Master Index of Archived Threads


Angels with Dirty Faces

Edgy MD May 09 2013 07:21 AM

Angel Hernandez, blowing a home run call, being asked to review it, leaving the field, delaying the game, coming back out, and blowing it again. The man works at it. It seems really easy to solve the problem of indicating whether a ball hits a divider behind a wall or hits the wall itself. Either you can put easily scarred material on the outside of the divider --- perhaps a layer of carbon or shoe polish that would mark the ball and be marked by the ball --- or you affix a resounding material like tin to the divider. Heck, you could even go high teck and affix the divider with impact sensors.

Ceetar May 09 2013 07:26 AM Re: Angel with Dirty Faces

Edgy MD wrote: Angel Hernandez, blowing a home run call, being asked to review it, leaving the field, delaying the game, coming back out, and blowing it again. The man works at it. It seems really easy to solve the problem of indicating whether a ball hits a divider behind a wall or hits the wall itself. Either you can put easily scarred material on the outside of the divider --- perhaps a layer of carbon or shoe polish that would mark the ball and be marked by the ball --- or you affix a resounding material like tin to the divider. Heck, you could even go high teck and affix the divider with impact sensors. yeah, the impact sensors would be great. I feel like some worry it's a slippery slope from that to them in everything, but hell, one of the arguments against replay is slowing down the game, and the home run boundaries (and it's awesome that they're all different and unique in baseball) are so easy to speed up to the point that even if you want to review, it takes 30 seconds. I made this point when Murphy hit one off the Pepsi Porch facing for a 'did it hit?' HR back in..09? Even simply tilting the ad banners/walls there to clearly alter the trajectory of anything that hits would be better than nothing. The silly places, like Citi, that have lines? Put an extra layer of padding that's fair territory. But I like the tin idea. Home runs would ring out across the stadium. BOO M.

Ceetar May 09 2013 07:29 AM Re: Angel with Dirty Faces

also, since I happened to catch both NY radio booths talking about this last night. Howie and Josh went into specifics and a long tirade about grumpy umpires and Hernandez specifically. Suzyn "there's a story in the Cleveland game involving a blown call." and then went on with the rest of the scores and ignored it. (This is right after Jon was stumbling over who was batting because he didn't realize initially about the double switch)

Frayed Knot May 09 2013 07:57 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

1) How da fuck can they blow that one? 2) well at least this didn't occur with two outs in the 9th inning of a one-run game or anything ... oh wait! 3) Perez went on to load the bases ... but got the 3rd out with the save preserved 4) This example points out two things about replay that proponents of expanding it to cover more and more things generally fail to acknowledge a) that "obvious" mistakes are always corrected b) that time limits on how long reviews are supposed to take are enforced or enforceable

Swan Swan H May 09 2013 08:14 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

They did release a picture of the umps reviewing the call:

bmfc1 May 09 2013 08:28 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Buster Olney is stoned. There is no way that The Crypt Keeper overturns this call because he upsets the umpires and sets a recent precedent. Why overturn this one and not McLelland's blown call against the Mets in Miami? Or tonight's inevitable blown call? We know that A. Hernandez should have been dismissed year's ago. I'm glad that everyone else is finally catching on. There really is no gray area with the disputed home run call in the Oakland Athletics-Cleveland Indians game Wednesday night: Upon further review, the umpires still missed an indisputable call on Adam Rosales's long drive to left-center field. There could be explanations. Maybe the television that the umpires have in Cleveland to review home runs is an old black-and-white from 1957; maybe it has a problem with its horizontal hold. Maybe the remote control ran out of batteries. Maybe there is some Magic Baseball thing going on, like the Magic Bullet Theory: The ball stops in mid-air, changes direction, goes down, changes direction again … back and to the right … back and to the right … back and to the right … The evidence is clear, and action is needed. Immediately. As in, the next few hours. The Athletics are in Cleveland and will play the Indians in a noon game today, and what needs to happen is for the Commissioner to use his powers and overturn the call of Angel Hernandez's crew, and replay it from the point of the disputed home run. The score would be 4-4, it would be the ninth inning. Then, after the resolution of that game, the two teams can play the regularly scheduled game. If Bud Selig did this, it would reinstall integrity to how the replay system was supposed to work in this case. Inaction from the Commissioner would be as inexplicable as the umpires' decision to not change the home run call. The reason why they put in replay was to provide umpires the tools to get the home run calls right, when possible, because Major League Baseball determined that a would-be home run could be so integral to the outcome of the game. And on Wednesday night, we saw this: Rosales's long drive would have tied the game in the ninth inning. Instead, the conversation is about the competence of the umpires and how the system doesn't work. The Commissioner can change this, immediately. There is precedent, of course, and George Brett knows all about this. In 1983, he hit a go-ahead home run against the Yankees, and the umpires called him out because they ruled he had too much pine tar on his bat. Upon further review of the call, American League president Lee MacPhail reversed that decision -- which was the right thing to do -- from the point of Brett's home run, with the Royals leading, 5-4. A longtime player watched the game in another clubhouse, in another part of the country, and couldn't believe what he was seeing. "How could we tell using the standard definition television in our clubhouse and [the umpires in Cleveland)] can't see it?" he said. "No television they were watching on was worse than what we were watching on. The whole point of having replay is to get the call right. If the process failed, whatever the reason -- since it's a reviewable call -- they need to right the wrong." If Selig doesn't do this, than this call is going to be brought up over and over and over, like a scab that keeps getting picked -- like the missed call at the end of the Armando Galarraga would-be perfect game. And if Oakland winds up in a tight race for a playoff spot, well, the Commissioner should prepare for a daily review of MLB's blunder. He can change all of that. Quickly. Decisively. And while there might be some mild response from the Indians' organization -- if any at all -- the Commissioner would be armed with the strength that he got the call right, which is the whole point of having replay available.

Edgy MD May 09 2013 09:16 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Suits don't tend to supersede on-field calls by umpires, no matter how egregious. If they did, the Yankees would lose two or three of their recent championships.

Frayed Knot May 09 2013 10:17 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

The Brett/pine-tar thing was an interpretation of a rule as opposed to this which is merely judgement. BAD judgement perhaps (OK definitely) but judgement none the less. I don't think there's any way that Selig et al call for the game to be replayed from that point.

batmagadanleadoff May 09 2013 10:23 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Edgy MD wrote: Suits don't tend to supersede on-field calls by umpires, no matter how egregious. If they did, the Yankees would lose two or three of their recent championships. Nah. Selig would enforce the Yankee Exception: the same rule that allows only the Yankees to play their road games without NOB uniforms; the same rule that permits the Yankees to host an ASG in an even numbered year.

seawolf17 May 09 2013 10:31 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

From 1991! http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /307229900 No one can ever accuse umpire Angel Hernandez of making a dubious call to hasten the conclusion of a baseball game. In fact, Hernandez did just the opposite on Sunday afternoon at Pilot Field. He made a highly controversial, highly suspect call that provided the Buffalo Bisons with new life in an eventual 3-2, 10-inning loss to the Iowa Cubs. Hernandez is reputed around the league to be an umpire who yearns for the spotlight. He attracted notice in Saturday's series opener by calling a phantom balk on 13-year big-league veteran Rick Sutcliffe. Hernandez attracted more attention Sunday with a call at home plate that replays proved blatantly incorrect.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 09 2013 12:27 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

My favorite part of the whole to-do? Our old buddy's actions after the game, with reporters. A's beat reporter Susan Slusser wrote: Angel Hernandez said no recorded interview, only write down answers but says they didn't have enough evidence to reverse call. #Athletics Slusser wrote: @Stareagle @jonmorosi The only possible reason to deny recording is in order to have deniability. Which is troubling to me. Slusser wrote: I put in a request to speak with Angel Hernandez again and I am told that umpire supervisor Randy Marsh has declined the request. #Athletics Is this just a really, really stupid attempt at artificially creating deniability, or is he making some sort of weird, oblique point about trusting humans instead of technology?

Frayed Knot May 09 2013 02:37 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Various questions: - Angel was the crew chief but also the 2nd base ump for the night and therefore the one who made the original call, correct? - Could he be sticking to his first call so as to not reverse himself as in some sort of childish attempt to not look wrong in the first place? - Would the other umps go along with such crockery? - a new kind of long blue line so to speak? - Can MLB itself get some of these answers even if the press and we can't?

dinosaur jesus May 09 2013 02:51 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Various questions: - Angel was the crew chief but also the 2nd base ump for the night and therefore the one who made the original call, correct? - Could he be sticking to his first call so as to not reverse himself as in some sort of childish attempt to not look wrong in the first place? - Would the other umps go along with such crockery? - a new kind of long blue line so to speak? - Can MLB itself get some of these answers even if the press and we can't? Group dynamics: Angel's convinced himself that it really is too inconclusive to tell--if you try hard enough and you really, really want to, you can sort of see it as a double, and Angel really, really wants to. One of the others thinks it's a home run but could see making a case that it isn't, and if Angel really feels that way, then okay. And the other two know it's a home run, but what the hell; they don't want to be Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men and take a stand for the truth, not when it means a stupid, lengthy argument with someone they have to work with every day. And besides, all the shit's going to come down on Angel, not them.

Frayed Knot May 10 2013 06:07 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Last night's (new) controversy involving the men in blue occurred in Houston where the Angels played the game under protest although later withdrew the claim when they came back in the late innings to win the game. The situation: Two on, two outs, Angels trailing, 5-3, top seven - Astros manager Bo Porter replaces RHP Paul Clemens with LHP Wesley Wright, with left-handed hitter J.B. Shuck due to bat. - After Wright threw his warm-up pitches and Porter saw the right-handed-hitting Luis Jimenez on deck to pinch-hit, Porter made another pitching change, going to RHP Hector Ambriz before Wright faced a hitter, which isn't allowed unless there's an injury. - At this point, a furious Scioscia informed the umpires that the Angels would play the rest of the game under protest -- "I think the rule's pretty clear," Scioscia said. Porter had a different understanding. "Technically, Wesley came in to pitch the batter that was scheduled to hit, but he pinch-hit for the batter that was scheduled to hit -- which, from my understanding of the rule, you can bring in another pitcher to face the pinch-hitter," said Porter. Crew chief Fieldin Culbreth allowed the change and did not comment afterward saying only that "all matters concerning protests are handled through the league office." So I've been watching this game for a long time now and the comments by Astros manager Porter and, by extension, the actions of Culbreth are the first time I've ever heard of this rule being even subject to interpretation. As far as I've even known, a pitcher who's brought in must face at least one batter or get one out (such as, say, a pick-off) before he can then be swapped out for another. I'm stunned that Porter and apparently Culbreth feel otherwise and in a way wish that Houston had held on to the lead just to see the protest go through since, unlike the judgement call from the night before, this sort of rules interpretation is exactly the sort of thing that the protest route is built to redress.

Frayed Knot May 10 2013 06:19 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Rule 3.05 (a) The pitcher named in the batting order handed the umpire-in-chief, as provided in Rules 4.01 (a) and 4.01 (b), shall pitch to the first batter or any substitute batter until such batter is put out or reaches first base, unless the pitcher sustains injury or illness which, in the judgment of the umpire-in-chief, incapacitates him from pitching. (b) If the pitcher is replaced, the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute batter, until such batter is put out or reaches first base, or until the offensive team is put out, unless the substitute pitcher sustains injury or illness which, in the umpire-in-chief’s judgment, incapacitates him for further play as a pitcher. (c) If an improper substitution is made for the pitcher, the umpire shall direct the proper pitcher to return to the game until the provisions of this rule are fulfilled. If the improper pitcher is permitted to pitch, any play that results is legal. The improper pitcher becomes the proper pitcher as soon as he makes his first pitch to the batter, or as soon as any runner is put out. Rule 3.05(c) Comment: If a manager attempts to remove a pitcher in violation of Rule 3.05 (c) the umpire shall notify the manager of the offending club that it cannot be done. If, by chance, the umpire-in-chief has, through oversight, announced the incoming improper pitcher, he should still cor- rect the situation before the improper pitcher pitches. Once the improper pitcher delivers a pitch he becomes the proper pitcher.

bmfc1 May 10 2013 06:46 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Hardball Talk on last night's fiasco: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/ ... -the-umps/ Incredible. And pathetic. What's the point of paying these idiots hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, including vacation weeks, and one game off if you work homeplate during a doubleheader, if they don't know the rules, can't see what is clearly shown on TV, and refuse to move to the right position to see the play? Fire them all and start over.

Edgy MD May 10 2013 06:54 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

The Angels and Astros are playing a combined .318 ball, though the Angels have the fifth highest payroll and the Astros easily the lowest (no matter how hard Miami tried). I think such a matchup leads to a lot of folks not having their heads in the game.

Frayed Knot May 10 2013 06:59 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Porter: "I was fortunate enough last year to sit in with [Nationals manager] Davey [Johnson] when they changed the rule of a pitcher having to face a batter". Say what?!? I'd like to hear Davey's version of this. And Joe Torre's since this stuff seems to be under his command these days. Either Porter knows about some rule change that apparently no one else knows or he doesn't know a rule that I've known about since I was like six years old. I'm not sure which explanation is worse. And then why Culbreth & brethren allowed it to happen demands an even bigger explanation. As that Hardball Talk piece says, this IS worse than the judgment call HR from the night before.

Ceetar May 10 2013 07:18 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

the rule change he must be referencing: (d) If a pitcher who is already in the game crosses the foul line on his way to take his place on the pitcher’s plate to start an inning, he shall pitch to the first batter until such batter is put out or reaches first base, unless the batter is substituted for, or the pitcher sustains an injury or illness which, in the judgment of the umpire-in-chief, incapacitates him from pitching. If the pitcher ends the previous inning on base or at bat and does not return to the dugout after the inning is completed, the pitcher is not required to pitch to the first batter of the inning until he makes contact with the pitcher’s plate to begin his warm-up pitches. So Porter is actually correct....IF it was the first batter of the inning. (Note the absence of the 'substitute batter' caveat like in the other part of the rule) edit: still not correct, because that rule only applies if the pitcher was already in the game, not one brought in at the beginning of the half inning. aside, I LIKE this rule change. (although this was already the rule, it's the 'staying on the field' bit that's the change right?) The Joe Torre Rule, since he always did that? Letting a pitcher you're going to replace go in, take his warmup pitches, get set, and THEN go to replace him always annoyed me and it's one of those delay of game strategy things I'm glad they got rid of. But, does anyone actually know this is the rule?

Frayed Knot May 10 2013 07:45 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Have no idea whether this 'D' portion of the rule is new or not, but it certainly does NOT apply to last night's situation. If it is new it might explain a bit where Porter (and maybe even the umps) got the idea in his/their head(s) that last night's stunt was legal - although it still doesn't excuse it. What it probably DOES do is give strength to Bobby' V's case that the rule book needs some kind of overhaul/reorganization/culling as new amendments sometimes seem either redundant to previous ones or in contradiction to them and that the whole thing can be simplified. He would probably be a good guy to put in charge of such a project too although I can't see that happening.

Ceetar May 10 2013 07:53 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

The Official Playing Rules Committee made the following changes that will be in effect for the 2013 season: • Amended Rule 1.15(a) to clarify legal colors for fielding gloves. • Amended Rule 2.00 (INFIELD FLY) Comment to include the situation when interference occurs during an Infield Fly. • Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE (a) Comment) to include the situation where an intervening play occurs at home plate prior to the batter-runner being declared out for interference out of the three-foot lane. • Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE (d)) to clarify when a spectator is considered to have reached out of the stands. • Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE) by deleting the last sentence, “On any interference the ball is dead” in order to account for cases where interference does not result in an immediate dead ball (e.g., batter’s interference, catcher’s interference, etc.). • Amended Rule 3.05(d) regarding situations in which the pitcher is at bat or on base when an inning ends and requirements of such pitcher to resume pitching the next halfinning. • Amended Rules 4.01(e) Comment, 4.10 Comment, 4.12(a) Comment, and 4.12(b) Comment to include Wild Card games at the Major League level regarding non-application of certain portions of Rules 4.01, 4.10, and 4.12. • Amended Rule 4.12(b)(4) to explain the results of a suspended game that is not completed prior to the last scheduled game between two clubs in a championship season. • Amended Rule 6.05(h) to include foul territory in cases when a batter is called out for throwing his bat and interfering with a fielder attempting to make a play. vi Summary of Rule Changes for 2013 Note: Rule changes for 2013 are underlined in this edition of the Official Baseball Rules. 2013 Official Baseball Rules_2013 Official Baseball Rules.qxd 2/5/13 10:54 AM Page vi

Swan Swan H May 10 2013 02:59 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Fieldin Culbreth suspended for two games, per Heyman on Twitter, for bollixing up the pitching change rule last night.

Edgy MD May 10 2013 03:05 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Coolio.

Swan Swan H May 10 2013 05:09 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Also heard in the car that the other three stooges got fined. Only Culbreth, as crew chief, got sat down.

Frayed Knot May 10 2013 06:03 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

It's a start.

MFS62 May 10 2013 08:53 PM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

If that crew didn't know that long standing rule, they're dumb. But Angel Hernandez brings imcompetence to an entire new level. It is amazing that he is still employed by MLB. Later

Edgy MD May 11 2013 06:18 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Swan Swan H wrote: Also heard in the car that the other three stooges got fined. Only Culbreth, as crew chief, got sat down. This is good. It reminds them to check and supervise each other. It would have been nice if Hernandez's partners were in that video room with him and said, "You know, it's your call. But if I've got to go out there with you and be damned by association when you don't spin your finger like you're supposed to, I'm going to tell the media after the game that we all begged you to reverse the call but you were pigheaded, and that we're all sick of your shit."

bmfc1 May 25 2013 07:46 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Hey, guess what? Angel Hernandez blew another call last night: http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013/may ... -call.html

Edgy MD Jun 05 2013 09:59 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

So, how about Tony Randazzo blowing the call on the last out of the Yankee game, tossing Mike Aviles, and then needing to be blocked off by his crewmates from taunting Terry Francona? Lord, there's got to be a better way.

Ashie62 Jun 05 2013 10:05 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Maybe the umps are on the Florida clinic list...

bmfc1 Jun 05 2013 10:49 AM Re: Angels with Dirty Faces

Here's another one from last night, courtesy of Bob Davidson. The fact that it went against the Phillies doesn't mean it wasn't an awful call. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/ ... ast-night/