Reynolds and Bad umpiring

[hector]

Rest assured that if Jim Palmer is astonished by something he's just seen in a baseball game, it is truly something astonishing. Jim Palmer was astonished.

I agree. Did you hear Palmer on the telecasts where he said the O's should have re-signed Hall of Famer Vlad? Those comments were made during the O's June-July offensive swoon.

[mdlmark]

Even SI's Peter King think the O's were wronged:

"I'm halfway rooting for the Orioles the rest of the way after that horrendous reversal of a correct call helped Detroit beat Baltimore the other night in Detroit. Brutal call. Mark Reynolds and Buck Showalter deserve to be rip-roaring mad over it."

Peter King's 8/20 MMQB

[Aclobat]

Even SI's Peter King think the O's were wronged:

"I'm halfway rooting for the Orioles the rest of the way after that horrendous reversal of a correct call helped Detroit beat Baltimore the other night in Detroit. Brutal call. Mark Reynolds and Buck Showalter deserve to be rip-roaring mad over it."

Peter King's 8/20 MMQB

I've always like peter king.

[mdlmark]

I've always like peter king.

Yep. Who says the O's aren't relevant? Isn't SI a national publication and Peter King a national NFL writer and analyst on NBC's SNF?

[18-87-44-29]

Yep. Who says the O's aren't relevant? Isn't SI a national publication and Peter King a national NFL writer and analyst on NBC's SNF?

Hello.....the man is a football writer (and a durn good one)....not a baseball one. He is only a casual observer of baseball....surely he isn't up to snuff on all the goings on now especially now that football is beginning in ernest.

And Bristol says the Orioles are very much irrelevent (ironically.....by NOT saying it. )

[funkateer]

the issue is that these umpires have no reprocussions for their bad calls/behavior.

Reynolds should not be fined/suspended for his outburst after his equipment violation, the 2nd base umpire who ran him should get the fine and suspension. He was clearly in violation of the rules of Baseball.

somehow MR was thrown out ofthe game for an action that has a clearly defined penalty, and that penalty doesn't allow for the player in question to be tossed from the game. but wait, there's more. now he's facing a suspension.

This is the point that keeps nagging at me, which I don't hear really being dealt with anywhere (except in the comments above): people (including me) gripe that a specific umpire threw someone out of a game when, according to the rulebook, he "didn't have that right" .....and yet, here we we are, several games later now, waiting around to see if there is going to be FURTHER penalties on top of this already supposedly illegal one (fines, possible suspension).

How can this be? We're not talking about a judgement call here. This is a black and white situation: either Reynolds violated a rule where the punishment is ejection, or he DIDN'T. We can complain about blown calls like the guy who was safe by a mile being called out, or the fastball down in the dirt being called a "strike," but even though we may disagree with them, they are essentially judgement calls, ie, it's left up the umpire to say one thing (ie, "ball") or another thing (ie, "strike"), and as long has he calls ONE of them, he pretty much is safe from anything happening to him. But if an umpire can throw a player out of a game for something that isn't, as far as the rulebook is concerned, on the list of "ejectable offenses", what ELSE can umpires do and get away with it? In other words (and I"m asking this honestly), what is stopping a first base ump from throwing a player out because he feels like it....because he doesn't like the way he wears his hair, or chews his gum...? After all, the ump could just make something up. Or, maybe the ump doesn't even have to do THAT much...what did the 2nd base ump say to justify his actions...anything at all? WAS there even a rationalization (does anybody know)?

What I'm getting at is, what it's looking like to me is, the rulebook seems to be besides the point when it gets down to brass tacks. Going from the reality before my eyes, neither Jim Palmer, nor anyone, can say an umpire has "no right" to throw out a player for throwing down his glove/other equipment violation.....because, from what I'm seeing play out, an umpire has EVERY right! If several days later, what we're wondering is not "what's going to happen to that ump?" but "what other punishment are they going to hit Reynolds with?", then clearly, the umps do have this right! I think it's extremely messed up, but it seems as if umpires are God in an MLB game, and can pretty much do damn well what they feel like doing, because if there are not repercussions (as everyone claims) then the rulebook means what the umpires say it means.

[mdlmark]

Hello.....the man is a football writer (and a durn good one)....not a baseball one. He is only a casual observer of baseball....surely he isn't up to snuff on all the goings on now especially now that football is beginning in ernest.

And Bristol says the Orioles are very much irrelevent (ironically.....by NOT saying it. )

Bristol, Shmistol They show the results and explain the reasons. Except reasons don't count, but results count. 66-55 no denying that.

[weird-O]

This is the point that keeps nagging at me, which I don't hear really being dealt with anywhere (except in the comments above): people (including me) gripe that a specific umpire threw someone out of a game when, according to the rulebook, he "didn't have that right" .....and yet, here we we are, several games later now, waiting around to see if there is going to be FURTHER penalties on top of this already supposedly illegal one (fines, possible suspension).

How can this be? We're not talking about a judgement call here. This is a black and white situation: either Reynolds violated a rule where the punishment is ejection, or he DIDN'T. We can complain about blown calls like the guy who was safe by a mile being called out, or the fastball down in the dirt being called a "strike," but even though we may disagree with them, they are essentially judgement calls, ie, it's left up the umpire to say one thing (ie, "ball") or another thing (ie, "strike"), and as long has he calls ONE of them, he pretty much is safe from anything happening to him. But if an umpire can throw a player out of a game for something that isn't, as far as the rulebook is concerned, on the list of "ejectable offenses", what ELSE can umpires do and get away with it? In other words (and I"m asking this honestly), what is stopping a first base ump from throwing a player out because he feels like it....because he doesn't like the way he wears his hair, or chews his gum...? After all, the ump could just make something up. Or, maybe the ump doesn't even have to do THAT much...what did the 2nd base ump say to justify his actions...anything at all? WAS there even a rationalization (does anybody know)?

What I'm getting at is, what it's looking like to me is, the rulebook seems to be besides the point when it gets down to brass tacks. Going from the reality before my eyes, neither Jim Palmer, nor anyone, can say an umpire has "no right" to throw out a player for throwing down his glove/other equipment violation.....because, from what I'm seeing play out, an umpire has EVERY right! If several days later, what we're wondering is not "what's going to happen to that ump?" but "what other punishment are they going to hit Reynolds with?", then clearly, the umps do have this right! I think it's extremely messed up, but it seems as if umpires are God in an MLB game, and can pretty much do damn well what they feel like doing, because if there are not repercussions (as everyone claims) then the rulebook means what the umpires say it means.

I don't have any answers, but the questions are valid.

[Byng]

Anyone notice the first inning call on Machado last night? He clearly did not swing but was immediately called out by the home plate umpire who's eye should have been on the ball not the bat. I have no problem with the home plate umpire making the call when the swing is indisputable but in this case it was not even a close call!

[durango46]

Anyone notice the first inning call on Machado last night? He clearly did not swing but was immediately called out by the home plate umpire who's eye should have been on the ball not the bat. I have no problem with the home plate umpire making the call when the swing is indisputable but in this case it was not even a close call!

This is why I think they need to take it out of their hands period...Make a new rule for 2013.....1st and 3rd base umpires get too make that decision.

My problem is, how are you watching location and Machados bat at the same time ? You can't see both at the same time unless it's crystal clear and for the most part it's never that clear.

I have always felt this way....and I umpired for many years. Of course not at the MLB level though.

You ever hear Billy Ripken go off on this very issue on the MLB Network ?

[LarryN]

It's a week later and there have not yet been any repercussions for Reynolds' comments. I guess the league realizes he was right.

[85Knight]

It's a week later and there have not yet been any repercussions for Reynolds' comments. I guess the league realizes he was right.

He got an undisclosed fine but no suspension.

[LarryN]

He got an undisclosed fine but no suspension.

ah, I had not heard that. What did the umpires get?

[85Knight]

ah, I had not heard that. What did the umpires get?

I don't know but there have been a lot of blown calls against the O's the last couple of weeks that have been inexcusable.