YES HE DID!!!! Scioscia EJ

[Man_In_Black]

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.

Well, if you miss an obvious call that was clear to everyone else in the venue, couldn't one argue that you weren't doing your job? But I get what you're saying.

Really though I think it really depends on how you approach it. My college coach taught me early on that making umpires look bad on the field gains you absolutely nothing.

I remember one incident back when I was managing and it was an obivious missed balk. We were down by a run late in the game. The call would have put a runner in scoring position for us. I asked for time, walked calmly to the infield, made sure we were not in earshot of any players or coaches and I told him in a low voice that he just missed an obvious balk. No wild gesturing, no histrionics. He said "Yeah, it didn't register right away it by then it was too late." OK, so he knew. So I said "Ok, I only ask that try to just stay focused from here on out and we're cool." I calmly walked away. No insults, no personal attacks. No implying he was trying to screw us. Now if you had been that umpire, would you have dumped me for inferring that you weren't doing your job? Even though I made every effort to keep from showing you up?

Anyway... enjoyed the rest of your post, too.

[RichMSN]

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.

I don't look at it like that.  Every half swing I say to myself "he went" or "he didn't."  I don't use the bat head, the wrists, or any of that nonsense.  Just my gut reaction on whether the batter offered.  I also don't look at these replays 10 times, either.

I look at a *lot* of check swings in a year now that it's something I have to rule on as being part of the Appeals Board at the UEFL.  I tend to look at them once, sometimes twice.  More than that and I'm looking for something...and that's not how I think a check swing should be ruled upon.

[lawump]

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.

 

 

Comparing college to pro is comparing apples to oranges.  Your disagreement is duly noted, but is wrong.  I say this is as a former MiLB umpire who is still involved in professional umpire development.  I also have umpired many, many NCAA games.

Professional baseball is overflowing with persons who have zero respect for umpires and enjoy attempting to make life miserable for them.  There are numerous managers who attempt to "put notches on a belt" by "running an umpire out of the league".  I'm not trying to insult our veterans, but umpiring a professional ball is going to war and its 2, 3 or 4 umpires vs. 50 players, 2 managers and 10 coaches.

Edited September 10, 2015 by lawump

[lawump]

 

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.

 

And, I add, "and struggle to transition to NCAA ball"

[Man_In_Black]

Comparing college to pro is comparing apples to oranges.  Your disagreement is duly noted, but is wrong.  I say this is as a former MiLB umpire who is still involved in professional umpire development.  I also have umpired many, many NCAA games.

Professional baseball is overflowing with persons who have zero respect for umpires and enjoy attempting to make life miserable for them.  There are numerous managers who attempt to "put notches on a belt" by "running an umpire out of the league".  I'm not trying to insult our veterans, but umpiring a professional ball game is often like going to war only its 2, 3 or 4 umpires vs. 50 plays, 2 managers and 10 coaches.

Interesting. I have naturally run across managers who seem to make a hobby of trying to get into umpires' heads. Now, I'm fully aware that Pro and College are two different animals (have colleagues that are ex-MiLB) but when you write "overflowing", what are we talking about in percentages? 50% of the managers? 60%? 80%? 100%? The ex-Pros that I know said that while there were quite a few a**holes, there were others who were pretty OK. Is there a difference depending on the level and/or the league?

 

Edited September 10, 2015 by Man_In_Black
punctuation edit

[grayhawk]

Well, if you miss an obvious call that was clear to everyone else in the venue, couldn't one argue that you weren't doing your job? But I get what you're saying.

Really though I think it really depends on how you approach it. My college coach taught me early on that making umpires look bad on the field gains you absolutely nothing.

I remember one incident back when I was managing and it was an obivious missed balk. We were down by a run late in the game. The call would have put a runner in scoring position for us. I asked for time, walked calmly to the infield, made sure we were not in earshot of any players or coaches and I told him in a low voice that he just missed an obvious balk. No wild gesturing, no histrionics. He said "Yeah, it didn't register right away it by then it was too late." OK, so he knew. So I said "Ok, I only ask that try to just stay focused from here on out and we're cool." I calmly walked away. No insults, no personal attacks. No implying he was trying to screw us. Now if you had been that umpire, would you have dumped me for inferring that you weren't doing your job? Even though I made every effort to keep from showing you up?

No, I wouldn't.  Of course, the context of the above is different from the one you put in your earlier post.  In this one, the umpire already admitted that he missed it.  In the previous post, you went out there and told him he missed it and asked him to stay focused before asking him what he saw.  Even then, I don't envision ejecting for that, though I might tell the coach he can ask about the call, but not comment on me.  It would depend on my relationship with that coach on how I addressed it.

 

[johnnyg08]

Just because some of you didn't see a swing attempt and some of us and Gibson did doesn't mean anything.  What is does prove is why people get so polarized about this call.  

The entire defense thinks he went, the entire offense doesn't.  

What Gibson saw was a swing, he made his call and moved on...then the offense proceeded to burn the field down over a correct call. 

If you think he didn't, you're not wrong.  I would disagree w/ your judgment, but those are the ones where we get paid to umpire.  Anybody can call the easy ones. Hell, we don't even need to be on the field for the obvious calls.  

[noumpere]

Just because some of you didn't see a swing attempt and some of us and Gibson did doesn't mean anything.  What is does prove is why people get so polarized about this call.  

The entire defense thinks he went, the entire offense doesn't.  

What Gibson saw was a swing, he made his call and moved on...then the offense proceeded to burn the field down over a correct call. 

If you think he didn't, you're not wrong.  I would disagree w/ your judgment, but those are the ones where we get paid to umpire.  Anybody can call the easy ones. Hell, we don't even need to be on the field for the obvious calls.  

I will also add that the initial "OMG.  What are you looking at?" type comments from the dugout are not really a problem (even if they have more profanity in them at the MLB level).  That's "expected" on a close, crucial, judgment call.

 

What is unacceptable is Scoscia's actions afterwards.  He knew what he was doing, and knew what would result.

[johnnyg08]

I will also add that the initial "OMG.  What are you looking at?" type comments from the dugout are not really a problem (even if they have more profanity in them at the MLB level).  That's "expected" on a close, crucial, judgment call.

 

What is unacceptable is Scoscia's actions afterwards.  He knew what he was doing, and knew what would result.

yeah, I agree w/ that.

[Tksjewelry]

We are not supposed to put on managers caps, coaches caps, players caps or even fan hats. If you're going to call a game objectively, even look at a call objectively, you have to forget you ever wore those hats. There is a thread around here somewhere of a famous Umpires advice that sums as: if you're going to be a good umpire, you have to get the player out of you. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[johnnyg08]

Yep, Gibson's response was so professional.  He didn't engage Scoscia at all.  That's a lesson on how to handle this.

He was already dumped for arguing balls and strikes.  Keep your distance and don't engage.  Textbook.

[Replacematt]

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.

Learn what constitutes a swing and the role of a base umpire on appeals before next season, please.

[Man_In_Black]

Learn what constitutes a swing and the role of a base umpire on appeals before next season, please.

"Gee...I strongly disagree with this guy's opinion on this incident, so I'll quote his entire post for the sole purpose of inferring that he's incompetent."

I don't think I'd be umpiring at the level I work if I didn't know what constitutes an attempt at a pitch. But hey, if that potshot at me made you feel better, then great. If there's anything else about my umpiring that you wish to call into question, Matt, then go for it. I can take it. And I don't hold a grudge. It's the internet, after all.

[JaxRolo]

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. Nothing to do with being a rookie. He made the call that had to be made. Good call.

[Replacematt]

"Gee...I strongly disagree with this guy's opinion on this incident, so I'll quote his entire post for the sole purpose of inferring that he's incompetent."

I don't think I'd be umpiring at the level I work if I didn't know what constitutes an attempt at a pitch. But hey, if that potshot at me made you feel better, then great. If there's anything else about my umpiring that you wish to call into question, Matt, then go for it. I can take it. And I don't hold a grudge. It's the internet, after all.

I quoted your whole post because on mobile, I have no means of truncating it. If you only call strikes when you are 100% sure, then you are abdicating your responsibility. 

[RichMSN]

This is what I was going to say earlier and then a work thing got in the way.  I've worked with guys who won't call check swing strikes unless the batter screwed himself into the ground and everybody in the park wonders why the plate guy missed it.  That's not umpiring -- it's attempting to find the path of least resistance.

40 years ago that's how check swings were handled -- watch a game from the 70s.  A 3/4 swing was no swing.  It's not like that anymore, thank goodness. 

[johnnyg08]

You got it Rich...it's just another call on the field.  More umpires at our levels need to treat it that way.  

[Platejob29]

(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.

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

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.

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

Tripp can get this because he knows it's a swing. In real time I saw it as a go as did many others I assume. Guaranteed that almost all MLB umpires saw this is as go. When you see it that many times year in and year out by the time you get to the big leagues this call isn't that close. There's also no such thing as a ballsy call when you're a professional umpire. It is either this or that no in between. So if you see one thing call it. If you see another call that. That's the only true way to call what you see. Also as I mentioned before I think Joyce or Hallion would have had this is a swing as well.

[noumpere]

This is what I was going to say earlier and then a work thing got in the way.  I've worked with guys who won't call check swing strikes unless the batter screwed himself into the ground and everybody in the park wonders why the plate guy missed it.  That's not umpiring -- it's attempting to find the path of least resistance.

40 years ago that's how check swings were handled -- watch a game from the 70s.  A 3/4 swing was no swing.  It's not like that anymore, thank goodness. 

Maybe we need a poll.

PU comes to you on a check swing.  Do you:

a) Say, "No, he didn't," unless you're 100% certain he did?

b) Say "Yes, he did," unless you're 100% certain he didn't?

c) Call it to the best of your ability based on the weight of the evidence presented?