Umpires in MLB

[george]

scott barry, a fill in umpire, ejected ryan howard from the game last night in the bottom of the 14th inning for throwing his bat. now, yeah, you shouldn't do that and he should have been fined. personally, i don't think he should have been thrown out. but that's besides the point really.

howard's first strike in that at bat came from a checked swing. after the strike howard put his hands on his hips and looked upset. scott barry then put his hands on his hips, too, to mock howard. howard was then heard saying, "i'm not mad at him, i'm mad at myself." howard then had a third strike called on him by scott barry for, again, checking a swing. howard threw his bat and was immediately ejected from the game.

after being ejected he was really upset (watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAyORKGUe4). but that's really not that point. the point is that scott barry mocked ryan howard and then ejected him from the game when he got upset.

i think that umpires today are getting too sensitive about the game. they're no longer being impartial. they, more than the players at this point, are thinking with their hearts more than their heads. they won't swallow their pride and just do their job, and they get ticked off when they think their call is being questioned.

what do you think?

[Droford]

Jeff Nelson the other night had the worst strike zone ever and tossed Nick Markakis after he called 3 pitches completely out of the strike zone strikes for Nick's 3rd K of the night and Nick said something back to him

[Triple Naitch]

It's a basic rule that goes back to little league. If you throw your bat you get ejected.

[george]

right, but that doesn't make mocking him alright.

[McLegend]

Yeah I think umpires have to get over themselves.

[McLegend]

I'm not just saying that because what happened to Ryan Howard.

[Nicky Fives]

Players never win when they argue with the umpire..... arguing with them is pointless as the umps will never change their minds even if they know they made a mistake..... I am a huge fan of removing all umpires from baseball and use video footage to call balls/strikes, plays at the bases, close catches, tags, everything......

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Nicky Fives Players never win when they argue with the umpire..... arguing with them is pointless as the umps will never change their minds even if they know they made a mistake..... I am a huge fan of removing all umpires from baseball and use video footage to call balls/strikes, plays at the bases, close catches, tags, everything......

You hear about how long games are now as it is...if this was implemented, games would take even longer...and the TV folks would HATE that. You want to implement a limited challenge replay system, then go ahead.

As far as the ejection goes, I saw no problem with it. The first check swing, if he's angry at himself like he says he was, you better make it apparent you don't direct it at an umpire. Tossing your bat and helmet like he did after the 3rd strike, after getting "the look" from the umpire, is an EASY ejection.

I see these kind of situations though from a different perspective as I actually officiating high school basketball. While not baseball, there are many skills and situations that do carry over. Of course what's allowed at the professional level certainly isn't at the high school level, but that's a pretty automatic one.

[Emperor Smeat]

While not perfect, the NFL has one of the best systems for ref evaluations since every year each ref gets evaluated on how well or bad they did. Using those results, the NFL then can either fire or demote/promote to certain games.

They use the Superbowl as the showcase for their best refs and in turn becomes a major goal for refs to achieve in a season.

MLB is like the NBA where they just keep refs regardless of how bad their quality in calls becomes over the years. Although to be fair, MLB refs are not as bad as NBA refs who change their call style based on matchups or even within a game itself.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Smelly Meatball While not perfect, the NFL has one of the best systems for ref evaluations since every year each ref gets evaluated on how well or bad they did. Using those results, the NFL then can either fire or demote/promote to certain games. They use the Superbowl as the showcase for their best refs and in turn becomes a major goal for refs to achieve in a season. MLB is like the NBA where they just keep refs regardless of how bad their quality in calls becomes over the years. Although to be fair, MLB refs are not as bad as NBA refs who change their call style based on matchups or even within a game itself.

Regardless of what you think about NBA officiating, you are incorrect in your assessment of the NBA evaluation system. I know for a fact that after each game all three officials are required to evaluate and grade each and every call/no call. This report in turn gets sent to an NBA evaluator who himself will go back and grade every call. In addition, there is more than likely an evaluator at many of the games who will independently grade every call/no call. Besides that, every official is given a weekly rules tests much like NFL officials. Depending on the precentage of plays you get correct (plus others factors that I won't bore you with), officials are given playoffs games and advance further than anyone (if said official is eligible).


NBA officials are for the most part given one year contracts. If you don't make the grade, you'll most likely be fired. This is especially true now that there is the NBA Developmental League and WNBA in which all new officials have come from since 2005 meaning there's always someone in the wings waiting to take your spot. You don't notice this that often cause people only know the "big dogs" and they're not going to be fired cause they grade highly. This is true not only for the NBA, but for the NFL, MLB, and NHL.

[toxic rooster]

arguing balls and strikes is an instant ejection, bro

[YOUR Hero]

Yesterday during the Jays game, I think it was Snider came home and was called out at the plate by the Ump. Snider was clearly so safe it was hard to imagine the Ump blowing the call. Next inning with the Tigers batting a throw to first by the Jays led to a safe call, that mis-call wasn't as bad. I could see the Ump missing that one, but the play at the plate, Snider was tagged on the thigh, maybe even hip area after sliding through the block at home plate.

I really think tafter this year, there will be a major review of umpiring.

[Aguakate]

Umpires sometimes are so full of themselves, they want to take the spotlight and overshadow the players. That's why when Jim Joyce blew the Galarraga Perfect Game call, and cried like a little girl, I didn't feel sorry at all.

[Innovator]

If you want to talk to Joe West about this topic, you'll have to go through his agent

[Moonax]

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero Yesterday during the Jays game, I think it was Snider came home and was called out at the plate by the Ump. Snider was clearly so safe it was hard to imagine the Ump blowing the call. Next inning with the Tigers batting a throw to first by the Jays led to a safe call, that mis-call wasn't as bad. I could see the Ump missing that one, but the play at the plate, Snider was tagged on the thigh, maybe even hip area after sliding through the block at home plate. I really think tafter this year, there will be a major review of umpiring.

Not so sure. The one thing that every sport is resistant to is admitting that its officials are either corrupt or incompetent. Whether that is NHL, MLB, NFL, football, cricket or rugby.

Take the World Cup for example, one of the worst referees in the world gets given the final and basically fucks it up. What happens? FIFA defend him.

If Bud Selig can't deal with doping, or Stern can't deal with corruption, or Bettman with bankrupt teams in the USA, what hope is there of them dealing with officials blowing calls and acting like dicks?

If nothing else MLB officials needs to go on a fucking diet. Fat fucks.

[Vastardikai]

Worst thing about the umpires in MLB is that anything Umpire related goes through their association. The head of their association? Joe West.

[SaskatchewanChamp]

This is simple, you piss off an umpire, or any official in any sport he will get you back. They are human after all. The best thing to do is worry about yourself, and don't worry about the balls and strikes.

Now, for those of you who want umpires out of the game all together, should really give your head a shake. It is part of the game, from when they were in little league and all the way up. Human error exists in every sport, and everything people do in their lives.

[James Steele]

Originally Posted by SaskatchewanChamp This is simple, you piss off an umpire, or any official in any sport he will get you back. They are human after all. The best thing to do is worry about yourself, and don't worry about the balls and strikes. Now, for those of you who want umpires out of the game all together, should really give your head a shake. It is part of the game, from when they were in little league and all the way up. Human error exists in every sport, and everything people do in their lives.

100s of Millions of dollars changes things a little bit...

[Moonax]

Originally Posted by SaskatchewanChamp This is simple, you piss off an umpire, or any official in any sport he will get you back. They are human after all. The best thing to do is worry about yourself, and don't worry about the balls and strikes. Now, for those of you who want umpires out of the game all together, should really give your head a shake. It is part of the game, from when they were in little league and all the way up. Human error exists in every sport, and everything people do in their lives.

The point is - when you or I fuck up at work, or school we have to suffer the consequences. If a player fucks up, they get benched or cut. If a ref/umpire fucks up the leagues do everything to protect the officials. Look at Stephane Auger, or any number of football referees for example. Auger suffers no consequences for fucking up.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Moonax The point is - when you or I fuck up at work, or school we have to suffer the consequences. If a player fucks up, they get benched or cut. If a ref/umpire fucks up the leagues do everything to protect the officials. Look at Stephane Auger, or any number of football referees for example. Auger suffers no consequences for fucking up.

If an official "fucks" up consistently, he'll be cut at the end of the season, fined, and/or lose games (or considering for postseason games which is very important for officials). Just because a league doesn't make public a reprimand does not mean it hasn't occurred (I can only speak of the major four sports in America...specially basketball and football). This is true at the high school, college, and professional level.

[Moonax]

Why should officials be exempt from public reprimands? There are plenty of terrible officials who don't get cut, for the pure and simple reason, leagues simply will not accept that their officials are incompetent.

[road doggy dogg]

Galarraga
crossrine

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Moonax Why should officials be exempt from public reprimands? There are plenty of terrible officials who don't get cut, for the pure and simple reason, leagues simply will not accept that their officials are incompetent.

Why should they be subject to a public reprimand? In all but the worst cases, fans really don't care (at least not for long). With egregious errors though, we HAVE seen public reprimands handed down to officials (see Joe DeRosa and Joe West). Plus, the very nature of the business means an official will miss a call...sometimes at the end of the game. And sometimes, that call might effect the end of the game. It wouldn't be in a league's best interest to reprimand their employees every time the fans think something goes wrong.

As to your statement terrible officials don't get cut, I know for a fact officials are cut due to poor performance. Now some leagues are slower in bringing up newer officials to the top ranks. This is a common complaint heard from minor league umpires trying to make it to MLB. The NBA and NFL are a lot quicker in this regard.


If a league really thought an official was incompent, it would be in their best interest to replace these officials. Obviously those you them "terrible" aren't as bad as you think they are.

[YOUR Hero]

This year is terrible in terms of officiating. No doubting that.

[Moonax]

Originally Posted by AJ Why should they be subject to a public reprimand? In all but the worst cases, fans really don't care (at least not for long). With egregious errors though, we HAVE seen public reprimands handed down to officials (see Joe DeRosa and Joe West). Plus, the very nature of the business means an official will miss a call...sometimes at the end of the game. And sometimes, that call might effect the end of the game. It wouldn't be in a league's best interest to reprimand their employees every time the fans think something goes wrong. As to your statement terrible officials don't get cut, I know for a fact officials are cut due to poor performance. Now some leagues are slower in bringing up newer officials to the top ranks. This is a common complaint heard from minor league umpires trying to make it to MLB. The NBA and NFL are a lot quicker in this regard. If a league really thought an official was incompent, it would be in their best interest to replace these officials. Obviously those you them "terrible" aren't as bad as you think they are.

Two points - name officials who have been cut from NBA, MLB, NHL and NFL for poor performance.

Why is it not in the interest of the league to criticise officials? As it stands by failing to criticise incompetent officials it gives the appearance that the leagues i) don't care about the quality of officiating and ii) are protecting the officials because to admit fault would mean that they would be admitting that they made a mistake.

The leagues won't punish officials for the same reason why they won't punish Bettman, Campbell, Selig etc for their errors and poor decisions - because they are afraid of admitting that they were wrong. Everyone else is accountable other than the league and its officials.

[Droford]

MILWAUKEE -- A player, a manager, a coach and even a fan were ejected Tuesday night during the Milwaukee Brewers' 4-2 victory over the St. Louis Cardinals. In the bottom of the seventh, home plate umpire Bob Davidson stopped the game and walked to the stands near the backstop netting and motioned for a fan, Sean A. Ottow, 44, of Waukesha, Wis., wearing a T-shirt with a Brewers logo on it to leave his seat. An usher motioned for him to leave, and the fan stood and posed with his arms extended in the air in a V shape while drawing loud cheers from the fans. Ottow was cited for disorderly conduct by police and ejected. He said he was heckling Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina. Ottow was able to watch the game on television while being processed in the Police Command Post at Miller Park and took pleasure when Molina struck out looking to end the eighth. "I don't care how much this costs me... you're a loser Molina!" he shouted. Molina declined to comment.

So apparently Umpires can toss fans from the game now?

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Droford So apparently Umpires can toss fans from the game now?

Game officials in all sports, at all levels, are allowed to eject fans from the arena. It's only something that's practically used in basketball as the fans are in close vicinity. What generally happens is an official will get hold of game management and tell them to warn the fan or escort the fan from the premises. That's something that's only really used if a fan is doing/saying something over the top and it's not really something you'll see much the higher up in level you go seeing as game management at a high school event (a principal, couple of teachers, and maybe two officers) and much differerent then at the D1/professional level (whole staff of game management plus officers just for game officials).

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Moonax Two points - name officials who have been cut from NBA, MLB, NHL and NFL for poor performance. Why is it not in the interest of the league to criticise officials? As it stands by failing to criticise incompetent officials it gives the appearance that the leagues i) don't care about the quality of officiating and ii) are protecting the officials because to admit fault would mean that they would be admitting that they made a mistake. The leagues won't punish officials for the same reason why they won't punish Bettman, Campbell, Selig etc for their errors and poor decisions - because they are afraid of admitting that they were wrong. Everyone else is accountable other than the league and its officials.

All one would have to do is look at the list of officials printed every year and compare the rosters from the year past to see whom has made the cut. Of course some of the changes may be due to retiring/deciding to quit, but I think it would be a safe bet to say unless the official is getting in age, he was probably cut due to performance. And every year will not see new officials added to the roster.

I never said it wasn't in a league's interest to criticize their game officials...just it wouldn't be in their interest to announce reprimands in all but the most egregious cases. Various league will come out and tell the public when their officials have made mistakes. The NFL has a segment each week called Official Review with Mike Periera (who retired this year...I'm assuming the name will be replaced with the new director of officiating) where contreverseal calls are reviewed. Not all calls are correct ones by the officials. The NBA has a bi weekly show called Making The Call With Ronnie Nunn which is similar in nature. My only point is it does nothing for the league to announc

[Moonax]

I accept that, but can you think of an example of a high-profile ref/umpire who has been cut for poor performance?

There was a piece a few years back that said that refs/umpires have a specific type of psychological make-up which makes them attention-seeking and intolerant. I'll see if I can find the link. Needless to say, only a certain type of person would ever want to be a ref, but the problem is that they are exactly the kind of people who shouldn't be refs.

[Nicky Fives]

Originally Posted by AJ You hear about how long games are now as it is...if this was implemented, games would take even longer...and the TV folks would HATE that. You want to implement a limited challenge replay system, then go ahead. As far as the ejection goes, I saw no problem with it. The first check swing, if he's angry at himself like he says he was, you better make it apparent you don't direct it at an umpire. Tossing your bat and helmet like he did after the 3rd strike, after getting "the look" from the umpire, is an EASY ejection. I see these kind of situations though from a different perspective as I actually officiating high school basketball. While not baseball, there are many skills and situations that do carry over. Of course what's allowed at the professional level certainly isn't at the high school level, but that's a pretty automatic one.

If it takes the commentators less than 10 seconds to cue up a replay, then how can that slow down the game????? Just have one umpire at every game watching the game on monitors..... have one key monitor for the strike zone, and other smaller ones for each base and key points in the outfield..... when a pitch is thrown, have the umpire on the field speak into an earpiece to the umpire behind the plate whether the pitch was a ball/strike/foul tip/hit batter/etc.

The soul purpose of the umpire on the field is to limit the time of meetings on the pitchers mound.....

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Moonax I accept that, but can you think of an example of a high-profile ref/umpire who has been cut for poor performance? There was a piece a few years back that said that refs/umpires have a specific type of psychological make-up which makes them attention-seeking and intolerant. I'll see if I can find the link. Needless to say, only a certain type of person would ever want to be a ref, but the problem is that they are exactly the kind of people who shouldn't be refs.

I can't think of an example off the top of my head. Your high profile officials are gonna tend to be ones that are doing your top games and championship series/games. If you're getting to that level, that means your making the grade so to speak so you won't get many examples.

I'd also like to see that link haha...seeing as I myself officiate basketball (just high school now but hope to be hired for college games in the next couple of years). I will say it does take a certain make up to go out there and work games. One of the problem local sports associations have is recruiting and retaining sports officials.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Nicky Fives If it takes the commentators less than 10 seconds to cue up a replay, then how can that slow down the game????? Just have one umpire at every game watching the game on monitors..... have one key monitor for the strike zone, and other smaller ones for each base and key points in the outfield..... when a pitch is thrown, have the umpire on the field speak into an earpiece to the umpire behind the plate whether the pitch was a ball/strike/foul tip/hit batter/etc. The soul purpose of the umpire on the field is to limit the time of meetings on the pitchers mound.....

Any play that's close enough for review is going to take more than 10 seconds. In theory, your system could work for plays that don't involve multiple baserunners, steals, etc. First angle doesn't show the play definitely, then you have to go to a second view...second view doesn't show it, then a third view will have to be viewed. All this will take more than 10 seconds. And while all this is going on, you have an on field official with an earpiece in his ear waiting for a call. Is all that action on the field going to pause while we wait for a call? And there really haven't be calls for replay on balls and strikes.

I think MLB should expand their replay system. Maybe some sort of challenge system for out/safe calls, home runs, fair/foul calls. I don't think you'll ever see a replay system used for that. There will also have to be some "if in doubt" rules added as there is in NCAA football/NFL. There will also need to be some rules changes for situations where foul balls are changed to fair (right now it's up to the umpires to place the runners where they think they would of made it). All of this could be easily be decided by people that have more free time than me haha

[BCWWF]

If it was as easy and fast as Nicky Fives says then it likely would have already happened. It's not.

Have you ever been at a game when they've reviewed a home run/foul ball this season? It's a huge pain and a buzzkill when the fat umpires have to run off the field and watch the tape. There are theoretically dozens of plays in a given baseball game that can be "close" but currently have no need to be reviewed.

What it comes down to is that there is no good place to draw the line on base running plays. Do you really want Lou Piniella coming out to challenge every close play at first? OK, so give each team one "challenge." Then what if he throws his challenge flag for a close steal in the second and then the umps make a terrible call in the ninth but he is out of challenges?

It's just not needed, especially in the full-scale overhaul that ESPN analysts are looking for.

[Nicky Fives]

Originally Posted by BCWWF If it was as easy and fast as Nicky Fives says then it likely would have already happened. It's not. Have you ever been at a game when they've reviewed a home run/foul ball this season? It's a huge pain and a buzzkill when the fat umpires have to run off the field and watch the tape. There are theoretically dozens of plays in a given baseball game that can be "close" but currently have no need to be reviewed. What it comes down to is that there is no good place to draw the line on base running plays. Do you really want Lou Piniella coming out to challenge every close play at first? OK, so give each team one "challenge." Then what if he throws his challenge flag for a close steal in the second and then the umps make a terrible call in the ninth but he is out of challenges? It's just not needed, especially in the full-scale overhaul that ESPN analysts are looking for.

all I'm saying is why do all umpires have to leave the field? Why the hell can't someone just radio down and tell them "home run or no home run"?