" (or heard that way even if it wasn't), I can't see how this type of reaction from Darling is reasonable, unless there's been a heck of a lot worse going on already in the game; and if Glavine, the Braves or everyone is on a short leash and has been warned because of prior shenanigans, then I would've thought the right reaction was to toss immediately. Again maybe context changes this a little, but there's been plenty of times where I've made a pitch somewhere close to one of the edges of the strike zone, at least as far as I'm concerned close enough to possibly be called but not get the call, and I've "oooh"-ed at how close it was, and have followed it up with a smile, an intentional one, just to show that I'm not disagreeing with the call or think that the umpire was actually wrong or otherwise trying to show him up somehow.

 

Surely if anything was said or done that was worthy of some sort of reaction here, it would only have been to give the stare down, with mask on? Telling Glavine "Tommy, the ball was outside" while the his back is turned seems just a little over the top.

Hate to tell you but you just told him you thought he missed the pitch. You showed him up. Either be an umpire or a player.

 

 

Batter hits a fly ball down the right field line, but lands a metre foul. No one is in any doubt that its foul - its close in terms of only a minor change in the angle the ball was hit at keeps it fair, but not a tough call to make. The batter, who's been trying to put some body english on it to keep it fair, has just missed out on a stand up double, maybe even a triple. As he turns around to head back to the plate, he shakes his head, maybe lets out a whistle. You can't seriously tell me that in doing that he's showing up the umpire.

 

Maybe if other things have happened in the game, you might have a legitimate reason to think you're being shown up in either the video situation or the one I've just described. But taken in isolation, to take very small things that are open to a significant amount of interpretation as being a negative reflection on you and your judgement seems wrong.

 

When I'm playing, I play hard and want to win, no matter how little in dollar value the prize might be for winning. When I'm umpiring, I understand that the players will likely be playing hard and wanting to win just like me, and I understand that with that comes reactions to plays that could be interpreted as reactions to calls. When I'm umpiring, I don't suddenly become telepathic and able to read the intent behind every sound and every muscle movement from every player.

 

If someone no longer wants to be in the game, I'm more than happy to help them along their way. But I'm not going to go looking for it; if they want to go they'll let everyone know it. This seems to be the equivalent to listening for the whispered conversation in the far corner of the dugout.

 

Now you are comparing apples to oranges. Try again. You also have confirmed what I was thinking. When you umpire you think like a player. Play or umpire.

 

 

Its easy to say someone's comparing apples to oranges. Its harder to explain why that's the case. The two situations involve a player reacting negatively to something that's happened. Both involve hope for a positive outcome but the result not matching that hope. In one its pretty obvious that its the physical outcome that causes the player's disappointment, frustration, anger, etc, whereas the other there is a possibility that's its either the physical outcome, the umpire's judgement of the outcome, or some combination of the two. If I'd wanted this type of "nope, you're wrong" response, I'd have made a comment on the youtube video itself. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine but how about explaining why you think that. That way when we discuss our thoughts, we each have a chance to understand the other perspective, and maybe come away from the discussion better able to handle this type of situation and overall be better umpires. I'm prepared to be told I'm wrong, and maybe I am on this, but I'm not going to learn how to improve if you don't explain why you think I'm wrong.

 

The weird part is that unless you were being sarcastic in your first post (I'll just leave the allusion to being uncertain about other's intent unmentioned... whoops, I mentioned it anyway), we seem to agree on the basic idea of the video being an example of an over-reaction from an umpire. So if I am wrong I can't seem to be that wrong.

[GT25Ump]

I can't stand those announcers.  Those 2 are some of the worst homers in the business.  I have listened to them far too much.  Not everything has to be verbal.  Who cares if he didn't say anything, his actions did all of the talking.  And, at this level, that little smirk does not go unnoticed.  Especially if there is history with it.

 

Cox is just a tool.  That is pretty much how MLB managers are.  Just tools used by the players so they don't get ejected themselves.

THIS!

[UMP45]

 

 

 

 

It looks to me like the only thing Glavine said just before the smile was "ball". Even if it was actually "bull" (or heard that way even if it wasn't), I can't see how this type of reaction from Darling is reasonable, unless there's been a heck of a lot worse going on already in the game; and if Glavine, the Braves or everyone is on a short leash and has been warned because of prior shenanigans, then I would've thought the right reaction was to toss immediately. Again maybe context changes this a little, but there's been plenty of times where I've made a pitch somewhere close to one of the edges of the strike zone, at least as far as I'm concerned close enough to possibly be called but not get the call, and I've "oooh"-ed at how close it was, and have followed it up with a smile, an intentional one, just to show that I'm not disagreeing with the call or think that the umpire was actually wrong or otherwise trying to show him up somehow.

 

Surely if anything was said or done that was worthy of some sort of reaction here, it would only have been to give the stare down, with mask on? Telling Glavine "Tommy, the ball was outside" while the his back is turned seems just a little over the top.

Hate to tell you but you just told him you thought he missed the pitch. You showed him up. Either be an umpire or a player.

 

 

Batter hits a fly ball down the right field line, but lands a metre foul. No one is in any doubt that its foul - its close in terms of only a minor change in the angle the ball was hit at keeps it fair, but not a tough call to make. The batter, who's been trying to put some body english on it to keep it fair, has just missed out on a stand up double, maybe even a triple. As he turns around to head back to the plate, he shakes his head, maybe lets out a whistle. You can't seriously tell me that in doing that he's showing up the umpire.

 

Maybe if other things have happened in the game, you might have a legitimate reason to think you're being shown up in either the video situation or the one I've just described. But taken in isolation, to take very small things that are open to a significant amount of interpretation as being a negative reflection on you and your judgement seems wrong.

 

When I'm playing, I play hard and want to win, no matter how little in dollar value the prize might be for winning. When I'm umpiring, I understand that the players will likely be playing hard and wanting to win just like me, and I understand that with that comes reactions to plays that could be interpreted as reactions to calls. When I'm umpiring, I don't suddenly become telepathic and able to read the intent behind every sound and every muscle movement from every player.

 

If someone no longer wants to be in the game, I'm more than happy to help them along their way. But I'm not going to go looking for it; if they want to go they'll let everyone know it. This seems to be the equivalent to listening for the whispered conversation in the far corner of the dugout.

 

Now you are comparing apples to oranges. Try again. You also have confirmed what I was thinking. When you umpire you think like a player. Play or umpire.

 

 

Its easy to say someone's comparing apples to oranges. Its harder to explain why that's the case. The two situations involve a player reacting negatively to something that's happened. Both involve hope for a positive outcome but the result not matching that hope. In one its pretty obvious that its the physical outcome that causes the player's disappointment, frustration, anger, etc, whereas the other there is a possibility that's its either the physical outcome, the umpire's judgement of the outcome, or some combination of the two. If I'd wanted this type of "nope, you're wrong" response, I'd have made a comment on the youtube video itself. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine but how about explaining why you think that. That way when we discuss our thoughts, we each have a chance to understand the other perspective, and maybe come away from the discussion better able to handle this type of situation and overall be better umpires. I'm prepared to be told I'm wrong, and maybe I am on this, but I'm not going to learn how to improve if you don't explain why you think I'm wrong.

 

The weird part is that unless you were being sarcastic in your first post (I'll just leave the allusion to being uncertain about other's intent unmentioned... whoops, I mentioned it anyway), we seem to agree on the basic idea of the video being an example of an over-reaction from an umpire. So if I am wrong I can't seem to be that wrong.

 

The difference is everyone is focused on the pitcher. They can focus on his reaction, body language, etc.. With the batter there is more distractions for everyone. Baseball is a game within a game. The one the fans see and the one the coaches, players, and umpires play in. 

[afaber12]

The difference is everyone is focused on the pitcher. They can focus on his reaction, body language, etc.. With the batter there is more distractions for everyone. Baseball is a game within a game. The one the fans see and the one the coaches, players, and umpires play in.

Ok. First off, not everyone's going to be focused on the pitcher. Even of those that are, very few are going to see such a small and quick facial expression. Of those that do, there's going to be doubt about what it was about and where it was directed, at least in part determined by who they're rooting for in the game. If it's what the fans are thinking, I'd ask since when do we care why fans think - the more vocal they are, the more likely they're going to be even less informed than managers. If it's the other players and coaches you're worried about, why? They're going to think it was a good call, or a bad call, or an FU call, or a make-up call, or whatever type of call they think it is anyway. A small expression like this isn't going to change their minds. And even if they think differently about you or your call, so what? I say again, taken on its own, something this minor isn't worth the reaction it got, if any reaction at all.

[UMP45]

 

The difference is everyone is focused on the pitcher. They can focus on his reaction, body language, etc.. With the batter there is more distractions for everyone. Baseball is a game within a game. The one the fans see and the one the coaches, players, and umpires play in.

Ok. First off, not everyone's going to be focused on the pitcher. Even of those that are, very few are going to see such a small and quick facial expression. Of those that do, there's going to be doubt about what it was about and where it was directed, at least in part determined by who they're rooting for in the game. If it's what the fans are thinking, I'd ask since when do we care why fans think - the more vocal they are, the more likely they're going to be even less informed than managers. If it's the other players and coaches you're worried about, why? They're going to think it was a good call, or a bad call, or an FU call, or a make-up call, or whatever type of call they think it is anyway. A small expression like this isn't going to change their minds. And even if they think differently about you or your call, so what? I say again, taken on its own, something this minor isn't worth the reaction it got, if any reaction at all.

 

I trying to explain but you just don't get it. I give up.

[Mr Umpire]

 

The difference is everyone is focused on the pitcher. They can focus on his reaction, body language, etc.. With the batter there is more distractions for everyone. Baseball is a game within a game. The one the fans see and the one the coaches, players, and umpires play in.

Ok. First off, not everyone's going to be focused on the pitcher. Even of those that are, very few are going to see such a small and quick facial expression. Of those that do, there's going to be doubt about what it was about and where it was directed, at least in part determined by who they're rooting for in the game. If it's what the fans are thinking, I'd ask since when do we care why fans think - the more vocal they are, the more likely they're going to be even less informed than managers. If it's the other players and coaches you're worried about, why? They're going to think it was a good call, or a bad call, or an FU call, or a make-up call, or whatever type of call they think it is anyway. A small expression like this isn't going to change their minds. And even if they think differently about you or your call, so what? I say again, taken on its own, something this minor isn't worth the reaction it got, if any reaction at all.

 

It's about perception.  If the players and coaches see this overlooked, then they will test to see what they can get away with.  Then, all control is lost.  Again, professional baseball players and amateur baseball and fans are not the same.  What you overlook in your games is not viewed the same as it is at this level.  This is grown men not 10 year olds.  Intentions and motives are completely different.  A smirk from a kid is not the same as one from an adult.

 

As stated, apples and oranges.