2017 Umpire Performance Thread

[Roberto Kelly]

My god. That might be worse than the hr call

[2JAY]

I can't speak to it, I don't really remember where he was, just explaining the rule.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_rule_double

Does that rule apply to the actual batter getting the extra base as I have only ever seen it applied to the runners on base instead of the hitter?

[ClownPickle]

Does that rule apply to the actual batter getting the extra base as I have only ever seen it applied to the runners on base instead of the hitter?

Yes, that's always been my understanding.

Under a given set of circumstances, an umpire can award a runner (or batter) one, two, three, or even four bases.

http://www.umpirebible.com/index.php...awarding-bases

Most commonly, it's the defense, not the offense, that is disadvantaged by spectator interference, typically when a fan reaches out over the field to catch or touch a live ball. In this situation, the umpire should place the runner at a base that, in his judgment, the runner would have achieved had the spectator interference not occurred.

http://www.umpirebible.org/index.php...d=2&Itemid=149

[Bub]

Here's my unfounded theory on the instant replay this year. Umps complained in the offseason that instant replay is making them look bad and they don't like it. The decision was made to reduce the number of overturned calls by requiring the on field call to be blatantly horrific. If this trend continues, you'll see less and less requests for reviews which will save face for the umps and speed up the game.

[Roberto Kelly]

Here's my unfounded theory on the instant replay this year. Umps complained in the offseason that instant replay is making them look bad and they don't like it. The decision was made to reduce the number of overturned calls by requiring the on field call to be blatantly horrific. If this trend continues, you'll see less and less requests for reviews which will save face for the umps and speed up the game.

That makes a lot of sense. In my view, however, the Judge play was pretty blatant.

[NelsonMuntz]

Here's my unfounded theory on the instant replay this year. Umps complained in the offseason that instant replay is making them look bad and they don't like it. The decision was made to reduce the number of overturned calls by requiring the on field call to be blatantly horrific. If this trend continues, you'll see less and less requests for reviews which will save face for the umps and speed up the game.

Wouldn't surprise me. Just based on the challenges I've seen this year, there have been multiple instances of calls that should have been overturned but they allowed to stand.

[False1]

That makes a lot of sense. In my view, however, the Judge play was pretty blatant.

And, it still took forever to get it wrong.

I like replay, but have always said it's focus should be on blatant errors. If you can't see enough with today's video technology in 30 seconds to overturn, let the call stand. Sitting there watching umps with headsets for minutes at a time kills the flow of the game.

[Bub]

And, it still took forever to get it wrong.

I like replay, but have always said it's focus should be on blatant errors. If you can't see enough with today's video technology in 30 seconds to overturn, let the call stand. Sitting there watching umps with headsets for minutes at a time kills the flow of the game.

Agreed, but the video seemed to show conclusive evidence in way less than 30 seconds. His glove was 2 feet over the top of the wall, he wasn't reaching over and the ball was not coming down on a steep angle. It's as if an overturn has to be so conclusive that your life depends on it.

[aeromac76]

I've always thought that the biggest flaw in replay in any sport is the original call having so much weight..
To me, the moment replay is invoked, then there IS NO ORIGINAL call, we are going top use replay to make the call. I think that should be the case in all sports that use replay systems.

To have the original call be the basis allows the "cop out" factor. I have just never liked that..

And the Judge call was a cop out for sure. If the fan never touches that ball, it is either a homer or a double. I seriously doubt it is a triple.
But by saying RBI triple, the Yankees get a run instead of zero runs, and are somewhat placated. The Cards catch a break because it is probable a homer and they know it, so anything aside from a homer is a break for them.
I seriously thought this was like a phantom negotiation, everyone gets something, everyone gives something. If the Yankees argue, they can say "you're lucky it's not just a double, with second and third and no runs score". If the Cards argue "you're lucky it's not a 2 run homer".
The final decision just felt wrong...

[TheDozen]

I thought the interference call on Castro's foul ball was atrocious too.

Not only did Piscotty have no chance, but I didn't see a lot of evidence that the fan reached all that far.

[NelsonMuntz]

I thought the interference call on Castro's foul ball was atrocious too.

Not only did Piscotty have no chance, but I didn't see a lot of evidence that the fan reached all that far.

Agreed. They were both bad calls.

[CalYankeeFan]

MLB is looking at having the umpires announce / explain replay rulings over the stadium PA system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/a...xplain-replays

They should really concentrate on getting the calls right first.

[matt2351]

MLB is looking at having the umpires announce / explain replay rulings over the stadium PA system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/a...xplain-replays

They should really concentrate on getting the calls right first.

Totally agree. That Judge homerun call was egregiously bad.

[ClownPickle]

MLB is looking at having the umpires announce / explain replay rulings over the stadium PA system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/a...xplain-replays

They should really concentrate on getting the calls right first.

I think everything close should automatically be reviewed, and it should take 15 seconds. If it's not clear on the first couple reviews, call on the field stands.

[Gusto]

I think everything close should automatically be reviewed, and it should take 15 seconds. If it's not clear on the first couple reviews, call on the field stands.

Agree fully. They could even make it 30 seconds (time it takes to walk over to the headset and back) if the crew chief wore a wireless headset all the time.

Why doesn't the replay booth initiate the review process (instead on the field)? If they rewatched all close plays (like teams do) and signal to the onfield crew chief when to delay for further review, it would speed things up. The crew chief would just give a hand signal saying the play is being reviewed (without anybody leaving the field). 30 seconds later play continues. Teams and onfield umpires lose the ability to request a review since all close plays are reviewed automatically.

[False1]

Agreed, but the video seemed to show conclusive evidence in way less than 30 seconds. His glove was 2 feet over the top of the wall, he wasn't reaching over and the ball was not coming down on a steep angle. It's as if an overturn has to be so conclusive that your life depends on it.

Oh, I agree. That should have been a 30 second overturn - if that.

But if it's not going to be overturned, it shouldn't take minutes to come to that conclusion.

This review failed both on accuracy and timeliness.

[False1]

I've always thought that the biggest flaw in replay in any sport is the original call having so much weight..
To me, the moment replay is invoked, then there IS NO ORIGINAL call, we are going top use replay to make the call. I think that should be the case in all sports that use replay systems.

To have the original call be the basis allows the "cop out" factor. I have just never liked that..

Strongly disagree with this part of your post (although agreed with the rest of it). There is a call on the field that is being challenged. The goal of replay shouldn't be absolute precision at all costs IMHO. It should be corrected clear judgmental errors. If it's close enough that with today's video technology you can't take a view or three and identify an obvious error, call on the field stands. What has been playing out this season for some reason is the worst case scenario... they're taking forever and STILL effing up calls that should be overturned in mere seconds.

MLB is looking at having the umpires announce / explain replay rulings over the stadium PA system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/a...xplain-replays

They should really concentrate on getting the calls right first.

Not a fan of this idea. The goal should be to speed up replay instances, not slow them down. Do we really need to have the ump walk to a set location, turn on a mike and say "After review, the call on the field stands. The ball was secured in the first baseman's mitt a nanosecond prior to the runner's cleat making contact with the base."

Speed it up, please don't slow it down. Even though this game has natural stoppages, there is a flow and it's annoying when the umps huddle with headsets for what feels like forever for something that could easily be a snap correction or validation.

[ajra21]

i don't want t hear from the umpires.

[Hitman23]

It's about time one fell our way!

[NelsonMuntz]

CB Bucknor doing CB Bucknor things: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-c...or-experience/

[2JAY]

CB Bucknor doing CB Bucknor things: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-c...or-experience/

Was the phantom foul tip from last nights Nationals/Braves game a video reviewed play? I know that Buckner was part of that debacle and I will never forget when Bucknor did not call interference on Figgins, forcing Posada to catch that foul pop with his bare hands.

[NelsonMuntz]

Was the phantom foul tip from last nights Nationals/Braves game a video reviewed play? I know that Buckner was part of that debacle and I will never forget when Bucknor did not call interference on Figgins, forcing Posada to catch that foul pop with his bare hands.

Yeah that was from last night's Nats/Braves game. I'm not sure if it was reviewable but I assume that it was not.

[theDurk]

Agree fully. They could even make it 30 seconds (time it takes to walk over to the headset and back) if the crew chief wore a wireless headset all the time.

Why doesn't the replay booth initiate the review process (instead on the field)? If they rewatched all close plays (like teams do) and signal to the onfield crew chief when to delay for further review, it would speed things up. The crew chief would just give a hand signal saying the play is being reviewed (without anybody leaving the field). 30 seconds later play continues. Teams and onfield umpires lose the ability to request a review since all close plays are reviewed automatically.

There are 15 or so games each day, and many going on at the same time. There are just a few umpires on duty in New York. They can't watch every play in every game. Someone has to ASK them to review it, or they won't know a close play even happened. Then it takes time to watch it for the first time, get informed on the situation, before they can even start to review it from various angles. It ain't all that easy.

[jcarey]

Gausman ejected in the 2nd inning for plunking someone with a braeking ball.

Get it together, umps.

[flymick24]

Umps seem dumber than usual this season