Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What purpose or benefit (or gripe) would be served by reducing the number of umpires on the field? Certainly, it cannot be financial – the League doesn't pay anyone near enough. As it is, the League has installed a ceiling of age 55 on retention (of course, existing guys are grandfathered in/beyond), so it can't be that the upper bound (of that age range) guys are drawing a substantial amount of capital, so much so that it's affecting League revenues... or preventing the installation of (additional) technology. 

Technology will invariably and always improve; its infusion into the organic process of umpiring is, of course, the challenge (pun... acknowledged). Pundits and journalists (and critics!) need to be reminded – the Umpires were onboard with allowing "unlimited" ABS checks / challenges. 

So what's the problem? It's gotta be personal. 

Even when there's been controversial calls made, there's (begrudgingly) admission that there is rules support for that call/ruling. Okay, so there was a missed Balk, but how could technology ever "properly" determine a Balk? So, it once again comes to personal; and, U#88 really, really made this egregious because not only did he misapply or misquote a rule, but he created his own rule (em "my") and lied about its invocation (Rockies hitter requesting a ruling/judgement). 

However, I've never seen a professional sport league reduce the number of on-field / on-court officials, even with the infusion and improvement of "officiating" technology. 
- Professional tennis, despite having Hawkeye, still has a glut of line judges.
- Professional basketball has 3 referees, and several (?) bench/desk referees. 
- Professional football has 8 (?) officials, as well as all the sideline and review officials. 
- Professional hockey went to 4 skating officials (2 referees, 2 linesmen), as well as review officials, bench officials, and goal judges. (Does baseball really, really want dugout officials?)
- Professional soccer went to 5 officials; 1 referee, 2 line judges, and now 2 vested bench officials (up from 1) because of the... intense... shenanigans and theatrics that exchange between the clubs and the officials. 

This writer is bitter, and has a bone to pick, that's personal. 

Posted (edited)

I'd speculate that, because he's ignorant, he'd argue there are [correction: AREN'T] enough qualified umps and the game play downside of 4 to 3 is minimal.

We also need to remember to ask with all things: "what are they getting out of this?".

Mark Madden is a former pro-wrestling guy so knows how to get heat. And if making it personal is needed, well that's fine with him since "personal issues draw money" (RIP Jerry Jarrett)

 

Randy Savage Dig It.gif

Edited by Velho
  • Thanks 1
Posted
I'd speculate that, because he's ignorant, he'd argue there are [correction: AREN'T] enough qualified umps and the game play downside of 4 to 3 is minimal.
We also need to remember to ask with all things: "what are they getting out of this?".
Mark Madden is a former pro-wrestling guy so knows how to get heat. And if making it personal is needed, well that's fine with him since "personal issues draw money" (RIP Jerry Jarrett)
 
RandySavageDigIt.gif.a356c673a8b7237403df32420611bee1.gif
Mark Madden is.... well, Mark Madden. Love him (minority) or hate him (majority) he always has a thought provoking opinion. His wrestling schick that he uses often, does get old quickly though.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Posted
51 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Mark Madden is.... well, Mark Madden. Love him (minority) or hate him (majority) he always has a thought provoking opinion. His wrestling schick that he uses often, does get old quickly though.

Not being local to PA, I didn't know he was still around. Haven't thought of him in nearly 25 years.

Posted

Interesting dichotomy of lobbying for all ABS, because of the delay in appeals. Then 2 paragraphs later he would subject all basepath calls to review/adjudication.

At least be consistent by saying, rather, “I just don’t like umpires, let the computer call everything.”

  • Like 3
Posted
Dare I say that Mark Madden is the Doug Eddings of writers?
I dont think I have ever seen MM apologize, so Eddings has that going for him..

He likes to argue and is always right, as far as he knows.



If you care to see....
  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 9/18/2026 at 3:32 PM, mw94 said:

On tennis you’re wrong , all automated line calls. only the official in the high chair

Okay, thanks Wex… 

Altjough, I see the French are the holdout hosts who will maintain line judges. 

And I doubt that Hawkeye Live knows how to discern OBS or INT. 

Posted
On 9/17/2026 at 8:19 PM, Catch18 said:

Interesting dichotomy of lobbying for all ABS, because of the delay in appeals. Then 2 paragraphs later he would subject all basepath calls to review/adjudication.

At least be consistent by saying, rather, “I just don’t like umpires, let the computer call everything.”

Like I said, "We just want the calls right!" is simply code for "We just want the calls our way!"

Posted
2 hours ago, MadMax said:

Okay, thanks Wex… 

Altjough, I see the French are the holdout hosts who will maintain line judges. 

And I doubt that Hawkeye Live knows how to discern OBS or INT. 

Hell, most baseball "fans" and an unfortunate notable percentage of umpires don't know how to discern between OBS and INT. 

Posted

You know why, right? Because they are OBSstINaTe.

  • Sad 1

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...