Share Your Umpiring Thoughts

[jackie hayes]

You continue to repeat this, but I'm just curious as to what your source is here. I think you're just making this up and expecting us to believe you.

 

I understand the logic you're using, but their simply is nothing I have seen which states what you are stating.

 

Why should a player be allowed to basically throw his legs and feet at a fielder some 4-6 feet off the bag but not his arms?

 

It still comes down to what Hawk and DJ have stated for me, which is that they have never seen interference called on a runner when he is able to touch the bag with any part of his body.

It doesn't really matter why. There's an interpretation that everyone knows and understands. Just as the strike zone that was called for years and is still more-or-less called doesn't correspond to the 'book' strike zone. Hey, maybe that lost us the game, too. Let's complain!

 

It's accepted everywhere that a normal slide with the spikes down is fine as long as you can touch the bag. But for interference to have some meaning, you can't toss the guy around just because you're close to the base, as much as Hawk and DJ would like for the rule to mean that just for tonight. Suddenly, all Sox fans want to be strict constructionist legal scholars about it. The official rules don't explicitly mention thigh-grabbing!!!

 

Hawk and DJ are ridiculous homers (as well as terrible announcers). If you go by their standard, a runner should be able to bear hug a fielder who's attempting to make a throw, as long as he's on the base. You really buy that?

 

And the funny thing is, if we're being strict about it, there's nothing besides the ump's judgement that matters, anyway. Whatever he thinks intent means, it means. Either way, the Sox have no case.

[almagest]

It doesn't really matter why. There's an interpretation that everyone knows and understands. Just as the strike zone that was called for years and is still more-or-less called doesn't correspond to the 'book' strike zone. Hey, maybe that lost us the game, too. Let's complain!

 

It's accepted everywhere that a normal slide with the spikes down is fine as long as you can touch the bag. But for interference to have some meaning, you can't toss the guy around just because you're close to the base, as much as Hawk and DJ would like for the rule to mean that just for tonight. Suddenly, all Sox fans want to be strict constructionist legal scholars about it. The official rules don't explicitly mention thigh-grabbing!!!

 

Hawk and DJ are ridiculous homers (as well as terrible announcers). If you go by their standard, a runner should be able to bear hug a fielder who's attempting to make a throw, as long as he's on the base. You really buy that?

 

And the funny thing is, if we're being strict about it, there's nothing besides the ump's judgement that matters, anyway. Whatever he thinks intent means, it means. Either way, the Sox have no case.

 

So what about the play earlier in the game, when Cabrera was bowled over for no apparent reason? Was that interference? Seems by your definition, and the umpire's, it would be. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect consistency from a Major League umpire, nor do I think it's unreasonable to expect that he demonstrate good judgement.

 

Also, there's no need to exaggerate, nor is there a need for straw man arguments. No one's claiming that a bear hug is not interference, no one is claiming that strike zones are inaccurate (pretty sure Questec shows the umps are like 96% accurate anyway), no one is claiming that Cabrera tried to toss anyone around (did you even SEE the play?!) nor is anyone claiming that Hawk and DJ are right about anything. I didn't even hear what they said, since I usually mute the game anyway.

Edited April 1, 2008 by almagest

[jackie hayes]

Exactly. It's a judgment call. And any umpire using *proper* reasoning would see that Cabrera's grab had no effect on the play whatsoever. I don't see how you can judge that to be interference, especially after a terrible call was *just* made against us right before this. There was also no discussion of the play with any other umpires, either.

All he has to do is hinder a fielder who is attempting to make a play. The rules don't make an exception when the play he's attempting to make wouldn't happen anyway. It's a penalty for the infraction and should be enforced regardless. The terrible call just before should have nothing to do with it either way.

[iamshack]

It doesn't really matter why. There's an interpretation that everyone knows and understands. Just as the strike zone that was called for years and is still more-or-less called doesn't correspond to the 'book' strike zone. Hey, maybe that lost us the game, too. Let's complain!

 

It's accepted everywhere that a normal slide with the spikes down is fine as long as you can touch the bag. But for interference to have some meaning, you can't toss the guy around just because you're close to the base, as much as Hawk and DJ would like for the rule to mean that just for tonight. Suddenly, all Sox fans want to be strict constructionist legal scholars about it. The official rules don't explicitly mention thigh-grabbing!!!

 

Hawk and DJ are ridiculous homers (as well as terrible announcers). If you go by their standard, a runner should be able to bear hug a fielder who's attempting to make a throw, as long as he's on the base. You really buy that?

 

And the funny thing is, if we're being strict about it, there's nothing besides the ump's judgement that matters, anyway. Whatever he thinks intent means, it means. Either way, the Sox have no case.

 

No, what I buy is that I see runners sliding all over the place with their spikes and legs flailing several feet away from the base and as long as they are able to get the base with their hand, it is not judged as interference. I'm just wondering how that causes less interference that what OCab did, especially considering MI's get their legs taken out and/or get spiked purposefully because of runners trying to hinder the fielder. That, to me, is far more dangerous and effective at hindering the fielder than what OCab did.

[almagest]

All he has to do is hinder a fielder who is attempting to make a play. The rules don't make an exception when the play he's attempting to make wouldn't happen anyway. It's a penalty for the infraction and should be enforced regardless. The terrible call just before should have nothing to do with it either way.

 

No one's arguing what the rule says. We can read. We're arguing that the ump made a poor judgment call, based on previous events in this game, in previous seasons, and based on the events of the play. If the penalty should be enforced regardless, and the rules don't make an exception, then there should be consistency.

[jackie hayes]

So what about the play earlier in the game, when Cabrera was bowled over for no apparent reason? Was that interference? Seems by your definition, and the umpire's, it would be. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect consistency from a Major League umpire, nor do I think it's unreasonable to expect that he demonstrate good judgement.

 

Also, there's no need to exaggerate, nor is there a need for straw man arguments. No one's claiming that a bear hug is not interference, no one is claiming that Cabrera tried to toss anyone around (did you even SEE the play?!) nor is anyone claiming that Hawk and DJ are right about anything. I didn't even hear what they said, since I usually mute the game anyway.

I saw it about 5 times. Is that enough for you or would you like to send me a betamax?

 

Now apparently you didn't read my "definition". Cabrera was knocked over by a hard slide very close to the bag with the cleats down, although it was a late slide. That fits my "definition" of an acceptable play.

 

And, actually, yeah, there IS a need to take arguments to the logical extreme. If they fall apart, then they obviously weren't phrased well in the first place. If someone argues that you can do whatever you want as long as you touch the bag, it's worth asking if that's reasonable.

 

And, frankly, Cabrera tried to grab the guy's leg. I really don't see a bear hug as being much more extreme than that. The only real difference is which part of a guy's body you grab.

[jackie hayes]

No one's arguing what the rule says. We can read. We're arguing that the ump made a poor judgment call, based on previous events in this game, in previous seasons, and based on the events of the play. If the penalty should be enforced regardless, and the rules don't make an exception, then there should be consistency.

No, you were arguing that interference that doesn't change the outcome shouldn't count: "...any umpire using *proper* reasoning would see that Cabrera's grab had no effect on the play whatsoever. I don't see how you can judge that to be interference..." I was pointing out that it should count as interference, according to the rules (and that's beside the fact that your judgement is really pointless, here). Don't try to change the history.

[almagest]

And, actually, yeah, there IS a need to take arguments to the logical extreme. If they fall apart, then they obviously weren't phrased well in the first place. If someone argues that you can do whatever you want as long as you touch the bag, it's worth asking if that's reasonable.

 

Sorry, but that's completely incorrect, and shows you know little about debating.

[almagest]

No, you were arguing that interference that doesn't change the outcome shouldn't count: "...any umpire using *proper* reasoning would see that Cabrera's grab had no effect on the play whatsoever. I don't see how you can judge that to be interference..." I was pointing out that it should count as interference, according to the rules (and that's beside the fact that your judgement is really pointless, here). Don't try to change the history.

 

This is true; it shouldn't. I'm not changing history as I still support this point. But *if* you're going to claim that Cabrera's play counts as interference, then make a consistent ruling about it. Which this umpire did not, based on what happened earlier in the game.

 

Anyways, what's with the vehement defense of the second base ump, especially since this call honestly does *not* have precedence in MLB?

[jackie hayes]

No, what I buy is that I see runners sliding all over the place with their spikes and legs flailing several feet away from the base and as long as they are able to get the base with their hand, it is not judged as interference. I'm just wondering how that causes less interference that what OCab did, especially considering MI's get their legs taken out and/or get spiked purposefully because of runners trying to hinder the fielder. That, to me, is far more dangerous and effective at hindering the fielder than what OCab did.

What's important is to have a uniform interpretation, just as the strike zone is understood, even though it doesn't correspond to the book strike zone. Not to have everyone agree on just 'how interfering' different actions are, just to have everyone know what the standard is.

[jackie hayes]

Sorry, but that's completely incorrect, and shows you know little about debating.

No, actually it's not. 'I justify X using Y, but if Y has absurd implications, my argument is still valid. Because I really, really want it to be.' Considering the implications of an argument is just basic logic.

 

As for "debating", I'll assume you don't mean formal debate, because if you ever encountered it even a little, you'd know that taking arguments to their extremes (and to the cynic, beyond) is maybe the most basic tactic. Lord knows what you do mean.

[iamshack]

What's important is to have a uniform interpretation, just as the strike zone is understood, even though it doesn't correspond to the book strike zone. Not to have everyone agree on just 'how interfering' different actions are, just to have everyone know what the standard is.

 

No, I understand what you are saying, and I am willing to concede that it was probably interference, I guess it was just extremely frustrating after what happened about 30 seconds before that...as I said earlier, if that call happens in isolation, and not after the previous two calls most people seem to think went against us, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal.

 

And as for the spirit of the rule, you make a good point about the strike zone. However, it seems that perhaps the purpose of the rule should be revisited sometimes, as opposed to simply what has occurred in recent practice and judged to be "the standard," or "acceptable."

[jackie hayes]

This is true; it shouldn't. I'm not changing history as I still support this point. But *if* you're going to claim that Cabrera's play counts as interference, then make a consistent ruling about it. Which this umpire did not, based on what happened earlier in the game.

 

Anyways, what's with the vehement defense of the second base ump, especially since this call honestly does *not* have precedence in MLB?

Wrong. There was nothing inconsistent, as there were important differences between the two plays. Like leg-grabbing.

 

I don't know what you mean by "precedence", but I don't think I'm being so vehement. I just think he got that call completely right.

[jackie hayes]

No, I understand what you are saying, and I am willing to concede that it was probably interference, I guess it was just extremely frustrating after what happened about 30 seconds before that...as I said earlier, if that call happens in isolation, and not after the previous two calls most people seem to think went against us, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal.

 

And as for the spirit of the rule, you make a good point about the strike zone. However, it seems that perhaps the purpose of the rule should be revisited sometimes, as opposed to simply what has occurred in recent practice and judged to be "the standard," or "acceptable."

I'm not saying the other calls were good, just the interference call. Yeah, when I watched the interference play in real time, I was ticked off. But when I saw the replay, I couldn't really argue with it. That's all. Even though I was unhappy about the others.

[almagest]

No, actually it's not. 'I justify X using Y, but if Y has absurd implications, my argument is still valid. Because I really, really want it to be.' Considering the implications of an argument is just basic logic.

 

As for "debating", I'll assume you don't mean formal debate, because if you ever encountered it even a little, you'd know that taking arguments to their extremes (and to the cynic, beyond) is maybe the most basic tactic. Lord knows what you do mean.

 

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.

[almagest]

Wrong. There was nothing inconsistent, as there were important differences between the two plays. Like leg-grabbing.

 

I don't know what you mean by "precedence", but I don't think I'm being so vehement. I just think he got that call completely right.

 

I disagree. I feel the take-down of Cabrera was going a little too far, and could've resulted in a serious injury. Since both plays had no effect on the first base runner anyway, I feel that if you're going to call interference for grabbing someone's leg, you should also call it for going after an opposing player when there's no reason to.

 

By "precedence," I mean that you don't see interference plays come up in baseball very often, and the ones you do see are usually blatantly obvious, like A-Rod screaming "I got it!" to try to prevent a pop-up from being caught. And no, I don't think that either play involving Cabrera were obviously interference.

[Reddy]

i didnt even bother to read Beast's comments but:

 

We get it, you umpire. big s***. so do a lot of people here.

 

we're still allowed to be pissed. get the freak over it.

 

we know your opinion so stop telling us.

[witesoxfan]

I was joking, calm down... of course I want Buehrle and the sox to do well. But I have a hard time seeing either happening over the course of the season.

 

The ball Gutierrez hit out of the park would have been hit 3 miles had Buehrle thrown it 86 or 96. It had nothing to do with velocity today and everything to do with location. Seriously, a ball up and out over the plate? That ball gets crushed a lot.

[TLAK]

The Garko call was too close to cry over. Lost in the argument is it was a great play by Garko, it could have gone either way.

 

The Crede call was blown, he was safe.

 

The O. Cabrera call was correct. It was a boner by O.

[Y2HH]

I think the failure of the OC play was that although he reached up on the slide which WOULD be interfearance, that there was no play.

 

You shouldn't be called on interfearance on a NON play. Ever. It's no different than the batter not moving out of the way on a NON-stolen base attempt and being called on interfearance because the catcher can't throw the ball to 2nd, even though he wasn't going to throw the ball to second. Watch the replay, he wasn't even going to throw it and it's pretty clear he wasn't going to throw it.

 

Still a stupid move by OC, but that doesn't change the fact there was no play to be interfeared with.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Y2HH

[HuskyCaucasian]

I got a reply this morning...

Thanks, Jason.

 

Can you please provide uas with specifics as to which plays, and when they occurred (top or bottm of inning and which)?

That way we can be sure to address your concerns accurately.

 

Mike Port

[StrangeSox]

I got a reply this morning...

Sending a letter isn't going to accomplish anything!!!!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Sending a letter isn't going to accomplish anything!!!!

I am actually shocked. I though they would brush me off and say something like "we appreciate your input and will look into it further". But he actually asked for more detail!

[Texsox]

They all even out by the end of the season. I stopped losing sleep over it a long time ago. Players earning $15,000,000 per season makes errors. Managers make errors. GMs make errors. Umpires make errors. They are part of the game, and I actually think they add to the game, rather then have some computer somewhere making the calls.

[daa84]

haha i got the exact same reply...i almost can't believe they replied...

Edited April 1, 2008 by daa84