YES HE DID!!!! Scioscia EJ

[Thunderheads]

[grayhawk]

As bad as the Angels are right now, I wouldn't want to hang around and watch them either.

[JaxRolo]

Good toss! Yes He did!

[maven]

If there's a veteran U3, Scioscia barks twice and shuts his mouth. With a rookie, he gets himself run. Nice.

[Thunderheads]

If there's a veteran U3, Scioscia barks twice and shuts his mouth. With a rookie, he gets himself run. Nice.

Scioscia?  Picking and choosing to be a Rat only to a rookie??  Pa-shaw!!!

[grayhawk]

Lots of talk around here that Scioscia is done if the Angels don't make the playoffs. He's probably feeling the heat.

[maven]

Lots of talk around here that Scioscia is done if the Angels don't make the playoffs. He's probably feeling the heat.

Yeah, so let's dump on rook. Lovely.

[Man_In_Black]

Yeah, so let's dump on rook. Lovely.

C'mon guys, jeez. The "rook" is the one who made the call. Who else should he dump on? U2?

But seriously...how some of you guys take on this "us against them" mindset is kind of fascinating. With some of you guys, the managers and coaches are always effing "rats" and the umpires are always to be defended. I've played. I've managed. I've umpired. I've worn all the hats. Hey, we umpires screw up too. This guy IMO, makes a rookie move in a critical situation and ol' Mike was just letting him know.

Taking off the umpire hat and looking at it objectively, I feel Scioscia's beef was legit. Not having the luxury of slo-mo at various angles and having to judge that swing in real time, I'd venture to say most base umpires wouldn't have had enough to overturn the PU's call. I wouldn't have. Too close. And I'd only overrule my PU if I were 100% certain he went around. On that swing, No way I would have been 100% certain. The PU called it a ball and he's a hell of a lot closer to it than U3. PU apparently saw it all the way because it wasn't until the catcher pointed down that he asked. If the PU had asked immediately we would know that he didn't have a clear view of it and expected help.

Not an Angels fan, but making that call in such an extremely critical offensive sitch for the Angels on a very borderline checkswing is definitely a "rookie" move. And Scioscia knew it. Can't blame him for sticking up for his players.

[grayhawk]

Angels fan here, and I have no problem with the call because Calhoun offered.  It was the right call.

[umpstu]

C'mon guys, jeez. The "rook" is the one who made the call. Who else should he dump on? U2?

But seriously...how some of you guys take on this "us against them" mindset is kind of fascinating. With some of you guys, the managers and coaches are always effing "rats" and the umpires are always to be defended. I've played. I've managed. I've umpired. I've worn all the hats. Hey, we umpires screw up too. This guy IMO, makes a rookie move in a critical situation and ol' Mike was just letting him know.

Taking off the umpire hat and looking at it objectively, I feel Scioscia's beef was legit. Not having the luxury of slo-mo at various angles and having to judge that swing in real time, I'd venture to say most base umpires wouldn't have had enough to overturn the PU's call. I wouldn't have. Too close. And I'd only overrule my PU if I were 100% certain he went around. On that swing, No way I would have been 100% certain. The PU called it a ball and he's a hell of a lot closer to it than U3. PU apparently saw it all the way because it wasn't until the catcher pointed down that he asked. If the PU had asked immediately we would know that he didn't have a clear view of it and expected help.

Not an Angels fan, but making that call in such an extremely critical offensive sitch for the Angels on a very borderline checkswing is definitely a "rookie" move. And Scioscia knew it. Can't blame him for sticking up for his players.

I agree with the us against them comment, but not the rest of it.

It's not a rookie move.  It's a check swing on a ball in the dirt.  Possibly the plate umpire is so concerned with following the pitch all the way to the glove that he didn't get a good look at the swing.  The third base umpire can't overrule or overturn the plate umpire, that is not what asking for help is.  It's asking if the other umpire had the batter taking a swing at the pitch.  In college ball that is a swing as the barrel of the bat clearly is past the front hip.  If I'm the third base umpire here I'd have a swing on that pitch at any level.  He offered at it.

The only way I ask for help immediately is if it was an uncaught pitch and the batter has a chance to run to first on that.  Wasn't a rook move.  That umpire obviously has a lot of experience with these types of situations and had the balls to make the call.  I'm a big fan of Scioscia and have no horse in this race as I'm a Cardinals fan, God's team, but he might have just been trying to fire his boys up on this one.

[maven]

But seriously...how some of you guys take on this "us against them" mindset is kind of fascinating. With some of you guys, the managers and coaches are always effing "rats" and the umpires are always to be defended. I've played. I've managed. I've umpired. I've worn all the hats. Hey, we umpires screw up too. This guy IMO, makes a rookie move in a critical situation and ol' Mike was just letting him know.

You've played, managed, and umpired pro ball? I doubt it: if you had, then you would know that this IS the mindset. We're not projecting it.

I agree completely that a confrontational attitude is counterproductive in amateur ball. That's one reason former pro umpires struggle to transition to HS ball: they expect fights where coaches expect handshakes.

Back to the video: the rookie always gets more heat. Just another outdated facet of the game.

And Gibson was right.

[the_umpire]

C'mon guys, jeez. The "rook" is the one who made the call. Who else should he dump on? U2?

But seriously...how some of you guys take on this "us against them" mindset is kind of fascinating. With some of you guys, the managers and coaches are always effing "rats" and the umpires are always to be defended. I've played. I've managed. I've umpired. I've worn all the hats. Hey, we umpires screw up too. This guy IMO, makes a rookie move in a critical situation and ol' Mike was just letting him know.

Taking off the umpire hat and looking at it objectively, I feel Scioscia's beef was legit. Not having the luxury of slo-mo at various angles and having to judge that swing in real time, I'd venture to say most base umpires wouldn't have had enough to overturn the PU's call. I wouldn't have. Too close. And I'd only overrule my PU if I were 100% certain he went around. On that swing, No way I would have been 100% certain. The PU called it a ball and he's a hell of a lot closer to it than U3. PU apparently saw it all the way because it wasn't until the catcher pointed down that he asked. If the PU had asked immediately we would know that he didn't have a clear view of it and expected help.

Not an Angels fan, but making that call in such an extremely critical offensive sitch for the Angels on a very borderline checkswing is definitely a "rookie" move. And Scioscia knew it. Can't blame him for sticking up for his players.

WOW! So just because it's a "critical situation" when the umpire (in this case being U3) gets asked to appeal the possible check swing on the batter by the PU (who doesn't actually have the best look on check swings)  and and in his JUDGEMENT rules it a swing, it's a rookie move...? Whether Tripp was right or wrong, thats his call to make, and as an umpire, the main focus at all levels is to ALWAYS get plays right. Now this doesn't always happen, because we are human, but we DO NOT not make a call because of the situation. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by the_umpire

[RichMSN]

C'mon guys, jeez. The "rook" is the one who made the call. Who else should he dump on? U2?

But seriously...how some of you guys take on this "us against them" mindset is kind of fascinating. With some of you guys, the managers and coaches are always effing "rats" and the umpires are always to be defended. I've played. I've managed. I've umpired. I've worn all the hats. Hey, we umpires screw up too. This guy IMO, makes a rookie move in a critical situation and ol' Mike was just letting him know.

Taking off the umpire hat and looking at it objectively, I feel Scioscia's beef was legit. Not having the luxury of slo-mo at various angles and having to judge that swing in real time, I'd venture to say most base umpires wouldn't have had enough to overturn the PU's call. I wouldn't have. Too close. And I'd only overrule my PU if I were 100% certain he went around. On that swing, No way I would have been 100% certain. The PU called it a ball and he's a hell of a lot closer to it than U3. PU apparently saw it all the way because it wasn't until the catcher pointed down that he asked. If the PU had asked immediately we would know that he didn't have a clear view of it and expected help.

Not an Angels fan, but making that call in such an extremely critical offensive sitch for the Angels on a very borderline checkswing is definitely a "rookie" move. And Scioscia knew it. Can't blame him for sticking up for his players.

Rookie move, my backside.  U3 is a fulltime Major League umpire and all he cares about is "did he go" or not.

That's an offer every day of the week.  If you want to say you wouldn't have the cojones to make that call based on the situation, then that's fine -- but it tells me you're more of a coach or player than umpire.

[MadMax]

Guys, isn't it a "rule" in the Major Leagues that if a catcher asks for an appeal to a BU on a swing, the PU is obliged to honor it?

We all know that if PU judges a swing, that cannot be overruled. But if he doesn't have a swing, the F2 (defense, but the F2 is the "rep") can invoke an appeal to a BU.

It doesn't matter the situation if it's bottom of the 9th with Adrian Gonzalez at bat, or the top of the 3rd with a AAA call-up at bat for the Phillies (or Braves) – if you (the BU) see it as a swing, you rule it a swing (if asked).

[RichMSN]

Guys, isn't it a "rule" in the Major Leagues that if a catcher asks for an appeal to a BU on a swing, the PU is obliged to honor it?

We all know that if PU judges a swing, that cannot be overruled. But if he doesn't have a swing, the F2 (defense, but the F2 is the "rep") can invoke an appeal to a BU.

It doesn't matter the situation if it's bottom of the 9th with Adrian Gonzalez at bat, or the top of the 3rd with a AAA call-up at bat for the Phillies (or Braves) – if you (the BU) see it as a swing, you rule it a swing (if asked).

The PU has to go to the wing umpire, but there's nothing that requires the wing umpire to call the strike if he doesn't want to.

[Man_In_Black]

 Wow...didn't think my contribution would generate this many responses. But hey, that's what makes this forum so great. Healthy, civilized exchanges of viewpoints are the reason I joined in the first place. I've read all of your comments with interest.

You've played, managed, and umpired pro ball? I doubt it: if you had, then you would know that this IS the mindset. We're not projecting it.

You're correct, maven. Not pro ball. But college. But I respectfully disagree...I wouldn't necessarily generalize and say all pro managers and umpires are out to get on each other's nerves. But I will say that having been a player and a coach has helped me become a better umpire. Game handling is much easier when you've been in the other guy's shoes. The managers I have to deal with on a regular basis know this about me and I think they perceive me in a different way as well (at least I like to believe that they do). They know I'm willing to work with them and not against them (to a point, of course). Makes things go a whole lot smoother when they know I'll take their concerns seriously. But I'll dump someone in a heartbeat if the line is crossed. No question.

The PU has to go to the wing umpire, but there's nothing that requires the wing umpire to call the strike if he doesn't want to.

I guess this was my point all along. I didn't think there was enough to override PU's call. I felt this to be an example of "inserting one's self into the game". Some of you see it differently, and I'm absolutely fine with that.

What I do know is this...as a manager, if my player is up with a 3-2 count, bases loaded, two outs and clearly goes around on a checked swing, I just accept the fact that he struck out. Inning over. No need to go give the umpire a load of crap for calling the obvious. Just accept it and move on. But the fact that Mike went out there to jaw at Gibson tells me that he and a lot of other people didn't have a swing on that pitch (myself included). Mike has an obligation (as does any manager) to stand up for his players when he feels they've been slighted. He probably knew he was going to get tossed for arguing balls and strikes, but it was the price he was willing to pay for making his point, I suppose. I don't think his actions were as evil or premeditated as some of you make it out to be.

Peace out.

[johnnyg08]

He went.  Great call. That's why he's in the show.

[Tksjewelry]

That's an offer. 

[elares]

 " Mike has an obligation (as does any manager) to stand up for his players when he feels they've been slighted."

 

 

I do not understand this point of view.  I know we are speculating about what's in the managers mind but, do they think the umpire is intentionally making an incorrect call to hurt or punish the player?  What professional adult would do that?  

Maybe I'm simple, but I'm just trying to get the call right.  I don't have time to consider who the player is or remember what his batting average is or anything else.  I really don't care what the count is in this case.  Do I think he went?  Yes?  Then call the strike!   

Incorrect calls are part of the game.  How does the manager or player tantrum help anyone involved in the game(except the broadcast network)?

Edited September 10, 2015 by elares

[noumpere]

I do not understand this point of view.  I know we are speculating about what's in the managers mind but, do they think the umpire is intentionally making an incorrect call to hurt or punish the player?  What professional adult would do that?  

Maybe I'm simple, but I'm just trying to get the call right.  I don't have time to consider who the player is or remember what his batting average is or anything else.  I really don't care what the count is in this case.  Do I think he went?  Yes?  Then call the strike!   

Incorrect calls are part of the game.  How does the manager or player tantrum help anyone involved in the game(except the broadcast network)?

I'll add to this:  If the *other* team had been at bat, and U3 called it a ball, the Angel's dugout would have had the same reaction, Scosia would have come out and been tossed.  So, the umpire is going to get a ration of SH*# no matter what he calls -- he might as well get it right. 

 

This is NOT (as man-in-black alleged) of an umpire "inserting one's self into the game."  The only one inserting himself into the game was scosia.

 

And, while I have it as a good call, I can see where others would not call it.

[Man_In_Black]

I do not understand this point of view.  I know we are speculating about what's in the managers mind but, do they think the umpire is intentionally making an incorrect call to hurt or punish the player?  What professional adult would do that? 

(Putting manager's cap on)...No, managers know that the vast majority of umpires don't intentionally make incorrect calls to punish anyone. But sometimes managers see things differently than how the umpire sees them, and simply want to know his side of it. Often, the first question I get asked by managers when they come out to discuss a call I made is "What did you see, DJ?" And a lot of times when I tell them, they'll be satisfied and just walk back to the dugout. It's all good. As umpires, we accept that a manager has the right to do that. If he didn't, the rules would prohibit it. Heck, don't many clinics and camps devote a lot of time to honing our skills on dealing with these kinds of things? Sure. Because it's part of the game.

But there will be times when a manger will feel an umpire needs a wake-up call. For example, I don't know how many times I've seen umpires snooze on a obvious balk or obstruction because they simply got complacent and by the time they realized what just happened, it was too late to call it. (I think this has happened to all of us umpires at one time or another). I would go out and talk to him and say "Hey Ray, that one was pretty obvious. Can you maybe try to stay a bit more focused out there? Thanks." That's all it takes. No need to get confrontational. He knows he effed up. And now he knows I know. So he'll be on top of it from here on out.  As a manager, that's all I want. Of course I know that he didn't intentionally not make the call. He just got surprised. I ain't happy about it, but I also realize he's human.

I'll add to this:  If the *other* team had been at bat, and U3 called it a ball, the Angel's dugout would have had the same reaction, Scosia would have come out and been tossed.  So, the umpire is going to get a ration of SH*# no matter what he calls -- he might as well get it right.

Dunno. Maybe. But from my own experiences, one usually gets more flak for calling a swing on something borderline than if one calls "no swing".

But man...I could write a book on "damned if you do and damned if you don't" calls. The ones where you know no matter what you call, you're gonna have a manager in your face within about 15 seconds

This is NOT (as man-in-black alleged) of an umpire "inserting one's self into the game."  The only one inserting himself into the game was scosia.

If you consider letting an umpire know that you disagree with his decision to be "inserting yourself", well, then you're more than welcome to feel that way. I believe Mike knew he was gonna get tossed regardless of what he said because arguing B/S is pretty much a guaranteed ticket punch. Could he have been less of a jackass about it? Maybe...probably.

   And, while I have it as a good call, I can see where others would not call it.

Thank you.

I tend to get somewhat verbose at times but here is what it boils down to from my POV:

To anyone who saw the swing for the first time in realtime (not talking slo-mo replays), were you 100% certain he went around? Be honest with yourself. I sure as hell wasn't. I mean, the original camera angle was just about where you'd be standing if you were U3 in 3-man. And I'll tell y'all, I wasn't sure he really went. I wouldn't have touched that one with a 10 foot pole. I'm not gonna overrule my senior partner (who didn't ask me...the defense appealed) who's right on top of it. Of course, all of us then had the benefit of looking at the replay in slo-mo, at 90° angle to the batters box and could see that it was, indeed, a swing...by a freakin eyelash. The whole Angel's bench was pissed. Even the announcer said "Wow, it was real close!". So I can't see how Gibson, who's at least 100 feet away and at a crappier angle could have been that certain in realtime. I will give him this much, though, it was a ballsy call. I couldn't have done it.

And correct call or not, I still think Scioscia was genuinely upset and really not out to pick on the "rookie". If Joyce or Hallion were standing at third, he'd have let them know about it, too. But then again, I don't believe Joyce or Hallion would have called that a strike in the first place

[RichMSN]

Senior partner has nothing to do with check swings. The plate umpire usually has the worst seat in the house. I've been working HS ball for 28 years and college for over 10 and I tell rookies in pregames that the first instinct they have on a check swing in real time is what they should call if I come to them. Cause when I come, it's *their* call now, not mine. And when someone comes to me, how that plate umpire feels about me calling a swing has no bearing on anything. It's my call now and I'm going to make it.

[johnnyg08]

People make such a big deal about this call because it is all judgment.  Look at is as simply another call that we have to make.  No bigger, no smaller...just another call. 

Make your call and move on.  

[Man_In_Black]

Sure Rich, I'm with you. I get that it's my call when I'm asked. All I'm saying is, if I'm not 100% sure he went, I'm not gonna call it a swing. And I'm sure if you're not 100% certain, you wouldn't call it either.

In this particular instance, I wasn't 100% sure. If you were, more power to ya.

Johnny...you're right. In the grand scheme of things, this is absolutely meaningless. The world has bigger problems than ol' Mike blowing up over a strike call.

But I enjoy reading everyone's views and hearing how they feel about an umpiring topic. Just trying to provide for entertaining discussion.

[grayhawk]

For example, I don't know how many times I've seen umpires snooze on a obvious balk or obstruction because they simply got complacent and by the time they realized what just happened, it was too late to call it. (I think this has happened to all of us umpires at one time or another). I would go out and talk to him and say "Hey Ray, that one was pretty obvious. Can you maybe try to stay a bit more focused out there? Thanks." That's all it takes. No need to get confrontational. He knows he effed up. And now he knows I know. So he'll be on top of it from here on out.  As a manager, that's all I want. Of course I know that he didn't intentionally not make the call. He just got surprised. I ain't happy about it, but I also realize he's human.

Maybe it's just me, but this IS being confrontational.  We can discuss calls, or lack thereof.  Coaches are more than welcome to ask what I saw and to describe what they saw, and to ask for a clarification of a rule.  What I will not allow coaches to do is talk about ME.  When you question my focus, you are inferring that I am not doing my job, and that's personal.

To anyone who saw the swing for the first time in realtime (not talking slo-mo replays), were you 100% certain he went around? Be honest with yourself. I sure as hell wasn't. I mean, the original camera angle was just about where you'd be standing if you were U3 in 3-man.

Why is this relevant?  The call was made from the wing, which is a far better angle then where U3 would be in 3-man.

And I'll tell y'all, I wasn't sure he really went. I wouldn't have touched that one with a 10 foot pole. I'm not gonna overrule my senior partner (who didn't ask me...the defense appealed) who's right on top of it.

There you go again with "overrule."  If the plate umpire had said, "No, he didn't," then you could say that he was overruled.  But while the audio isn't good enough to know for certain, there simply wasn't time for PU to say it.  F2 was already asking PU to appeal to U3.  This was not a case of a call being overruled.  Please get off this horse.

Even the announcer said "Wow, it was real close!". So I can't see how Gibson, who's at least 100 feet away and at a crappier angle could have been that certain in realtime. I will give him this much, though, it was a ballsy call. I couldn't have done it.

Umm, Mark Gubicza always talks about the bat crossing the plate on check swings.  He has no idea what the rule says, or how these are judged by umpires.  And Gibson was that certain because he's really damn good as what he does.  After all, you admit that he got it right.

And correct call or not, I still think Scioscia was genuinely upset and really not out to pick on the "rookie". If Joyce or Hallion were standing at third, he'd have let them know about it, too. But then again, I don't believe Joyce or Hallion would have called that a strike in the first place

Scioscia was genuinely upset because his team is playing like crap, can't score runs to save their lives, have gone from 1st place at the All Star break to third place today, and he will likely be fired if they don't make the playoffs.  That was an important pitch and call, and it didn't go his way.