Called Third Strike Ends NCAA Game - About Umpire Power

[Lindsay]

After a called third strike wrapped up New Orleans' 7-3 win over Mississippi Valley State, questioned surfaced as to whether the NCAA umpire deliberately called a strike on a pitch that was a ball in order to get back at a player who may have shown the umpire up one pitch earlier. We review the play and discuss the issue of umpire and referee authority and abuse of power.

After the home plate umpire called strike two with two outs in the top of the 9th inning, the batter demonstratively jumped out of the batter's box before returning and gesturing with his bat to where he believed the pitch to have been thrown. The umpire did not discipline the batter and play resumed. The umpire did, however, call a third strike on the ensuing 1-2 pitch, ending the at-bat and the game.

The umpire measuredly walked off the field without addressing the player as the struck-out batter followed and attempted to argue, before the batter was restrained by the opposing catcher.

This has led to accusations that the umpire deliberately called strike three on a clear ball out of the strike zone, due to a grudge or way to get back at the player who behaved disrespectfully one pitch earlier.

To be clear, an umpire may discipline a player for unsporting conduct pursuant to the rules.

NCAA Rule 2-26 states, "the game officials have the authority to eject a player, coach, or team representative for misconduct or unsportsmanlike conduct. MLB's version is Official Baseball Rule 8.01(d): "Each umpire has the authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager, or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field."

However, when an umpire or referee instead deliberately disregards the rules of the game, for instance, by calling a strike on a pitch the umpire knows to be a ball and outside the strike zone, the official has abused their authority and violated the ethics of officiating.

In sum, discipline the player for misconduct—the rules and, depending on your game, video will support you—but the moment an official has deliberately called a play incorrectly in order to get even with a player or send a message, that official has abused their authority and committed a disservice to the game.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Umpire's strike three call prompts discussion after unsporting incident (CCS)

View the full article

[Richvee]

No excuse. It’s obvious what happened. No room for this in today’s game. 

[Catch18]

No excuse. It’s obvious what happened. No room for this in today’s game. 

Yep, there’s proper recourse and procedure for these situations. There’s no defense for this. Scott Taylor once told me at his cbua camp, in regards to umpire conduct, “don’t do anything I cannot defend.” This is a textbook example.

[Lou B]

The Umpire has been suspended indefinitely by the Southland Conference.

[SeeingEyeDog]

You know...if stuff like this continues to happen? They are going to send Skynet to take our jobs...

My God...eject the player! He held the bat out over the plate "showing" you where he thought the pitch was! Eject him, don't give him the Eff-You-Strike-To-End-The-Game, move!

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

It's a good thing we only want fit, athletic looking umpires calling higher level ball.  We wouldn't want any fat old guys out there, it looks bad.  OK, enough of my personal kvetching.  

 

I really like the point @Lindsay makes about no "intermediary" step being available in baseball.  (More on that in a moment.)  Perhaps we are starting to see the path to one (as the pitch clock will lead to more "auto" strikes and balls).

I agree, there is no place for this in the blue ranks.  I'm going to play some Devil's Advocate though ...  While an ejection would have been justified, I think it was better game management NOT to eject here.  How is this result any more "making it personal" than dropping a kid on a meaningless pitch in a meaningless point of the game?

What happens if the umpire said, "An ejection with one strike left in a 4-run ballgame seemed ridiculous to me, although I would have been justified.  I felt it was better game management to keep the kid in the game, avoid any suspension for him, and get the game over with."  What happens if the umpire says, "In the course of that, I missed it.  It was close to the end of the game and I reacted before my mind caught up." 

I hate to say it, but the overhyped focus being put on this is putting a bigger target on the backs of all umpires.  We've all pulled the cord on strike 2. We've all kicked a ball/strike call.  Now, when it happens do that, we get to hear the choruses of this play that it is PROOF that we are out to get the aggrieved coach/player..       

 

[Catch18]

While an ejection would have been justified, I think it was better game management NOT to eject here.  How is this result any more "making it personal" than dropping a kid on a meaningless pitch in a meaningless point of the game?
     
 

Because there is integrity in using the rules to manage behavior that is not allowed, by rule.

There’s no integrity in taking the pitch and shoving it up the player’s *** because the umpire was pissed off.

[mw94]

Actually he should have rung him on strike 3 for violating NCAA 7-3-1 he sure as hell has 2 feet out of the batters box ,  You accomplish the call the legal way by the rules 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, mw94 said:

Actually he should have rung him on strike 3 for violating NCAA 7-3-1 he sure as hell has 2 feet out of the batters box ,  You accomplish the call the legal way by the rules 

He was back in the box and alert within ten seconds. 

[mw94]

ok, so with new pitch clock rules. you can leave the box with both feet as long as you back and alert  with in 10 seconds?

[JHumbert15]

26 minutes ago, Richvee said:

He was back in the box and alert within ten seconds. 

I think he's trying to reference 7-1d-1 (penalty):

 

Batter’s-Box Rule. This rule is designed to speed up play by controlling the actions of the batter between pitches.

1) The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter’s box throughout the time at bat.

Exceptions—A batter may leave the batter’s box but not the dirt area surrounding home plate when:

a) The batter swings at a pitch.

b) The batter is forced off balance or out of the box by the pitch.

c) A member of either team requests and is granted time.

d) A defensive player attempts a play on a runner at any base.

e) A batter feints a bunt.

f) A wild pitch or passed ball occurs.

g) The pitcher leaves the dirt area of the pitching mound after receiving the ball.

h) The catcher leaves the position to give defensive signals.

PENALTY for (1)—If the batter intentionally leaves the batter’s box and delays play, and none of these exceptions applies, the plate umpire shall award a strike without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch. The ball is dead and no runners may advance.

- Not saying I'm calling this but I think is what he meant

[mw94]

Yes that rule 

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, Catch18 said:

 

Because there is integrity in using the rules to manage behavior that is not allowed, by rule.

There’s no integrity in taking the pitch and shoving it up the player’s *** because the umpire was pissed off.

 

You are possibly reading intent that is not in my post ... I am NOT justifying the reported intent of deliberately ignoring the rules to "get one back."  If this is what the umpire did, there is no justification for it.

I am trying to open up discussion on a few points:

• There is a case to be made for the decision to not eject.  While the batter was very demonstrative, the situation neither called for his reaction NOR an ejection.  It really isn't game management to drop him with one strike left in a meaningless at bat.  An ejection here results in the same damned "ump show" comments.  (Flip side, "meaningless" can change in a hurry, so we should be consistent from the first pitch to the last pitch.  That which we allow, we condone.)

 

• We are missing information to determine what the cause/intent was.  I am not saying that "revenge" was not his intent, and I am hoping the conference had needed information when they made their choice to suspend him.  Absent knowing that we are using a hand grenade to open a can of radioactive worms on a very slippery slope.  Now, every coach on every missed call in a scrutinized situation has the ammunition to say "YOU, YOU, YOU -- YOU all are a bunch of cheaters."  

 

• If we believe it was a "revenge" call and the umpire ignored obvious rules, how do you justify umpires who don't call strikes based on how a catcher handles the pitch?  Same basic concept.

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, mw94 said:

Yes that rule 

That popped into my head when I first saw it ... that there may have been legal grounds to award a strike.  After watching it though, he did not appear to noticeably delay the game.

It would be interesting to know if there will be any changes or reconciliation with this rule and the new pitch clock rules.

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, JHumbert15 said:

If the batter intentionally leaves the batter’s box and delays play

...And delays play.... That is now defined by leaving the box and not being back in the box and alert to the pitcher with 10 seconds or more on the action clock 

 

PU had a few options here.....

1. Eat the bad strike 2 call, let the kid rant, and move on with integrity.

2. Eject the kid for unsportsmanlike conduct.  

he chose to violate the code of ethics in the NCAA rule book. No excuse. I'm sure he'd do it differently if he had to do it again. Old habits die hard. There was a time the FU call was an understood part of the game. Those days are gone forever. 

[TheRockawayKid]

18 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

• There is a case to be made for the decision to not eject.  While the batter was very demonstrative, the situation neither called for his reaction NOR an ejection.  It really isn't game management to drop him with one strike left in a meaningless at bat.  An ejection here results in the same damned "ump show" comments.  (Flip side, "meaningless" can change in a hurry, so we should be consistent from the first pitch to the last pitch.  That which we allow, we condone.)

I think this is probably the most interesting thoughts. Ejecting a kid with one strike left in a game would mean that he would be suspended from the next game. That would open up a world of criticism there as well.

Perhaps the umpire thought that the less "painful" punishment would be a strike on that pitch -- the game's over and the kid would be able to play in the next game. I'm not saying I agree with that decision, but if that pitch were a lot closer (let's say one of the dimensions was better -- either height or width) would it be such a firestorm? A repeat of the 1-1 pitch, but slightly lower? A fastball belt-high that was off the plate by a ball? Something inside?

So is it that he expanded the zone, or that he expanded it that much? 

[SeeingEyeDog]

20 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

If we believe it was a "revenge" call and the umpire ignored obvious rules, how do you justify umpires who don't call strikes based on how a catcher handles the pitch?  Same basic concept.

This was just being discussed on another thread. There are umpires (I am not one of them...) who believe that if a pitch is in the strike zone, not swung on by the batter and not caught by the catcher...that's a ball, because if we call that a strike we are enabling F2 to "erode our credibilty calling the zone correctly" because since the coaches are typically to the sides of the plate extended they can't see the zone. They see F2 dropping a pitch and think or sometimes say out loud, "How is that a strike? It was so high/low/in/out (whatever fits his narrative...) the catcher couldn't catch it!" I would also add that we know the better coaches with proper eyesight can see up and down as the pitch comes through the zone but they really can't see in and out from the dugout or coaches box. They may be able to see F2 shifting side to side and or moving their mitt to receive the pitch.

If F2 sets up inside and drops a pitch that is otherwise a strike on the OUTSIDE corner...is that a strike? It's level and skill dependent but, I'm grabbing a strike there. If a coach or player is prolonged, profane or personal about it...we have a tool box for them.

~Dawg

[HokieUmp]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:48 PM, SeeingEyeDog said:

You know...if stuff like this continues to happen? They are going to send Skynet to take our jobs...

I have other comments on this sitch - haven't been on much lately - but I wanted to first address this when I saw it:

As a career-IT person, and someone who's been a little sick of a LOT of people over time:  I, for one, welcome our future robotic overlords.

 

 

Having said *that*:  when my baseball and non-baseball friends first pointed me to this clip, I did the whole sharp-intake-of-breath thing, not at the bad 3rd strike call, but when the batter did his histrionics.  Because my first thought was this was a "regular" EJ clip.  Then it got so much worse.

On the other hand, I'd rate the clip highly, simply because I'd never seen an FU call in the wild before, and *boy*, did I.

[Catch18]

Wow, after having watched this, I’m going to eat some crow. I completely jumped to several conclusions and I’m completely embarrassed by my reaction & posts. I prob would have folded like a cheap paper bag in this spot. What a spot to be in for him. We should be supporting and learning in every chance we can get. Sounds like a good chance to think twice before we know both sides of the story.

[Thunderheads]

31 minutes ago, Catch18 said:

Wow, after having watched this, I’m going to eat some crow. I completely jumped to several conclusions and I’m completely embarrassed by my reaction & posts. I prob would have folded like a cheap paper bag in this spot. What a spot to be in for him. We should be supporting and learning in every chance we can get. Sounds like a good chance to think twice before we know both sides of the story.

The interview post that Lindsay did was quite eye-opening, wasn't it!?