From the MLB Rule Book

[LosMediasBlancas]

Just saw the replay for myself and to me, it looked like Crede did not lean into the pitch. He sure didn't move out of the way, no doubt. It looked like he took a step and his arm moved, sorry. Besides, even if he had been totally still, wasn't the pitch still gonna hit him, looked like it to me, doesn't that matter?

[upnorthsox]

Crede didn't stand still. If he did, the ball wouldn't have hit him.

 

I don't agree with that at all, he was going to get hit in the stomach if he didn't move or block the ball with his arm. He chose to block it with his arm.

[Flash Tizzle]

Jimh,

 

Its a poorly written rule, that if applied properly would mean that most hbp's should be balls.

 

The umpire that enforced it should be fined if he does not consistently call this in the future.

 

If I were the White Sox I would tape every game that he calls, and if he does not make the same call again, notify the league.

 

SB

 

I agree, the rule is poorly worded and rarely enforced.

 

I've never seen an umpire refuse first base for Bonds after his armor-plated elbow knicks a pitch 3 inches off the plate.

[Whitesoxfan56]

Question????

 

Could the sox have protested that game if they wanted to....my little brother was asking me and I dont think you can, but maybe i was wrong? anybody no for sure?

[Guest JimH]

I've never seen an umpire refuse first base for Bonds after his armor-plated elbow knicks a pitch 3 inches off the plate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excellent example.

 

I realize star players are sometimes given more benefit of the doubt. Then again, what about all the guys with the blousy jerseys, their jersey is flapping in the wind and if an inside pitch knicks a thread ... away they go to 1st base.

 

Inconsistency.

 

I would feel a little differently about this had the Sox batters not been hit several times already in the series.

[Soxbadger]

That is what bothers me the most, the Sox were hit so many times, the Sox respect the league by not hitting the A's batters, and then they get screwed.

 

Its bulls***, and I hope that Reisndorf uses some of his clout to put these guys into their places.

 

SB

[farmteam]

I can't recall an umpire ever being suspended for making a blatant "grudge call", can anyone else. I'm not saying it was the right or the wrong call; it was the umpire's discretion, but I do believe, that in making his judgement, Wendlestedt was slightly inclined (be it conciously or unconciously) to make the call that he did.

[jackie hayes]

Question????

 

Could the sox have protested that game if they wanted to....my little brother was asking me and I dont think you can, but maybe i was wrong?  anybody no for sure?

No, whether or not the batter tried to avoid the pitch is a so-called judgement call. You can only protest the game if you disagree with the interpretation of the rules, not a judgement call. It would be like protesting over the strike zone, it's not allowed. (With good reason.)

 

Doesn't mean you can't b****, though. (I'm not saying the Sox should or should not -- I haven't seen the play.)

[Whitesoxfan56]

thank you, thats what i thought

[LosMediasBlancas]

No, whether or not the batter tried to avoid the pitch is a so-called judgement call.  You can only protest the game if you disagree with the interpretation of the rules, not a judgement call.  It would be like protesting over the strike zone, it's not allowed.  (With good reason.)

 

Doesn't mean you can't b****, though.  (I'm not saying the Sox should or should not -- I haven't seen the play.)

 

Jackie, what does playing the game 'under protest' really mean? You hear it a lot, does anything ever become of it?

[ptatc]

Respectfully disagree.

 

"Not moving" is hardly ever called. Moving into a slow curveball, when the pitch wouldn't have hit you, is called.

 

Watch Biggio or Fenernado Vina especially in his prime. They dive over the plate to get hit. Like you said the umps made the right call but Wendelstedt would not have made that call against any other team.

[jackie hayes]

Jackie, what does playing the game 'under protest' really mean? You hear it a lot, does anything ever become of it?

Basically, you're saying that you think the ump is wrong, and while you will complete the game, if the president of the league decides that the ump was wrong (in the way you specified), the game will be restarted from the point of the blown call at some later time. If the protesting team wins, it's all thrown out the window. In little league it can be important, b/c the umps may actually be unclear about the rules. But in the majors it's very rare to see anything happen. The George Brett pine tar incident is the only example I can find.

[LosMediasBlancas]

Basically, you're saying that you think the ump is wrong, and while you will complete the game, if the president of the league decides that the ump was wrong (in the way you specified), the game will be restarted from the point of the blown call at some later time.  If the protesting team wins, it's all thrown out the window.  In little league it can be important, b/c the umps may actually be unclear about the rules.  But in the majors it's very rare to see anything happen.  The George Brett pine tar incident is the only example I can find.

 

That's what I thought, it means nothing and is just a BS way to appease managers and GMs.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I don't know if it was mentioned earlier in the thread but talking from experience this is something umpires become very familiar with when working little league games. There are kids who will lean into balls to get on & there are pitchers that will bean kids on purpose.

 

The general rule we apply is if the kid has already beaned someone we give the benefit of the doubt to the hitter. The ump in today's game didn't do that. Duchscherer had already beaned Rowand before facing Crede.

 

I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories but I will say the umps seemed to go out of their way to give the A's the benefit of the doubt on most questionable calls. That applies to Marte's balk as well.

[Rex Hudler]

I think the only reason Wendelstedt called it was because it was Ozzie's team. That is terrible umpiring. You cannot hold a grudge.  It would be interested to see how Wendelstedt handled the same situation in previous games he worked the plate. I'm sure its happened on numerous occassions.

 

Dick, I have been reading this and other threads and have not responded. I am now responding to all I have read, so don't take it personally that I am only quoting your post. My response is about much more than just that.

 

A few observations......

 

1. I didn't see the incident with Crede today. But I have seen the call made in the Majors when a player is blatantly trying to get hit on a pitch that would be easy to get out of the way of. Yes sometimes players lean into fastballs or harder pitchers and get caught on the meat of the arm at the tricep. That is different than poking one's elbow at a slow curve ball. I can't say whether it was the right call or not, but the situation in the particular game will also have an effect on the umpire's thought process.

 

2. I have seen several people ask why Oakland wasn't warned during the series. Umpires warn pitchers/teams when they believe there is intent. Again I didn't see the whole series, but it doesn't matter whether 15 Sox hitters got hit or 1. If there is no mal intent interpreted, no warnings are necessary. Yes, umpires MUST try to read the minds of the players. That is part of it. But it is not hard to do. I can watch most any game and have a pretty damned good idea if a guy was trying to hit someone. Sometimes, umpires will even let one incident go and let the teams even things up themselves, but they have to be careful because an idiot may charge the mound.

 

I did see the game last night and saw Hardin hit Carl Everett. He hit him on the ass. Big damned deal. Carl stands at home plate staring at the pitcher like a f***ing idiot. There was no reason for Carl to do that crap. Players that want to start a fight every time they get hit don't know how to play the game. I didn't see anything in that game that led me to believe that was intentional.

 

3. Umpires are not above reproach. Umpires are graded very strictly and they see their reviews. Umpire supervisors do have meeting/discussions about situations that arise. Umpiring crews review themselves after games and discuss mistakes they may have made. The difference is, all of that is done privately and not in the press. That is how it should be.

 

4. Anyone that thinks umpires never carry some kind of grudge just doesn't understand human nature. They do everything they can to be as fair as possible, but you can't tell me that incidents such as Ozzie calling a guy a liar never come into play. The human subconscious is a powerful thing and even if a guy isn't intentionally trying to screw someone, it is very likely that their judgement/attitude can be affected in certain situations. Take Carlos Zambrano for example. Do you really think umpires don't have a shorter fuse when he starts to b**** with his history. Zambrano made his own bed.

 

By the way, I just saw the Crede play on Sportscenter and I agree with the call. It was too blatant to ignore in a 1-1 game in the 9th inning. Sometimes umpires have to make calls even though they would rather not. Sometimes they have to make a call they know they will take a ton of heat for, but it is the right call. That's just part of being an umpire.

[Rex Hudler]

Regardless of the "rule book", since the ball was obviously inside there is no way you don't award the guy first base.  Now many are saying he leaned into the ball, but he was turning his body, I don't think he said, I'm going to let this hit me. 

 

 

Aboz, I just saw the play and I have absolutely no doubt that Crede tried to get hit. He wasn't rotating his body, he dipped his elbow into it. Watch it again. He reacted trying to get on base. In a tie game in the 9th inning, the umpire HAS to make the call he did.

[Rex Hudler]

To lean into it and let it hit you on purpose. You aren't going to be scoring any runs. I would think Joe wants to drive in the big runs. It shows me Joe is still lacking a little confidence. Either that, or maybe he just wasn't seeing the ball well of this particular pitcher. He knew he leaned into it. If he was totally confident he wouldn't have said anything and stepped right back up to the plate.

 

Dick, that's a natural reaction for a player. He is trying to get on base any way he can. I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of confidence. It is just a natural baseball reaction. I've done it. I've seen it done many times. There just aren't that many opportunities to do it in the Big Leagues. It is not a natural reaction to do the same on a 94mph fastball.

[Guest JimH]

By the way, I just saw the Crede play on Sportscenter and I agree with the call.  It was too blatant to ignore in a 1-1 game in the 9th inning.  Sometimes umpires have to make calls even though they would rather not.  Sometimes they have to make a call they know they will take a ton of heat for, but it is the right call.  That's just part of being an umpire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll bet he didn't take any heat from the hometown crowd or team LOL.

 

Did you see Crede's ejection?

 

Showing they apparantly have big stones is part of being an ump too.

 

Rex, I watched all three games. Harden had no control problems and then blatantly plunked Everett in the butt. Not intentional? Not likely. Everett speculated it was because he took Harden deep in spring training. That's ok, it's part of the game. As for Everett staring, it appeared he was trying to compose himself and figure out why he got intentionally plunked. That's part of the game too and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Lastly, try having two strikes on you and focusing on a curve ball coming right at you, while trying to protect against a strikeout. Try cocking the bat and lowering your shoulder and see if your elbow doesn't stick out a bit.

 

Bottom line, that crew was not at the top of their game in this series. Far from it.

[HighHeat45]

from whitesox.com

 

Guillen didn't witness the finish, as he was too busy "throwing stuff all over the place" back in the clubhouse. A small crack on a wall in the manager's office, with an empty laundry basket laying off to the side, backed up Guillen's description.

 

 

[Guest JimH]

In a tie game in the 9th inning, the umpire HAS to make the call he did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That umpire was not bright enough to take the whole game and series in context. Yes, he has to make a snap judgement on the spot. But he damn well knows Oakland pitchers have been pitching inside and plunking guys. After all, there were warnings before the game ... he is the guy who likely communicated with the managers before first pitch.

 

The bigger issue is Wendelstedt will not make that call in any other inning. Hell, I doubt he makes that call again unless to prove a point. I wonder how many times he's made that call in the past (we don't know but my safe guess is zero, or very very few). Consistency? What consistency?

 

I didn't know the umpires have a higher standard in certain innings vs. other innings. After all, Froemming was quick to stand on the rule book. I wonder where the rule book says they should do that???

 

To me, this is somehow being portrayed he showed guts by making the call. I think he showed a lack of guts by not wanting to deal with Macha, who would've argued the other side. Homer call, plain and simple.

[Rex Hudler]

Quoting an excerpt from Illini's post:

Alright. So if the rules were to be properly enforced, NO ONE could reach first base as the result of a HBP unless they were squarely hit. Because if they stood still, regardless of the location of the pitch, it should be called a ball.

 

This is a ridiculous rule. It's obviously never enforced, yet now it is?

 

The thing most baseball fans don't understand that along with the Official Baseball Rulebook, umpires also have an Interpretation Book that is at least twice as thick, along with Case Books, which give specific examples of plays. Think of it like Case Law. There are precedents that have been set for certain rulings. There are interpretations of almost every rule that goes beyond the rule book itself. Umpires use all of these sources in their study/training.

 

The interpretation for this rule is simple. For an HBP to be disallowed, the player must show intent to get hit by making a specific action. If he freezes and just stands there, that is not enough. A player naturally rotates his body toward the catcher on pitches inside. If a ball hits a player's elbow/tricep area when he is in that process he is given the benefit of the doubt. If he makes any other specific action trying to get hit by the pitch, the umpire makes the call as he did today.

 

Is it ever overlooked? Sure. Just as many baseball rules are. Sometimes it just depends on the situation.

[Rex Hudler]

That umpire was not bright enough to take the whole game and series in context.  Yes, he has to make a snap judgement on the spot.  But he damn well knows Oakland pitchers have been pitching inside and plunking guys.  After all, there were warnings before the game ... he is the guy who likely communicated with the managers before first pitch.

 

The bigger issue is Wendelstedt will not make that call in any other inning.  Hell, I doubt he makes that call again unless to prove a point.  I wonder how many times he's made that call in the past (we don't know but my safe guess is zero, or very very few).  Consistency?  What consistency?

 

I didn't know the umpires have a higher standard in certain innings vs. other innings.  After all, Froemming was quick to stand on the rule book.  I wonder where the rule book says they should do that???

 

To me, this is somehow being portrayed he showed guts by making the call.  I think he showed a lack of guts by not wanting to deal with Macha, who would've argued the other side.  Homer call, plain and simple.

 

I disagree completely. I guarantee you the game situation was taken into context. You may not think Wendlestedt is very smart or even a very good umpire, but a guy does not get to the Majors and stay there on name alone. The evaluation process is too deep and goes through too many people for that.

 

I mentioned in another post that umpires also use Interpretation books and Case Books to guide them. The rule book is actually very basic in many instances.

 

As far as natural reaction. Jim, I've been there. I've been on both sides as the pitcher and hitter. Players think a lot more quickly than you may give them credit for. I have no doubt whatsoever that Crede's intent was to get hit.

 

As far as how many times he or any other umpire has made that call is irrelevant. For one, there aren't that many times this happens. Players throw too hard now for a player to have enough time to react the way Crede did. A slow curve in that location is about the only time that will happen so blatantly. It is just not a frequent occurrence.

 

I don't think it was a homer call at all. Just one man's opinion..........

[Flash Tizzle]

2.  I have seen several people ask why Oakland wasn't warned during the series.  Umpires warn pitchers/teams when they believe there is intent.  Again I didn't see the whole series, but it doesn't matter whether 15 Sox hitters got hit or 1.  If there is no mal intent interpreted, no warnings are necessary.  Yes, umpires MUST try to read the minds of the players.  That is part of it.  But it is not hard to do.  I can watch most any game and have a pretty damned good idea if a guy was trying to hit someone.  Sometimes, umpires will even let one incident go and let the teams even things up themselves, but they have to be careful because an idiot may charge the mound.

 

It does matter how many of our batters are hit. How can it not?

 

Ultimately, I still don't understand why our club is exclusively warned not to hit batters at risk of ejection. Did the umpires believe all of Oakland's pitchers were mistakes? Oakland could have done whatever they wanted this afternoon, and regardless of any warnings issued, our pitcher(s) would have been tossed for retaliating.

 

Even if the umpires were concerned, why warn our club; who have yet to hit any batters, against Oakland's pitchers? Five White Sox (prior to today) were hit. Zero A's. There is something askew here.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Flash Tizzle

[Rex Hudler]

It does matter how many of our batters are hit. How can it not?

 

Because warnings are based on intent, not wildness. It's pretty simple actually.

 

I have no idea what the situation behind the "warning" the Sox received. Perhaps they were warned because it was believed the Sox would retaliate (Everett's actions did nothing to think that mindset wasn't there)? Perhaps they heard someone say something that led them to believe that things were about to blow up? I have no idea.

[3E8]

TURN ON ESPN2 RIGHT NOW