PDA

View Full Version : More terrible umpiring


downstairs
09-05-2010, 06:16 PM
Umps *end* the Twins/Rangers game on a bizarre interferrence call. Claim the Texas coach brushed up against the Texas runner. Bases loaded, Texas down two, top of the ninth, two outs.

Apparenly you can get an out at second on a double play without touching the bag, but if your fingernail accidentally touches a coach while running you lose the game.

Why the ump was even looking at the coach rather than the bag, where there could have been a close play, I don't know.

This junk has to stop. Umps are not supposed to be noticed.

21stcenturySox
09-05-2010, 06:21 PM
Was watching this game on MLB TV. Angel Marquez made the call. The replay showed he was not even watching Young and the coach when he made that call. This is Joe West's crew mucking up again.

:angry:

downstairs
09-05-2010, 06:46 PM
holy crap, youre right. Saw the replay. He WASN'T watching the coach, he was watching the bag (like I stated before: That's what hes supposed to do)

So he straight up made it up. It was merely a bizarre coincedence that the runner and coached ever so slightly may have touched. But he made it up.

I hate this new style of renegade umpiring. Umpring to be the story. It seriously used to be "a good umpiring job is one that goes unnoticed." MLB ought to enforce that. I don't care if they touched (unless the coach is intentionally slowing him down)... just don't call it. Ignore it. Pretend it didn't happen.

I'd seriously like this ump grilled on how he physically saw the play. Put an eye chart at the same angle and make him pass it.

johnny_mostil
09-05-2010, 07:00 PM
Doesn't matter.

Rule 7.09 (h) "It is interference by a batter or runner when - In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base."

ASSISTS.

Marquez blew the call six ways from Sunday.

hawkjt
09-05-2010, 07:17 PM
Doesn't matter.

Rule 7.09 (h) "It is interference by a batter or runner when - In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base."

ASSISTS.

Marquez blew the call six ways from Sunday.


Marquez is a bad ump. He has screwed us on some horrible calls before.
He saw this incidental contact out of the corner of his eye,and made a bad call...you better have real solid conclusive evidence to make a call like that and he decided to ''be famous'' and become an ''activist ump''.

Like Hawk says...no matter how long you watch this game,there is always something new...or a new way for the twins to get lucky or a new way for an ump to screw the Sox.

TDog
09-05-2010, 07:18 PM
The umpire made the right call. The Rangers could protest the interpretation of the call, i.e. the penalty, as the Royals did over the George Brett pine-tar incident, and they would lose that protest because the rule is clear enough. (As someone who advocated disenfranchising the Twins in the 1970s, I think it would be nice if there were a successful protest, but it would still do more than bring everyone back to Target Field with the Rangers hitting with two outs in the top of the ninth, bases loaded, down by a run.)

The Rangers screwed up. The Rangers lost Friday night because they had a runner thrown out at third with one out. They lost today because they had a runner who made contact with a coach after rounding third base.

The Twins might be fortunate if not lucky, although they made a couple of good plays to facilitate the Rangers baserunning mistakes. But the Rangers have themselves, not the umpires, to blame for being swept.

And that great bullpen got a save out of their top closer in their committee of closers without retiring a batter.

downstairs
09-05-2010, 07:23 PM
The umpire made the right call.

No he didn't. Look at the rule above. It requires:

The coach assisting the runner (in this case, stopping and getting back to the bag.)

The ump has a right to his judgement.

It is not a black and white rule like interferrence on a batted ball, or hit by pitch, where it is absolutely called on contact with the ball. The ball brushes the uniform ever so slightly is the same call as drilling a guy in the leg. Contact, no matter how slight, is contact. You get the base.

In this case, slight contact CAN and SHOULD be ignored. That's the "judgement" part. They put that word in many rules for a very, very specific reason.

Otherwise the rule would read "any contact at all with a runner is an automatic out".

Daver
09-05-2010, 07:29 PM
I suggest you file a complaint with the person that controls the umpires union.

downstairs
09-05-2010, 07:32 PM
I suggest you file a complaint with the person that controls the umpires union.

That'll obviously do nothing. Nor MLB themselves. I'm usually not over the top on umps, and generally ignore human error.

However with what we've seen this year, MLB ought to go dead-on zero tolerance with this stuff. Review everything, and reverse everything wrong. At least for a few months until umps "get it".

Bud should have been made aware of this, reviewed it, called Minny and said- reversed, get your butts out there and finish the game. And the ump called into a 6am meeting tomorrow in NY on his own dime.

stacksedwards
09-05-2010, 08:04 PM
When did Hawk get an account here?

TDog
09-05-2010, 08:42 PM
That'll obviously do nothing. Nor MLB themselves. I'm usually not over the top on umps, and generally ignore human error.

However with what we've seen this year, MLB ought to go dead-on zero tolerance with this stuff. Review everything, and reverse everything wrong. At least for a few months until umps "get it".

Bud should have been made aware of this, reviewed it, called Minny and said- reversed, get your butts out there and finish the game. And the ump called into a 6am meeting tomorrow in NY on his own dime.

Are you talking instant replay? Instant replay shows there was contact between the runner nad the coach before there was a play at third.

The runner screwed up.

Madscout
09-05-2010, 08:59 PM
Are you talking instant replay? Instant replay shows there was contact between the runner nad the coach before there was a play at third.

The runner screwed up.
Instant replay shows that Young is already stopping. Contact is incidental, and by no means ASSISTS the Young going back to the base. More BS from that stupid ass crew.

Domeshot17
09-05-2010, 09:05 PM
He touched the base coach, and it really doesn't matter, he was nailed on the throw to 3rd. Maybe the 3rd base coach should get out of the way next time.

TDog
09-05-2010, 09:08 PM
Instant replay shows that Young is already stopping. Contact is incidental, and by no means ASSISTS the Young going back to the base. More BS from that stupid ass crew.

The replay shows the contact happened before the runner reversed course and headed back to third where there was a play on him. The replay does not prove the contact was incidental.

The only way for the play to be overturned is for the Rangers to file a protest arguing the umpire misinterpreted the rule. As far as I know they haven't done that.

Ranger
09-05-2010, 09:10 PM
No he didn't. Look at the rule above. It requires:

The coach assisting the runner (in this case, stopping and getting back to the bag.)

The ump has a right to his judgement.

It is not a black and white rule like interferrence on a batted ball, or hit by pitch, where it is absolutely called on contact with the ball. The ball brushes the uniform ever so slightly is the same call as drilling a guy in the leg. Contact, no matter how slight, is contact. You get the base.

In this case, slight contact CAN and SHOULD be ignored. That's the "judgement" part. They put that word in many rules for a very, very specific reason.

Otherwise the rule would read "any contact at all with a runner is an automatic out".

Instant replay shows that Young is already stopping. Contact is incidental, and by no means ASSISTS the Young going back to the base. More BS from that stupid ass crew.

These are correct. The rule clearly states that the coach has to assist the runner in getting to a base. Accidentally brushing his hand after he's already stopped and turned back toward the bag is not "assistance".

Regardless, you just can't make a call like that to end a game in the middle of a pennant race unless it is absolutely blatant. If for any other reason than because it's almost like a "spirit of the game" sort of thing. Ending a potential pennant-affecting game on a technicality that nobody would've noticed if he hadn't made the call, is kind of ridiculous.

Rdy2PlayBall
09-05-2010, 09:12 PM
Regardless, you just can't make a call like that to end a game in the middle of a pennant race unless it is absolutely blatant. If for any other reason than because it's almost like a "spirit of the game" sort of thing. Ending a potential pennant-affecting game on a technicality that nobody would've noticed if he hadn't made the call, is kind of ridiculous.IMO, calls shouldn't be affected by whether a team is in a pennant race or not.

Domeshot17
09-05-2010, 09:12 PM
These are correct. The rule clearly states that the coach has to assist the runner in getting to a base. Bncidentally brushing his hand after he's already stopped and turned back toward the bag is not "assistance".

Regardless, you just can't make a call like that to end a game in the middle of a pennant race unless it is absolutely blatant. If for any other reason than because it's almost like a "spirit of the game" sort of thing. Ending a potential pennant-affecting game on a technicality that nobody would've noticed if he hadn't made the call, is kind of ridiculous.

I don't know, I agree, but it doesn't bother me because young was cooked on the throw anyway. I know it is in the principal, but to me, this is like an umpire who calls Infield fly, and the ball drifts into the OF, but the SS still makes the catch.

Madscout
09-05-2010, 09:27 PM
I don't know, I agree, but it doesn't bother me because young was cooked on the throw anyway. I know it is in the principal, but to me, this is like an umpire who calls Infield fly, and the ball drifts into the OF, but the SS still makes the catch.
I don't think he was out. You can't see it on the replay. The ump called him out for the contact, not for the tag. I'm sure, if he thought he was out on the tag, he would have just called him out via the tag. Not the case...

oeo
09-05-2010, 10:12 PM
I don't know, I agree, but it doesn't bother me because young was cooked on the throw anyway. I know it is in the principal, but to me, this is like an umpire who calls Infield fly, and the ball drifts into the OF, but the SS still makes the catch.

I've watched it about 10 times now, just to make sure, and he definitely looks safe. Marquez agrees, otherwise he would have called him out instead of saying he was out on interference.

hi im skot
09-06-2010, 12:00 AM
I don't know, I agree, but it doesn't bother me because young was cooked on the throw anyway. I know it is in the principal, but to me, this is like an umpire who calls Infield fly, and the ball drifts into the OF, but the SS still makes the catch.

Young was safe.

PeteWard
09-06-2010, 12:26 AM
Young was safe.

In post-game interviews, all Twins who spoke said he was safe.

The rule states that it must be assistance. Bad call--a complete misinterpretation-- and the Rangers should protest.

Having said that those bastards from Texas really let us down this weekend. Played flat as a pancake with that huge lead. Hopt the Sox catch Minn AND get a higher playoff seed than these bums.

FoulTerritory
09-06-2010, 12:36 AM
I'm confused about why some people have a problem with the contention that this was a bad call. If the rule says the coach must "assist" the runner for this rule to come into play, then it seems like a definite bad call.

That said, the twins are doing enough to grind out wins, regardless of this call.

But more so, the Sox are going to catch them, regardless. Just my feeling.

And keep in mind that we still have a "riot number,' thus, the Sox control their own destiny.

hawkjt
09-06-2010, 01:06 AM
There is nothing to be done now, it is done.
But, clearly, Marquez blew the call. He saw the incidental contact out of the corner of his eye only,with a bad angle to discern how incidental it was,and decided to make the call anyway,without real verification.

Fellow ump Tim Tsida(sp) said he had only seen that call once before in 20 some years of umping. If you are going to make a call that rare, you better be dams sure.

VMSNS
09-06-2010, 03:16 AM
...my god. Could the Twinkies get ANY luckier? RBI singles bouncing off catwalks. BS interference calls.

It's unreal how everything seems to go the right way for this team.

cards press box
09-06-2010, 06:33 AM
The contact was incidental and Young got back to third base. The call was flat out terrible and the Rangers should certainly protest.

And the Twins were flat out lucky, too. But luck can only get the Minnesotans so far. I remain convinced that the Twins, with their injured and spotty starting staff and overrated bullpen, still have one foot firmly planted on the proverbial banana peel.

dickallen15
09-06-2010, 08:19 AM
Its fairly apparent the umpires have it in for the White Sox. They really should either have some sort of summit meeting with the umpires to hopefully straighten all of this out or just forfeit the rest of the season. They get screwed every game they play, and now are getting screwed in games they aren't playing.

Dan H
09-06-2010, 09:08 AM
I usually don't like complaining about umpires. If you analyze every strike-ball call over a season like Hawk does, you'll go crazy. But there is no doubt that umpiring is not very good these days. Too many blown calls in tough situations are ruining things. In the midst of a tight division race, borderline calls like this shouldn't be made.

DrCrawdad
09-06-2010, 09:11 AM
Its fairly apparent the umpires have it in for the White Sox. They really should either have some sort of summit meeting with the umpires to hopefully straighten all of this out or just forfeit the rest of the season. They get screwed every game they play, and now are getting screwed in games they aren't playing.

I assume you are being sarcastic, correct? Either way, I do not agree with this sentiment.

That was a bad call though.

SCCWS
09-06-2010, 09:46 AM
But there is no doubt that umpiring is not very good these days. .

I think as a long time fan, umpires are much better today. Instant replay on close calls usually shows the majority of call are correct. Like in every sport the players are much more athletic which makes it harder to call. Years ago there was no instant replay from all these angles which we see today. Back in the 60-70's it seemed the umps were making calls with very little mobility. Many struggled to waddle out to their position. From there they swiveled more than moved around. Today's umps are much more mobile covering the field.

DirtySox
09-06-2010, 10:51 AM
Its fairly apparent the umpires have it in for the White Sox. They really should either have some sort of summit meeting with the umpires to hopefully straighten all of this out or just forfeit the rest of the season. They get screwed every game they play, and now are getting screwed in games they aren't playing.

:thumbsup:

spawn
09-06-2010, 10:59 AM
Having said that those bastards from Texas really let us down this weekend. Played flat as a pancake with that huge lead.
I really hate statements like this. It's not the Rangers' responsiblity to help the Sox out. I don't understand how that makes them bastards. If the White Sox had taken care of business when they played the Twinsand the Indians, they wouldn't be chasing the Twins.

DrCrawdad
09-06-2010, 11:22 AM
I really hate statements like this. It's not the Rangers' responsibility to help the Sox out. I don't understand how that makes them bastards. If the White Sox had taken care of business when they played the Twins and the Indians, they wouldn't be chasing the Twins.

That's so true.

Twins 5-10
Indians 7-8
Tigers 7-4
Royals 8-7

IF the Sox had even a .500 record against MN AND a winning record against CLE then the Twins are chasing the Sox. As it is with the lousy record against 3 of the 4 other teams in our division, it's amazing the Sox are even close.

EMachine10
09-06-2010, 11:39 AM
As much as I don't like the call, too many people are getting hung up on the "assisting" aspect of it. Who decides what assisting is? One could argue that accidental touching can change the momentum of a player enough to consider it an "assist." If you start allowing people to choose what an "assist" is, you'd have the same arguments that we're having now, about did the coach assist the runner. My interpretation of the rule is that any touch should be considered an assist.

Dumb rule? Maybe. Do I like it any more than you? No.

TDog
09-06-2010, 01:33 PM
As much as I don't like the call, too many people are getting hung up on the "assisting" aspect of it. Who decides what assisting is? One could argue that accidental touching can change the momentum of a player enough to consider it an "assist." If you start allowing people to choose what an "assist" is, you'd have the same arguments that we're having now, about did the coach assist the runner. My interpretation of the rule is that any touch should be considered an assist.

Dumb rule? Maybe. Do I like it any more than you? No.

The replay doesn't prove the touching was accidental, which isn't the issue. The replay doesn't prove the touching was incidental. The umpires' casebook doesn't even discuss or define mere incidental contact. This contact preceded the runner going back to third where there was a close play. It leaves it to the umpire to decide whether the contact had any effect on the play.

It was a lousy way to end a ballgame certainly. The Twins got lucky certainly. But the replay shows that the infraction occurred. The Rangers screwed up on the bases. If the third base coach avoids the runner, as he is supposed to (and it looks like he is doing just the opposite), maybe any contact is considered incidental. Maybe the Rangers win. Maybe the Rangers lose on the next pitch. Maybe the they take the lead and the Twins beat them in the bottom of the ninth. Maybe the game goes 20 innings.

But the bottom line is that Michael Young screwed up. He made contact with his coach just as Fred Merkle didn't touch second base in a pennant race 102 Septembers ago.

It's Dankerific
09-06-2010, 01:34 PM
It isnt really clear how that umpire could have SEEN the infraction thats barely viewable on replay.

DrCrawdad
09-06-2010, 03:14 PM
It isnt really clear how that umpire could have SEEN the infraction thats barely viewable on replay.

Where is the Twins dugout? 1st base side? 3rd base side?

Ranger
09-06-2010, 08:07 PM
IMO, calls shouldn't be affected by whether a team is in a pennant race or not.

Well, of course not, but an umpire should especially not make a call like that to end a game that has a direct effect on the pennant race.

I consider it in the same sort of spirit as not calling ticky-tack fouls in the final seconds of a close basketball game.

You have to have a lot of guts, or be really stupid, to end a game like that on a call like that.

I don't know, I agree, but it doesn't bother me because young was cooked on the throw anyway. I know it is in the principal, but to me, this is like an umpire who calls Infield fly, and the ball drifts into the OF, but the SS still makes the catch.

It is still actually an infield fly even if the infielder drifts into the outfield to catch it, but they may not call it if his back is to the plate when he makes the catch. The umpire has to signal for infield fly when the ball is at it's apex.

Nellie_Fox
09-07-2010, 12:32 AM
Where is the Twins dugout? 1st base side? 3rd base side?First-base side.

Madscout
09-07-2010, 12:37 AM
I was listening to the BoSawks game, and heard the broadcast team talk about the call. The color man asked, "Did the call have to be made."

PBP was like, "According to the rule book, no."

The ump didn't have to end the game that mattered on a call that wasn't out because of put out, or strike out.

StillMissOzzie
09-07-2010, 12:44 AM
I really hate statements like this. It's not the Rangers' responsiblity to help the Sox out. I don't understand how that makes them bastards. If the White Sox had taken care of business when they played the Twinsand the Indians, they wouldn't be chasing the Twins.

No, but the Rangers could help out the Rangers by getting off their dead asses. The Rangers don't owe the Sox a thing, but as a division leader, they are still playing for home field advantage. particularly when they are playing another division leader.

SMO
:gulp:

TDog
09-08-2010, 12:07 AM
I knew I had seen this happen before.

I was reminded today that in the bottom of the 23rd inning of this game (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA198405080.shtml), the White Sox third base coach made contact with a base runner who was called out. Dave Stegman was on first. Tom Paciorek singled to center and should have put runners on first and third with one out. Vance law Followed with a single that would have ended the game.

As it turned out, Tom Paciorek nearly got another at bat in the game. He was on deck when Harold Baines hit the home run to end the game. And Paciorek missed an opportunity for a six-hit game. He didn't start the game. He replaced Ron Kittle in the fourth inning. But he went 5 for 9.

This aspect of the 25-inning game should have been included in the strange White Sox occurrences thread.

DrCrawdad
09-08-2010, 12:46 AM
I knew I had seen this happen before.

I was reminded today that in the bottom of the 23rd inning of this game (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA198405080.shtml), the White Sox third base coach made contact with a base runner who was called out. Dave Stegman was on first. Tom Paciorek singled to center and should have put runners on first and third with one out. Vance law Followed with a single that would have ended the game.

As it turned out, Tom Paciorek nearly got another at bat in the game. He was on deck when Harold Baines hit the home run to end the game. And Paciorek missed an opportunity for a six-hit game. He didn't start the game. He replaced Ron Kittle in the fourth inning. But he went 5 for 9.

This aspect of the 25-inning game should have been included in the strange White Sox occurrences thread.

I looked up the Trib's recap of the game by Mike Kiley and I couldn't find any mention of the play. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just surprising that it didn't get mentioned in the game recap. You'd think that such an odd play, something that happens so rarely would garner a mention.

#1swisher
09-08-2010, 02:06 PM
While this may not be bad umpiring, just a heads up to hecklers:tongue:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AhTDL4AE_Dv19gC4FK6kmmw5nYcB?slug=ap-cardinals-brewers-ejections

JermaineDye05
09-08-2010, 02:13 PM
While this may not be bad umpiring, just a heads up to hecklers:tongue:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AhTDL4AE_Dv19gC4FK6kmmw5nYcB?slug=ap-cardinals-brewers-ejections

Yadier should go to that guy's work and heckle him.

Just make sure the guy doesn't run out and lose his pinky toe to a street sweeper.