If a manager yells instructions to F2, who then takes those to F1, are you not going to charge a mound visit?

This happens quite often. If we were to charge a trip every time this occurred, we'd have a dozen pitching changes per game. As explained in our umpire manual, a trip will be charged if the manager goes to the catcher or if the catcher comes to the manager then the catcher goes to the pitcher. Simply yelling over to the catcher who then says something to the pitcher really isn't going to be charged as a trip. The exception to this is if we really believe the manager is attempting to circumvent the rule. Then we can assess a trip.

If a (fair) batted ball bounces, hits the foul pole but bounces back onto the playing field without hitting a fan, is it still in play?

No. The foul poles are considered out of play. Therefore, if a fair ball should bounce and hit the foul pole, it's the same as if the ball had bounced into the stands: a "ground rule" double, misnamed as that term is.

Managers will often use the "quacking duck" sign to have players talk to pitchers. That's where your four fingers move up and down off your thumb like a sock puppet speaking.

Figured I would post this, as I keep forgetting to do so.

This year's All-Star game umpire crew:

HP: Derryl Cousins (Crew Chief)
1B: Ed Rapuano
2B: Tom Hallion
3B: Mark Wegner
LF: Greg Gibson
RF: Phil Cuzzi

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=46309

I think the first, and so far only, reply on that board says it all.

I agree with Joe in Philly. A perusal of that thread on Officiating.com also shows other appropriate replies (though it appears that some were edited/deleted).

I took a brief tour of some of your other posts there to see if they were anything like those here on Outsports. The similarities are, in my opinion, no accident.

First, your original question above seems to imply something that does not exist. Changes to crews are frequent this time of year, and with many injuries this season to Major League Umpires, coupled with vacation time, the changes this season are a bit higher than normal. You need not worry about something that ought not concern you.

Second, you really need to get a life.

You guys (referring to the MLB umpire full-time staff as a whole) really are such freakin' whiners, it's unfreakin' believable.

It's like Clint Barmes, the shortstop for the Rockies. A couple of years ago, I think, he was walking up the stairs with groceries, or something so stupid like that, and he became injured as a result of that episode, like a little baby.

C'mon, guys, if you get one or two off the mask a year, gee whiz, TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO TO SHAKE IT OFF, AND THEN, GET YOUR BUTT BACK OUT THERE AND GO FINISH DOING YOUR JOB!!!

Ump, can u do me a favor? Could you refresh Marty Foster's knowledge of the rules? Because it appears that he forgot a couple.

1. When a pitcher shows great control throughout a game and loses that control with a pitch near a batters head to which the batter and pitcher have had "a past", then shows great control again only to have another pitch go straight for that same batters head at a later at bat....it's a pretty safe conclusion it was done on purpose and it calls for an ejection.

2. Tell him what a strike zone is. If a ball is pitched within the strike zone it is a strike. If it is pitched way inside and completely out of the strike zone no where near a "close call", it is a ball.

Apparently he forgot these two items.

Perhaps I should rephrase.

1. Could you describe how you determine "intent" on suspicious pitches.

2. There has been well-documented evidence that certain pitchers (veterans, aces, those with good control, etc) seem to get those pitches on the corners called strikes more often than other pitchers. Sadly, it seems that Mariano Rivera is now one of those pitchers. Is this something that umpires notice, or talk about?

Sure, I'd be glad to. When a pitcher (Joba Chamberlain) pitches really well, and shows great control and doin' a pretty darn good job through a game, and then a batter in which quite a few times in the past this same pitcher has thrown at said batter (Kevin Youkilis), the great control he had shown myseriously disappears and a ball is pitched DIRECTLY at Youkilis's head. Ump does nothing. Taking the past in consideration, a warning should have been issued. However since it was the first time it happened in that specific game, I guess I can see why a warning wasn't issued.

Then, after this at bat, Chamberlain goes back to pitching quite effectively...Then Youk gets up at bat again, and wouldn'tcha know, that control disappears and another pitch directly to the head, to which the HP Ump, Marty Foster, does nothing. This was completely wrong. Something should have been done. At that point, Chamberlain should've been thrown out, but he didn't even get a warning.

I believe a warning was issued. And it was a 2-0 pitch in the bottom of the 8th (maybe it was the 7th, I forget, but my point stands), up by a run. The count would have gone to 3-0 had it not been for it hitting the bat, which surely was fluky. There are plenty of reasons why it might not be intentional. That is why I was asking our resident expert.

Uh, sure. I'll get right on that.




1. Admittedly, this is exceptionally difficult in some circumstances, while in others it's relatively easy. It really depends on the situation. I can say this much: there really isn't a cut-and-dry scenario where intent is automatically discerned. Having said that, there are times, of course, where it's pretty obvious when the pitcher is intentionally throwing at a batter. This may sound rather stupid, but oftentimes body language can be key. For example, a pitcher who intentionally throws at a batter usually walks off the mound toward the batter as opposed to following through with his traditional post-pitch positioning.

2. I'd like to know exactly what this "well-documented evidence" is to which you allude, because if it existed as you claim it does, there would be a huge media uproar. We do not have one strike zone for Riviera, one for Zambrano, one for Sabathia, etc. I call pitches based on what I see thrown and not on who I see throwing.

Ump, while you may be an exception as opposed to a rule, do you think it's conceivable that other umpires give certain allowances to some pitchers (i.e. Zambrano, Sabathia, etc.)?

Truthfully? Absolutely not.

Ump, with all due respect....how can you say that?

When it is clearly visible to the naked eye that this occurs. You may not want to accept that your co-Umps do this and hell...as a fan I don't want to accept it, but it remains.

I understand that the last thing you want to do is think that an umpire is biased or favors one pitcher/team over another, but that is just silly. It's like a judge saying "No way, there is absolutely no such thing as a corrupt judge" or a cop saying "A crooked cop? No way it could happen"

It's life, in ALL walks of life/careers has it's good and bad.

I can say it because it's true. Period. Major League umpires do not show favoritism to any player or players. To do so would be unethical, unprofessional, and dishonest and ought to result in an umpire's termination post haste.

Your statement that it's clear to the naked eye is both stupid and ridiculous. One cannot "prove" your irrational assumption by watching a game and getting upset that your team lost or some pitcher threw a pitch that was called a strike when you thought it was a ball. Your comments also question our integrity, which is the worst thing you can do to any of us. If you wish to continue to piss us off, just keep making such posts that question our integrity. I find it despicable that one would EVER believe I or any of my peers would favor a particular player!

It's irrelevant what you as a fan believe about this because your belief is an illogical assumption that has no basis in fact. If you're going to make such outrageous claims, you ought to back it up with actual, physical proof, and among that would be one of my peers admitting he intentionally favored someone.

Until that happens, this is a pointless discussion.

So...if I read your response correctly, EVERY single umpire is fair and balanced and unbiased?

uh-huh.

So, going on that, do you also disagree with my cop and judge analogy? That there is no such thing as a corrupt cop or judge? You must, because you apparently you are thinking every person does their job exactly as it is supposed to be done.

That would be great....if it were true, which it isn't.

This from a recap on may 7, 2006 of the Mets/Braves game.

.....And what happened was this, according to Lima. As he [angel hernandez] walked to the mound to start the second, he engaged Hernandez in conversation about the strike zone. "He said to me, 'You're not going to get those three or four extra inches. You're not John Smoltz.'"

I'm not saying every umpire feels this way, but here is at least claims that some of the players feel that it is a possibility.

Josh

Your cop and judge analogy is simply ridiculous, nothing less. There are thousands of judges in this country; there are hundreds of thousand of police officers. There are just under 70 full-time Major League Umpires, every one of whom is fair, balanced, and impartial, your emotional and illogical ranting notwithstanding. Unlike the NBA, MLB far more intensely monitors its officials, often to the point where we in the union get irritated.




Whether or not Angel said this because he thought being sarcastic when speaking to Lima was the way to act, I do not know. I can tell you this much and nothing more: Major League Baseball was quite aware of what Angel said. His comments did not go unignored.

In our profession, even the mere appearance of impropriety is enough to cause those who are emotionally biased like Chill-Trick to fly off the handle or go the route of the conspiratorialists or the paranoid.

There is one strike zone. There is one set of rules. For all players, no matter who they are. There is not an Alex Rodriguez strike zone, a John Smoltz strike zone, or anything else that gives ANY player an advantage or slight edge. This is one of the longest myths in baseball steeped in pure BS, not unlike the "tie goes to the runner" (it doesn't, of course) or other crap.

There may not be different strike zones for players, but for sure, you can't say that MLB has one strike zone. There are 15 home plate umpires each night---and I can almost guarantee that there are 15 different zones being called each evening (albeit the same zone by each umpire for both sides)

Isn't that why some umps are referred to as "pitcher's umpires" and others as "hitters umpires"?

I've watched enough baseball to know that a pitch that Eric Cooper calls just over the outside edge of the plate is NOT going to be a strike when Tim McClelland waltzes into town.

josh

If an outfielder "robs" a batter of a home run (i.e. makes the catch), but in the process the fielder falls over the wall into the stands (while maintaining control of the ball), what is the call?

If a fielder catches a ball then falls into dead ball territory, the out on the catch stands. If it's the 3rd out the inning's over; otherwise, any runners on base are awarded one base. Example: With runners on first and third and one out a deep fly ball is hit to the left field corner in foul territory left. The left fielder leaps for the ball, catches it in mid-air over the spectators in the stands, and lands on his stomach in the 3rd row. The batter's out on the caught fly, but R3 is awarded home and R1 second base.

No. It's not. It's a fact of life. You get a large group of people together of ANY variety and there are bound to bee some "bad apples"

Sorry, you can get pissed off and disagree all ya want. And you know what? Maybe you are the bestest Ump out there and have never ever ever ever ever made a bad call and never never ever ever ever ever called a ball a strike and you don't make mistakes, but some of your colleagues have.

Gee, it's a shock that the umpires are fighting Instant Reply, isn't it?

yawn.

The umpires aren't fighting Instant Reply. In fact, many of them want it because it's so hard to see way out there in these new parks. I'm sure MLB Umpire would agree; and I'm sure he'll say he and his peers are not immune from making mistakes. I agree with him, though, when he says your implications that there are dishonest MLB umpires is disgusting.

You have no proof and just come here stirring trouble. It's obvious that a call once went against your team and you have since then held a grudge. Sad.

That's exactly what I have been saying CC, that there have been mistakes made. And he has continuously got on his high horse and screamed down at me saying "No way we make mistakes, it's impossible, we don't make mistakes you idiot!"

So, in this instance...Ump is wrong. Case closed. I'm done.

No, he's not wrong. He never said they don't mistakes. He stated that they don't intentionally err like you claim they do. You were the one who stirred things up by your stupid statements that claimed MLB umpires were corrupt, intentionally favored some players over others, etc. MLB Umpire was understandably angered by this, because you questioned his (and his peers') integrity.

This is the one thing that I don't tolerate as well. If someone disputes one of my calls, arguing a ball/strike or safe/out, etc., that's bad enough; but they cross the line when they question my integrity. That's a disgusting and unsupported accusation, which is what you did to MLB Umpire. Now you're trying to backtrack by stating all you said was that they "make mistakes."

Nice try.

The 2009 umpire crews. I'm too lazy to rewrite the list, so here's the list as published and provided to us.

There remains one slot to fill and will most likely be another as a retirement looks to be forthcoming.

According to the link which will be provided below, there are several new guys assigned to ST this year. Will any of these new guys (the ones with -- in the uniform # column) eventually be given uniform #'s for potential MLB assignments in '09?

Just curious.

Link: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/roster.jsp

Hi, I'd like to hear your take on Hunter Wendelstedt's ejection of Kenji Johjima last night in the WBC. Because from where I stood, it was ludicrous.

It was obvious that Johjima either did not hear or understand Wendelstedt when the latter was speaking to him. Someone as allegedly smart as Wendelstedt should know that when you're umpiring a game between Japan and Korea, it's safe to say that no player on the field had English listed as their mother tongue. And it's my understanding that Johjima's English is not perfect. So it's obvious, Johjima did not know Wendelstedt was talking to him. He didn't even know he'd been ejected until several minutes later. He had already put his catching gear back on when he was told by one of his coaches. Which I believe is proof positive of that point.

It is my opinion that Wendelstedt showed very poor judgment in ejecting Johjima while his back was turned when it was clear to me that Johjima had no idea he was even being spoken to. Yes, Johjima made it clear that he didn't like Wendelstedt's call. Neither did I. But I think if the worst thing a player does to protest a call is leave the bat at the plate, you should count your blessings. And if Wendelstedt was going to be so petty to eject a player for not picking up his bat (which the batboy was doing at pretty much the exact same moment Wendelstedt signaled the ejection anyway), he should have made damn sure that Johjima understood what he was saying. It was his responsibility to make sure Johjima understood what he was saying. It was his job. And he didn't do his job.

I'd like to know how the hell the thought doesn't enter Wendelstedt's mind that Johjima is Japanese and has limited English skills before ejecting him for not doing what he said. If it was me, and I knew the player spoke a different language, I would have went after him, gotten in front of him, repeated myself again, and asked "Do you understand?" before the thought of ejection even materialized. But either Wendelstedt was too lazy to do all that, or too stupid to consider the language barrier. And because of Wendelstedt's laziness or stupidness, whichever one it was, Japan was left without an important player as they tried to come back. Simple as that. I guarantee, you will never, ever see that with an English-speaking player.

Anyway, I want to know your take on what happened and if you would have reacted the same way.

There is one full-time opening to fill at the present time in MLB, with a potential second full-time position on the horizon. I am not at liberty to specify who is the leading candidate. Perhaps your friend Tim C. at the other forum you frequent would be happy to provide you with that information.

I will not.




First, I don't care if a player can speak or understand English or not. If he does something to show me up on the field, he's almost always going to get ejected. Second, considering I wasn't there with Hunter, I cannot comment on what was said or not said to him or by him. However, I can confidently say that Hunter is not one who wishes to make himself the main act in such situations. He had a reason to do what he did, especially since this is the WBC, and we're not eager to eject participants.

What I meant initially was, I wanted to know if any of the new guys assigned to ST would eventually be given uniform #'s, for potential ability to be called up to MLB as necessary, due to injuries, vacations, etc. In your reply to my initial message, you weren't telling me anything I didn't already know.

They won't be given numbers. They're losers who aren't good enough to be full-time umps so they'll go without numbers so everyone can laugh at them. What does it matter if they're assigned numbers now or not? If they're just fill-ins give them any number available for the time they're filling in.

Congratulations to Chris Guccione, who joins our ranks as a full-time Major League Umpire. Chris got the call Tuesday from MLB informing him he was being offered a contract.

Congratulations, Chris! After 1,255 games as an AAA fill-in (first game: April 25, 2000 - link: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/G/Pguccc901.htm), without a contract, you truly deserve it!

MLB UMPIRE, if you wouldn't mind passing these personal congratulations on to him, I'd appreciate it.

I can see it now...

"MLB Umpire" goes to Chris and says, "One of my fellow posters on this gay sports web site asked me to pass along his congratulations on your promotion, Chris."

What, you guys don't think he deserves congratulations?

So, let me get this straight... John Lackey - fresh off the DL - throws a couple inside (whether intentional or not can certainly be debated) and is immediately ejected. Okay, I have no issue with that - take charge of the game, make sure things don't get out of hand (if it was intentional).

Kerry Wood comes in and throws two right at BJ Upton - again, whether or not it was intentional can be debated - but nothing happens. Victor Martinez runs his mouth at Maddon... things get somewhat out of hand.

So my question is how do you determine when to say something? Is it just a gut thing assisted by circumstances (i.e. Kinsler having a couple homers the night before)? I guess that's really all it can be so I'm sure I just answered my own question haha... it just kinda upset me that the HP umpire today didn't at least issue a warning after two (blatant-seeming) intentional throws at Upton.

An excerpt from the Chicago Tribune that really bothered me. This is Bob Davidson talking about his ejection of Ted Lilly from the dugout for arguing balls and strikes on Monday night.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just found out I scored just about a 96 [out of 100] on my plate job, so my concentration was pretty [darn] good in my opinion."

MLB umpiring supervisors grade umpires on a daily basis after reviewing videotapes.

Davidson said out of 215 pitches Monday, he was told he'd missed 10.

"Eight of them were pitches I called strikes that shouldn't have been," he said. "The other two, one went against Pittsburgh and one went against Chicago. My concentration was excellent."
-----------------------------------------

So you've just been told that you made ten bad calls in one game.... and you're PROUD OF YOURSELF? I'm sorry, but I thought umpires were supposed to strive for perfection.

I don't care how "acceptable" a percentage that is by MLB standards, when two teams are counting on you to make the right calls, don't talk about ten missed calls like it's nothing. I mean, one bad call changing the course of a game is bad enough, and here's a major league umpire being quoted in a major newspaper that he is perfectly fine with missing ten. I mean, what the hell?

And while we're on the subject of umpiring in Chicago... Mark Carlson, classy move tossing Zambrano for your own bump tonight. The call was close, I don't know who was right, but don't toss a player for contact that you made yourself, that's just brutal.

P.S. I'm not a Cubs fan, so don't bother playing that card with me.

MLB UMPIRE: a question about umpires conferring and overturning a call. (Sorry it's so long)

In a game today (Sept. 2, 2009), with one out in the top of the 6th, White Sox catcher Ramon Castro hits a long fly ball towards rightfield in the Metrodome that Twins RF Michael Cuddyer leaps and appears to catch snow-cone fashion up against the baggie wall.

Initially, the umpiring crew (presumably either 1B umpire Scott Barry of 2B umpire Jeff Nelson) rule the catch a catch and the batter is out, but after White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen complains, the umpiring crew confers, with 3B umpire and crew chief Tim Tschida seeming to lead the discussion.

Meanwhile, TV replays show CLEARLY and without dispute that the ball did NOT touch the baggie wall, and that Michael Cuddyer has, without a doubt, made a catch. There is no doubt that the initial call was correct, and that the call should NOT be overturned.

During the umpire conference, it appears that Umpire Tschida and HP umpire Bob Davidson are having the majority of the discussion, and ultimately, the conference breaks up and Davidson indicates that Castro be awarded second base - that the ball hit the wall before Cuddyer's catch.

I have three questions:

1. Viewers have been led to believe that, for a call to be overturned in a situation like this, some umpire must say in the conference that he ABSOLUTELY saw the ball hit the wall, and the call should be overturned. Is this true? And if so, how does this crew rationalize the fact that some umpire bore witness to something (the ball hitting the wall) that replays definitively do NOT show happen? In other words, I believe that some umpire in this conference claimed to see something that did not actually happen, but am not sure.

2. The replays seemed to indicate the 3B umpire Tschida and HP umpire Davidson were having most of the discussion during the umpire conference, even though the play happened closest to 2B umpire Nelson and 1B umpire Barry, one of whom presumably initially made the "out" call. Is this accurate, or what is the protocol for these discussions? Further, HP umpire Davidson was the umpire who, after the conference broke up, made the call that Castro go to second base. Does this mean that Davidson was the one who actually overturned the call and claimed to see the ball hit the wall, or does the HP umpire always do this? What is the protocol here, if any, and what happened here?

3. Lastly, if memory serves me correctly, it was Tim Tschida who, in the 2007 NL Wild Card playoff game, incorrectly made the call that a clear Rockies home run had, in fact, NOT gone over the fence in centerfield in Coors Field? While this play, under the current review system, would have been reviewed and presumably overturned, my concern is that Umpire Tschida has been involved in two distinct plays in my memory where he either made a bad call on a ball hit to the fence or was the crew chief in one case and made the bad call in the other. Is there any system of ramification for repeated errors of a similar nature, particular if Tschida was the one who made the incorrect overrule in today's White Sox-Twins game? And while this last question sounds like I'm trying to be funny, I'm not... but could a situation like this result in a mandatory vision test for Umpire Tschida?

Thanks for your time in answering this. I found this situation fascinating since it was an incorrect overrule, and I was relieved (as I'm sure the crew was once they saw the replay) that Castro did not, in fact, score, so the incorrect overrule did not directly affect the outcome of the game.

Judgment calls are overturned only when there is at least one umpire who has some type of evidence that indicates something different from what the calling umpire ruled.






Generally, either the original umpire making the call or the crew chief will make the reversal if there is one. Davidson wasn't the crew chief; Tschida was. Bob made the base award because as plate umpire, it's usually standard that he award bases because of his ability to see where the runners are in his wide field of vision. Therefore, he can place them accordingly. Of course, on ground rule doubles, that's not as significant, as runners get two bases from their time of pitch bases.






No, Tim is not going to be subjected to a vision test. Sometimes mistakes can happen in bunches or occur in a much more publicly noticed or pronounced way. Tim just happened to be the victim of bad timing.



As far as ramifications for errors, well, let's just say that this offseason has pretty much trashed the opinion that MLB doesn't fire umpires or their supervisors. With several new crew chiefs and five new staff members coming this year, we've seen the greatest shakeup since the 1999 mass resignation fiasco.

Finally, a step in the right direction. It needs to be more public than that, though. Using a situation from today's Toronto-Boston game as my example.

Bottom 9, Blue Jays leading 3 to 1, JD Drew on second for the Sox, 1 out. Scott calls David Ortiz out on a pitch that was two feet outside (to quote Ortiz, "I'm glad I'm not right handed, I would have been hit in the ribs), then incorrectly calls a check swing strike on Adrian Beltre--and to top that off--refuses to ask for help at first. Terry Francona goes out to call Scott on his bullshit, and gets tossed for a damn good cause. If Ortiz had been on first where he should have been when Beltre eventually drove in Drew to make it 3-2, he would have made it to second or third representing the tying run with one out. Instead, a pop-up ends the game.

I'm not going to dispute the ejection of Francona, he did look pretty angry, and there is no doubt Dale Scott's fuse was shorter because Francona was just out there arguing about the Ortiz pitch. But Dale--you just made three big mistakes in a span of five minutes and you think you're the victim in this argument? Isn't the important thing that an umpire was possibly the difference between a team winning and losing--something that should never ever happen? Yes, Francona, Ortiz and Beltre all argued, but plain and simple, Dale Scott is the one who missed the calls, ergo, Dale Scott is the one who caused the problem.

And the real injustice is, if anyone involved publicly states that Scott made a mistake, they get fined, because Major League Baseball wants the public to believe their umpires are perfect. I don't know who MLB thinks they're fooling, because anyone who's ever watched a baseball game knows that's not true. All that MLB is showing is that they will publicly defend their umpires to the death even if they call Jorge Orta safe, Jeffrey Maier's catch a home run, or the sky green. Umpires not being perfect is one thing, but the league actually defending their mistakes--how exactly is that better?

The league needs to start showing that umpires are being held accountable for their mistakes, and it needs to be more than losing some All-Star or playoff assignment that they might not have gotten anyway. No, what needs to happen is, the league needs to review every play that results in an ejection, and if the umpire's call is wrong, they get fined. Just as publicly as any player or manager would be fined for disputing that call. How is that not reasonable?

MLB Umpire, I always ask people why they go into certain fields. It's interesting. And it helps others to follow their dreams. I teach history, not because I'm going to get rich from it, but because it combines two things that I'm passionate about. What made you want to be an umpire? I certainly respect your privacy, but there might be some kid out there, who has a similar dream that you once had.

Do you believe the Mattingly situation in Los Angeles, with the "two" mound visits, was called correctly?

Badger,

The interpretation of the visit rule was correctly called, but the penalty was wrong.

Per rule 8.06c, once Johnson/McClelland was going to penalize Mattingly, he should have been ejected with Broxton being removed from the game *after* pitching to Torres, not before.

Josh

Tonights Yankees/Blue Jays game.

5th inning. Blue Jays Yunel Escobar takes a questionable strike call in his at-bat before flying out to end the inning. Now, while Escobar is at his shortstop position for the 6th inning, home plate ump Jerry Meals starts following Escobar, who has long since ended the conversation, out to continue the argument and eventually tosses him. Blue Jays manager is also tossed for arguing that ejection.

Same inning, Nick Swisher of the Yankees is called out on strikes, and gets in Meals' face, arguing angrily and demonstratively, but is allowed to stay in the game. 9th inning, Yankees Curtis Granderson, called out on strikes, is furious, again gets in Meals' face--no ejection.

Tell me how this is not a double standard. Two Yankees argue aggressively and stay in the game, but the Blue Jay who argues very little if at all, is sought out at the shortstop position by an umpire looking for a fight.

MLBUMPIRE, I will personally send you a new Ferrari if you can convince me that Jerry Meals did his job well tonight.

Jerry Meals deserved every word that Joe Maddon said to him and more.

The fact that the umpires are okay with the fact that one of them was the sole reason Michael Young hit a 3-run home run in a playoff game--as long as, God forbid, no one yells at them for it--is absolutely ludicrous and maddening to watch as a baseball fan. But of course, Maddon's the one who's wrong, because he's the one who informed the umpire he messed up. Lock him up! Quote me on this, ANY UMPIRE WHO THINKS MADDON HAD NO RIGHT TO BE ANGRY IS AN IDIOT. Baseball needs some umpire firings and more replay NOW.

Let's hear you say I'm wrong now, ump.

As you wish.

You're wrong.




You are correct.




BBC, I was fortunate to be halfway decent in some sports in high school, and after going to a small college, I had some Little League umpiring under my belt and enjoyed it. I was a member of an association that had several outstanding alumni in both MLB and MiLB, so I gave it a shot and the rest was history.