Share Your Umpiring Thoughts

[Dick Allen]

Cabrera appeared to try to grab the guy's leg. That was an easy call. I'm sorry if it was a Cleveland player doing it to Cabrera, Hawk and the rest of this board would say it was clearly interference. The shame of it was if Cabrera had done nothing, Thome would have beat it out anyway. The call at first was hard. I really have no problem with it. It wasn't like he was blatantly off the bag and the umpire really couldn't be in a great position to see it. The call at home was absolutely horrible. The umpire anticipated it. If you look, he first looked like he called the out on a force, then said it was the tag. Wrong on both accounts. That was totally inexcusable and was made before the play occurred. While I don't blame the umpires for the first 2, it would be nice to get a break and get at least one of them.

[jackie hayes]

Taking an argument that you don't agree with, or don't understand, and hyperbolizing it to the point of absurdity is intellectually dishonest, and shouldn't/wouldn't be accepted as a valid point in any formal debate.

 

Also, I'm not quite sure who's posts you've been reading, but nowhere do I state that grabbing for a defensive player in any capacity is not possible interference. I state, quite simply, that since it is not EXPLICITLY defined in the rules as an interfering action, it is up to the umpire to determine if a player is interfering with a play or not. And since this is a judgment call, it's reasonable to assume that the umpire would make a sound judgment, given that he's a professional with years of experience. And sound reasoning would seem to indicate that you can't interfere with a play THAT DOES NOT EXIST, such as a throw to first base to retire Thome, since NO ATTEMPT TO MAKE A THROW WAS MADE, NOR WOULD SAID PROBABLE THROW HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT on Thome being safe or out. Therefore, the umpire made a poor judgment call. The fact that we can't change the outcome of the play because of this poor judgment call is immaterial to this argument.

 

My second point is that IF you are going to insist on saying that the umpire's judgment is the right call, and is irrefutable on both plays involving Cabrera, then he's establishing a precedent that HAS NOT EXISTED previously in MLB, and has given no prior warning of any changes. I would think that MLB holds its umpires to a higher standard than making decisions based on how they're feeling at the time.

 

If you don't agree, I'd love to hear why, but with actual evidence this time, instead of putting words in my mouth, or absurd hyperbole, or personal attacks. I'd really like to have a reasonable discussion, and I'm sorry if anything I've said seemed out of line. I've read lots of other posts by you, and I respect your opinions, but I just don't see how you can hold your position on this one.

Except it's not hyperbole. If we say that any runner who's touching the base should not be called out for interference, that's carte blanche. If you can't grab the guy, then we have to throw that argument out and draw a finer distinction.

 

Barfield was pivoting to throw and was cocking his arm when Cabrera reached out. The facts that he didn't make a throw and might not have made a throw are irrelevant.

 

Even Guillen has said that the ump made the correct call.

 

As for personal attacks, I haven't attacked you once. You're just livid that I can't see the clear shining light of your rightness. (SO NOW YOU'RE USING LOTS OF CAPS -- VERY CONVINCING!) Deal with it.

[jasonxctf]

I got a reply this morning...

 

 

I told you... say what you want about MLB... but they do care about their fans and creating an open relationship with them.

[almagest]

Except it's not hyperbole. If we say that any runner who's touching the base should not be called out for interference, that's carte blanche. If you can't grab the guy, then we have to throw that argument out and draw a finer distinction.

 

Barfield was pivoting to throw and was cocking his arm when Cabrera reached out. The facts that he didn't make a throw and might not have made a throw are irrelevant.

 

Even Guillen has said that the ump made the correct call.

 

As for personal attacks, I haven't attacked you once. You're just livid that I can't see the clear shining light of your rightness. (SO NOW YOU'RE USING LOTS OF CAPS -- VERY CONVINCING!) Deal with it.

 

So if Barfield didn't make a throw, what play was Cabrera interfering with? Look, I'm not disagreeing that Cabrera was grabbing for Barfield. That's obvious, and under most any other circumstance, I'd be in total agreement with you. But the rule states that interference occurs when "a runner is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball." There was no play to be made, as Thome was safe no matter what, Barfield did not throw the ball, and Cabrera's grab did not prevent Barfield from throwing it.

 

I also didn't say that any runner touching a base has the ability to do whatever he pleases to a fielder. Not sure where you're getting that. I just don't see how you can hinder a non-existent play.

 

The caps were to emphasize certain parts of my claim, not as a response to your inability to see my "clear shining light of rightness."

[knightni]

Are we starting a new day of this?

[jackie hayes]

So if Barfield didn't make a throw, what play was Cabrera interfering with? Look, I'm not disagreeing that Cabrera was grabbing for Barfield. That's obvious, and under most any other circumstance, I'd be in total agreement with you. But the rule states that interference occurs when "a runner is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball." There was no play to be made, as Thome was safe no matter what, Barfield did not throw the ball, and Cabrera's grab did not prevent Barfield from throwing it.

 

I also didn't say that any runner touching a base has the ability to do whatever he pleases to a fielder. Not sure where you're getting that. I just don't see how you can hinder a non-existent play.

 

The caps were to emphasize certain parts of my claim, not as a response to your inability to see my "clear shining light of rightness."

The umpire doesn't have to judge that the play (throwing to first for a dp) would have been successful. The act of starting to throw is part of the play, even though the play probably wouldn't have worked out, and Cabrera interfered with that. Done, apply the penalty. (It was Peralta, btw -- I think I made that mistake earlier.)

 

I'm done. Even Ozzie has said that it was a good call. It was, it's done, and it's time to worry about the next game and bogus AF trade reports.

[knightni]

it's time to worry about the next game and bogus AF trade reports.

 

[almagest]

The umpire doesn't have to judge that the play (throwing to first for a dp) would have been successful. The act of starting to throw is part of the play, even though the play probably wouldn't have worked out, and Cabrera interfered with that. Done, apply the penalty. (It was Peralta, btw -- I think I made that mistake earlier.)

 

I'm done. Even Ozzie has said that it was a good call. It was, it's done, and it's time to worry about the next game and bogus AF trade reports.

 

K. Agree to disagree.

[Y2HH]

The umpire doesn't have to judge that the play (throwing to first for a dp) would have been successful. The act of starting to throw is part of the play, even though the play probably wouldn't have worked out, and Cabrera interfered with that. Done, apply the penalty. (It was Peralta, btw -- I think I made that mistake earlier.)

 

I'm done. Even Ozzie has said that it was a good call. It was, it's done, and it's time to worry about the next game and bogus AF trade reports.

 

Let me nip this arguement in the bud and simply say, from the Hawk school of thought, where I have my proud to be biased PHD in Soxdom, you -- good sir -- are a closet Cubs fan.

[Shamrock4Life]

I disagree with the call, but cabrera is a dumbass for sliding in like that.

[jackie hayes]

Let me nip this arguement in the bud and simply say, from the Hawk school of thought, where I have my proud to be biased PHD in Soxdom, you -- good sir -- are a closet Cubs fan.

Even when you're being sarcastic you shouldn't contradict yourself. A "good sir" and a Cubs fan? I think not...

Edited April 1, 2008 by jackie hayes

[WilliamTell]

I disagree with the call, but cabrera is a dumbass for sliding in like that.

 

I agree, I know Thome was running but it looks like he might've had a shot to beat it out anywys with it being that slow of a grounder. It looked like Cabrerra was going after his ankle.

[Controlled Chaos]

Stoney just said he has more of a beef with the fact that Blakes slide should have been interference. Since the ump didn't call that, he shouldn't have made the call on OCab. He said if the OCab play was the only one in the game...then fine call interference, but once they set a precedent, by not calling it earlier...he believes the Ocab call shouldn't have been.

[YASNY]

I read this thread before I saw the play. I'm stating that for the perspective that I was aware of the contraversy and disagreement this play caused. That being said, here's the way I saw it. Cabrera went in with his feet to bag and his arms toward the fielder. If he would have done the reverse, this call would not have been made. So, my question is, in the grand scheme of things, what the is the difference how he went into the bag? A spike to thigh, a hand to the thigh. After seeing the play, I thought is was a BS call.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I read this thread before I saw the play. I'm stating that for the perspective that I was aware of the contraversy and disagreement this play caused. That being said, here's the way I saw it. Cabrera went in with his feet to bag and his arms toward the fielder. If he would have done the reverse, this call would not have been made. So, my question is, in the grand scheme of things, what the is the difference how he went into the bag? A spike to thigh, a hand to the thigh. After seeing the play, I thought is was a BS call.

I was thinking the same thing. MOST people slide hands first and flare out the feet. He did the opposite. Different look, same result.

[YASNY]

I was thinking the same thing. MOST people slide hands first and flare out the feet. He did the opposite. Different look, same result.

 

Well I'll be damned. We actually agree on something!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well I'll be damned. We actually agree on something!

[almagest]

I was thinking the same thing. MOST people slide hands first and flare out the feet. He did the opposite. Different look, same result.

 

I'd probably rather have someone try to grab my legs anyway, than try to sweep my legs out from under me with theirs. Much less risk of injury, and it seems like all you'd have to do with a hand or two on your legs is, oh I don't know, step forward and throw anyways? It's not like someone's arm is going to be able to hold your legs back very well.

[Dick Allen]

While both ways it is intentional and subject to an interference call, if he goes in with his legs and feet, there still can be at least a little doubt about "intention". When you reach and grab a leg, there is no doubt. The umpire made the correct call. If it were the other way around and an Indian sliding and grabbing Cabrera and interference wasn't called, this board would have been as up in arms as Hawk would have been yesterday.

[Balta1701]

While both ways it is intentional and subject to an interference call, if he goes in with his legs and feet, there still can be at least a little doubt about "intention". When you reach and grab a leg, there is no doubt. The umpire made the correct call. If it were the other way around and an Indian sliding and grabbing Cabrera and interference wasn't called, this board would have been as up in arms as Hawk would have been yesterday.

Just out of curiosity, when is the last time this board, or really any board, got up in arms about a no call on an interference play at 2nd base? There are some plays that you never get up in arms about unless it's unbelievably obvious or a guy gets hurt. If an Indian did that against us and it broke up a DP, we'd probably have been pissed at Uribe for not getting the job done.

 

A similar one is the "Tagging 2nd on a double play turn" call. Probably could call that on half or more of double plays, but no one ever gets pissed when it's not called.

[WilliamTell]

Just out of curiosity, when is the last time this board, or really any board, got up in arms about a no call on an interference play at 2nd base? There are some plays that you never get up in arms about unless it's unbelievably obvious or a guy gets hurt. If an Indian did that against us and it broke up a DP, we'd probably have been pissed at Uribe for not getting the job done.

 

A similar one is the "Tagging 2nd on a double play turn" call. Probably could call that on half or more of double plays, but no one ever gets pissed when it's not called.

 

Excellent point. Yesterday on one of these threads I brought up the phantom base tag and it's hypocritical of umpires allowing that, but calling intereference on Cabrera's play.

 

Yes we probably would be yelling at Uribe for not turning the play.

[jasonxctf]

Since I started this topic, I feel the need to ask the Mods to close it. I think the points have been made.

 

Bottom line, the point of the topic was to provide fans with a written outlet to share their feelings about yesterday's umpiring with Mike Port, the head of MLB Umpires. Some people here wrote Mike directly, myself included. Mike wrote back seeking additional information which was provided back to him. He thanked me (and probably you too) and said that the plays would be examined and reviewed by the "powers that be".

 

I don't know about you, but going through the letter writing process certainly makes me feel better about the situation.

[The Beast]

While both ways it is intentional and subject to an interference call, if he goes in with his legs and feet, there still can be at least a little doubt about "intention". When you reach and grab a leg, there is no doubt. The umpire made the correct call. If it were the other way around and an Indian sliding and grabbing Cabrera and interference wasn't called, this board would have been as up in arms as Hawk would have been yesterday.

Exactly, you hit it right on the noggin. I also wanted to mention that the Crede call may have been difficult for where the umpire was standing, but I can see why he called what he did, Crede slid kind of high with his hand on the air, so it could have appeared to the umpire that the catcher barely got Crede. In those situations, you have to rely on your position, where the foot is touching the base, and you need to listen for sounds as well as watch several other components of the play. I'm sure we're all wondering what the umpire exactly saw, but I think he made the call to the best of his ability with what he could see.

I don't know about you, but going through the letter writing process certainly makes me feel better about the situation.

I'm glad that it made you feel better and I'm also glad that your letter probably made educated, well thought out points---it makes us look better and separates us from b****y ass Cub fans.

Edited April 1, 2008 by The Beast

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

As much as I would like to think this would make a differnce, it won't. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Doug Eddings anywhere near a diamond anymore because im sure he got hundreds of emails from every angels fan, as well as the mass media that was going on during the "dropped 3rd strike" fiasco.

[witesoxfan]

I'm glad that it made you feel better and I'm also glad that your letter probably made educated, well thought out points---it makes us look better and separates us from b****y ass Cub fans.

 

Or you can argue it shows that we care a well-played baseball game that we want called fairly for both sides. I don't see that as b****ing, I see that as stating a situation that we view as a problem.

 

You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes