The call in question followed a routine grounder to third that the Brewer's Ryan Braun appeared to beat out at first following umpire Greg Gibson's safe call. Brave's manager Fredi Gonzalez promptly challenged the call which replay showed conclusively was wrong; it was close but the ball clearly beat Braun so the call was reversed. So with all their skill and accuracy, how was this routine "banger" kicked by the first base ump? First a disclaimer: I'm not the umpire that made the call. I wasn't there. This is only my opinion, but none the less, I think I have a valid explanation.In the section of my book ("The Rules Abide") titled "Blues Clues," I discuss many of the factors that affect an umpire's call when a play is so close to the naked eye, it could go either way. One of the biggest factors revolves around the quality of the play that preceded the close call. That is, if it's a great defensive play, the fielder usually gets the benefit of the doubt, but if it's routine and is botched, the benefit toggles back to the runner - I think this is exactly what happened today. Brave's third baseman Chris Johnson double-clutched and threw off his back foot, turning an easy play into an awkward one and making it very close at first. I'm not saying a sloppy play in and of itself warrants punitive action by the umpire, but had there not been instant replay and the safe call stuck, Johnson surely would have been charged with an error. This is simply a baseball tradition that is built into the way the game is officiated. It's not an absolute, but there is a psychology to umpiring - while the officials are doing their level best to be impartial beyond question, it doesn't mean their calls are made in a vacuum. This is an important distinction as these two are not mutually exclusive. An umpire can be impartial to the teams, but not impartial to the quality of the play. The vacuum in this case is MLB's NYC HQ where the replay umpire got the call "right" using video evidence and no other ancillary information that an on field umpire might use to make a call. Proponents of instant replay will argue that they got the call right, so that's all that matters. Opponents will argue that misplaying the ball and then not getting the close call is just the price for turning a routine play into an adventure. In my opinion, these aren't mutually exclusive either so they're both right to a degree. Baseball fans will never agree on this so we'll just have to see how this plays out over time.
Another quick one on the psychology of umpiring. My Red Sox lost today to the Orioles 2-1, their ninth inning rally snuffed out with the tying run on second when pinch hitter Jackie Bradley Jr. took a game-ending called third strike that appeared to be high. What caught my attention about the at-bat is that out of six pitches, Bradley only swung at one pitch (0-2 foul) and in fact took all three called strikes. The second to last pitch was just off the outside part of the plate, a ball, as the Baltimore crowd oohed and aahed when the home team didn't get the call. The very next pitch was also slightly outside the zone, but this time O's closer, veteran Tommy Hunter got the call. Again, I'm not the guy who made the call but there is a mix of both psychology and baseball tradition going on. The psychology involves how rookies are treated v. established players and the baseball tradition involves that old principal that the batter should protect the plate with two strikes. Sometimes a guy who fouls off a bunch of pitches earns the benefit of the doubt and sometimes a hitter with a good eye might appear like he's not working hard, which is a very odd dynamic when you think about it. In this case, add up the evidence and you can see why the umpire was prepared to ring up Bradley on a pitch close enough to go both ways- you can't get all the close ones - swing the bat! I'm sure instant replay could have demonstrated that pitch was a ball, but this is exactly what people are talking about when they say the "human element" is part of the game and should be preserved. We wouldn't want to watch the game played by robots; would we really care to see it umpired that way, with no humanity? If we ever get to the point where blue hover bots are calling balls and strikes, the game as we know it will be gone.And one last thing in the "you always see something you've never seen before" department: today's Sox-O's game saw an out scored 3-1-3. A hard grounder was knocked down by O's first baseman that deflected to the pitcher who then threw back to first for the out. Never seen that one before - it's always something!
Jim Tosches is an amateur umpire and blogger in Encinitas, Ca and author of the book, "The Rules Abide: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Baseball Rules (With History, Humor and a Few Big Words)"
Plain and simple, it's the "psychology, tradition, and humanity" of baseball that people don't get. For some odd reason, they DO want calls made in a vacuum. I will reserve final judgment, but I strongly fear that we have lost a part of baseball's soul.
ReplyDelete