PDA

View Full Version : Pirates file protest



Brutus
07-27-2011, 05:22 PM
The Pirates filed a protest with Major League Baseball over the 'controversial' ending to the 19-inning game in Atlanta last night.

For those that didn't see or hear about it, a ball was hit to third with one out and a runner at third. The Pirates went home on the play and the catcher tried a swipe tag of the runner. The umpire called the runner safe for the winning run, believing the tag was missed completely.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6808357/pittsburgh-pirates-file-complaint-umpire-jerry-meals-call-19-inning-loss

Personally, I have been having a hard time to get outraged about this one. I've watched this thing a half-dozen times and there is no point in the replays I've seen where I can definitively make out the glove coming in contact with the runner. I think the right call was made, personally.

The best vantage point of the above video is pausing it at 36 seconds in and going forward or back a frame. You can see the shadows of the glove against the runner's thighs, but you can't tell for certain if the glove is coming in contact with the knee. I could see an argument made for it... but it's not conclusive.

At very least, I don't think it's as obvious as the Pirates are making it sound.

fearofpopvol1
07-27-2011, 05:27 PM
If Bud wouldn't overturn a no-hitter that was incorrectly called on the last play of the game, I seriously doubt he's going to overturn this. Especially with the Pirates being in the race with the Brewers.

reds1869
07-27-2011, 05:29 PM
MLB has stated that the call was missed; it says as much in the article you linked to. MLB absolutely, positively needs to come into the 21st--heck, the 20th--Century and adopt instant replay on a wider scale. The arguments about "the human element" and "slowing down the game" are tired. On most issues I'm something of a purist, but this is not one of them. We need to make use of the technology at our disposal. If Pittsburgh misses the playoffs by one game it will leave a bitter taste.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 05:32 PM
MLB has stated that the call was missed; it says as much in the article you linked to. MLB absolutely, positively needs to come into the 21st--heck, the 20th--Century and adopt instant replay on a wider scale. The arguments about "the human element" and "slowing down the game" are tired. On most issues I'm something of a purist, but this is not one of them. We need to make use of the technology at our disposal. If Pittsburgh misses the playoffs by one game it will leave a bitter taste.

I would like to see what they're basing that position off of. Again, I watched that replay half a dozen times and I cannot for the life of me come to any definitive conclusion.

If a replay can be seen by millions and be torn as to whether something did or did not occur, then the umpire didn't make a terrible call.

Put it this way: if we had replay and the NFL standard of 'convincing evidence' were used, I don't think that call should be overturned.

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 05:37 PM
The ump blew the call. If the mitt is down and it reasonably looks like the tag was made then you bang it out. On a play like that you don't get ticky tacky about whether the tag was missed by an inch or two .

The ump knew he blew it and I can tell by his partners body language they knew he blew it to.

After 19 innings I think the ump was ready to go home.

westofyou
07-27-2011, 05:37 PM
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/7/27/2296871/braves-pirates-umpire-jerry-meals


I'm sorry, but I still have not seen a conclusive replay. I've read a lot of Tweets from people claiming the replays or screen-captures are conclusive, but I'm looking at the same things and I'm just not seeing it. I'm not seeing a for sure in any of them.

Yes, the throw beat Lugo by 10 feet and that's usually an automatic out. And hey, don't we get pissed off at umpires who assume outs, just because the throw's there in plenty of time? I do.

It might not be likely, but it's possible that Jerry Meals saw something, something real, that none of the cameras were able to see. If there was an eighth of an inch between Michael McKenry's mitt and Julio Lugo's pants, would the cameras have caught that gap? Not from what I've been able to tell; none of the cameras were placed in just the right place to see that gap, if there was one.

PuffyPig
07-27-2011, 05:38 PM
I think the wrong call was made, but I'm not 100% certain. I can't see the tag for sure.

The protest is a waste of time even if the replay definitively shows he was tagged a thousand times.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 05:39 PM
The ump blew the call. If the mitt is down and it reasonably looks like the tag was made then you bang it out. On a play like that you don't get ticky tacky about whether the tag was missed by an inch or two .

The ump knew he blew it and I can tell by his partners body language they knew he blew it to.

I think the ump was ready to go home.

Respectfully George, I disagree wholeheartedly. The very first thing I learned when I started umpiring: don't assume anything. If you don't see the tag, then you can't call someone out.

Also... how the umpire reacted is irrelevant. You know as well as anyone that sometimes you start replaying a play over in your mind. It doesn't mean that you missed it, but it's easy to question yourself, especially on a close call.

It does matter if he missed by an inch or two. Because if he did, the runner is safe and should be called safe.

reds1869
07-27-2011, 05:39 PM
I would like to see what they're basing that position off of. Again, I watched that replay half a dozen times and I cannot for the life of me come to any definitive conclusion.

If a replay can be seen by millions and be torn as to whether something did or did not occur, then the umpire didn't make a terrible call.

Put it this way: if we had replay and the NFL standard of 'convincing evidence' were used, I don't think that call should be overturned.

Angles can play tricks, but this one looks pretty conclusive. At worst the throw beat the runner by so much that 99% of the time the call will be an out.

http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/meals-blown-call.jpg?w=320

Brutus
07-27-2011, 05:41 PM
Angles can play tricks, but this one looks pretty conclusive. At worst the throw beat the runner by so much that 99% of the time the call will be an out.

http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/meals-blown-call.jpg?w=320

I don't think that's conclusive. It appears a tag was made. But appearing to be made and being conclusive... well there's a bridge between the two and I don't think we've crossed it :)

kbrake
07-27-2011, 05:45 PM
Instant replay is needed badly. Even if this wouldn't have been overturned it still should be a play that is reviewed.

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 05:47 PM
Respectfully George, I disagree wholeheartedly. The very first thing I learned when I started umpiring: don't assume anything. If you don't see the tag, then you can't call someone out.

Also... how the umpire reacted is irrelevant. You know as well as anyone that sometimes you start replaying a play over in your mind. It doesn't mean that you missed it, but it's easy to question yourself, especially on a close call.

It does matter if he missed by an inch or two. Because if he did, the runner is safe and should be called safe.

The umpire is not going to see if a catcher missed the runner by an inch or so. The play is moving way to fast to notice if the tag was missed by an inch. In that situation where the runner is out by ten feet and unless it is painfully obvious the tag was missed you give the benefit of the doubt to the fielder and bang em out.

How the umpire reacted is just my gut on his body language. I have seen enough umpires miss calls and from my perspective he knew he missed the call. If he was positive he made the right call he would not of looked so meek. His partners had their heads down to with a look like they were somewhat embarrased on the call. Just my gut feeling though on their body language.

AtomicDumpling
07-27-2011, 05:48 PM
The guy was out. That is an easy call.

The worst feeling in sports is knowing you lost a game on a blown call. It alienates fans and costs the league money. If the league has the technological ability to fix these mistakes they should do it.

Blitz Dorsey
07-27-2011, 05:56 PM
Brutus, no way Joe Torre and the umpire himself come out today and say "The call was blown" if the right call was made. Baseball loves to protect their umpires. So, even if there was a chance the umpire was right, no way Torre would have come out and made the statement he did. Obviously MLB saw some camera angles (or pictures) that proved Lugo was tagged by McKenry. Otherwise, no way they would come out and basically throw one of their umpires under the bus.

FlightRick
07-27-2011, 06:00 PM
I was going to start a thread on this earlier, when I saw that the Pirates filed some kind of paperwork. It wasn't an official protest, and even the Pirates GM (or president or whoever) that was quoted in the Yahoo version of the article I read didn't seem to exactly know why he was filing it, because he knew the ump was trying to get the call right and that nothing would be over-turned.

So what, exactly, was the point of filing the complaint? So that everybody would quit enjoying your feel good story of underdoggery because you're now going out of your way to be complainers?

So that part of the story confused me, and I'm curious to know what others think the Pirates are hoping to accomplish here. What doesn't confuse me is the fact that the guy was out and the ump blew the call. If you're on the other side of the debate ("it certainly looks like he was tagged, and the circumstantial evidence of the runner acting like he was tagged until the ump called him safe also points to the tag being made, but looks can be deceiving and I see no ironclad evidence"), would it be fair to say the guy was "safe" in the same way Casey Anthony was "innocent"?

If so, I'll respectfully disagree, as there is a difference between finding a reason to doubt, and having reasonable doubt....


Rick

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 06:04 PM
I was going to start a thread on this earlier, when I saw that the Pirates filed some kind of paperwork. It wasn't an official protest, and even the Pirates GM (or president or whoever) that was quoted in the Yahoo version of the article I read didn't seem to exactly know why he was filing it, because he knew the ump was trying to get the call right and that nothing would be over-turned.

So what, exactly, was the point of filing the complaint? So that everybody would quit enjoying your feel good story of underdoggery because you're now going out of your way to be complainers?

So that part of the story confused me, and I'm curious to know what others think the Pirates are hoping to accomplish here. What doesn't confuse me is the fact that the guy was out and the ump blew the call. If you're on the other side of the debate ("it certainly looks like he was tagged, and the circumstantial evidence of the runner acting like he was tagged until the ump called him safe also points to the tag being made, but looks can be deceiving and I see no ironclad evidence"), would it be fair to say the guy was "safe" in the same way Casey Anthony was "innocent"?

If so, I'll respectfully disagree, as there is a difference between finding a reason to doubt, and having reasonable doubt....


Rick

Good point.

On occasion when I have no idea if a tag was made, I look at the runner to see how he reacts. Not always but alot of times the runner or even the fielders reaction can tell me what happened.

AtomicDumpling
07-27-2011, 06:14 PM
On the replay, you could read McKenry’s lips: “I did too tag him.” Though Meals’ back was turned, McKenry must’ve retorted to a damning phrase the umpire used to explain: “You didn’t tag him.”

Except he did. All different angles, the TV broadcast showed, replaying them just to make sure: the right, the left, high in the air and low on the ground. Each showed the same: McKenry’s glove swiped Lugo’s leg. He was out, a definitive yes. Already Meals had spent the night making a mockery of the strike zone, inflaming the Braves so much that outfielder Nate McLouth(notes) and manager Fredi Gonzalez found themselves ejected. This was the rotten cherry atop the moldy cake.

You can see several replay angles and a long article about the play here:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_pirates_braves_blown_call_replay_072711

RedsManRick
07-27-2011, 06:15 PM
Tango brought up an interesting point at his blog: what's the default call?

Option 1: We give the base-runner the benefit of the doubt. Assuming he touches the base, he is safe unless we can prove he was tagged?

Option 2: Preponderance of the evidence. The ball was there in plenty of time, the tag was attempted and was very close? Odds are, in a play like that, the guy is out.

Frankly, I think we're conflating two factors in getting upset:
1) How important was the call to the outcome of the game?
2) How badly was the call blown? (how obviously wrong?)

How upset we get should be a factor of these two things multiplied. Clearly, the call was extremely important. No debating that. But was the call badly blown? I find that hard to believe. Sure, he should have been out if the tag were properly applied. But from all of the video evidence I've seen, we can't tell. The path of the glove wasn't visibly effected. The pant leg wasn't noticeably moved. Maybe he clipped him. Maybe not. All I saw is the glove pass very closely. I would have probably called him out -- but I don't know what people are seeing when they say the evidence is incontrovertible.

Lugo's reaction was based on what he expected the call to be, which is a function partly of being beaten badly by the throw. It certainly doesn't mean he was tagged - just that he assumed the ump would call him out.

Blitz Dorsey
07-27-2011, 06:17 PM
I was going to start a thread on this earlier, when I saw that the Pirates filed some kind of paperwork. It wasn't an official protest, and even the Pirates GM (or president or whoever) that was quoted in the Yahoo version of the article I read didn't seem to exactly know why he was filing it, because he knew the ump was trying to get the call right and that nothing would be over-turned.

So what, exactly, was the point of filing the complaint? So that everybody would quit enjoying your feel good story of underdoggery because you're now going out of your way to be complainers?

So that part of the story confused me, and I'm curious to know what others think the Pirates are hoping to accomplish here. What doesn't confuse me is the fact that the guy was out and the ump blew the call. If you're on the other side of the debate ("it certainly looks like he was tagged, and the circumstantial evidence of the runner acting like he was tagged until the ump called him safe also points to the tag being made, but looks can be deceiving and I see no ironclad evidence"), would it be fair to say the guy was "safe" in the same way Casey Anthony was "innocent"?

If so, I'll respectfully disagree, as there is a difference between finding a reason to doubt, and having reasonable doubt....


Rick

Thankfully the Casey Anthony jury is not running Major League Baseball. Then again, they can't be that much dumber than Bud Selig.

klw
07-27-2011, 07:12 PM
The umpire admitted after the game that he may have missed the call. He was professional enough to stay around, review the highlight and meet with the media.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110727&content_id=22363652&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb


"I saw the tag, but he looked like he oléd him and I called him safe for that," Meals said. "I looked at the replays and it appeared he might have got him on the shin area. I'm guessing he might have got him, but when I was out there when it happened, I didn't see a tag.

"I just saw the glove sweep up. I didn't see the glove hit his leg."

oh and I loved the Pirates tv announcers with their call. Even Atlanta's radio guys were pretty surprised.

Homer Bailey
07-27-2011, 07:15 PM
If you can watch the slow mo replay and conclude definitively that he was out, you are a liar.

If you say, I think there's about a 75% chance he was out based on the replay, I can understand that. The outrage over this call is way more outrageous than the call. It was an incredibly close call, that just doesn't look like a close call to the naked eye.

Slyder
07-27-2011, 07:23 PM
Personally, I have been having a hard time to get outraged about this one. I've watched this thing a half-dozen times and there is no point in the replays I've seen where I can definitively make out the glove coming in contact with the runner. I think the right call was made, personally.

The best vantage point of the above video is pausing it at 36 seconds in and going forward or back a frame. You can see the shadows of the glove against the runner's thighs, but you can't tell for certain if the glove is coming in contact with the knee. I could see an argument made for it... but it's not conclusive.

At very least, I don't think it's as obvious as the Pirates are making it sound.

As a soccer referee I let the players tell me all I need to know. Look at the runners body language. He was toast from the word go. He was the most shocked person in the world when the umpire called him safe.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 07:25 PM
As a soccer referee I let the players tell me all I need to know. Look at the runners body language. He was toast from the word go. He was the most shocked person in the world when the umpire called him safe.

As mentioned, that doesn't mean anything. He could have been shocked he was called out, but it's just as easily because, right or wrong, 90% of the time a guy is called out when the ball beats the throw like that. It doesn't me he thought he was tagged, it just means he may not have expected to be called out.

hebroncougar
07-27-2011, 07:26 PM
As mentioned, that doesn't mean anything. He could have been shocked he was called out, but it's just as easily because, right or wrong, 90% of the time a guy is called out when the ball beats the throw like that. It doesn't me he thought he was tagged, it just means he may not have expected to be called out.

Yes it does. The body language tells you quite a bit. He was out. Definitively. And I'm not a liar.

Rojo
07-27-2011, 07:26 PM
It was an incredibly close call, that just doesn't look like a close call to the naked eye.

As opposed to an electron microscope? Looks like it would be tricky to make that swipe and not tag the runner, like a stuntman throwing a fake punch.

I don't understand the over-thinking it. He was out.

kaldaniels
07-27-2011, 07:28 PM
So Brutus, anytime the play shifts where the umpire can't see the tag applied, the runner should be called safe? Surely you can budge alittle here.

Caveman Techie
07-27-2011, 07:34 PM
Brutus, I don't see how you can say the right call was made. The runner's slide came up short and he never touched the base before he was tagged out, he was out by a mile. That umpire made a horrible call. Now, with that said I don't see MLB doing anything about it, except maybe reviewing the rules to possibly allow an Instant Replay or something.

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 07:37 PM
If you can watch the slow mo replay and conclude definitively that he was safe, you are a liar.

.

I fixed it for you.



Again, in that situation where the runner is out by ten feet. Unless a tag is obviously missed then the runner is out.

RedsManRick
07-27-2011, 07:39 PM
Yes it does. The body language tells you quite a bit. He was out. Definitively. And I'm not a liar.

Yeah, it does tell you a bit. It tells you that he thought he'd be called out. It doesn't tell you that the glove contacted his leg.

Big Klu
07-27-2011, 07:40 PM
I was always under the impression that a protest could be filed only if it involved a rules interpretation dispute, such as the Royals' successful protest in the George Brett pine tar incident. A bad call by an umpire is a judgment call, and not a misinterpretation of the rules.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 07:41 PM
So Brutus, anytime the play shifts where the umpire can't see the tag applied, the runner should be called safe? Surely you can budge alittle here.

The onus of an empire is to call someone out when they see a runner tagged while off his base. If an umpire cannot determine a tag was made, I think it's irresponsible to "guess" and make a call when the tag is not seen. Conceptually, I just don't think that's a position that should be budged on.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 07:42 PM
I fixed it for you.



Again, in that situation where the runner is out by ten feet. Unless a tag is obviously missed then the runner is out.

Except that's not the rule. The rule is a runner is out when he's "tagged." The rule does not say a runner is out when "a tag is not obviously missed."

kaldaniels
07-27-2011, 07:46 PM
Let me know where you are umpiring next Brutus, I'll be betting on the over.

Umpiring is part art and part by-the-book. If you feel otherwise that is a broader argument than the play discussed.

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 07:47 PM
The onus of an empire is to call someone out when they see a runner tagged while off his base. If an umpire cannot determine a tag was made, I think it's irresponsible to "guess" and make a call when the tag is not seen. Conceptually, I just don't think that's a position that should be budged on.

It happens all the time especially in 2 man or 3 man systems where you cannot possibly see all angles.

For example if the HP umpire is coming up to cover third on a play and the slide is to the OF side of the bag there is little chance you will see the tag. More often or not the fielders body will block the tag. However you can make an educated assumption that if the mitt was down before the runner slid into the bag then he is out even though you didn't see the exact tag.

Third base coaches who truly understand the game will let it go if a play like that happened and the tag was missed by but a few inches.

kaldaniels
07-27-2011, 07:49 PM
It happens all the time especially in 2 man or 3 man systems where you cannot possibly see all angles.

For example if the HP umpire is coming up to cover third on a play and the slide is to the OF side of the bag there is little chance you will see the tag. More often or not the fielders body will block the tag. However you can make an educated assumption that if the mitt was down before the runner slid into the bag then he is out even though you didn't see the exact tag.

Third base coaches who truly understand the game will let it go if a play like that happened and the tag was missed by but a few inches.

Alway enjoy your umpiring insights George. :thumbup:

Brutus
07-27-2011, 07:49 PM
Let me know where you are umpiring next Brutus, I'll be betting on the over.

Umpiring is part art and part by-the-book. If you feel otherwise that is a broader argument than the play discussed.

I think you're overstating the implications of my position.

If an umpire is in the correct position to make a call, he's going to have a vantage point to see whether a tag was made 90% of the time. In the case of the tag (or non-tag) last night, the umpire was in the position, but it happened so quickly -- combined with the fact it barely brushed the players leg if it was in fact applied -- it would not be unreasonable for that kind of play to be missed.

Still, as I said, if the umpire is in the right position, he'll be able to see whether a tag is applied probably 90% of the time. So I don't think it's illogical to not guess in the other 10% and rule someone safe. After all, if a tag was applied, typically it wasn't authoritatively or the umpire probably wouldn't have missed it to begin with.

Caveman Techie
07-27-2011, 07:51 PM
Not authoritatively? The ball beat him there by a mile and there was a body on body collision, the catcher couldn't help but apply a tag.

kaldaniels
07-27-2011, 07:53 PM
I think you're overstating the implications of my position.

If an umpire is in the correct position to make a call, he's going to have a vantage point to see whether a tag was made 90% of the time. In the case of the tag (or non-tag) last night, the umpire was in the position, but it happened so quickly -- combined with the fact it barely brushed the players leg if it was in fact applied -- it would not be unreasonable for that kind of play to be missed.

Still, as I said, if the umpire is in the right position, he'll be able to see whether a tag is applied probably 90% of the time. So I don't think it's illogical to not guess in the other 10% and rule someone safe. After all, if a tag was applied, typically it wasn't authoritatively or the umpire probably wouldn't have missed it to begin with.

So in the 10 percent of plays where the tag is unable to be seen, safe is the call?

Brutus
07-27-2011, 07:53 PM
It happens all the time especially in 2 man or 3 man systems where you cannot possibly see all angles.

For example if the HP umpire is coming up to cover third on a play and the slide is to the OF side of the bag there is little chance you will see the tag. More often or not the fielders body will block the tag. However you can make an educated assumption that if the mitt was down before the runner slid into the bag then he is out even though you didn't see the exact tag.

Third base coaches who truly understand the game will let it go if a play like that happened and the tag was missed by but a few inches.

We're not talking about a 2 or 3-man system here. We're talking about a 4-man crew.

If there's a play where an umpire didn't have an angle, unfortunately there's no choice but to make an educated guess. But that's not usually the case, and it especially wasn't the case last night. Last night the umpire was where he needed to be and had a good vantage point. He simply didn't see any contact on the swipe. He shouldn't guess there to be a tag in that situation if he didn't see it.

Patrick Bateman
07-27-2011, 07:55 PM
I think in a play like that, from the ump's angle, he likely could not go defnitively either way. In that case, it's probably more responsible to call the runner out because the throw was so far in advance, and in almost all likelihood was tagged out. Either way it's a guess, but this favours the odds much much better.

But I can see both sides, not a disgusting call deserving of outrage. If the ump really thought he missed it, and felt like he had a good angle, then he was right to call it the way he did. If we can't tell definitively by that many replays, it's hardly fair to expext the ump get it right the first time in real time speed.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 07:55 PM
Not authoritatively? The ball beat him there by a mile and there was a body on body collision, the catcher couldn't help but apply a tag.

The ball could have beat him by five miles. But if there was a tag, and it's debatable as to whether there was, at very most it was only by the very tip of the glove. That's hardly authoritatively or definitively.

hebroncougar
07-27-2011, 07:56 PM
Yeah, it does tell you a bit. It tells you that he thought he'd be called out. It doesn't tell you that the glove contacted his leg.

Because, if the tag was missed, he would have thought the same thing? Anytime a tag is missed, the base runner has a reaction. Lugo knew, not thought, but KNEW, he was out, because he was TAGGED out.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 07:57 PM
So in the 10 percent of plays where the tag is unable to be seen, safe is the call?

If an umpire is in position and could not make out a tag being made, yes. I believe an umpire should not guess if he could clearly see all the actions being made (i.e. an attempt at a tag and the body parts where the tag was attempted to be applied).

If the attempt is partially instructed, I think that's a little bit different situation. And that's where I'll agree with George in that smaller crews, you get stuck in a rotation where the runner's back is turned to you so you're not going to see the entire play.

But that wasn't the case here.

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 07:59 PM
Except that's not the rule. The rule is a runner is out when he's "tagged." The rule does not say a runner is out when "a tag is not obviously missed."

The rules also state the base must be tagged for a runner to be out for a force.

Tell me how many times second base is not tagged by a fielder starting a double play?

Baseball just has certain rules that are not always followed exactly by the book.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 08:01 PM
The rules also state the base must be tagged for a runner to be out for a force.

Tell me how many times second base is not tagged by a fielder starting a double play?

Baseball just has certain rules that are not always followed exactly by the book.

A rule is a rule. Whether it's always enforced correctly is not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The issue is not whether they're always followed exactly by the book. The issue is whether they should be followed exactly by the book.

kaldaniels
07-27-2011, 08:02 PM
I think in a play like that, from the ump's angle, he likely could not go defnitively either way. In that case, it's probably more responsible to call the runner out because the throw was so far in advance, and in almost all likelihood was tagged out. Either way it's a guess, but this favours the odds much much better.

But I can see both sides, not a disgusting call deserving of outrage. If the ump really thought he missed it, and felt like he had a good angle, then he was right to call it the way he did. If we can't tell definitively by that many replays, it's hardly fair to expext the ump get it right the first time in real time speed.

BTW the Cards don't even have PJ Walters anymore. :laugh:

RBA
07-27-2011, 08:04 PM
I didn't see the tag get down. So I must not be a liar. ;)

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 08:05 PM
A rule is a rule. Whether it's always enforced correctly is not relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The issue is not whether they're always followed exactly by the book. The issue is whether they should be followed exactly by the book.

So you have a problem when umpires give an out on the play at second to start a double play if the fielder does not touch the bag?

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 08:10 PM
"Unfortunately, it appears that the call was missed, as Jerry Meals acknowledged after the game," Torre said in a statement".

"I've spoken with Jerry, who is a hard-working, respected umpire, and no one feels worse than him. We know that this is not a product of a lack of effort."

http://news.yahoo.com/mlb-admits-umpire-botched-19th-inning-call-220508996.html

Brutus
07-27-2011, 08:14 PM
So you have a problem when umpires give an out on the play at second to start a double play if the fielder does not touch the bag?

Why wouldn't I have a problem with that? Does it happen? Sure. But those are blown calls.

I'm not sure the point you're making here, honestly.

An umpire's job is to enforce the rules as best he can. Not guess, not speculate, but to the best of his judgment, make the proper call by the rulebook. Unfortunately, judgment calls are just that and the nature of the job requires they be made. But if an umpire is in a good position to see a play and he did not see a tag applied, I just don't think an out call should be made.

Surely somewhere along the line as an umpire you were trained not to assume a call because the ball beat the runner, right? Every class/seminar/school I attended in my umpiring days... that was a focal point of instruction.

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 08:23 PM
Why wouldn't I have a problem with that? Does it happen? Sure. But those are blown calls.

I'm not sure the point you're making here, honestly.

An umpire's job is to enforce the rules as best he can. Not guess, not speculate, but to the best of his judgment, make the proper call by the rulebook. Unfortunately, judgment calls are just that and the nature of the job requires they be made. But if an umpire is in a good position to see a play and he did not see a tag applied, I just don't think an out call should be made.

Surely somewhere along the line as an umpire you were trained not to assume a call because the ball beat the runner, right? Every class/seminar/school I attended in my umpiring days... that was a focal point of instruction.

Umpires give middle infielder the out call quite often if they do not touch second base to start a double play. It is one of those unwritten rules that if the middle infielder is in the vicinity of the bag and a throw does not take him off the bag then the out will be called at second even if the base was tagged or not.

Kinda like the Pirates play at the plate. If the mitt was down in time to tag the runner then regardless if the tag was missed by an inch or so the runner is still out. It is just another one of those unwritten rules.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 08:25 PM
Umpires give middle infielder the out call quite often if they do not touch second base to start a double play. It is one of those unwritten rules that if the middle infielder is in the vicinity of the bag and a throw does not take him off the bag then the out will be called at second even if the base was tagged or not.

Kinda like the Pirates play at the plate. If the mitt was down in time to tag the runner then regardless if the tag was missed by an inch or so the runner is still out. It is just another one of those unwritten rules.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it shouldn't happen. I don't care for unwritten rules. I care about enforcing the written rules.

Also I don't think it's an unwritten rule. It just is done more out of habit than any unwritten rule.

mbgrayson
07-27-2011, 08:26 PM
I thought he was clearly out, and it was not even close. Terrible call.

What I don't understand is why the umpires couldn't get together and confer. Then they can come back and change the call, if they wanted to. True, they don't get instant replay in this case, but that could have fixed the mistake.

I don't blame the Pirates for being mad. They were robbed. This was a 19 inning game, in which both sides played their hearts out. As we all know, the Pirates are fighting to win a division for the first time in recent memory.

I think they filed their (futile) protest just to show the fans that they weren't going to take this lying down.

kaldaniels
07-27-2011, 08:26 PM
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it shouldn't happen. I don't care for unwritten rules. I care about enforcing the written rules.

Also I don't think it's an unwritten rule. It just is done more out of habit than any unwritten rule.

I think it is done because if an umpire made the fielder touch the base everytime, the umpire would be lucky to get out of rookie ball. This is a "don't hate the player, hate the game" deal.

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 08:36 PM
I thought he was clearly out, and it was not even close. Terrible call.

What I don't understand is why the umpires couldn't get together and confer. Then they can come back and change the call, if they wanted to. True, they don't get instant replay in this case, but that could have fixed the mistake.

I don't blame the Pirates for being mad. They were robbed. This was a 19 inning game, in which both sides played their hearts out. As we all know, the Pirates are fighting to win a division for the first time in recent memory.

I think they filed their (futile) protest just to show the fans that they weren't going to take this lying down.

Because the umpire that made the call was a couple feet away from the play and his partners were well over 90 feet away. No umpire is going to overrule another umpire when they are over 90 feet away.

I think another thing to factor in here was Meals was having a bad day. He earlier dumped the Braves manager over balls and strikes and a long 19 inning game is the last thing you want when having a bad day. I think he was just motivated to get out of there and end the lousy game he was having.

IslandRed
07-27-2011, 08:38 PM
But if an umpire is in a good position to see a play and he did not see a tag applied, I just don't think an out call should be made.

I think there are three tiers here:

1. I didn't see it
2. I saw it, but I'm not sure what I saw
3. I saw it and I'm certain of what I saw

I think last night's call was clearly in category two. Now, if you're adopting the "runner is safe unless 100% certain the runner is out" method, then yes, the call should be safe for anything in categories one and two.

But I think there's a common-sense factor at work here -- when the throw beats the runner by that much, a tag is only going to be outright missed (not counting drops etc.) a very small percentage of the time. If you're always going to call safe when you're not sure, even in situations where the probability leans strongly toward out, you're probably going to blow more of those calls than an ump whose default call in category two is probability-based.

All of which reminds me that I'm glad I'm not an umpire.

*BaseClogger*
07-27-2011, 09:20 PM
You would have made one hell of a hall monitor, Brutus! :D

AtomicDumpling
07-27-2011, 10:00 PM
I thought he was clearly out, and it was not even close. Terrible call.

What I don't understand is why the umpires couldn't get together and confer. Then they can come back and change the call, if they wanted to. True, they don't get instant replay in this case, but that could have fixed the mistake.

I don't blame the Pirates for being mad. They were robbed. This was a 19 inning game, in which both sides played their hearts out. As we all know, the Pirates are fighting to win a division for the first time in recent memory.

I think they filed their (futile) protest just to show the fans that they weren't going to take this lying down.

I agree with mbgrayson 100%. One of the worst calls I have ever seen. This one will be in the all-time highlight reels for many years to come.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 10:53 PM
I agree with mbgrayson 100%. One of the worst calls I have ever seen. This one will be in the all-time highlight reels for many years to come.

How? It can't even be made out that a tag was clearly made...

ESPN's sportsnation poll had, last I checked, over 35% of some 10,000 respondents saying they didn't think Lugo was tagged or couldn't tell.

That's a lot of eyeballs not being able to make heads from tails of that replay to be one of the worst calls ever.

mbgrayson
07-27-2011, 11:01 PM
Speaking of ESPN....

http://a.yfrog.com/img737/5681/ss0ca.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JiMyv.jpg

"We Have a New Worst Call Ever...." (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/14246/we-have-a-new-worst-call-ever)

Brutus
07-27-2011, 11:04 PM
http://a.yfrog.com/img737/5681/ss0ca.jpg

The resolution and depth perception in that photo is brutal. It's impossible to know whether the glove is against the leg or in front of the leg.

The Zapruder film is much more of a smoking gun than these photos/videos.

signalhome
07-27-2011, 11:05 PM
Meals admits he missed the call.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6808357/mlb-acknowledges-jerry-meals-missed-call-pittsburgh-pirates-file-complaint-19-inning-loss


"After coming into the locker room, I reviewed the incident through our videos that we have in here and after seeing a few of them, on one particular replay, I was able to see that Lugo's pant leg moved ever so slightly when the swipe tag was attempted by McKenry," Meals said.

"That's telling me that I was incorrect in my decision and that he should have been ruled out and not safe."

Homer Bailey
07-27-2011, 11:06 PM
As opposed to an electron microscope? Looks like it would be tricky to make that swipe and not tag the runner, like a stuntman throwing a fake punch.

I don't understand the over-thinking it. He was out.

Um, considering I've watched it 8-10 times and haven't seen a tag, it's not all that tricky to make a swipe and not tag the runner.


I fixed it for you.



Again, in that situation where the runner is out by ten feet. Unless a tag is obviously missed then the runner is out.

Actually you didn't fix anything, because not a single person has taken the stance that he is safe. So what you effectively did was mis portray my entire point in an effort to make your point.

Again, I've watched it several times, and can't decide whether he was safe or not. Therefore, it is impossible for me to criticize an umpire for calling it either way.

So there, I fixed it for you.

Homer Bailey
07-27-2011, 11:08 PM
Meals admits he missed the call.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6808357/mlb-acknowledges-jerry-meals-missed-call-pittsburgh-pirates-file-complaint-19-inning-loss

If it comes down to him reviewing a slow motion video and seeing a pant leg moving, I sincerely hope he isn't kicking himself for the call, because it is truly too close to call.

mbgrayson
07-27-2011, 11:15 PM
Nice video still (http://espn.go.com/videohub/video/iframe?id=6807389&player=blogs09&height=324&width=576&hidePlaylist=true)

The one thing that we can all agree on is that the Pirates catcher should have left his glove down long enough to remove all doubt about whether or not he tagged or 'ole'd' Lugo.

signalhome
07-27-2011, 11:18 PM
If it comes down to him reviewing a slow motion video and seeing a pant leg moving, I sincerely hope he isn't kicking himself for the call, because it is truly too close to call.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think the main issue at hand for most is that unless he was absolutely certain the tag was missed, he should have given the benefit of the doubt to the catcher and ruled Lugo out, considering the throw beat him by a good ten feet. I'm not arguing one way or another regarding this whole debacle, because I kind of understand how both sides feel. I just thought I'd throw Meals' quote out there.

signalhome
07-27-2011, 11:19 PM
Nice video still (http://espn.go.com/videohub/video/iframe?id=6807389&player=blogs09&height=324&width=576&hidePlaylist=true)

The one thing that we can all agree on is that the Pirates catcher should have left his glove down long enough to remove all doubt about whether or not he tagged or 'ole'd' Lugo.

Yes. He should have made a better tag.

mbgrayson
07-27-2011, 11:24 PM
ESPN's sportsnation poll had, last I checked, over 35% of some 10,000 respondents saying they didn't think Lugo was tagged or couldn't tell.

That's a lot of eyeballs not being able to make heads from tails of that replay to be one of the worst calls ever.

Do you have a link to that poll? I could only find an ESPN Sportsnation poll about whether this call was the worst ever (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls), and it trailed the perfect game blown call, but is in second place.

FlightRick
07-27-2011, 11:26 PM
Actually you didn't fix anything, because not a single person has taken the stance that he is safe. [...] Again, I've watched it several times, and can't decide whether he was safe or not.

But even there, I hope you see the problem some of us might have. With the huge caveat that I am speaking ONLY for me, and not for anybody else in this thread: declaring insufficient evidence and further declaring that therefore ANY decision made by the umpire should be accepted because there is no right and wrong, well, that dog's just not gonna hunt, monsignor.

This is an issue with only one single right answer. Even the most strident "it's unclear" crowd have only suggested that the guy was only 75% out based on evidence. [To be a jerk: I'll mention that any poll run by ESPN is inherently voted upon by people who watch ESPN, which means they were dumb enough to absorb a lot of BS today from the various paid pot-stirrers who populate ESPN. They almost don't count.] But that also means he was only 25% safe.

So given that "Who knows?" is not a valid call for the umpire to make, what's supposed to happen here? If you're saying that the guy was 75% probably out, anyway, why are you really arguing that we need to respect that 25% of evidence (which is really more like 5% uncertainty, rather than 25% counter-evidence)?

My guess is it's the same thing that's started to permeate all society, and it ain't going away: people have stopped having disputes in an attempt to make sure they're RIGHT, and have decided they'll twist reality in any way they need to to make sure any dispute ends with them WINNING. Still trying to argue that the ump was right after he himself admited he was wrong can only be explained by this need to win arguments in the face of all available evidence.

If I thought emoticons were valid forms of communications, I'd close with a frowny-face....


Rick

George Anderson
07-27-2011, 11:41 PM
I sincerely hope he isn't kicking himself for the call, because it is truly too close to call.

http://news.yahoo.com/mlb-admits-umpire-botched-19th-inning-call-220508996.html


"I've spoken with Jerry, who is a hard-working, respected umpire, and no one feels worse than him"



Meals should feel bad because it was a brutal call.

I usually get accused of defending umpires to much but in this case Meals blew it.

Brutus
07-27-2011, 11:47 PM
Do you have a link to that poll? I could only find an ESPN Sportsnation poll about whether this call was the worst ever (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls), and it trailed the perfect game blown call, but is in second place.

Here (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/6807529/was-really-worst-call-ever) is the poll (it's down to 28% now but was 35% earlier)

mbgrayson
07-27-2011, 11:59 PM
Here (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/6807529/was-really-worst-call-ever) is the poll (it's down to 28% now but was 35% earlier)

The exact question and results of this poll, as of this posting, are as follows:

"What did you see on the final play of the Pirates-Braves game?
1. Michael McKenry definitely missed the tag: 8%
2. Michael McKenry definitely made the tag: 72%
3. Can't tell whether McKenry made the tag: 20%

12,058 votes."

This looks pretty conclusive to me.

Brutus
07-28-2011, 12:23 AM
The exact question and results of this poll, as of this posting, are as follows:

"What did you see on the final play of the Pirates-Braves game?
1. Michael McKenry definitely missed the tag: 8%
2. Michael McKenry definitely made the tag: 72%
3. Can't tell whether McKenry made the tag: 20%

12,058 votes."

This looks pretty conclusive to me.

3 in 10 think the tag wasn't applied or can't tell.

When I think conclusive, I think 90-95% with most things. 70% seems like a low standard for conclusiveness.

RedsManRick
07-28-2011, 12:30 AM
Polls are not facts. I know our media tends to forget that sometimes, but what people think about an event and the actual event itself are different things.

Rojo
07-28-2011, 12:37 AM
Polls are not facts.

Especially a poll of one (umpire).

mbgrayson
07-28-2011, 12:44 AM
3 in 10 think the tag wasn't applied or can't tell.

When I think conclusive, I think 90-95% with most things. 70% seems like a low standard for conclusiveness.

Do I really need to point out that lumping together two completely different results from three available choices in a poll is misleading?

I could just as easily say 92% of those who responded disagreed with the umpire or didn't see enough evidence to be sure that the umpire was correct, vs. only 8% who agreed with the umpire.

Or, one could state that 9 times more poll respondents believed that McKenry definitely made the tag compared to those who believed he definitely missed it.

As Mark Twain said, "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Patrick Bateman
07-28-2011, 01:12 AM
I think there are three tiers here:

1. I didn't see it
2. I saw it, but I'm not sure what I saw
3. I saw it and I'm certain of what I saw

I think last night's call was clearly in category two. Now, if you're adopting the "runner is safe unless 100% certain the runner is out" method, then yes, the call should be safe for anything in categories one and two.

But I think there's a common-sense factor at work here -- when the throw beats the runner by that much, a tag is only going to be outright missed (not counting drops etc.) a very small percentage of the time. If you're always going to call safe when you're not sure, even in situations where the probability leans strongly toward out, you're probably going to blow more of those calls than an ump whose default call in category two is probability-based.

All of which reminds me that I'm glad I'm not an umpire.

This is the opinion I was trying to convey but I like the way you said it more.

Obviously the umpire could not definitively tell, and I would presume there are more than a few times that happens to an umpire over the course of a season. In those circumstances, I don't think it's reasonable to call the player safe every time. This isn't the court system where we need 100% proof to call a guy out. Playing the odds in those situations is probably a more appropriate methadology in that the odds are that tag is going to be made. I think for sure, if the ump calls him out and it later on is found conclusively that Lugo somehow escaped the reach of the catcher that there would be much less fall out for the ump as itis much easier to believe the thought process for how he arrived at the decision.

cincinnati chili
07-28-2011, 02:27 AM
So in the 10 percent of plays where the tag is unable to be seen, safe is the call?

Yes. When the ball beats him by that much and you're not 100% sure the tag was missed, he's safe.

I think we're being way too nice to this guy. The most likely scenario is he knew he was out, but the umpire was ready to go home. I'm being 100% serious.

Edit: additionally - only one or two people have brought up the fact that the ump made two errors - he called Lugo safe before he touched the plate. So if Jerry Meals is going to pick nits about the way the tag was applied, I'm going to pick nits about whether Lugo's toe was applied to home plate.

It's 100% clear to me that Meals was anticipating making a safe call on anything that he considered "close."

Brutus
07-28-2011, 07:17 AM
Do I really need to point out that lumping together two completely different results from three available choices in a poll is misleading?

I could just as easily say 92% of those who responded disagreed with the umpire or didn't see enough evidence to be sure that the umpire was correct, vs. only 8% who agreed with the umpire.

Or, one could state that 9 times more poll respondents believed that McKenry definitely made the tag compared to those who believed he definitely missed it.

As Mark Twain said, "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

How is it misleading? It's completely accurate to say that 30% of those people are not sure a tag was made. That's completely truthful.

Slyder
07-28-2011, 08:25 AM
How is it misleading? It's completely accurate to say that 30% of those people are not sure a tag was made. That's completely truthful.

30% of the people taking the poll are Braves fans.

It's no different than asking people if the Snow Job was a fumble. If you weren't a Patriots fan you said it was a fumble. Right after it happened like 90%+ said Oakland got screwed.

mbgrayson
07-28-2011, 08:26 AM
How is it misleading? It's completely accurate to say that 30% of those people are not sure a tag was made. That's completely truthful.

And I am also being truthful when I say 92% of those who responded disagreed with the umpire or didn't see enough evidence to be sure that the umpire was correct, vs. only 8% who agreed with the umpire. Or, that 9 times more poll respondents believed that McKenry definitely made the tag compared to those who believed he definitely missed it.

What is misleading is that rather than quote the exact results of the poll, we are both combining and manipulating the data from the poll in a way to support our arguments. While it may be 'true', it is still misleading.

For example, your claim that '30% of those people are not sure a tag was made' combines the 20% who picked 'can't tell' and the 8% who picked that McKenry definitely missed the tag. (BTW, that is 28%, not 30%, so you rounded up, to further back your argument). Isn't it misleading to combine the percentages that picked two totally different answers, and then paraphrase the results in a different way? I think so.

Polling data is extremely sensitive to even slight changes in wording. Therefore, when we re-state, change, or paraphrase the wording of the original poll, we are manipulating that data in a way that is misleading, since the new wording is not reflective of the actual poll.

Once again, the actual ESPN poll results here are as follows:
"What did you see on the final play of the Pirates-Braves game?
1. Michael McKenry definitely missed the tag: 8%
2. Michael McKenry definitely made the tag: 72%
3. Can't tell whether McKenry made the tag: 20%

Homer Bailey
07-28-2011, 09:49 AM
But even there, I hope you see the problem some of us might have. With the huge caveat that I am speaking ONLY for me, and not for anybody else in this thread: declaring insufficient evidence and further declaring that therefore ANY decision made by the umpire should be accepted because there is no right and wrong, well, that dog's just not gonna hunt, monsignor.

This is an issue with only one single right answer. Even the most strident "it's unclear" crowd have only suggested that the guy was only 75% out based on evidence. [To be a jerk: I'll mention that any poll run by ESPN is inherently voted upon by people who watch ESPN, which means they were dumb enough to absorb a lot of BS today from the various paid pot-stirrers who populate ESPN. They almost don't count.] But that also means he was only 25% safe.

So given that "Who knows?" is not a valid call for the umpire to make, what's supposed to happen here? If you're saying that the guy was 75% probably out, anyway, why are you really arguing that we need to respect that 25% of evidence (which is really more like 5% uncertainty, rather than 25% counter-evidence)?

My guess is it's the same thing that's started to permeate all society, and it ain't going away: people have stopped having disputes in an attempt to make sure they're RIGHT, and have decided they'll twist reality in any way they need to to make sure any dispute ends with them WINNING. Still trying to argue that the ump was right after he himself admited he was wrong can only be explained by this need to win arguments in the face of all available evidence.

If I thought emoticons were valid forms of communications, I'd close with a frowny-face....


Rick

We get the benefit of slow motion replay to make our decisions. The umpire had to make a decision in a split second. Even with the benefit of slow motion replay, it's impossible to definitively say he certainly tagged him. So even if, upon viewing it multiple times, can't determine whether or not he was for sure tagged, how can we sit here and criticize an umpire that had to make a split second call in fast motion?


The exact question and results of this poll, as of this posting, are as follows:

"What did you see on the final play of the Pirates-Braves game?
1. Michael McKenry definitely missed the tag: 8%
2. Michael McKenry definitely made the tag: 72%
3. Can't tell whether McKenry made the tag: 20%

12,058 votes."

This looks pretty conclusive to me.

How many of these people actually reviewed the slow motion replays before voting? Nothing is conclusive about asking a bunch of fanatics what their opinion is. Anyone that is answering #1 or #2 is lying.


30% of the people taking the poll are Braves fans.

It's no different than asking people if the Snow Job was a fumble. If you weren't a Patriots fan you said it was a fumble. Right after it happened like 90%+ said Oakland got screwed.

Well considering it was the correct call, that would mean 90% of people are wrong. Being amongst the masses does not mean you're right.

Caveman Techie
07-28-2011, 10:53 AM
I didn't even look at the slow motion and he was out by a mile. He never even touched home plate before the umpire called him safe, that is horrible. I think a couple of you guys are just be contrary.

MLB came out and said it was a blown call, the umpire who made the call came out and said it was a blown call. The only ones arguing that it was the right call are Braves fan's who don't want to feel as if they got lucky, and people who like the fact that the Pirates lost (for whatever reason, hate the pirates/hoping the division leader loses etc).

George Anderson
07-28-2011, 10:55 AM
In regards to this poll.

One thing for certain amongst the umpire ranks is we all generally regard fans as clueless. The only time fans are brought up in conversation is if one side has a lot of good looking women or to make fun of the moronic things the fans say. With few exceptions coaches are regarded as clueless clowns and fans are considered to be even lower than a clueless clown. This poll to me has the same validity of polling a bunch of chimpanzees on the play. It doesn't mean a whole hell of alot.

mbgrayson
07-28-2011, 11:15 AM
Anyone that is answering #1 or #2 is lying.


Homer, this is the second time you have called people out directly in this thread for 'lying'. Moderators, isn't this trolling, or at least being snarky, and a violation of RedsZone rules?

Homer, the definition of a lie is when someone knowingly says something false. Just because you disagree, even strongly disagree, with people about an umpire's call does not make anyone a liar. Let's try to keep the tone and discussion on RedsZone on a little higher plane than calling people 'liars'.

Homer Bailey
07-28-2011, 11:23 AM
I didn't even look at the slow motion and he was out by a mile. He never even touched home plate before the umpire called him safe, that is horrible. I think a couple of you guys are just be contrary.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. In fast motion, it looks like its really obvious that he was out. If you watch the slow motion replay, it is completely different.

First time I watched the clip posted earlier, I saw the two fast motion plays, and was enraged. "How could he have missed that call? That couldn't have been more obvious!"

Then when the two slow motion views were shown, my jaw literally dropped. That led me to replay it several times to try to determine if he tagged him, and after watching it several times, I was unable to come to any conclusion. I'm guessing several people, like yourself, only watched the regular motion replay, and made your conclusion.


Homer, this is the second time you have called people out directly in this thread for 'lying'. Moderators, isn't this trolling, or at least being snarky, and a violation of RedsZone rules?

Homer, the definition of a lie is when someone knowingly says something false. Just because you disagree, even strongly disagree, with people about an umpire's call does not make anyone a liar. Let's try to keep the tone and discussion on RedsZone on a little higher plane than calling people 'liars'.

OK, maybe lying is a bit extreme. Maybe "not being truthful" is a better way of putting it. It's indeterminable based on the replay, unless you have made up your mind before watching it that he was definitely out.

I have no reason to be on either side of this. I would rather the Pirates have won this game than the Braves, but seriously don't care about the outcome. I'm saying this call is nowhere on the same level as the Joyce call, as that was easily determinable based on replay, where this play is clearly not.

GOYA
07-28-2011, 11:36 AM
To me it looks like the ump had a better view of the play than any of the video camera angles. I've yet to see anything that looks definitive.

George Anderson
07-28-2011, 11:37 AM
To me it looks like the ump had a better view of the play than any of the video camera angles. I've yet to see anything that looks definitive.


The only most definitive thing to come out so far is the ump admitted he missed the call.

Tony Cloninger
07-28-2011, 11:44 AM
In regards to this poll.

One thing for certain amongst the umpire ranks is we all generally regard fans as clueless. The only time fans are brought up in conversation is if one side has a lot of good looking women or to make fun of the moronic things the fans say. With few exceptions coaches are regarded as clueless clowns and fans are considered to be even lower than a clueless clown. This poll to me has the same validity of polling a bunch of chimpanzees on the play. It doesn't mean a whole hell of alot.

And people think umpires are arrogant and beyond reproach. ;)

George Anderson
07-28-2011, 11:58 AM
And people think umpires are arrogant and beyond reproach. ;)

Guilty as charged. :beerme:

Homer Bailey
07-28-2011, 12:16 PM
The only most definitive thing to come out so far is the ump admitted he missed the call.

This means very little to me (no pun intended). Obviously, a precedent has been set (the Joyce call), that you will eventually be forgiven by the public if you man up to your "mistake" and admit you were wrong. As Means is heavily perceived as being wrong, exacerbating it by saying he still believes he got it right would have only made things worse. However, he can limit the damage by admitting the call is wrong, which is how many people see the call.

I'm not saying that Means actually thinks he's right or wrong. There is no way to know what he actually thinks. I'm just saying that the smart thing for him to say in this situation is that he screwed it up, and to move on from there, and let the issue die down. I can't be positive that he actually feels that way today.

RichRed
07-28-2011, 12:55 PM
Edit: additionally - only one or two people have brought up the fact that the ump made two errors - he called Lugo safe before he touched the plate. So if Jerry Meals is going to pick nits about the way the tag was applied, I'm going to pick nits about whether Lugo's toe was applied to home plate.

After watching the clip several times, I'm not seeing this at all. Looked like he made the call after Lugo touched the plate.

He was still out though.

kaldaniels
07-28-2011, 01:36 PM
I know this doesn't confirm anything, but would a peep have made about the call at all, had the call been "out"?

Homer Bailey
07-28-2011, 01:38 PM
I know this doesn't confirm anything, but would a peep have made about the call at all, had the call been "safe"?

I think you mean out?

And no, nothing would have been made of it, because to the naked eye, it looks painfully obvious that he was out, and I doubt slow motion replays would have been strung together like they have been.

kaldaniels
07-28-2011, 01:39 PM
I think you mean out?

And no, nothing would have been made of it, because to the naked eye, it looks painfully obvious that he was out, and I doubt slow motion replays would have been strung together like they have been.

Whoops, fixed it.

vaticanplum
07-29-2011, 01:18 AM
To me it looks like the ump had a better view of the play than any of the video camera angles. I've yet to see anything that looks definitive.

I go with this.

Unfortunately, the fact that Pirates fans now seem determined to label this "the worst call in the history of sports" -- in an age of Gallaraga and Maier, let alone any other sports -- makes me kind if predisposed to not give them the benefit of the doubt. I think the call was bad -- but -- I also think the ump may have seen things that we didn't.

Actually, if the Gallaraga call made it extremely clear to me that instant replay should be used in baseball, this is one thing that actually makes me question it. I can see how it wouldn't help in this case.

Mario-Rijo
07-29-2011, 01:30 AM
As Skip Bayless put it "if he touched him at all it was a slight brush" which I concurred with from when I seen it on. Now if he brushes him he is still out but I'd say chalk it up to what it was called in the 1st place.