In their own words

So the other day I wrote about the umpire crew in Game 1 of the World Series getting it right in the 1st inning, in "We have to get it right ... ."

Well as if on cue, we have this article, from Masslive.com, that goes into a bit more depth and has direct quotes from the crew and MLB director of operations.

A fascinating look as to how it happened, and how they worked together to correct it.

Requiescat In Pace Blue

Veteran MLB umpire Bell, 48, dies of heart attack

NL crew member's resume includes one World Series, three All-Star Games

LOS ANGELES -- There was only one umpiring crew working Monday night when word of Wally Bell's death circulated, which made the ensuing hours very difficult, especially for six members of a very tight umpiring fraternity.

Bell, a veteran umpire with 21 years of Major League experience, reportedly suffered a massive heart attack on Monday in his hometown of Youngstown, Ohio. He was 48.

Crew chief Gerry Davis was informed of the news about an hour before first pitch of Game 3 of the National League Championship Series between the Dodgers and Cardinals in Los Angeles. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of MLB.com.

Kicking Back Comments: A very sad day for his family, blood and refereeing, and indeed for us all. Today we all bleed blue.

Why JAFO was right, and how MLB agrees

So if you happen to miss it yesterday, JAFO and I went point - counterpoint on the Dempster - A-Rod issue from Sundays Red Sox - Yankees game.

Take a look here, for a brief recap.

I enjoyed JAFO's analysis, and as often occurs when we interact, I learn something by looking through a lens I had never before. I am learning to call it the "JAFO Effect."

Interestingly enough, almost immediately after JAFO posted the piece, Dempster was suspended, and from it, for me, it was more clear than ever that MLB through that suspension and fine, agreed with JAFO, and condoned the action of Dempster.

Let me start by agreeing with JAFO that Dempster was not trying to hurt A-Rod. If he tried to hurt him, he would have hurt him. My biggest beef was Dempster playing the "MLB Enforcer" role, then ducking the issue completely when asked directly. Yeah I know you get suspended when you make such statements, but I think it may have gone better if he said something.

Well, JAFO noted, and I agree, that a message was sent, and through the lack of direct reaction from both teams, they were "ok" with what happened.

I'll go further and say given the suspension that MLB handed down to Dempster today, they too were "ok" with what happened. Why do I say that?

Well, consider the role of a starting pitcher, with a start approximately every (5) days. Between starts these guys don't do anything and if a team happens to have a day off, well that's just gravy.

Now, Dempster was suspended for exactly (5) days by MLB, and when given the opportunity,  to appeal his suspension, he chose not to, thereby not extending the time which the suspension would be served. Oh did I mention that the Sox have a day off coming up next week?

So think about it, MLB suspended Dempster only for the exact amount of time he would have had to sit anyway, resting for his next start. Pretty strange coincidence huh?

Further, the "undisclosed amount" he was fined was reported to be $2500. Further indication that MLB was "ok" with the incident as such a fine is hardly punitive for a player making $13.25M this year ... oh yeah ... and he still gets paid during this time. That part is of course typical for on field incidents. Even Giardi was fined more at $5000 for "doing the right thing" yet here too I agree that while traditional, it was practically the wrong way.

So while both teams showed great apathy to the beaning (except for Girardi, who needed to respond the way he did), MLB has followed suit and I would opine, through their action, essentially said "nothing to see here" by appeasing the yahoos like me who genuinely believe that Dempster was wrong in playing the enforcer (yet traditionally right as JAFO noted) by a suspension and fine, and also appeased whoever is left supporting A-Rod as he prepares to face his arbitration hearing.

One guy who may feel a bit funny is O'Nora, who saw MLB go over his head to "do the right thing" (albeit meaninglessly punitive).

Something tells me he is ok with it too.

Angel on (The Rays') Shoulder

There are relatively few opportunities for real trickery outside of feigning fouls in soccer.

One could certainly be penalties, or kicks from the mark. Another may be pass back to the goal keeper. There may be some opportunities during some set plays too, particularly corner kicks where I have seen some trick set plays used, at times with some success.

In all cases however, a referee has to be ready for it, and know what the appropriate result needs to be, without regard to what everyone else thinks.

Take a look at the clip below from the Rays v. LA the other day, and how nearly everyone in the park, media included, got it wrong, and it took super, duper, extra slo mo several times for folks to figure it out. Some I'm sure still don't get it.

The Rays of course, pulled it off to perfection, and Angel Hernandez had it the whole way, finally to the credit of the media, even without instant replay or some elaborate sensing device to tell us where the ball was.

Hat tip to Angel Hernandez for an outstanding call.

120' Toss

So take a peek at this clip generously provided by MLB. There is quite a bit going on.



So we have Bryce Harper (stats) in the 1st inning of the Nationals v. Pirates the other week. A check swing that was appealed by the Pirates catcher, and was called a 3rd strike by 3rd base umpire, and crew chief, John Hirschbeck (bio).

Based on the account here, Harper gave him the "stink eye" and dropped his bat. From the video Hirschbeck obviously reacted, in an ... unorthodox manner.

It was actually quite clever as it gave Harper the opportunity for pause and just walk away as (in Hirschbeck's words) "... he was trying to show me up."

From there, there were (2) subtle management pieces going on. First was at :12 of the video when the home plate umpire engages Harper from reacting any more than he did already by dropping his bat, it would seem in protest.

Also, at :16, you can see Hirschbeck walk toward home plate, and stop for the 3rd base coach and send him to talk to his player.

From there Harper throws his helment (for the 2nd time this year) and was ejected.

A staggering analysis can be found here at the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League.

So there was good and bad for me in this one from all sides.

Harper was wrong to "show up" Hirschbeck through his actions, and was properly ejected for it, full stop.

Hirschbeck was unorthodox, some say inflammatory, in his actions by raising his hands, and may have done better to just yell and point (being 120' away makes some of this tough), and his action may have been a way to try and bridge that distance. It may have also been an attempted technique that went wrong. (These guys don't get AAA games to try new tactics out remember)

Hirschbeck was still justified to send Harper for his conduct, that was even after being spoken to by the home plate umpire, and 3rd base coach.

Closing comments go to Harper as in looking at the interview here, I though Harper came off a lot better personally ... and in the big leagues folks (future MLS and FIFA guys take note), this stuff matters a bunch.

If you respect umpires Caple, then act that way

Like many I have been looking at the mess around the lack of a single player inducted into the Baseball HOF in 2012.

What a joke on so many levels. First is the group who casts votes ... Baseball "writers." Come on ... other than siting on their a$$es watching and writing, what do they know about the game?

As evidenced by some recent articles, not all that much. In fact so much so the oft repeated expression about "... those who can't do ... teach." should be revised to "... those who can't do ... write about baseball."

It's no surprise that there were no players inducted into the HOF this year, and the overwhelming reason being bandied about it the "silent referendum" on the use of PEDs.

So who made the know little press experts on PEDs, their use, and the morality involved in those who are associated with them?

Well it's about cheating some say. Cheating? What about Gaylord Perry? Here is a player who was a known cheat for altering baseballs during the game ... and yet is in the Hall?

Yeah, but that's not dealing with PEDs.

Well neither is Clemens, or Bonds as both were cleared of any charges regarding PEDs (Bonds was convicted on an obstruction charge). Where's the beef guys? Are you telling me that a group of reporters knows better than our Criminal Justice system in determining guilt? Really? How incredibly arrogant of these writers.

What really frosted my cookie, and caused this rant was The HOF's future imperfect tense written by Jim Caple of ESPN. It's an excellent article worth a good read. One I largely agree with.

Where we depart in our opinions, is in his nearly mocking tone of the induction of Hank O'Day. Here is a guy who was a pitcher and umpire in MLB for 37 years. He worked the 2nd most number of games EVER in MLB history, and worked 10 World Series.

Caple's comment:

"Former umpire Hank O'Day, who, well, was an umpire."

Nice Caple. Here is someone who served the game for 1/3 of a century, and your comments amount to, yeah I guess those guys count too ... sort of.

How pathetic.

He continues with:
All of those "Hall of Famers" -- elected by something called the Pre-Integration Committee

Again, pathetic. These folks have just as much invested as players, and should be treated with just as much respect. Caple is called on to take responsibility for a daily baseball column, O'Day for a thousands of MLB games and 10 World Series. You do that math.

Now, trust me, I did not miss the satirical point of the article as fundamentally I agree with what he is saying, and enjoyed the article. What he did not need to do was skewer others (than players inducted) to make his point. Particularly those like O'Day, who served with distinction.

Of note from the article:

I mean, are these the sort of people we're going to honor with plaques on Cooperstown's walls rather than the players we cheered so lustily and who made us feel so good? Old owners who financially abused players and perpetuated racism (Ruppert, Charles Comiskey, Tom Yawkey)? Owners who moved teams 3,000 miles away from their fans (Walter O'Malley)? Owners who charged outrageous beer prices? Commissioners who were ineffective and stubbornly stuck in the past (Kuhn)? And umpires? I mean, I respect umpires, but c'mon.

The link points to a call that was missed back in 2009 from Game 2 of the ALDS between the Yankees and Twins. C'mon indeed. What does THAT call, have to do with anything?

The answer to Caple's rhetorical question about "... are these the sorts of people we're going to honor ..." is a resounding YES YOU MORON! Why not? I'm not a particular fan of some things some of these folks did either, but why do the media think they are imbued with the authority to make moral judgments?

Let's take O'Day just as one sliver of this ... his "crime" ... he was an umpire (cue dramatic music). Why shouldn't he be considered and fully accepted as a Hall of Famer? People should be in awe of such a record, not suggest he was just an umpire. Please.

People serve in different ways, and in this case to suggest anyone other than a player is not a real inductee is crap. I even extend this to the media folks who see fit to malign those who actually participate in weaving the fabric of the game's history, not just sit up on high, and wax pathetic on it.

Handball?

Photo Courtesy Boston Globe

For those who have not heard about this story, Derek Jeter when the Yanks were playing the Rays appeared to have gotten beaned with a pitch in the hands. A closer look showed that the ball hit the butt of the bat and not Jeter.

The plate umpire, Lance Barksdale (stats) told him to take his base for being hit. A trainer paid a visit to Jeter to check on him, but at the end of it all, Jeter took his base.

Joe Maddon, the Rays manager argued the call to the point of getting tossed for it, and at the end of the day the Rays won the game 4 - 3, and would appear to be (in the legal community would be called) "harmless error."

After the game, the real fun began with Jeter admitting he was not hit by the pitch and Maddon admitting he did not blame Jeter. No one openly faulted the umpire for the situation.

I did reflect on this a bit and there were a bunch of thoughts I had.

First, I noted that no one was openly castigating the umpire for the ruse. This is sharply contrasted in our game where referees are expected to be drama critics as well as arbiters of THE game. MLBs approach seems more sane to me. How can you hold an umpire, or any referee, responsible for the actions of a player who is purporting such an act? Now, this is not to say that the league should not later take action, such as a token fine for Jeter for his dishonesty to "steal" a base, not withstanding his piety later in the evening. Same holds true for FIFA and MLS who I know have taken action after the fact to an incident that required some further discipline.

Second, is that I agree with Jeter and Maddon. I don't blame either for their reaction. Mistakes happen, and there is no reason not to take advantage of them when they occur. This is one of the realities of any game played at that level. Participants are paid a lot of money, and would be sharply criticized if they don't take advantage of such situations.

Third, I agree with Barksdale's actions. He may have actually got clued into the fact that the ball did not hit Jeter somewhere between home plate and first base. Assuming he had the ability to change his mind once the base was awarded (JAFO may jump in here), it may not have been a good idea and may have actually undermined his authority and caused more issues if he brought Jeter back to the plate. Sometimes when you are committed, you have to roll with it. More than once in my career after I called a foul, a player would get up and smile in that knowing way that gave me the sinking feeling that they just stole one from me. My response, call the foul. To go back and untangle that mess can cause havoc.

Lastly, THERE ARE NO MAKE UP CALLS. Let's say you discover that you got juiced for a call (as I have many times). You can't make up a call the next time for the other team. This is patently dishonest and will instantly bankrupt your credibility with the players and coaches. Now, I have joked about it with players and even admitted that the player got one over on me, but, never, never, never make up a call. It turns a soccer match into a bartering session.

Keep in mind you are there not to be "fair" (one for red, one for blue), but rather to be "objective" (call 'em like you see 'em). Sometimes things are not even in a match, and a referee acting as one who tries to balance such a competition is asking for big trouble.

In my opinion, slap Jeter with a fine for cheating, or in the alternative make him *gasp* apologize for cheating, and leave the rest alone.

A story on the topic is here, courtesy of the Boston Globe.

We're not going to take it ... (Sung to Twisted Sister)

First of all, go here to listen to the song if you are so inclined.

Does anyone remember the name Jim Leyland? Well he is the manager that showed the grace to publicly forgive Jim Joyce for the call he blew back in June taking a perfect game away from Galarraga. See here for a recap.

Well, Jim's "pissed" (his words), and I honestly don't blame him. He was accused of spitting on an umpire, what sound like what actually happened, was some sunflower seeds accidental shot out of his mouth when he was arguing a call at second base. Gross, but innocent in nature.

While he was ejected from the game, and Leyland himself is fine with that, to be accused of spitting on an umpire is serious stuff, and he is not going to stand for it.

As he stated to the Detroit Free Press:

"I'm tired of protecting umpires. I'm tired of not being able to say anything. I'm defending myself. If you want to kick me out, that's fine. I don't care about that because it sprayed on his shirt, but when you start to accuse somebody of doing something you better be careful."

... and he's right. As referees we not only have to report the correct misconduct - but have to get the underlying misconduct correct. Men of good conscious can disagree if it was or was not a handball or yellow card (for example), but to accuse someone of doing something serious, you must be sure. A referee loses all credibility and integrity instantly otherwise.

Full story here, courtesy of USA Today.

90 Foot Launch

Kicking Back Comments:

This is an interesting incident from the perspective that we have to remember as referees that players have relationships too. Very often we are asked to step in when that relationship is not going so well, but there is one there none the less. Over time it is important to form relationships with these players too. For those who see teams on a regular basis (in town leagues for example) there is nothing wrong with taking to understand the dynamics of the relationships between players, coaches, administrators, other referees, et al. These relationships are what will make or break you the further you go.

Early in my career I was instructed to call people "sir" or "ma'am" (except Barbara Boxer, who I would call "Senator"), and this seemed to work for a while for no other reason that it was polite. As I progressed and saw teams more and more regularly I found it more helpful to use a persons name in a respectful way (e.g. Mr. Bright, Ms. Murphy) as it started to form a connection between us. Later still, I took the time to know these folks and could strike up a conversation whenever we saw each other. I recall seeing Steve Nichol so frequently as manager of the local "A League" team that he would comment on my haircut when he did not like it. It was truly comical. But more importantly he felt comfortable to let me know when something was at issue. From there I would filter the comment and ask "what is he getting at?" It was usually something pretty vital to the match at hand.

It is critical for a referee to be aware of what is going on and the interactions between people to get the full picture. I recognize this umpire was a "vacation substitute" and may not have that time to be able to understand the dynamic. In which case, he should have just let it go.

I'm not advocating being willfully blind to an issue, what I am saying is take the time to understand it, and then, and only then, take the appropriate action.

Beltre taken by surprise
He says umpire was way off base

Adrian Beltre was called out on strikes in the second inning last night on a pitch he thought was low. He told umpire Dan Bellino his opinion and returned to the dugout.

“I didn’t curse or anything,’’ Beltre said. “I said I thought it was low. He said it was a good pitch and I walked away.’’

Once the inning was over, Beltre trotted out to third base and playfully boasted to Seattle pitcher Felix Hernandez that he would get him the next time. ...

Full article here courtesy of the Boston Globe.

You wanna go?

For those who follow baseball, and were watching the Angels v. Detroit game on 06-AUG-2010, we were witness to a very interesting incident between plate umpire Ron Kulpa and the Angels right fielder Torii Hunter. This incident resulted in (2) ejections [the Angles Manager Mike Scioscia was also ejected], a suspension, an appeal, now turned no appeal and no doubt a huge fine.

Take a close look at the video here.

After the pitch and called strike (and it was a strike) Hunter began to argue. Note however that his body language is really quite calm. Clearly Hunter said something though as Kulpa responded to him with "... are you kidding me? Do you want to go?". Kulpa then heaved him, I would say almost half heartedly with a wry smile on his face. Both of these things got my attention right away as somewhat odd behavior from an umpire.

Hunter continued from the 8th to 14th second, palms open and up continuing to plead his case.  Take a look at Kulpa during this time ... he is looking away not paying any notice to Hunter. That is right up until the time Hunter jabbed the bill of his batters helmet into Kulpa's forehead. Well, that seemed to get Kulpa to pay a bit more attention to Hunter at that point as manager Scioscia came out and had to get between them.

Look carefully at what comes next. Tom Hallion comes in and does the smart thing and takes Hunter away and engages him in conversation. Hallion talks to Hunter, looking him in the eye and letting him vent about what just happened. Look at the 36th second of the tape, Hunter is acknowledging Hallion and finally concedes with an "OK".

Kulpa continues with Scioscia and that too results in an ejection, albeit the tape does not show that much of the discussion, but it seems more civil, and my suspicion is more theater, than the Hunter incident.

So what does this all mean?
TREAT ALL PLAYERS WITH RESPECT, ALL THE TIME.


I would opine in this situation that the whole thing was completely avoidable, all Kulpa had to do, was show Hunter some respect and listen, just for a minute. If he did that I would bet everything would have been fine. This lack of respect for a player, caused what we saw on the tape.

Let me take the alternate position though, what if Hunter said something really vile that warranted the immediate ejection. What should change to possibly avoid some of the collateral damage?

Well for starters I would never, ever invite the player to determine their own fate orally with an invitation like "You wanna go?". To do so, opens a Pandora's box that you don't want to deal with. There are no good answers or actions to that question. You are there to referee, not farm out that responsibility to the players.

Next, if Hunter did say something vile, toss him, I mean TOSS HIM! He should (proverbially) land in the next zip code if he said something like that. There was no such reaction from Kulpa if that was the case. Now, he may have been thinking that he was not going to give Hunter the pleasure of seeing him upset. Well that works for 1::1 stuff, but this was not a 1::1 moment. Everyone was watching, and Kulpa knows better. He sure knew what to do when Hunter hit him with his helmet, very quickly pointing to his own forehead - AT LEAST 3 TIMES!

This would have been cause for a different emotion ... Kulpa getting mad. There would have been far fewer questions and "gap filling" from those watching if Kulpa got really torqued, tossed Hunter, and showed the emotion, like he did after the bump (or "beak" as Kulpa has called it). His manager likely would have said a word or two to Kulpa, collected Hunter and moved on. [Yes, for those referees that want to referee at a high level, some acting is required at times. At the very least understand body language and know how to use it for people that are watching from a distance.]

Another tactic may be to the the manager involved earlier. This may be more difficult in the baseball setting, but in our case another player (not just a teammate) to get some room between you and the player. A few seconds to cool off can work wonders too.

In the final analysis Hunter deserved the (4) games he got for bumping (beaking) Kulpa. Battery on a referee, short of self defense, is never excusable, no matter the trigger. That said, in my opinion, Kulpa should sit a few too to think about how this one could have finished so much better if he just paid a little more respect to Hunter.

Justice for those who love the game ... even in the face of adversity ...

Players vote Joyce top umpire in baseball

By Tom Singer / MLB.com

06/13/10 7:16 PM ET

In a recent poll conducted by ESPN The Magazine, Major League Baseball players voted Jim Joyce the best big league umpire. ...

Full story here courtesy of MLB.com.

Of mice and men

There are times in life when peoples' mettle is tested. June 2nd, 2010 was the day when MLB umpire Jim Joyce (stats) was called to prove his.

For anyone who has been living in a cave over the last 24-48 hours, Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers pitched a perfect game, almost. This as we know is statistically improbable, (unless you’re Kevin Costner and in the movies) as shown by having only 20 perfect games in history.


Galarraga didn’t pitch a perfect game however, as on the very last out of the very last inning, a batter hit a drive to center field, the ball was thrown to first, and the first baseman touched the bag BEFORE THE BATTER GOT THERE. Except that Joyce called the hitter safe. And what the ump says goes. Looking at instant replay isn’t allowed, but after the game Joyce sure looked at a replay, seems like the whole world did.

Some mice may have let it go there and been willing to wither the criticism of the informed and uninformed alike. Not Joyce, what did he do?

He started that night in the club house saying,
"I’m not sure what to say right now other than that probably was the most important call of my career, and I missed it. Nothing like this has ever happened to me, and I don’t know what to say. This isn’t (just) a call -- this is a history call, and I kicked the (crap) out of it, and there’s nobody that feels worse than I do. I take pride in this job and I kicked the (crap) out of that (call), and I took a perfect game away from that kid over there who worked his (butt) off all night."

Wow ...

He continued the next day with a tearful meeting with Galarraga during the roster exchange where Joyce was in the rotation as the home plate umpire.

He's didn't duck, hide, dodge, parry ... nothing ... he said he screwed up, took a game away from someone who deserved it, and asked for forgiveness ... which he was graciously granted by Galarraga.

It was a bitter pill no doubt, but Joyce swallowed it, first time, without question or hesitation.

That's a guy I want working in my league.

Next on my list of folks to hold in high regard for this after Joyce and Galarraga (respectively), is Bud Selig who as of this writing has decided not to invoke the "what's best for the game" rule and overturn Joyce's decision.

While I am sure the pressure was tremendous, and Selig recognized he did not want to set a precedent for any questionable decision to be reviewed and judged by the commissioner themselves, part of the decision lie in trusting his officiating crew to make a decision ... even a wrong one sometimes.

What this will do to the state of instant replay we will see in the days ahead.

This lays the groundwork for a few topics of relevance in the subjects we cover. Most notably ... what does an apology get you these days in sports? Sometimes salvation, sometimes big trouble.

Also, there was a very, very interesting comment by that last batter, Jason Donald, who said "I thought it was just so bang-bang, I thought for sure I was going to be called out just because of everything that was at stake." (emphasis added)

Just let that one sink in for a minute ... we'll get to that one soon.