Conforto Chaos - Umpire's HBP on Strike Three

[Lindsay]

When Mets batter Michael Conforto took one for the team with a walk-off hit-by-pitch in New York to defeat the Miami Marlins, HP Umpire Ron Kulpa's HBP call took on a peculiar meaning after replays indicated the pitch was located within the strike zone and that Kulpa had begun his strike three...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[beerguy55]

This is one more example where MLB needs to adopt the same transparency as the NFL, and explain these decisions to the millions of chumps that are paying to watch this product, immediately after.   Otherwise we're always left to speculate.  

From the replay, it looks like it hit the batter BEFORE it entered the strike zone - ie. his elbow was in front of the plate, not over it....not a great camera angle though.

Or, regardless of that, the ball only entered the strike zone because it deflected that way off the batter.

I'm curious though...the rule says the exception is if the batter is touched "while" the pitch is in the strike zone....what if he's hit after the pitch enters and leaves the strike zone?...knowing the strike zone is only the 17x 17 (with some cropping) area over the plate.

 

Apparently Kulpa admitted after the game he made the wrong call...but not seeing if the Marlins officially protested.

 

[Thunderheads]

13 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

This is one more example where MLB needs to adopt the same transparency as the NFL, and explain these decisions to the millions of chumps that are paying to watch this product, immediately after.   Otherwise we're always left to speculate.  

From the replay, it looks like it hit the batter BEFORE it entered the strike zone - ie. his elbow was in front of the plate, not over it....not a great camera angle though.

 

 

His elbow was IN FRONT of it because HE PUT IT THERE  .....

YES, I've been saying for years that MLB needs to have retired umpires on call for the major broadcasts to go over calls and situations so people understand (like NFL)

[wolfe_man]

Kulpa admitted he should have been called out after the game. Interesting.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

YES, I've been saying for years that MLB needs to have retired umpires on call for the major broadcasts to go over calls and situations so people understand (like NFL)

Yes  AND have in game umps get on a mic and explain it...like the NFL/NHL.

I'm also wondering when MLB teams are going to start making sure their coaching staff includes someone who knows the rulebook, cold.    I suspect Mattingly didn't protest because he didn't know he could, didn't think of it, or didn't understand the situation fully...a Rules Assistant would have helped with that.   To at least get him to argue the relevant points...I get the impression that Mattingly didn't even know that a HBP in the strike zone is a strike....he's arguing whether or not the batter intended to get hit...when he really should be arguing "it was in the strike zone, right...that's why you initially called 'strike', right?"

If the ump comes up with a legitimate explanation/lame-ass excuse like..."oh, it deflected off him into the strike zone", then it's over...but at least he's asking the right question.

[BT_Blue]

This got reposted to Facebook to a nauseating number of times. Will all the idiots doing the "well... in my game I would have done this..."

I swear... we really can be our worst enemies! 

[BT_Blue]

On 4/9/2021 at 6:53 AM, beerguy55 said:

 I suspect Mattingly didn't protest because he didn't know he could, didn't think of it, or didn't understand the situation fully...

So, before the more knowledgeable and trustworthy guys gave up on, and got chased off by, the jack wagons I mentioned above. One of the guys with pretty good knowledge of the workings of MLB stated that either last year or this year, MLB did away with protests.

So if that is true (and I do trust the guy that said it). Mattingly couldn't have protested. Even if he wanted to do so.

[dumbdumb]

2 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

So, before the more knowledgeable and trustworthy guys gave up on, and got chased off by, the jack wagons I mentioned above. One of the guys with pretty good knowledge of the workings of MLB stated that either last year or this year, MLB did away with protests.

So if that is true (and I do trust the guy that said it). Mattingly couldn't have protested. Even if he wanted to do so.

So, if all of us missed the fact that protests are no longer allowed, how did we all miss that rule and how/why did those people who did know that the rule changed and the change remains in effect this year as a rule, even if only because of covid, intentionally(like leaning into a pitch intentionally), not inform us on this site or ccs???? Where is the transparency, or are certain people so far above the rest that they that do not need to inform the rest of us. Maybe we all need to be suspended and fined from UE and CCS  for not knowing this rule change and how long it has been in effect.

So, for not knowing this rule change, or for forgetting i read about this rule change and forgot, I am indefinitely suspending myself from this site and fine-ing myself 100 dollars to be given to UE within one year from this date. Hold me to it. Chief can let you know when fine has been paid in full.

[The Short Umpire]

4 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

So, if all of us missed the fact that protests are no longer allowed, how did we all miss that rule and how/why did those people who did know that the rule changed and the change remains in effect this year as a rule, even if only because of covid, intentionally(like leaning into a pitch intentionally), not inform us on this site or ccs???? Where is the transparency, or are certain people so far above the rest that they that do not need to inform the rest of us. Maybe we all need to be suspended and fined from UE and CCS  for not knowing this rule change and how long it has been in effect.

So, for not knowing this rule change, or for forgetting i read about this rule change and forgot, I am indefinitely suspending myself from this site and fine-ing myself 100 dollars to be given to UE within one year from this date. Hold me to it. Chief can let you know when fine has been paid in full.

It's a rule change in the 2020 rulebook. The current rulebook is not released to the public until well into the season. For example, it is the 2021 season but we won't get this seasons rulebook until June/July. So this is a change that would be found in the rulebook from last July. MLB has not released a pdf version  yet, I found my copy on Amazon. 

[beerguy55]

7 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

So, before the more knowledgeable and trustworthy guys gave up on, and got chased off by, the jack wagons I mentioned above. One of the guys with pretty good knowledge of the workings of MLB stated that either last year or this year, MLB did away with protests.

So if that is true (and I do trust the guy that said it). Mattingly couldn't have protested. Even if he wanted to do so.

Well, if this is true nobody seems to have been told.   

Even MLB.com says protests can be done.

Even Gil, in his video, talks about the possibility of the Marlins protesting...and how it would and wouldn't work...not that they can no longer do it.

 

I can see why they would drop it...there's only be a couple of dozen games where the protest was upheld in MLB history (none since 2014...and only two since the Pine Tar game in 1983 - which was the last time a protest changed the outcome of the game)...So, if it occurs so infrequently, why bother...bite the bullet and accept the mistakes (not to mention the vast majority of those should be corrected as part of the in-game review process, so it should happen even less frequently now)

I could also see it being a 2020/2021 COVID provision...ie. we're not going to look for reasons to replay a game.