Ump admits he blew HR call

[Unassisted]

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/...nt-be-given-a/

Umpire Admits He Screwed Up a Call That He Shouldn't Be Given a Chance to Screw Up

Posted May 19th 2008 8:55AM by Josh Alper

Last night's mockery of umpiring at Yankee Stadium was the latest evidence that it's long past time for baseball's powers that be to institute instant replay on home runs. As I said last night, fair and foul balls are a factual matter and shouldn't be subject to the whims of umpires.

Umpires like Bob Davidson who, from home plate, overruled third-base umpire (and umpire in position to make the call) Mike Reilly's fair ruling of Carlos Delgado's shot. After the game, he offered this assessment of a job poorly done.

"I ----ed it up. I'm the one who thought it was a ---- foul ball. I saw it on the replay. I'm the one who ----ed it up so you can put that in your paper. Bolts and nuts, I ----ed up. You've just got to move on. No one feels worse about it than I do."

Perhaps I'm being harsh on Davidson's performance, especially since there's no reason for him to be put in that position. In the time it took for Reilly to make the call, Derek Jeter to protest it, the umpires to confer, Willie Randolph to argue their reversal and, finally, Davidson to eject Mets bench coach Jerry Manuel, they could have just looked at a replay and got the call right.

That's one argument against replay, it would take too long, debunked and the other, it would lead to all kinds of replays, is inane.

[smith288]

Just have a retired ump sit up in the booth and review and wave a flag out the press box window with the result. Or better yet, like Ceasar, give a thumbs up or down...

[dabvu2498]

Just have a retired ump sit up in the booth and review and wave a flag out the press box window with the result. Or better yet, like Ceasar, give a thumbs up or down...

And post "Inquiry" on the scoreboard like they do on the toteboard at racetracks.

[blumj]

It was really funny listening to Joe Morgan argue that using replay for those calls would take too long, about a minute after we'd just watched him take him maybe 20 seconds to watch the replay and determine that it was the wrong call. Why would it have to take umpires any longer than it took him?

[Jpup]

It was really funny listening to Joe Morgan argue that using replay for those calls would take too long, about a minute after we'd just watched him take him maybe 20 seconds to watch the replay and determine that it was the wrong call. Why would it have to take umpires any longer than it took him?

he said, "because they would be checking every play." That was his reason.

[smith288]

Morgan is quickly proving himself to be the most well spoken IDIOT of all time i think.

[Jpup]

Morgan is quickly proving himself to be the most well spoken IDIOT of all time i think.

it pays him well.

[redsrule2500]

no replay please!

[bucksfan2]

I am 100% against instant replay. The only replay I like is in college football. My problem with instant replay is where do you draw the line? Is it just fair or foul debates? Do you include out or safe? Do you include fan interference? Do you include disputed ball strike calls or whether a batter was hit by a pitch or now?

[smith288]

I am 100% against instant replay. The only replay I like is in college football. My problem with instant replay is where do you draw the line? Is it just fair or foul debates? Do you include out or safe? Do you include fan interference? Do you include disputed ball strike calls or whether a batter was hit by a pitch or now?

Have a limited allowance of replays per Mgr (2) and all homers are reviewed if close as determined by the ump. Thats it. D-u-n-n done.

[bucksfan2]

Have a limited allowance of replays per Mgr (2) and all homers are reviewed if close as determined by the ump. Thats it. D-u-n-n done.

But what is a reviewable play? In the NFL some of the most blatantly botched plays are not reviewable. On a bang bang play how are you going to determine when the fielder has true control of the baseball? Many times a boarderline strike call can be a crucial call in the game but the umpire union wouldn't allow those types of calls to be reviewed.

[smith288]

Then they wont be reviewed. We have the high definition technology to make this at least somewhat doable for homeruns at a minimum.

[registerthis]

I've never understood the belief that blown calls and the whims of officials are simply "part of the game". Why should they be? I recall a discussion here last year about the merits of instituting automated ball/strike calls, instead of having the umpire make them. I'll say here what I said then: when technology presents an opportunity to take the "guesses" out of the game and instead make calls on a factual basis, the technology should be used every single time.

A home run is a pretty clearly defined event, deciding whether or not a hit ball qualifies as a "home run" shouldn't be up to the umpire's discretion; either it's a home run or it's not. Why on earth you would argue for the alternative is mystifying to me.

I'll agree that strict parameters should be set regarding what's reviewable (home runs, catches, fair or foul balls) and what is not (ball and strike counts), but once you've identified those, what's the hold up? I don't watch baseball to see a game turn on the whims of an umpire, I want the results to be as true as we can possibly make them. If instituting a replay system helps eliminate some of this "noise" and helps ensure a correct call on at least SOME of the quesationnable plays, then go for it. I don't see why you wouldn't.

[SteelSD]

Have a limited allowance of replays per Mgr (2) and all homers are reviewed if close as determined by the ump. Thats it. D-u-n-n done.

Yep. Two per game per Manager and limit them to scoring plays and fair/foul ball disputes. Oh, and if a Manager is wrong on the first one, he loses the second. After the disputes are used, only HR and fair/foul players may be reviewed per Ump discretion.

Folks who gripe about reviewing plays forget that MLB already has a "system" in place that already takes time and we see it every time the umps huddle together to discuss a call. Unfortunately, they don't have access to the best possible equipment so you get a ruling based on what may or may not be a consensus of opinion from folks who may or may not have had the best view.

In short, if you're going to review something anyway, might as well get it right.

[UKFlounder]

But why only two? What if one team suffers from what it believes are three bad calls? If this tool is so great or can make the game better, why limit it so severely?

As for allowing them at "umpire discretion" how is that any different than relying on umpire judgement now? If an umpire believes he made the right call and refuses to review it, what's the recourse?