Jump to content

How in the world can you change that call?


Gfoley4

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

I simply tell the manager that I talked about this pregame with my partners.  If they saw it, they would have called it.

I think that would only apply to a batted ball off the batter or a tip that hit the dirt. This belongs to the PU and he got it. He appeased Roberts because Roberts has a great demeanor and one of his crew effed up from 90 plus feet away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

I think that would only apply to a batted ball off the batter or a tip that hit the dirt. This belongs to the PU and he got it. He appeased Roberts because Roberts has a great demeanor and one of his crew effed up from 90 plus feet away.

Yes, but why did he listen?  That discussion should have been a conversation about how late The Wieners Circle is open.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I think that would only apply to a batted ball off the batter or a tip that hit the dirt. This belongs to the PU and he got it. He appeased Roberts because Roberts has a great demeanor and one of his crew effed up from 90 plus feet away.

Wow.  Appeased Roberts?  Joe Maddon has an almost as good demeanor as Roberts ... so you go to your partner to appease?  Then face the warranted wrath of Maddon?  In an elimination game?  My personal rule has always been ... if I'm asked for help, I'm 100% behind you, 100% encouraging you to overturn, or I simply smile and state, "I can't help you."  NOTHING else needs to be said.  It has to be crystal clear that you missed it to overturn it.  I'm not gonna get involved otherwise, and I don't expect you to get involved in my call unless you can swear by it.

Obviously, whoever was at 3B tonight could not have been 100%, and when he finally sees the replay he'll be eating crow for days.  It matters not that Grandy K'd on the next pitch.

MIKE WINTERS, as the Crew Chief, should not have allowed this, and he should be fined.  Not just reprimanded, but fined.  If he's not, then it's a travesty.

If we are using replay in the spirit in which it was intended, then non-reviewable plays have to stand as called unless at least two umpires can say, "100% ... he dropped the ball ... he blocked the bag ... (or in this case) it hit the bat."  It wasn't that long ago that Dustin Pedroia was called out at 2B in the post-season on a double play ball that was dropped, and the 2B ump called "OUT - transfer."  The crew got together and all five unanimously agreed that the pivot man never had it, so they overturned the call.  I'm not saying it has to be unanimous, but with six guys on the field, I would think that two have to be 100% certain to overturn a call.

Otherwise, the proper thing to do is stick with the call ... like we've done for 150 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclosure: I'm also a Cubs fan. 

With that said, there is no way that any of them heard two sounds. Maddon says that was the only thing they went off of when changing the call. I will defend umpires as much as possible, but I have no idea how this could be defended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zm1283 said:

there is no way that any of them heard two sounds

Exactly ... there would have been three sounds ...

How does Granderson get away with that kind of an acting job?  He knew more certainly than any of us prior to the replay that he whiffed.  How about instituting a penalty for a player starting the whining that led to a blown call?  If the NBA can have a FLOP rule (and I think it's a $5,000 fine), then MLB can come up with something similar.  Fine the cc for allowing this to be overturned and fine Granderson for lying through his teeth.  "Well, I thought I made contact" is total BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t like the overturn, but...

If I’m Wolf, I’m telling Roberts “I didn’t have a foul, blah blah blah strike out. If any of us had it foul we’d call it.”

Now if im talking to my partners, I’m going in and talking about how I should’ve worn a long sleeve tonight. “Hey that was just a straight uncaught pitch, let’s not accidentally pick up the wrong end of the stick.”

Edited by HCueds
Misread previous post, removed errant part
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Wow.  Appeased Roberts?  Joe Maddon has an almost as good demeanor as Roberts ... so you go to your partner to appease?  Then face the warranted wrath of Maddon?  In an elimination game?  My personal rule has always been ... if I'm asked for help, I'm 100% behind you, 100% encouraging you to overturn, or I simply smile and state, "I can't help you."  NOTHING else needs to be said.  It has to be crystal clear that you missed it to overturn it.  I'm not gonna get involved otherwise, and I don't expect you to get involved in my call unless you can swear by it.

Obviously, whoever was at 3B tonight could not have been 100%, and when he finally sees the replay he'll be eating crow for days.  It matters not that Grandy K'd on the next pitch.

MIKE WINTERS, as the Crew Chief, should not have allowed this, and he should be fined.  Not just reprimanded, but fined.  If he's not, then it's a travesty.

If we are using replay in the spirit in which it was intended, then non-reviewable plays have to stand as called unless at least two umpires can say, "100% ... he dropped the ball ... he blocked the bag ... (or in this case) it hit the bat."  It wasn't that long ago that Dustin Pedroia was called out at 2B in the post-season on a double play ball that was dropped, and the 2B ump called "OUT - transfer."  The crew got together and all five unanimously agreed that the pivot man never had it, so they overturned the call.  I'm not saying it has to be unanimous, but with six guys on the field, I would think that two have to be 100% certain to overturn a call.

Otherwise, the proper thing to do is stick with the call ... like we've done for 150 years.

So if it wasn't appeasement what was it? Getting it right? OK WTF did guys 90' away convince him of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scrounge said:

Oh, I believe they heard two sounds...ground and glove. If that's all the evidence you have - and no one actually SAW the bat hit the ball  ...

^^^^^  This.

If it were a foul ball there would have been three sounds... bat, ground and glove.  That'll really test your timing. Incredible hard to catch, especially so I imagine with NLCS noise.

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

So if it wasn't appeasement what was it? Getting it right? OK WTF did guys 90' away convince him of?

IMO, PU looked unsure and was susceptible to suggestion that he missed it. That would suck. We'll probably never know if PU wanted to be talked out of his call or the crew talked him out of it. He bambozzled himself or his partners did, either way,  PU has to own that.

There was a good article in one of the referee magazines recently about not calling the things that you suspect happened, but didn't see. Article said that you'll be forgiven more easily for calling the erroneous things that you see, much easier than if you erroneously call something that you didn't see. This was an example of doing the latter.

But the baseball gods were kind to the crew and the Dodgers didn't stick it up their arse. Thanks gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already other forums and blogs with writers stating that this play was not reviewable, but that "replays were inconclusive anyway."  Are you kidding me?  The first angle showed that there was clearly no contact with the bat.  The 2nd and 3rd angles were almost as good, but redundant.

Does anyone here think replays were anything other than thoroughly convincing that Grandy just whiffed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ricka56 said:

^^^^^  This.

If it were a foul ball there would have been three sounds... bat, ground and glove.  That'll really test your timing. Incredible hard to catch, especially so I imagine with NLCS noise.

IMO, PU looked unsure and was susceptible to suggestion that he missed it. That would suck. We'll probably never know if PU wanted to be talked out of his call or the crew talked him out of it. He bambozzled himself or his partners did, either way,  PU has to own that.

There was a good article in one of the referee magazines recently about not calling the things that you suspect happened, but didn't see. Article said that you'll be forgiven more easily for calling the erroneous things that you see, much easier than if you erroneously call something that you didn't see. This was an example of doing the latter.

But the baseball gods were kind to the crew and the Dodgers didn't stick it up their arse. Thanks gods.

Or at the least, if did only hear two sounds, unless you're ABSOLUTELY sure one of those sounds was something hitting wood, let the call on the field (yes, I know there's no review here - for some unfathomable reason - it's just a figure of speech) stand. Use the football analogy - start with a presumption that the initial call is correct, only change if there is definitive evidence to do so.

This was a very unfortunate reversal, luckily to be relegated to obscurity due to the outcome. But Wolf was one Dodger hit away from being Don Denkinger II Electric Boogaloo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, scrounge said:

This was a very unfortunate reversal, luckily to be relegated to obscurity due to the outcome. But Wolf was one Dodger hit away from being Don Denkinger II Electric Boogaloo.

Can you imagine the bar-b-Q. Wolf would have been the one that stole a back-to-back WS championship and suffer a fate that Bartman wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, scrounge said:

Oh, I believe they heard two sounds...ground and glove. If that's all the evidence you have - and no one actually SAW the bat hit the ball - what the hell guys? What are we doing reversing that, no matter who made the decision?

 

11 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Exactly ... there would have been three sounds

Unless you become convinced the catcher caught the ball...it was certainly very close to whether or not the catcher short-hopped it (he did)

I get the impression he always heard two sounds, and convinced himself they were bat/glove rather than ground/glove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

The umpire conference should have cleared up any question as to whether the pitch hit the ground. 

Not without replay - even the replay is incredibly close, in slow motion...in fact, all three of the infield umps could have easily and conceivably argued the ball never hit the ground, in real time.   If Wolf got that info from the crew, then it would be easy for him to convince himself the two sounds were bat/glove.

Edit: more accurately, in real time it could look like the ball hit the ground after hitting the glove (or even at the same time), and would not make the same, if any, discernible sound as the ball hitting the ground directly before going into the glove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

Not without replay - even the replay is incredibly close, in slow motion...in fact, all three of the infield umps could have easily and conceivably argued the ball never hit the ground, in real time.

BullSH*#. I saw it in realtime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...