Worst umpiring call of the year? Of the last decade?

BTW, how many times this week is Upton going to be involved in a really weird play?

And someone on another thread recently was wondering what it looks like when a player sniffs out the hidden ball trick. Bartlett did that just before Upton's play (which comes around the 4 minute mark of the 6th inning) - as has been stated, pretty unremarkable.

Worst umpiring call of the year? Of the last decade?

This is what I can't stand about umpires. It's obvious that they are tuned into Upton's problems and now they're focusing on him. It's disgusting. Be impartial or stay home, fat a$$es.

It was shockingly bad.

It's not just a Rays thing though by any means, there are just so many bad calls the past few years. The state of umpiring has gotten really sad. They complain about instant replay, which I can understand somewhat since that means people are suggesting they can't do their jobs without help, but they're completely to blame for it being introduced. If they could show an expected level of competence at getting the call right then there wouldn't be this big push to have instant replay. It's just home runs now but one day there's going to be a lot of pressure to use it for other calls as well if things don't improve.

"baseball’s living Buddha, Don Zimmer"

I never knew Pedro was into Zen...

This is what I can't stand about umpires. It's obvious that they are tuned into Upton's problems and now they're focusing on him. It's disgusting. Be impartial or stay home, fat a$$es.

Although I think it's much more likely to be sheer, unadulterated incompetence, did anyone see Shields' 'Strike 3' to Upton in the bottom of the 8th with the bases loaded? Ahem.

The baserunning fun was easily the worst call I can remember this year. Even missed home-runs are vaguely acceptable in that they aren't really judgement calls - you either interpreted the existing evidence correctly or you don't. This one involved the creation in the umpire's mind of an invisible turn to 1st base. So instead of incompetency, he stands accused of being a fantasist!

Worst umpiring call of the year? Of the last decade?

It looked to me the first couple times I saw it like he planted his right foot and thought about going to second. Under the rule, that's all it takes. You don't have actually turn and run a few steps. Same thing happened in Mets-Pirates game recently. Same thing happened in an Angels game earlier this year.

On replays it looks like he plants for a second on about his third step, and it's tough to tell if he's avoiding the ball or thinking for a split second about going to second before seeing Kendrick backing the play up. Meals clearly thought that Upton thought about going to second, and under the rule, that's all it takes.

I can't discern his intent from what I saw. If he was avoiding the ball, it's a bad call. If he actually thought about going to second, even for a moment, it's the right call under 7.08c.

Shredder,

I don't see anything in Rule 7.08 c that applies to the turn (and intent). It says runners that overrun or overslide first base must immediately return to the bag. Under such a description (and let's forget for a moment that "immediately" is rather vague), it would seemingly apply to all runners who didn't simply stop at first base when they got there (in other words, all runners). I don't see how Upton behaved any differently than any runner in terms of returning to the bag.

The call may very well have been ruled the same way in Mets-Pirates and an Angels game. Unless you can cite something that more directly addresses the issue of the slight turn B.J. made, it would seem to me that all three calls were wrong.

Unless you can cite something that more directly addresses the issue of the slight turn B.J. made, it would seem to me that all three calls were wrong.

Well, there's this:

RIGHT TURN RULE MYTH
The batter-runner may turn left or right, provided that if he turns left he does not make an attempt to advance. An attempt is a judgment made by the umpire. The requirement is that the runner must immediately return to first after overrunning or oversliding it.

Rule: 7.08(c and j)

Rule 7.08(j):

He fails to return at once to first base after overrunning or oversliding that base. If he attempts to run to second he is out when tagged. If, after overrunning or oversliding first base he starts toward the dugout, or toward his position, and fails to return to first base at once, he is out, on appeal, when he or the base is tagged;

If it's the umpire's judgment that Upton intended (if even for the most fleeting of moments) to go to second, that's considered an attempt, and he's in play until he returns to the bag.

If the rule is (or has been called this way forever, like catchers blocking the plate) that the tiniest turn or hint of the beginning of a turn would make Upton out on that play, then he was out. At first I thought the bend in his path was due to Upton trying to evade a collision with Santana. But there is a flash of intent to head to second.

Maybe the ump was looking especially hard for a reason to screw Upton because of recent events, we can never know that for sure, but I think the call was right, given the qualifications above, which pains me to say as someone who wants the Rays to take the AL East and hates the Angels and umpires.

Thanks. The first part, defining left-right, is not covered in Rule 7.08 c.

It's still a shitty call, but I guess it's just a horrendous judgment call rather than a piss-poor interpretation of the rules.

And it still doesn't answer how one defines "immediately."

If it's the umpire's judgment that Upton intended (if even for the most fleeting of moments) to go to second, that's considered an attempt, and he's in play until he returns to the bag

If you take that view of the law, then its true in a literal sense, of course, but the umpire could theoretically make a similar judgement based on the look in a player's eye, or the vibe he got off him. The umpire may have the power to give the batter out based on a judgement, but it does not follow that any judgement is necessarily a good call.

Even then though, what the rule says is an attempt to advance, (incidentally, there is no mention of intent). Upton maybe did flinch in the direction of 2nd base, but he certainly didn't make an attempt to advance, unless we define an attempt to advance in terms of intent rather than action, which the rules certainly don't encourage.

Of course, all 'judgement' rules are established through precedent, and if we can find enough other examples of Upton-esque flinches being given out, then perhaps we can say the umpire made the correct call in practice. However, I think those examples are few and far between. It's just a bad call, whatever way you look at it. Either it's a terribly bad judgement call based on no precedent and a lack of evidence of an attempt, or its overreaching the rulebook to make a call that never stands. I think the former's probably worse, as it goes to an umpire's competency, rather than his understanding.

Maybe the ump was looking especially hard for a reason to screw Upton because of recent events, we can never know that for sure, but I think the call was right, given the qualifications above, which pains me to say as someone who wants the Rays to take the AL East and hates the Angels and umpires.

To Meals' credit, he had his eyes on Upton the whole time. So he can be criticized for discerning intent that wasn't there, but often I think umps take plays for granted, then when there's an appeal, they're caught off guard (this happens to that sh!tbag Eddings ALL. THE. TIME.) But Meals was ready for this. And who knows, maybe that tipped off Kendrick.

If it's the umpire's judgment that Upton intended (if even for the most fleeting of moments) to go to second, that's considered an attempt, and he's in play until he returns to the bag.

Is that the only thought crime in baseball?

I think it would make more sense if there was a certain spot along the baseline, maybe 1/8 of the way from first to second, and if the runner crosses that line he can be tagged out at first.

If an attempt is a judgment made by the umpire, then it is a horrendous judgment call. But it can't really be argued. Just like how all these friggin announcers look at check swing replays and determine whether it was the right call based on how far the bat goes. That's not the rule, you idiots. The umpire isn't supposed to look to see if the bat head crosses the plate or some ####. If he thinks the player swung, he swung. That's it.

If you take that view of the law, then its true in a literal sense, of course, but the umpire could theoretically make a similar judgement based on the look in a player's eye, or the vibe he got off him.

No he couldn't, because just thinking about something isn't an attempt.

unless we define an attempt to advance in terms of intent rather than action, which the rules certainly don't encourage.

You can't separate one from the other. An attempt is action with intent. There's no doubt that Upton planted that right foot and made a slight move toward second. Whether he did it to avoid the ball or because he thought about going is another issue, but there was clearly an action that caused Meals to make the call that he did.

However, I think those examples are few and far between.

It's happened at least three times this year.

If an attempt is a judgment made by the umpire, then it is a horrendous judgment call. But it can't really be argued. Just like how all these friggin announcers look at check swing replays and determine whether it was the right call based on how far the bat goes. That's not the rule, you idiots. The umpire isn't supposed to look to see if the bat head crosses the plate or some ####. If he thinks the player swung, he swung. That's it.

Are you sure? All my life I have never heard anything about the checked swing calls being determined by the intent of the batter. Every single announcer everywhere talks about whether the bat crosses the plate or not.

And how does intent come into it? Every checked swing is the same: the batter intended to swing, then changed his mind. Where's the judgment call? I thought the judgment call was whether he changed his mind soon enough to prevent the bat from crossing the plate.

Is that the only thought crime in baseball?

I'm sorry, I thought it was fairly obvious that I was talking about what Meals though Upton intended to do combined with what he actually did, which is plant his right foot and make a slight move toward second.

And how does intent come into it? Every checked swing is the same: the batter intended to swing, then changed his mind. Where's the judgment call? I thought the judgment call was whether he changed his mind soon enough to prevent the bat from crossing the plate.

Someone explained to me once that a check swing should almost never be called a strike (unless of course it was in the zone), as the batter clearly attempted to halt his swing and thus can't be said to have attempted a swing.

Are you sure?

Honestly, not 100%, but more than 50%. I kinda threw it in here because I knew I'd be corrected if wrong. But at some point in my life I learned from some source I considered credible that it was a judgment call for the umps.

And in my way of understanding it, it's not based on intent. The ump just looks down there and thinks "Hmm, that looked like he was really committed," or "No, it didn't look like he was committed." I would guess they may have some objective measuring stick they try to go by, but it's not a rule.

Or I'm full of ####. We'll see.

How in god's name is a foot plant an attempt? Upton never took an aggressive step in the direction of second base. This is absolutely a case of mind-reading - nothing Upton did is clear evidence of intent to go to second base, nothing he did is an attempt to go to second base.

It was a hideous, hideous call. Upton's quick stop is easily explained in terms of attempting to avoid the ball, and it's utterly ridiculous that he could be claimed to have made an attempt to go to second base without ever taking a step directly toward second base.

did anyone see Shields' 'Strike 3' to Upton in the bottom of the 8th with the bases loaded?

Upton is now batting for the opposing team. Clearly a clubhouse cancer.

If it's the umpire's judgment that Upton intended (if even for the most fleeting of moments) to go to second, that's considered an attempt, and he's in play until he returns to the bag.

No he couldn't, because just thinking about something isn't an attempt.

Okay, but you've changed your argument from your original post, or at least changed the wording of what I was arguing with. I was arguing with the former. I agree with the latter.


Anyway...

You can't separate one from the other. An attempt is action with intent. There's no doubt that Upton planted that right foot and made a slight move toward second. Whether he did it to avoid the ball or because he thought about going is another issue, but there was clearly an action that caused Meals to make the call that he did.

I'm not sure what you're arguing with. Are you claiming that the umpire judged correctly that Upton made an advance towards second base? If so, okay, but I disagree. You seemed previously to be arguing that because the rulebook said it was a legal call, it became a good call. That is what I took issue with.

It's happened at least three times this year.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. Do you mean Upton-esque shimmies? I watch a lot of games, but that interpretation of that move was a new one on me. If you mean people being called out on plays that involve judgements on whether people made a turn, sure. But I'd be interested to see results of other plays that fit this description. My guess would be that they barely even register in the commentary booth.

Upton is now batting for the opposing team. Clearly a clubhouse cancer.

Scott.

23. Duh

My snarko-sarcometer has exploded.

From a 2003 BP interview with umpire-turned-instructor Jim Evans:

A swinging strike is based solely on the umpire's judgment of whether or not the batter committed to the pitch.

A swinging strike is defined as a ball that is "struck at" by the batter. That's it. Umpires basically pull those calls out of their asses.

Upton never took an aggressive step in the direction of second base.

He doesn't have to. According to Gary Darling (who's obviously going to back up his guy) "A little jab step and a shoulder. I've called guys out for less."

Are you claiming that the umpire judged correctly that Upton made an advance towards second base?

I'm saying he made a subtle move toward second base. I'm not sure what made him do it, as I've said a couple times already. Meals read it as an attempt.

watch a lot of games, but that interpretation of that move was a new one on me.

Then you need to watch more games. It happened a couple days ago. Check it.

I'm saying he made a subtle move toward second base. I'm not sure what made him do it, as I've said a couple times already. Meals read it as an attempt.

I phrased that wrong. What I meant was that you considered his judgement call to be within the bounds of what could be considered correct. I considered it to be outside those bounds. Although...

Then you need to watch more games. It happened a couple days ago. Check it

I certainly do! Although I think the Upton call was more egregious as there was more stuff going on at 1st (although if anything his 'jink' was more noticeable), that is most certainly another example of that kind of play where the guy's given out. I still would say that the majority of these are jinks aren't given out, and aren't picked out by observers as potential outs (like the general public can do with potential balks, for example); moreover, the shock and awe of commentator/managers alike (although in both cases its the home feed) imply its something pretty unexpected. Nonetheless, that suggests to me that umpires do have a lot of discretion in this kind of thing. Thanks for the link.

I think it's a defensible call, given that Upton did stop and take sort of a half-step toward second. Clearly, someone on the Angels (I couldn't tell who ended up making the tag) thought he made a move toward second, or they wouldn't have tagged him.

On the other hand, I think it was also a bad call. It's more likely that Upton was simply trying to avoid the ball. The batter-runner deserves a little more leeway than that.

By the way, I love Joe Maddon. With those horn rims, he looks like he should be managing the Seattle Pilots.

they wrested the best record in the American League away from the Angels by beating them for the second consecutive night. At 77-48, they are tied with the Chicago Cubs for the best record in baseball.

I just wanted to quote this to see it in print again. Sweeter words have rarely been printed.

From a 2003 BP interview with umpire-turned-instructor Jim Evans:

"A swinging strike is based solely on the umpire's judgment of whether or not the batter committed to the pitch."

A swinging strike is defined as a ball that is "struck at" by the batter. That's it. Umpires basically pull those calls out of their asses.

You can put it on the boarrrrd.......YYYESSSS!!!

The "If All Announcers In MLB Say It's True, It Must Not Be" Law holds once again. And I get to keep this pet peeve of mine. Hopefully you can make it one of your own, Crispix. I'm not greedy like that.

On replays it looks like he plants for a second on about his third step, and it's tough to tell if he's avoiding the ball or thinking for a split second about going to second before seeing Kendrick backing the play up. Meals clearly thought that Upton thought about going to second, and under the rule, that's all it takes.

You have to do a little more than just think about it (as you later point out in Post #15). The very fact that it is uncertain what Upton was thinking is evidence of this.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization that Upton "plant[ed] his right foot and ma[d]e a slight move toward second." It appeared to me that he momentarily contorted his body, but he never turned his body left or took a step in that direction.

I actually wear glasses that look a lot like Maddon's and the frames were ridiculously expensive. I wonder how long he's had them? While my Oliver Peoples are just trying to look retro, he probably has the source material. I guess if I wanted real hipster cred, I'd find my glasses by burglarizing retirement communities.

If that kind of slight movement, which may have only been Upton making sure he wasn't going to step on the ball anyway, is going to be interpreted as intent then in the future baserunners should probably just take a faceplant into the grass as soon as they pass the base to make sure that they can't be declared as turning towards second if they make the wrong move.

Clearly, someone on the Angels (I couldn't tell who ended up making the tag) thought he made a move toward second, or they wouldn't have tagged him.

Probably not. It's like when a runner is clearly already standing on a base when a fielder receives a throw but he turns around and tags him anyway. Players always do that, they tag guys for the hell of it just for the random chance that the runner may have done something wrong or the umpire is an idiot.

In that Mets game Reyes did slightly more than Upton did, as he looked towards the ball and made a slight turn in his path, but that's a pretty stupid call as well. You can't have umpires judging intent from such absurdly small movements, that's not even close to enough evidence for that.

Can someone post a link to the video of this play and/or the baserunning gaffe of the other night? Much obliged.

Check post #27 for the play in the Mets-Pirates game. Here's the play from last night.

Clearly, someone on the Angels (I couldn't tell who ended up making the tag) thought he made a move toward second, or they wouldn't have tagged him.

Couldn't it also be because you're always supposed to tag the player, in case he missed the bag, etc.?

I actually wear glasses that look a lot like Maddon's and the frames were ridiculously expensive. I wonder how long he's had them? While my Oliver Peoples are just trying to look retro, he probably has the source material. I guess if I wanted real hipster cred, I'd find my glasses by burglarizing retirement communities.

Maddon's actually not that old - mid-40's. They're probably the same Oliver Peoples you wear. I remember being amused seeing a picture of Maddon when he was first hired where he was in a grocery store, walking around with a popped collar.

Can someone post a link to the video of this play and/or the baserunning gaffe of the other night? Much obliged.

Go to the box score at mlb.com, then click on the bottom of the 6th inning, and the video of the inning should pop up. It's about 4 minutes in.

Maddon's actually not that old - mid-40's.

If Baseball Reference is correct, he'll turn 54 next month.

Joe Maddon
Born September 19, 1954 in Hazleton, PA

Go to the box score at mlb.com, then click on the bottom of the 6th inning, and the video of the inning should pop up. It's about 4 minutes in.

Or you can, ya know, just click the link in #36.

B-Ref says he's a month from 54.

This and the balk rule are the two rules in baseball I find unfathomable. The inconsistency inherent in their application is manifest. Luckily, neither is called all that often.

Maddon's a pretty hip guy for mid-50s, but he doesn't look particularly young. If he was instead 44, I'd hope someone recommend he see a doctor to check for progeria.

Whoops, my bad on the age.

Check post #27 for the play in the Mets-Pirates game. Here's the play from last night.

Terrible call. Stupid argument.

Perhaps just change the rule adding that no player can be tagged out in foul territory after overrunning 1B.

I was about to say that he is the oldest looking 44 year old I've ever seen. 54 sounds more like it. And I'm glad to hear he rocks the popped collar from time to time, although I haven't done that since my college days.

The popped collar is one of the biggest evils plaguing society today. It just screams douche.

I think that's overstating the case a tad. I admit that it looks rather silly.

A huge difference between the two plays is that Reyes actually was in fair territory, you see it very well at the beginning of the clip, whereas Upton never was.

A huge difference between the two plays is that Reyes actually was in fair territory, you see it very well at the beginning of the clip, whereas Upton never was.

So. There's nothing in the rules that says anything about the runner being in fair or foul territory on that play. Regardless of what one thinks of the umpires judgment, the foul line has absolutely nothing to do with the rule whatsoever.

I'm not convinced the Rays are for real. I need to see them do it first. I don't think they can hold off the Yankees and Red Sox in the heat of a pennant race; the Yankees are an experienced team and have done it every year, while the Rays are a young team and have never done it. Come talk to me when we get to August.

Signed,
Mike Francesa

Well, now I feel better for being so bad at guessing which check-swings will count as strikes!