Wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured some people might be interested. Just a suggestion, but maybe here on the new site we can have a section to post and discuss plays like this that don't result in an ejection, but are still notable plays.Answer: YES! With the new blogger system, we're going to get the opportunity to label (tag) our posts. Whether the tag is "ejections," "umpire odds & ends," or otherwise, all posts to the UEFL will be labeled/tagged. Furthermore, all labels will be sortable on the right column; you'll also have the chance to search this blog. "Discussion" posts will be just as Dan described, notable plays that don't result in an ejection, but also don't come with the same rules implications that Umpire Odds & Ends or Case Plays do. The "close calls" where the only question is your run of the mill safe/out, fair/foul, etc. will make appearances here.
Marvin Hudson made an awful call in the Mets/Nationals game tonight. Jose Reyes was sliding into third base on a triple, and Hudson called him out, because he said Reyes came off the base. Replays clearly showed that his hand was in contact with the base the whole time. And I'm honestly not sure how Hudson could have missed it, since he was standing right there, and had a perfect view.
A big argument ensued. You had Reyes, third base coach Chip Hale, and manager Terry Collins yelling at Hudson. Collins accidentally bumped Hudson when he came out to argue, which I imagine he'll be hearing from the league about. Reyes threw down his helmet, and was screaming in Hudson's face, before he restrained by Hale. But shockingly, Hudson didn't eject anyone.
Here is video of the play with multiple replays showing the tag and the hand never leaving the base: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14233471
I was amazed that Reyes and/or Collins didn't get run there. Is it because Hudson had an idea in his head that he might have screwed up, so he was going to allow more? Or is he just known for being a lot more tolerant than most umpires? If that had been a West, or a Davidson, you know those two would have been gone in a heartbeat, bad call or not.
Anyway, thought this was an interesting turn of events, and I found the fact that Hudson didn't eject anyone to be more fascinating than the call itself, which was a pretty cut and dry terrible call.
If you have a play/video you would like to submit for discussion, just post a reply to ANY existing UEFL post or page. This post is therefore the first UEFL "Discussion." Enjoy.
- Looks like we also have a close tag play in Detroit (Derryl Cousins, HP) and a hit by pitch in Anaheim that wasn't (Jeff Kellogg, 1B).
yeah, that was a pretty rough call. And Reyes did completely lose his shit. He should have gone for acting like that.
ReplyDeleteSince we're here:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14216025
I think we all know that I don't critisize the big boys much at all, but replays show that tag missed by at least a foot. Eric Wedge really behaved himself, considering.
Another tough call in Anaheim. I think Jeff Kellogg blew this call too.
ReplyDeletehttp://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14232197
Amazing that Reyes didn't get thrown out, Collins too. Hudson is generally considered an umpire with a long fuse, but still, Collins did some pretty blatant things that I would think almost ANY pro ump would dump a guy for.
ReplyDeleteIts very convenient for you to say how horrible a call it was. It was not until the third replay angle that they could definitively tell safe or out. Umpires do not have that luxury. Being a former Minor League Umpire and MLB call up umpire, I find you and your: "I will just copy what the commentators say" attitude offensive to the profession. I promise you, I could put a mask and west vest on you, and you could tell a ball or strike from your a-hole to your elbow. And I know you are gonna write some comeback and call me an idiot... its okay. I still know from first hand experience working all the way up to AAA and working MLB on vacation time.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the Marvin Hudson play with Reyes and the Derryl Cousins play with Figgins... both situations are a result of the umpire getting straight lined or blocked out by the play. With the Reyes play, his body was between the ball and Hudson... so Hudson just saw the arm move, the reaction of the 3rd baseman and made his decision based on those two things.
ReplyDeleteWith Derryl Cousins, you can see in the replay that Figgins' body blocks him from seeing the space between the glove and the runner. Had he been a little closer to first base on the play, he would have seen this occur.
I have no idea what was going through Jeff Kellogg's head though.
I was watching this live (die hard Mets fan), and was incensed at such a crappy call...that being said, that definitely should have resulted in 3 ejections (Hale too grabbed Hudson's arm during the argument). At the time I was kind of hoping someone would get tossed, just so it would end up on this board and discussed, but now with these new features I'm glad the bad call got "press"
ReplyDeleteI think Anonymous (the one who says he was AAA) makes a good point that we all need to remember. Sure, the call was wrong - it was a "bad" call. Even on first glance, he looked safe. I'm sure you have the stats, CASD, about umpire accuracy, if you could post them here that'd be great. Because I think that even with argued plays that guys get ejected over, the stats show that the umps are right a majority of the time. At least I hope that's what the stats show or my argument just went out the window.
ReplyDeleteIt's not an easy job, no way. That's why there are so few of them, why they sometimes come up with unbelievably great calls, and why they get paid as well as they do at that level. They make mistakes sometimes too, as we all do. But if MLB told their umps to come to this website and talk about rules (yeah right)? I think there are maybe about 5 people who would be able to follow everything they say. I think this site does a good job making the rules "lay enough" for most of us to understand them, but there are intricacies even past what gets discussed here. And I think that's a good thing. I like that this site doesn't go uber-MLB ump on us, yet treats these plays and us like big boys, and provides what pretty much looks like a "greatly heightened rules knowledge" experience. Is it 100% pro - NO! But in my opinion, it shouldn't be.
By the way, commentators are paid to be complete idiots. Show me one time Hawk piece-of-worthless-crap dumb-ass Harrelson has ever shown a shred of rules knowledge. He hasn't. Ever. Even the great Vin Scully once (probably a few times more than that) talked about a "balk by way of taking the wrong foot off the rubber" when he really should have talked about a balk because the ball was dropped while the pitcher was still on the rubber. Doesn't matter. We all make mistakes. That's the point, and these homer POS commentators like Harrelson are paid to exploit umps when the umps make a mistake AND when the umps do everything 100% right.
Remember a few years ago when Hickox (West?) had that obstruction call at 2B during the Cubs/White Sox game? My favorite example of homer POS commentating/broadcasting is from that game. Two on, ball is hit off the wall in RF, The White Sox SS for some reason decides to stand directly on top of second base, big collision made b/w the runner from 1st and the SS causing the runner to fall, 2B AND 3B Ump signal obstruction, the obstructed runner eventually gets up and is going to be out from me to you going to 3rd when they get him in a rundown, runner from 3rd breaks for the plate and they tag him out instead. Umps get together, correctly call obstruction, and make the bases loaded (or something). Whatever the result, it was the correct call and result. Now here's the POS homerism: Cubs broadcast shows a replay. You see the 3rd base camera pointed at second base, you see the SS/runner collide and the ensuing tag made on the other runner. That's fine. It shows the obstruction, makes it easy for the viewer. BUT, if you were watching the White Sox feed, you'd see a different replay. You would also see the 3rd base camera like in the Cubs broadcast, but the White Sox feed replay doesn't begin until the runner is already on the ground. You never see the contact between SS/runner, you never see the obstruction. If there's ANYTHING we should say is "horrible," it's that some of these POS homer announcers are allowed to work in MLB.
@Jim, MLB Umpires are right over 94% of the time, and have averaged around 67-68% accuracy in ejection-related plays over the past few seasons.
ReplyDeleteThe CHC/CWS Obstruction play you are referring to is Joe West (2), which occurred on June 24, 2007. To see the video, click here, click the CHC@CWS 400K MLB.TV link, the play occurs at the 2 hour, 25 minute mark. Alternatively, you can click this link, then find the CHC/CWS game, click "GameDay," and wait for the "Ozzie Gets Ejected" video link to show up at the bottom of the Gameday window. Hawk has one of his infamous rants during the video, and as you pointed out, the White Sox feed (which is used) fails to show the obstruction. You can, however, see 3B Umpire Hickox signal obstruction (also called by 2B Umpire Rapuano) at 0:08 in the video clip (you can see the VERY end of the obstruction occur at 0:07).
I believe the main (misguided) criticism in 2007 within the UEFL over this obstruction call - MLB Rule 7.06(b) or "Type B Obstruction" - was that the Umpires did not call for time when the play was being made on the obstructed runner (he was called safe at second). However, the Umpires followed proper protocol, as Type B Obstruction plays should not be killed until "no further action is possible."
In a further twist of the oft-expressed annoyance at Harrelson's misinterpretations/lack of rules knowledge, the misconception expressed by some UEFL followers in 2007 (that play "should have been killed when the play was made on the obstructed runner") might have started because of Harrelson himself. At approximately the 2 hour 27 minute mark of the game video, Harrelson remarks that if the umpires wanted to call obstruction, "they should have come in waving their hands" to stop play immediately, which obviously would have been the wrong thing to do. A play on the obstructed runner does not constitute "no further action" (quite the opposite), and therefore, should not result in play being stopped. The Umpires got the play right and got the mechanics right, too. By contrast, in Type A Obstruction, play is halted immediately. In Type A, the ball is dead and penalties subsequently awarded. To review, A = ball is called dead, B = keep playing until ball naturally is dead.
I am the guy at work that always ends up defending the umpires...but, wow, the Derryl Cousins call is hard to defend. When I try to explain getting straight lined, they generally think I am just making crap up at that point.
ReplyDeleteHudson, IMO, allowed to himself to be completely owned by the Mets on that call...Reyes spikes helmet? GONE! Third Base Coach contact? GONE! Collins repeartedly throwing his arms up in the air? GONE! What is Hudson thinking? Other than "I just got totally and completely shown up".
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIts very convenient for you to say how horrible a call it was."
As one of two people to post before this comment, I feel like it's fair for me to take this post personally. So I am.
No, I haven't been to AAA. And because of my age (41 and never been to pro school) I never will. But I'm offended that you think that I don't have the right to an opinion, or that I can't know what I'm talking about. Check my posting history, I almost always take the umpire's side. And I am an umpire, working high school and hoping to qualify for NCAA in a couple more years. So I'm not just some homer, and I'm very verbal about how the commentators are idiots (not at all "your: "I will just copy what the commentators say" attitude ").
So to have you show up out of the blue and be all high and mighty pisses me off. In the Reyes play, he shouldn't have called anything he didn't see. If he was blocked, he shouldn't have called an out. In the Figgins play, he looked safe to me from EVERY angle, not the third or fourth.
Finally, I think it's pretty crappy of you to post this anonymously. I put my name on here, put yours.
I also agree that something is wrong with the Kellog call. I can only imagine that he has a different opinion of the swing/no swing than we do.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the homer announcers are wrong. The batter is not required to pull the bat back. He can leave it there and potentially take a ball so long as he does not offer further at the pitch.
Ok.
ReplyDeleteI get that Cousins may have been blocked, but there was NO TAG and HE TOUCHED THE PLATE. He had neither of the prequisites for calling him out. that was very very bad.
As for Kellogg. I can see how he missed that one. The bat is very close to the body and the first replay i saw i actually thought he did indeed go. There was alot of body and bats and balls in there, that is tougher than it looks on replay.
As for this blog, all i can say is bravo CASD. you have created the number one mlb umpire website on the web. this is a great forum and i really enjoy the conversation.
@Jon Terry, it looks like anonymous AAA guy is directing his comment at Dan, who DID call Hudson's call "awful" and "terrible." Don't think he was talking about you. I found your comments to be quite tame...
ReplyDelete@The Anonymous Former Umpire:
ReplyDeleteI'm going to try and be as respectful as I can be here, because it was certainly not my intention to offend or upset anyone.
However, this is a site where people discuss and give their opinions on a variety of plays and calls by umpires. I'm entitled to my opinion just the same as anyone else. And I don't agree with this idea that if you've never umpired, that you don't know what you're talking about.
That would be like saying that all the people that write about Major League Baseball shouldn't do so if they're not a former player. That's not a valid argument to me.
I have the utmost respect for the job that umpires do. I think MLB umpires are the best officials in all of sports. I feel like I'm very fair in the comments I make. When an umpire does a good job, I'll be one of the first to praise them, as I did on this site last year with guys like Jim Joyce, Mike Reilly, Tim Tschida, and others.
But when an umpire makes what I feel is a bad call, I'm going to comment on that as well, and hopefully as a fan, learn what the umpire did wrong, how he could have done better, as far as positioning, implementation of the rules, and so forth, because I find that stuff very fascinating.
So instead of throwing around insults, I'd rather hear from you what, in your experience as someone that has umpired MLB games, did Marvin Hudson do right on that play, what did he do wrong, and why in your estimation did he choose not to eject anyone, when he certainly could have ejected two if not three people in this case. That's what I would rather talk about and learn about.
When it comes to umpiring and officiating, whether it be the laymen fan or the low level to the high level official, there is always going to heated discussion about a call or the particular official. It is the nature of sports. We can all lose our cool at times, but I think it is best we stay on point to the subject at hand. CAscreamin dude by posting what Dan said had no intention to trash Marvin Hudson. I doubt Dan had the intention to trash Marvin Hudson. The fact of the matter is that we are here to discuss the calls made by umpires in Major League Baseball. Just because a commenter is critical of a call made by an umpire, does not make them offensive. Everyone makes mistakes. No sports official is perfect from the frosoph high school umpire to a Major League crew chief. This is the precise reason this site exists. We are here to enjoy and engage in discussion of calls. Not to trash one another!
ReplyDeleteDid anyone see the sacrifice bunt laid down by Livan Hernandez last night? I think he should've been out for interference.
ReplyDeletehttp://washington.nationals.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14254959&topic_id=8878754&c_id=was
Back to the Chicago 2007 obstruction play. According to the minor league umpire manual circa 2004 (which I acquired new in 2007 I think), the correct mechanic on this play is to call TIME as soon as the obstructed runner is tagged out at the base which he is entitled or any preceding base. To their credit, the crew got this right in the end, but at the expense of an ejection and probably a needless protest. If you kill the play after the guy is tagged out at second, then you avoid the rundowns, the extended conversations, maybe the ejection, and the protest.
ReplyDeleteNow, just because the minor league manual says to do this, MLB crews, to my knowledge, have more latitude to their mechanics than MiLB crews. The rule definitely gives them latitude to do this either way.
My reason for posting this is not to dig up an old argument (which it seems like there was one), but to offer a perspective for umpires watching these threads as to how they can handle the situation when it comes. I'd say either is OK as long as you plan for it ahead.
For me, I'm always going to call time when an obstructed runner is tagged for an apparent out when I plan to rule him safe for obstruction.
The MLB Rule re: obstruction and interference is different than the Minor League book, as of 2006 I believe.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Cousins had excellent position to begin that play at home, but he failed to adjust as the play developed. He should have ended up in the right batters box where he could clearly see the missed tag and the touch of the plate. The clue to this was the catcher. If you follow his right hip, then you'll rarely be burnt on those swipe tags.
ReplyDeleteMLB did a Must C about this: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14238339
ReplyDeleteThey had a call like this during the Cubs-Dodgers game a few days ago. Forgot who was 2B, but he called the Cubs guy out for taking his hand off the base. Not as obvious as this one, but it too looked like he kept his hand on the base.
ReplyDeleteJim, it was Jerry Meals who was the 3rd base ump, covering 2nd for Scott. I was actually at the game, but couldn't tell if he came off the bag. Replays were inconclusive to me, he might have come off for a split second initially, but I cannot tell. Looks like Meals called it when he might have come off the bag the 2nd time, but he didn't.
ReplyDelete