Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems the DC media is crucifying Marvin Hudson, the home plate umpire who tossed the Nationals' Bryce Harper and manager Matt Williams out of the 5/20 Nats game vs. the Yankees.
Is there anyone out there in the media who actually said that prolonged arguing of balls and strikes is a quick way to earn an early trip to the showers, and that Hudson was within his right to run Bryce from the game? True, Hudson called that low pitch a strike, but them's the breaks. Harper should have said his piece and promptly returned to his batting stance.
Yes, it's one of baseball's quirky unwritten rules, but it makes sense.
Umpiring behind the plate is the most demanding of the four ump positions and requires a split second judgment of whether a pitch is a ball or strike. Usually the ump doesn't know what type of pitch is coming; like the batter, he can only guess. The average number of pitches thrown in a game is about 280, many of which the batter will take, which forces the ump to judge whether it was a ball or strike. Not to mention there is greater chance of injury from being hit by foul tips, wild pitches or passed balls.
Umps will tolerate arguments on any other calls involving plays at the bases or ground rules. But my understanding is that a batter can question a pitch while looking down or away, and that's OK. What umps won't tolerate is a batter "showing him up" by stepping out of the batter's box, gesturing and continuing to argue.
Think about catchers. They know what the deal is. You can bet they're constantly but respectfully questioning the ump, but the difference is they are squatting and facing the field as they're talking. And the ump is fine with that. You rarely see a catcher turning around and yapping at an umpire face mask to face mask. (IIRC, Boston Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek made that mistake a few seasons ago with a jumpy rookie ump behind the plate and got promptly run.)
I'm sure I'm missing something, but as a lifelong baseball fan, it annoys me to hear Harper, Williams and the local media making statements like, "40,000 people didn't pay to see Marvin Hudson." No, 40,000 people pay to see major league ballplayers play at a high level, which includes making good judgments. A huge part of the game is mental as well as physical.
The ball/strike call wasn't the issue. Hudson told Harper to get in the box and he did. But then Hudson left to go jaw at Williams, so Harper stepped out again. Hudson was then upset that Harper was not back in the box as instructed. Harper indicated that he had in fact been in the box when Hudson left, and then Hudson tossed him. Hudson was completely out of line. He should be handed a significant fine and suspension.
The reference is to how the umpire's choose to interpret and enforce some of the rules. They will tolerate certain types of grumbling about balls and strikes, but not others. The line appears to be drawn at the vague, but well understood, "showing up the umpire." You can express dissatisfaction with a call, but you will not be allowed to do something which is designed to turn the crowds against the umps.
It is akin to the catcher's visit to the mound. There is no rule which states exactly how long such meetings may endure, but there is a general rule against players delaying the game. The umps have all settled on a tradition. A player meeting on the mound is convened, the ump gives it a few seconds and then begins a slow walk out to the mound. The players have until the ump reaches the lip of the mound before they have to break it up.
Unwritten rule, but one understood by all participants. An unwritten rule which is evenly and consistently enforced is a defacto rule.
The reference is to how the umpire's choose to interpret and enforce some of the rules. They will tolerate certain types of grumbling about balls and strikes, but not others. The line appears to be drawn at the vague, but well understood, "showing up the umpire." You can express dissatisfaction with a call, but you will not be allowed to do something which is designed to turn the crowds against the umps.
It is akin to the catcher's visit to the mound. There is no rule which states exactly how long such meetings may endure, but there is a general rule against players delaying the game. The umps have all settled on a tradition. A player meeting on the mound is convened, the ump gives it a few seconds and then begins a slow walk out to the mound. The players have until the ump reaches the lip of the mound before they have to break it up.
Unwritten rule, but one understood by all participants. An unwritten rule which is evenly and consistently enforced is a defacto rule.
The ball/strike call wasn't the issue. Hudson told Harper to get in the box and he did. But then Hudson left to go jaw at Williams, so Harper stepped out again. Hudson was then upset that Harper was not back in the box as instructed. Harper indicated that he had in fact been in the box when Hudson left, and then Hudson tossed him. Hudson was completely out of line. He should be handed a significant fine and suspension.
Then I stand corrected. Still, it's a lesson learned for the Harper and Williams, especially where it comes to umpires such as Hudson.
By the way, Nationals TV analyst F.P. Santangelo addressed the incident during the 5/22 Nats-Phillies broadcast. F.P. said Harper has to tone it down on arguing ball and strike calls, even if he's right, given that's he's been ejected twice recently within a few games. He's currently the Nats' best player and has to stay in games. F.P. also noted that Harper now has a target on his back and some umpires will look for chance to run him.
It all comes down to respect, said F.P. You stand in the batter's box, say hello to the home plate ump, and assume your stance. Now F.P. did say that Harper did speak to Hudson pre-game and that Hudson pretty much ignored Harper. At that point, F.P. said, Harper should know who he's dealing with and conduct himself accordingly, e.g., avoid obvious confrontations with that umpire.
The reference is to how the umpire's choose to interpret and enforce some of the rules. They will tolerate certain types of grumbling about balls and strikes, but not others. The line appears to be drawn at the vague, but well understood, "showing up the umpire." You can express dissatisfaction with a call, but you will not be allowed to do something which is designed to turn the crowds against the umps.
It is akin to the catcher's visit to the mound. There is no rule which states exactly how long such meetings may endure, but there is a general rule against players delaying the game. The umps have all settled on a tradition. A player meeting on the mound is convened, the ump gives it a few seconds and then begins a slow walk out to the mound. The players have until the ump reaches the lip of the mound before they have to break it up.
Unwritten rule, but one understood by all participants. An unwritten rule which is evenly and consistently enforced is a defacto rule.
Blah blah blah...
There is no punishment for not breaking up a meeting once the ump gets to the lip of the mound. Nor is there any punishment for continuing the meeting for ten seconds after that. Nor is there any punishment for then starting an entire new conversation with the ump about how long the meeting has taken. When that 30 second conversation is over, there is no punishment for then calling in a reliever, who can take an extra warmup throw before jogging in from the bullpen. Once arriving, he can take several minutes worth of warmup pitches. The ump made it to the lip of the mound, and everyone did what they wanted anyway.
I've seen umps tell pitchers to pitch when a batter was not in the box but I've never seen anything even remotely negative occur to a pitcher who took too long of a meeting.
By the way, Nationals TV analyst F.P. Santangelo addressed the incident during the 5/22 Nats-Phillies broadcast. F.P. said Harper has to tone it down on arguing ball and strike calls, even if he's right...
F.P. is better than Rob Dibble, but hardly a prophet of any stature. The earlier Harper ejection was because the home plate umpire (Rob Drake) insistently made the call on a check swing himself instead of checking with the 3B umpire. Harper and Williams (who was also ejected) were not arguing the call, but the way in which it was made. And replays showed the umpire's head had been following the ball, not the bat. And for what it's worth, F.P. has argued rather vociferously since that incident for taking check swing calls out of the hands of the home plate umpire entirely and requiring the relevant base umpire to make all of those calls instead.
As for Harper's demeanor, bad and unjustified calls need to be highlighted so that the umpires who make them can be identified and approached by MLB and as necessary reprimanded or terminated. Making the game personal and about an umpire's own ego is after all one of the reasons why umpires are terminated. Marvin Hudson is from Georgia and has a record of antagonizing the Nationals to a greater degree than any other ball club. Perhaps he's the one who should have a target on his back at this point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
