From the MLB Rule Book

[Rex Hudler]

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.

 

The reason it rarely ever happens in MLB is very simple. Protest cannot be made on a judgement call. They can only be made based on an incorrect interpretation of a rule. In the Majors you have four umpires on a crew. In a situation where a protest may be filed, the umpires will meet amongst themselves to make sure they agree on the call. It would be very rare that four MLB umpires would interpret a rule incorrectly.

 

Even in the George Brett incident, the call was overturned only because there was no precedent for that particular situation. The umpires made the call based on what the rule said, but whoever reviewed the protest felt a different interpretation was in order. The call was overturned and the rule was rewritten to cover such a situation in the future. Think of it as the Supreme Court overturning a lower court's decision.

[Guest JimH]

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..........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The game situation was taken in context for the Oakland A's - that is true. Without wanting to whine about umpires here, the context in which I'm referring to is the frequency of Sox hitters being plunked and A's pitchers throwing inside, which they did very well. The context of the game is not just the 1-1 score in the top of the 9th Rex.

 

It is very relevant of Wendelstedt's history making that same call. He's been in the league long enough. No one is going to tell me he hasn't seen a similar situation of a guy leaning in. If he's made that call consistently, then he gets my apologies. You and I both know damn well he hasn't, or at the very least it's a fair assumption. It's one hell of a lot easier for him to make that call against the visitor vs. the home team as well. As you said, he's not beyond reproach, as witnessed by his power trip ejection of Crede after the next pitch (asking again, did you see it?) He may not carry a grudge from season to season but he certainly carries it from pitch to pitch. Professional? Umm, no.

 

All those who've umpired games on this board have stuck up for Wendelstedt, I can understand that. But give the entire context of the game and the series, it was a ticky tack call. I can understand making mistakes (they did, several times) but at least have the guts to make the same call in other innings and not just in the 9th inning. Be consistent. If Wendelstedt and his protector Froemming (with rule book from on high) have always made this call in similar situation, I apologize. But, I don't think there's any reason for me to apologize because we both know they aren't consistent with this particular call.

 

Another thing to emphasize ... Crede had two strikes on him. That he eyeballed the pitch a little closer was no surprise.

 

A very peculiar time, and an interesting choice of opponent, for Wendelstedt to stamp his footprint in the sand re: telling batters they can't go to 1B after they get hit.

 

I hope the White Sox monitor every damn game this unprofessional slug umps for quite a while, and ensure the mighty umpires union sees a tape of every time Wendelstedt doesn't make the same call he made today. Ditto for a guy throwing his bat in disgust.

[Soxbadger]

Objectively, it was the right call. Crede leaned into it, and regardless of whether its called wrong 99.9% of the time, it does not mean that when its called right, the umpire did something wrong.

 

Subjectively, the White Sox have been hit 6 times in a 3 game series. They have suffered from a few poor calls by the umpires. You can not be sure what Crede was doing, and it was a pitch that was very inside. When a baseball is coming at you, some times you do not think and just react. Crede may have just flinched when he realized that it was actually that close to him. It is hard to tell intent, and the batter should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

Its over, lets just hope that they use all of this to win the next few games.

 

SB

[Guest JimH]

Forgot to add, sorry ...

 

I don't take everything Hawk Harrelson says as gospel. I know he is a homer. He also knows the game and is very quick to praise umpiring crews and individual umpires as "good crews" or "he's a good umpire".

 

In addition, I know it smacks of sour grapes when our announcer gets on the umpires, just as it may seem that way when Sox fans get on the umps.

 

Yet, in the postgame, they talked openly about Harrelson stating before the first game in Oakland ... "this is not a good crew for this team (Sox) in this ballpark".

Now, no one knows if this is some story Harrelson and Darrin Jackson concocted just so they could say "I told you so" after some extremely dubious calls ...

 

But ... these guys are professional announcers (like them or not). They are on the road and interact with these umpires quite a bit I'd imagine. They know them.

 

To summarize my point ... there is a reason why Harrelson would make such a statement before the series starts. He is no dummy, he knows what goes on.

 

I personally think there is validity in questioning the competence of this umpiring crew as it relates to this series and perhaps even the White Sox in general, focusing on Wendelstedt. Not saying he's out to get the White Sox, he can't do that. I am saying that borderline stuff is not likely to go the White Sox's way. And before anyone brings up the 0-2 pitch to Crede ... Kendall set up in the left handed batters box, it was well outside.

[Rex Hudler]

The game situation was taken in context for the Oakland A's - that is true.  Without wanting to whine about umpires here, the context in which I'm referring to is the frequency of Sox hitters being plunked and A's pitchers throwing inside, which they did very well.  The context of the game is not just the 1-1 score in the top of the 9th Rex.

 

It has nothing to do with the amount of batters previously hit. It wasn't like Crede froze and just let it hit him. He made an effort to get hit on a slow curve ball that he could have easily avoided.

 

It is very relevant of Wendelstedt's history making that same call.  He's been in the league long enough.  No one is going to tell me he hasn't seen a similar situation of a guy leaning in.  If he's made that call consistently, then he gets my apologies.  You and I both know damn well he hasn't, or at the very least it's a fair assumption.

 

I can't say that is a fair assumption because I don't know how often that play has come up. My guess is very rarely. But I have seen it called before at the MLB level, so it is NOT without precedent.

 

It's one hell of a lot easier for him to make that call against the visitor vs. the home team as well.  As you said, he's not beyond reproach, as witnessed by his power trip ejection of Crede after the next pitch (asking again, did you see it?)

 

That could be said for a lot of calls. If it were reversed most people here would be defending the call. I did see Crede's ejection and can't comment on it because I have no idea what Crede said after he was called back to the plate, what he may have said between that time and when he popped up and what he may have said after he popped up as he threw the bat. Without knowing that, how can you judge whether he was right or wrong in ejecting Crede. You can't. Many times a player says something that is not detected on TV and viewers at home or in the stands don't know the whole story.

 

If Wendelstedt and his protector Froemming (with rule book from on high) have always made this call in similar situation, I apologize.  But, I don't think there's any reason for me to apologize because we both know they aren't consistent with this particular call.

 

See above comment...... until I know specifically how they have ruled on a slow curveball in the past with a similar action by the batter, I can't judge nor will presume to know the answer.

 

 

s***, I'm surprised this has gotten such a reaction. Hell, I thought the balk call on Marte the night before was much more controversial. Calling a balk on him there seemed to be splitting hairs. I looked hard for the balk and understand what they called, but it was borderline at most.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Rex Hudler

[Guest JimH]

For the record, I was mad about the balk call but didn't disagree with it.

 

Just as we can't assume Froemming/Wendelstedt haven't been consistent with this particular call, we also can't assume they have been consistent. Just as you've seen this call made, I've seen it 100 times not made (see: Fernando Vina).

 

I question your use of the words "easily avoided" in terms of the pitch that hit Crede. It was thrown in the right handed batters box Rex.

 

You are still looking at one context of the game (1-1 tie, 9th inning) and ignoring the fact that Oakland was throwing inside all series and this guy had just plunked Aaron Rowand, who stuck his butt out while turning around. That's ok, we can just agree to disagree there. I maintain it was an easy call for Wendelstedt to make because he's doing it against the road team. Notice I did not say the Chicago White Sox but rather the road team. Froemming is a hypocrite too, standing on the rule book. He's been around since 1971 and all he's doing is watching junior's back in this instance. Again, no way to prove it but if Froemming has made that exact same call - consistently - I will eat my hat.

 

On Crede's ejection ... it was pretty clear what he said, a 4th grade lip reader could see he said "f***" and flung the bat. The next words out of his mouth were when he turned around, with his arms in the air, saying "For what?!?" ... questioning why he'd been ejected. Wendelstedt ejects him for saying "f***" and flinging his bat? That's ticky tack BS. Further, if Wendelstedt had rabbit ears to listen what Crede may have been muttering down the line, Wendelstedt is unprofessional.

 

Rex ... do you not find it coincidental he makes this call against the White Sox, on a game where both teams have been warned about hitting guys? Very interesting time for him to make a "statement", as I said. Rowand turning his ass into a pitch could be construed in the same manner (trying to get hit). That didn't get called but hey, it was a different inning so things are called differently I guess. Wendelstedt should meet up with NHL official Kerry Fraser, where things aren't called by how they normally call it ... it's by the score or the point in the game.

[jackie hayes]

The reason it rarely ever happens in MLB is very simple.  Protest cannot be made on a judgement call.  They can only be made based on an incorrect interpretation of a rule.  In the Majors you have four umpires on a crew.  In a situation where a protest may be filed, the umpires will meet amongst themselves to make sure they agree on the call.  It would be very rare that four MLB umpires would interpret a rule incorrectly.

 

Even in the George Brett incident, the call was overturned only because there was no precedent for that particular situation.  The umpires made the call based on what the rule said, but whoever reviewed the protest felt a different interpretation was in order.  The call was overturned and the rule was rewritten to cover such a situation in the future.  Think of it as the Supreme Court overturning a lower court's decision.

As for the first part, where have I heard that before....

 

Not only would it be very rare that 4 MLB umps misinterpret a rule, it would be pretty rare that even one would. These guys are very good, they know those rules backwards and forwards.

 

The Brett snafu was truly a grey area. Different league president and you may have had a different answer. It turned out right in the end.

[IlliniKrush]

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.

 

Well i knew eventually someone would agree with me.

 

Slow curveball, he moved his elbow INTO it. Stop the argument of "he didn't move" because it's just not true. That call has to be made, plain and simple. It wasn't hitting him without Crede's blatant help.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It amazes me how you can judge Crede's intent by one play. Thank God our court system doesn't work that way.

 

Does Crede's career HBP #'s suggest he would do this? No.

Is Crede naturally an aggresive hitter? Yes. He more offen than not leans towards the plate when swinging the bat.

Did the pitcher previously bean Rowand in the inning? Yes.

 

IMO, as an umpire if you make such a questionable call with ignorance of the facts leading up to the play you are doing a dis-service to the game. Again I think those of us with umpire experience would agree that if this were say a pony league game & a guy beaned someone in the inning we would error on the side of the hitter & not the pitcher.

[Rex Hudler]

It amazes me how you can judge Crede's intent by one play.  Thank God our court system doesn't work that way.

 

Does Crede's career HBP #'s suggest he would do this?  No.

Is Crede naturally an aggresive hitter?  Yes.  He more offen than not leans towards the plate when swinging the bat.

Did the pitcher previously bean Rowand in the inning?  Yes.

 

IMO, as an umpire if you make such a questionable call with ignorance of the facts leading up to the play you are doing a dis-service to the game.  Again I think those of us with umpire experience would agree that if this were say a pony league game & a guy beaned someone in the inning we would error on the side of the hitter & not the pitcher.

 

I think anyone with half a baseball IQ can easily judge his intent there. Anyone who has played the game at any reasonably high level has probably done it or seen it done by a teammate.

 

The amount of HBP's earlier in the game/series has nothing to do with the Crede situation. This was different.

 

And those of "us" (me) who have umpires have made that call before. It happens quickly. The umpire does not have the benefit of seeing it replayed on TV 5 times. Sometimes you give the benefit of the doubt to a hitter, sometimes you don't. Hell, I have given the batter his base before and then immediately regretted making the call, knowing I should have gone the other way.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Rex Hudler

[Rex Hudler]

For the record, I was mad about the balk call but didn't disagree with it.

 

Just as we can't assume Froemming/Wendelstedt haven't been consistent with this particular call, we also can't assume they have been consistent.  Just as you've seen this call made, I've seen it 100 times not made (see: Fernando Vina).

 

I question your use of the words "easily avoided" in terms of the pitch that hit Crede.  It was thrown in the right handed batters box Rex.

 

You are still looking at one context of the game (1-1 tie, 9th inning) and ignoring the fact that Oakland was throwing inside all series and this guy had just plunked Aaron Rowand, who stuck his butt out while turning around.  That's ok, we can just agree to disagree there.  I maintain it was an easy call for Wendelstedt to make because he's doing it against the road team.  Notice I did not say the Chicago White Sox but rather the road team.  Froemming is a hypocrite too, standing on the rule book.  He's been around since 1971 and all he's doing is watching junior's back in this instance. Again, no way to prove it but if Froemming has made that exact same call - consistently - I will eat my hat.

 

On Crede's ejection ... it was pretty clear what he said, a 4th grade lip reader could see he said "f***" and flung the bat.  The next words out of his mouth were when he turned around, with his arms in the air, saying "For what?!?" ... questioning why he'd been ejected.  Wendelstedt ejects him for saying "f***" and flinging his bat?  That's ticky tack BS.  Further, if Wendelstedt had rabbit ears to listen what Crede may have been muttering down the line, Wendelstedt is unprofessional.

 

Rex ... do you not find it coincidental he makes this call against the White Sox, on a game where both teams have been warned about hitting guys?  Very interesting time for him to make a "statement", as I said.  Rowand turning his ass into a pitch could be construed in the same manner (trying to get hit).  That didn't get called but hey, it was a different inning so things are called differently I guess.  Wendelstedt should meet up with NHL official Kerry Fraser, where things aren't called by how they normally call it ... it's by the score or the point in the game.

 

1. Watch it again, he could have easily avoided it. Hell, he moved into it after reacting naturally to avoid it.

 

2. I said it before and will say so again. Crede's call had NOTHING to do with previous HPB's. It was a slow freaking curveball that he moved IN TO.

 

3. I covered your Rowand example in a previous post about rule interpretation. I didn't see Rowand's, but by your description, I would guess that it falls easily within the interpretation and precedent that has been set.

 

4. As far as Fernando Vina, once again I revert to an earlier post. A player rotating his body inward and getting caught on the meat of the arm above the elbow is not interpreted the same. It is not considered an overt attempt to get hit. I laugh at the thought that Vina has made the same overt action on 100 slow curve balls as Crede did. That particular situation just doesn't happen that often. It is interpreted differently than a guy getting nicked by an inside fastball or a harder breaking ball. Just not the same.

 

5. I just don't see the call as "making a statement" so I don't find it coincidental at all. Granted I wasn't there and I was not privy to every conversation involving the umpires the whole season. Then again, neither was anyone else here.

 

6. Perhaps Crede's ejection was quick. I don't know. He may have already told Crede to chill after the initial argument. The way he threw the bat certainly seemed to show up the umpire whether that was his intent or not. Again, without knowing every word that was said in the initial argument and in between that time and the ejection, I can't say whether it was justified or not. It may have been, or maybe not.

 

Jim, we can agree to disagee here.... I know I am not going to change your mind. But you are also asking me to make some assumptions without having the full information. Sorry, but I won't do that.

[Guest JimH]

1.  Watch it again, he could have easily avoided it.  Hell, he moved into it after reacting naturally to avoid it. 

 

2.  I said it before and will say so again.  Crede's call had NOTHING to do with previous HPB's.  It was a slow freaking curveball that he moved IN TO. 

 

3.  I covered your Rowand example in a previous post about rule interpretation.  I didn't see Rowand's, but by your description, I would guess that it falls easily within the interpretation and precedent that has been set.

 

4.  As far as Fernando Vina, once again I revert to an earlier post.  A player rotating his body inward and getting caught on the meat of the arm above the elbow is not interpreted the same.  It is not considered an overt attempt to get hit.  I laugh at the thought that Vina has made the same overt action on 100 slow curve balls as Crede did.  That particular situation just doesn't happen that often.  It is interpreted differently than a guy getting nicked by an inside fastball or a harder breaking ball.  Just not the same.

 

5.  I just don't see the call as "making a statement" so I don't find it coincidental at all.  Granted I wasn't there and I was not privy to every conversation involving the umpires the whole season.  Then again, neither was anyone else here.

 

6.  Perhaps Crede's ejection was quick.  I don't know.  He may have already told Crede to chill after the initial argument.  The way he threw the bat certainly seemed to show up the umpire whether that was his intent or not.  Again, without knowing every word that was said in the initial argument and in between that time and the ejection, I can't say whether it was justified or not.  It may have been, or maybe not.

 

Jim, we can agree to disagee here....  I know I am not going to change your mind.  But you are also asking me to make some assumptions without having the full information.  Sorry, but I won't do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rex, I don't need to watch it again. I saw it once, and saw the ejection once. That was enough for me to state my opinion.

 

You were or are an umpire, you stick up for umpires and will reason it out any way you want to so you can stick up for the umpire. It is consistent with everyone else who's been an umpire on this board so it doesn't surprise me. I was never a baseball umpire but did umpire many softball games. No one is throwing at hitters in softball but there was some rough play and we knew to take situations into context and we knew how to handle them.

 

There's a reason Harrelson commented negatively on this crew before the series even started. Again, just because he says it doesn't make it gospel but it sure raises a question in my mind ... a question that was answered by the piss poor performance by this crew.

 

You're failing to understand the context of the whole game and the whole series, insisting it had nothing to do with the play. Yet, you state umpires are human and can and do let things carry over. So, all this comes down to which way you want to rationalize it Rex.

 

If this umpire doesn't make that same call every single time, he is making a statement. No one can tell me he makes that call every single time. It was a statement, no doubt.

 

Further, on Crede's ejection ... hell, we can't comment on anything then. Of course no one knows exactly what was said after the aborted hit by pitch. All we saw is Crede flinging his bat and saying "f***" and NOT turning around to the umpire. Then, Joe Crede receives his first career ejection. That's bulls***.

 

You were/are an ump ... you make a tough call on a batter and take away a hit by pitch. Are you really going to say to him, "if you don't get on base, you better not say a word" or something to that effect? No, you aren't. Are you going to hold over your anger from tossing the manager, and then take it out on the hitter? No, you shouldn't. But Wendelstedt did.

 

Go ahead and defend Wendelstedt if you want Rex, makes no difference to me. I know enough about baseball to know a s***ty umpiring job when I see one. Were it just this one call, hey. It was several calls - obvious calls - and bottom line is that crew was borderline incompetent. Up to and including the Wendelstedt call.

[Guest JimH]

The amount of HBP's earlier in the game/series has nothing to do with the Crede situation.  This was different.

 

Sometimes you give the benefit of the doubt to a hitter, sometimes you don't. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First statement ... it damn well does matter because of two things:

 

One, this pitcher was wild inside and had hit a batter already.

 

Two, many many hit by pitches can be avoided if the batter contorts the proper way. How do you know if Crede had pulled his elbow in that it wouldn't have knicked his jersey or hit his rear forearm or hand? You keep saying it was "easily avoided" - your ump brotherhood is coming out there Rex. The pitch was well into the right handed batters box. That does not equate with "easily avoided".

 

Second statement ... wait a minute. Froemming leaned on the rule book. Seems to me Crede wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.

 

Let's see what may have been going through Wendelstedt's mind: "Let's see ... umm ... Oakland pitchers have been plunking guys all three games, Sox pitchers haven't retailiated. Yup, let's give this Oakland pitcher the benefit of the doubt, get back in the box Crede." Of course I'm exaggerating to make a point, but the reality is this umpire made a judgement call which basically condoned what MLB warned the two teams about ... careless throwing inside. If he pitches well into the right handed batters box, after both teams have been warned probably by Froemming or Wendelstedt no less ... that's some funny "benefit of the doubt judgement" he's got there. Remind me to not go through yellow lights when the umpire fraternity is proceeding through the intersection.

 

Rex ... fess up. You're going to give the benefit of the doubt to the umpires practically every time, I've seen you do this before. Fine, your right to do so. If we are guilty of White Sox fan bias, you are guilty of umpire fraternity bias.

 

They are completely and utterly and maddeningly inconsistent, this crew in particular. Not to mention they got several big calls wrong, and their "judgement" clearly sided with the home team every time. Wendelstedt is in for some tough times now, I hope White Sox management is on his ass every time there's a hit by pitch he allows. He deserves it. Not to mention his bravado display of "I'm the boss" by issuing Crede his first career ejection. Crede himself was incredulous ... "For what? For what?" he asked.

 

Wendelstedt held a grudge after ejecting Guillen and took it out on Crede.

 

Unprofessional. I hope you are a better ump than that, I trust you are.

[Rex Hudler]

First statement ... it damn well does matter because of two things:

 

One, this pitcher was wild inside and had hit a batter already.

 

Two, many many hit by pitches can be avoided if the batter contorts the proper way.  How do you know if Crede had pulled his elbow in that it wouldn't have knicked his jersey or hit his rear forearm or hand?  You keep saying it was "easily avoided" - your ump brotherhood is coming out there Rex.  The pitch was well into the right handed batters box.  That does not equate with "easily avoided".

 

Second statement ... wait a minute.  Froemming leaned on the rule book.  Seems to me Crede wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.

 

Let's see what may have been going through Wendelstedt's mind: "Let's see ... umm ... Oakland pitchers have been plunking guys all three games, Sox pitchers haven't retailiated.  Yup, let's give this Oakland pitcher the benefit of the doubt, get back in the box Crede."  Of course I'm exaggerating to make a point, but the reality is this umpire made a judgement call which basically condoned what MLB warned the two teams about ... careless throwing inside.  If he pitches well into the right handed batters box, after both teams have been warned probably by Froemming or Wendelstedt no less ... that's some funny "benefit of the doubt judgement" he's got there.  Remind me to not go through yellow lights when the umpire fraternity is proceeding through the intersection.

 

Rex ... fess up.  You're going to give the benefit of the doubt to the umpires practically every time, I've seen you do this before.  Fine, your right to do so.  If we are guilty of White Sox fan bias, you are guilty of umpire fraternity bias.

 

They are completely and utterly and maddeningly inconsistent, this crew in particular.  Not to mention they got several big calls wrong, and their "judgement" clearly sided with the home team every time.  Wendelstedt is in for some tough times now, I hope White Sox management is on his ass every time there's a hit by pitch he allows.  He deserves it.  Not to mention his bravado display of "I'm the boss" by issuing Crede his first career ejection.  Crede himself was incredulous ... "For what?  For what?" he asked.

 

Wendelstedt held a grudge after ejecting Guillen and took it out on Crede.

 

Unprofessional.  I hope you are a better ump than that, I trust you are.

 

Jim, while I respect your opinions on this board you are full of s*** on this one. We will never agree on the call and the details of it, so what. But if you really think that I am defending my "bretheren" then you are simply failing to understand the logic behind my comments. That's okay. We are beating a dead horse here so there is no reason to keep arguing the same points.

 

But while my argument here is affected by my history as an umpire, it is not because I am defending the profession. I am simply letting you know what the situation was and how it is handled. If I felt the umpires were wrong, I would tell you so and I would tell you exactly why. Telling me that my judgement is clouded is failing to understand the issue itself, which you have clearly either failed to do or refused to do. Like I said, adults can have differing opinions and still respect one another, but in all honesty, the tone in your last post offended me somewhat.

 

I am have seen baseball from all sides. From playing to coaching to umpiring to administration (all except for coaching at college level or above). I absolutely have a balanced perspective of the game. So let's agree or disagree, but try and lose the idea that I am being biased. Bias has nothing to do with all of this.

 

Allow me to add that I do not believe (or hope not anyway) that you intended to offend me. But it was taken personally to a degree.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Rex Hudler

[IlliniKrush]

Rex, I don't need to watch it again.  I saw it once, and saw the ejection once.  That was enough for me to state my opinion.

 

You were or are an umpire, you stick up for umpires and will reason it out any way you want to so you can stick up for the umpire.  It is consistent with everyone else who's been an umpire on this board so it doesn't surprise me.  I was never a baseball umpire but did umpire many softball games.  No one is throwing at hitters in softball but there was some rough play and we knew to take situations into context and we knew how to handle them. 

 

That's a really, really unfair statement.

 

Also, the fact that you've only watched it once hurts your argument.

 

God, this isn't even close, as Rex said. Crede move into a slow curveball that wouldn't hit him without a huge elbow drop.

 

It's really sad how obvious the call was; it's one of the most obvious i've ever seen for this type of call.

 

Also, the context shouldn't matter one bit, but if you want it to matter, the umps should be even more wary of a intentional HBP due to it being the 9th inning in a tie game. Now, if this was the first batter of the game, it still should be called. And saying that the other HBP should somehow affect this call is just ludicrous.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

harold reynolds broke it down, visually presented his interpretation of the incident, and said the umpire was correct "once again."

 

'Nough said. ESPN IS NEVER WRONG!

[Rex Hudler]

harold reynolds broke it down, visually presented his interpretation of the incident, and said the umpire was correct "once again."

 

'Nough said.  ESPN IS NEVER WRONG!

 

Not this time, anyway.

[Rex Hudler]

One last thing Jim. When I previously stated my background that was not intended in an "I'm smarter than you" context. It was stated simply to show that I have been involved with the game from all sides so I am not seeing it only from an umpires (or any specific point of view).

 

I will be the first to admit I don't know everything about the game. While I have been very fortunate to be involved with the game on many levels, my intention is not to use that to say how smart I am. I am constantly trying to learn more about the game. Perhaps you didn't take it that way and this post has no point, but while I disagree with you on this issue, I certainly didn't want it to come across that way.

[quickman]

Well i knew eventually someone would agree with me.

 

Slow curveball, he moved his elbow INTO it. Stop the argument of "he didn't move" because it's just not true. That call has to be made, plain and simple. It wasn't hitting him without Crede's blatant help.

 

 

illini, I agreed with you and ABOZ on this thread and another. I think there is no doubt in my mind he moved into the pitch. Is it ever called, I have never seen it called. Was it a good call? I suspect it was. To me it was blatant, and I actually now worry a bit that Crede will be looked at the plate a little differently.

 

jim I understand your point its not called and we have an umpire with clear history with the whitesox. coincidence? probably not, but it was the right call. I do think that Crede should not have been thrown out. That was just the umpire flexing muscles.

[quickman]

illini, I agreed with you and ABOZ on this thread and another. I think there is no doubt in my mind he moved into the pitch. Is it ever called, I have never seen it called. Was it a good call? I suspect it was. To me it was blatant, and I actually now worry a bit that Crede will be looked at the plate a little differently.

 

jim I understand your point its not called and we have an umpire with clear history with the whitesox. coincidence? probably not, but it was the right call. I do think that Crede should not have been thrown out. That was just the umpire flexing muscles.

 

 

whoops it wasn't aboz I agred with sorry.

[Guest JimH]

illini, I agreed with you and ABOZ on this thread and another. I think there is no doubt in my mind he moved into the pitch. Is it ever called, I have never seen it called. Was it a good call? I suspect it was. To me it was blatant, and I actually now worry a bit that Crede will be looked at the plate a little differently.

 

jim I understand your point its not called and we have an umpire with clear history with the whitesox. coincidence? probably not, but it was the right call. I do think that Crede should not have been thrown out. That was just the umpire flexing muscles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Last thoughts on this from me, new game tonite ...

 

Rex, did not take it that way at all and I know you've had involvement in the game at several levels.

 

If this Crede incident (the hit by pitch) leads to cracking down on Fernando Vina type incidents, I am all for it. They should call the game right. Unfortunately this call will continue to not be made, it's just the way it is. The hit by pitch call paled in comparison to Crede getting tossed ... there was a bad smell to that and I agree the umpire held a grudge after tossing Guillen.

[Guest JimH]

That's a really, really unfair statement.

 

Also, the fact that you've only watched it once hurts your argument.

 

God, this isn't even close, as Rex said. Crede move into a slow curveball that wouldn't hit him without a huge elbow drop.

 

It's really sad how obvious the call was; it's one of the most obvious i've ever seen for this type of call.

 

Also, the context shouldn't matter one bit, but if you want it to matter, the umps should be even more wary of a intentional HBP due to it being the 9th inning in a tie game. Now, if this was the first batter of the game, it still should be called. And saying that the other HBP should somehow affect this call is just ludicrous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oops did not see this.

 

No, it's not an unfair statement, it's my opinion. You were or are an ump, maybe you're a bit biased from that perspective?

 

I actually did see the play on replay a few times, the point was that I saw it the first time and that was enough to make my judgement (opinion). You may be an ump but I would venture to say I've seen a thousand more baseball games, just based on life span. Doesn't make me right and you wrong though. Just that you are stating the ideal world and I agree the call should be made. It isn't though. And why isn't it? And why was it made in this instance? That's the crux of the issue, and neither of us are in the heads of Hunter Wendelstedt and Bruce Froemming, etc. I admit to leaning a bit on what Harrelson said, knowing full well he's a homer - ("before the series we talked about this being a bad crew for this team in this stadium"). Plus, what I saw with my own eyes. Everyone on this board will be watching closely the next time this crew encounters the White Sox. There were too many mistakes made.

 

Thing is, it would be nice if the umps now called this with conistency. They won't, and that's the sad part. I hope you are a better ump than Hunter Wendelstedt, I suspect you are, and much better. Unfortunately, it would not be terribly hard to be better than Hunter Wendelstedt.

[Guest JimH]

Not this time, anyway. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As you said, agree to disagree. My posts stand, as do yours I'd imagine. By the way I never said Crede didn't lean in. The issue is way bigger than that.

 

Fortunately, for the team and this thread, the issue is now past. And for that I am glad and I'm sure all Sox fans are too. And Wendelstedt and Froemming.

 

Also I hope both Guillen and Wendelstedt can get past this. They are both supposedly professionals and should be able to do it. I do suspect though that any game involving the two of them will be closely scrutinized, both ways.

Edited April 29, 2005 by JimH

[quickman]

wow thats three last times. Dave Mason : We just disagree.

[Guest JimH]

wow thats three last times. Dave Mason : We just disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's too early for you to be a smartass but I see you are up to the task.

 

Lantern tonite. I will talk to Terri and ensure the Sox get equal TV time with the Astros-Cubs. Good nite to watch baseball and quaff.