Posted on 07/27/2011 11:50:03 AM PDT by BluesDuke
He was safe. He missed the tag.
Don’t know. I saw the call in slo-mo and from different angles, and, although it looked like a bad call, I did not see anything definitive that the catcher touched the runner.
Don’t know. I saw the call in slo-mo and from different angles, and, although it looked like a bad call, I did not see anything definitive that the catcher touched the runner.
The catcher may have missed the tag, too hard to tell. I see no reason to jump all over the ump about it. The only reason people are so up in arms about it is because it happened so far from the plate.
You're nuts. (And I don't have a dog in this hunt.) Even the ump (who should be retired) admits that the tag was made.
ML/NJ
Blown call. Not a malicious blown call, but a blown call nevertheless.
I'm surprised that the ump didn't ask the other umps for their opinion even for a second on that one. It was rather fast, but couldn't he had just reversed the call instantly?
I'm surprised that the ump didn't ask the other umps for their opinion even for a second on that one. It was rather fast, but couldn't he had just reversed the call instantly?He could have done just what you suggest---call in the other umps, especially when Hurdle bounded out to question the call. There's plenty of precedent for it, too, if you still remember how the umps conferred often on close or weird plays during the 2004 American League Championship Series and, where needed, actually did reverse calls.
I also saw another great suggestion regarding umpiring and extra inning games---why not rotate the umps if the game goes to extras and get a reasonably fresh set of eyes behind the plate. One writer suggested rotating the home plate ump with the infield ump who'd had the least calls to make on the bases during the first nine. That'd be worth considering, too. (Extended to the postseason, if a postseason game goes to extra innings, you could rotate the plate ump with one of the outfield line umps . . . ) Though good luck selling that idea to a malcompetent such as Joe West . . .
That's not true.
Nah. He missed. I saw it on video.
Have trouble reading?
Meals said after the game. “I looked at the replays and it appeared he might have got him on the shin area. I’m guessing he might have got him, but when I was out there when it happened I didn’t see a tag. I just saw the glove sweep up. I didn’t see the glove hit his leg.”ML/NJ
I just watched the same replays I’d seen while writing my piece. McKenry’s glove got Lugo above the knee on the inner right thigh, well before Lugo pirouetted to get half a foot on the plate. (Which may make Meals’ postgame thought that he “might have” gotten him on the “shin”-—Meals’ word-—even more damning.)
I don't remember where I saw the good video. I'll try to find it.
If nothing else, too, this play is impeccable evidence on behalf of bringing replay into baseball. The operative rule should be to get it right, with no questions asked. (Especially on a plays like this involving the would-be winning run to be.)
But sans replay, it certainly wouldn't have been out of line for Meals to call in the other umps and confer. That's been done before. (2004 American League Championship Series, anyone?)
Rotating umps for extra frames might make sense. But why confer? Who had a better view than he did? He was right there. And anyway, he got the call right :-P
Rotating umps for extra frames might make sense.I think it could be done along the line I cited earlier---rotate the plate ump with the field up who made the least number of basepath calls throughout the first nine innings. He'd be bound to be the most fresh set of eyes among the three basepath umps. If the game got as far as the Braves-Pirates games, he, in turn, could be rotated with one of the other two umps who likewise made the least number of calls in the second nine, leaving the original plate ump out of the equation.
But why confer? Who had a better view than he did? He was right there.It would depend on the play angling. In the case of the McKenry/Lugo play, if you need to confer you'd probably get your best help from the second base ump, who's looking straight down the pipe at the play, especially if the pitcher isn't anywhere in the sight line when the play happens. (Properly, the pitcher would be backing the play at the plate, I think.) Assuming there's no concurrent or followup play at first base (intriguing codicil: The Pirates actually had a shot at a double play on the play---Scott Proctor stumbled up the first base line and could have been nailed on a relay throw, assuming all going right at the plate), the first base ump could offer another perspective as well.
Clearly, if Meals thought he saw the glove go for the right shin when the glove was above the right kneecap and on the thigh, he most certainly didn't have the best view. And in a controversy like that play, with the winning run to be involved, you damn well better call in your crew mates to confer on it. The idea is not to get it "accurate," not to get it "consistent," not to get it "professionally" (Joe Torre's words in sticking up for the human factor, in a statement about the play), the idea is to get. it. right.
Which Meals didn't. :p
After coming into the locker room, I reviewed the incident through our videos that we have in here and after seeing a few of them, on one particular replay, I was able to see that Lugo's pant leg moved ever so slightly when the swipe tag was attempted by McKenry. That's telling me that I was incorrect in my decision and that he should have been ruled out and not safe.---Jerry Meals, speaking Wednesday afternoon.Even Meals admits now that he got the call wrong.
Someone got to him!
It’s a good reason to not wear baggy pants, anyway. Beside the fact they look sloppy. Gimme the old days with stirrups and knee socks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.