BP Unfiltered

"Umpires, for all their faults, are highly professional and especially when everyone's paying attention. They just don't miss 'em on purpose."


I love Rob Neyer, but why do we always assume that this statement is true?

I know alot of people, especially in business, I would consider "Professional", but that professionalism tends to lag without proper motivation. Very few people in life are true self-motivators, and without any MLB mechanism of firing or demoting an umpire(let alone bonuses for good work), why assume that ALL umpires continue to train/focus/workhard at 100% of their ability?

Terrific questions, Mike.

1) No and no; in fact I was THRILLED that Means made his call based on his belief about the tag. Few things grind my gears as much as the automatic out call because the ball beat the runner, regardless of whether a tag is applied in time.

2) No -- if I were in the booth, I wouldn't have overturned it. None of the views were fully convincing that the tag had been applied. When I wrote about this last summer (http://bit.ly/9D0MSJ), the standard I used was "irrefutable video evidence", and that's the standard I would support. And here's what I wrote back then about tag plays: "It was more difficult, however, to be sure that any players called safe were actually out—replay could show conclusively that a tag was missed or was late, but it was harder to use a two-dimensional replay to be sure exactly when a tag was applied." This play, to me, falls squarely in that category. Means had a live, 3-D (albeit full-speed) view of the play from a few feet away. For this kind of play, he likely had a better view than any single 2-D camera does.

3) Great question, and one I hadn't considered before. Lugo sure seems to act like he was out, and in fact I think a video reviewer could take that into consideration -- but personally in this case I again don't think his reaction was compelling enough for me to overturn the call.

4) I dunno. As they say, what I think isn't important, what matters is what I can prove.

5) I wouldn't grade Meals down as an evaluator -- he was in good position, and in fact I would praise him for not making the automatic "ball beat him there" out call. The same standard for call reversal should be used for evaluation. I wouldn't make the evaluations public, but in my world a large number of missed calls -- especially those when the umpire was out of position, or those that I would describe as "lazy calls" -- should affect pay and, in extreme circumstances, cause termination.

6) No good answer for this, since I don't know much about current umpire training. But I'd have to think video of both correct and incorrect calls would be valuable in training.

In the video replay I could swear he tagged him. In the still shots, particularly the second set, I still think he tagged him, but I guess I'm not 100% sure. It is possible that the glove was slightly above the leg, swept through and never actually applied the tag. I have no idea if the play would have been upheld or not if there was replay officiating. I have been surprised numerous times, in both directions, by replay decisions in the NFL. I do believe the catcher had an opportunity to make a more clear tag, removing the ambiguity.

There is nothing conclusive here that shows that the tag was actually applied. Meals was in excellent position (you can't always say that about umpires) and made the call as you saw it. I can't fault him at all. Lugo is safe.

Am I the only person who is totally unconvinced by any of the video/photographic evidence and completely satisfied by Meals's explanation?

I spent over 400 games on the field less than 50 feet away from the plate and during that time saw literally dozens of calls on the bases that were so bad that they seemed crooked. This one doesn't come anywhere close to that standard.

Jerry Meals handled this exactly the right way: The same way Jim Joyce did. What rankles players and club personnel is not the occasional umpiring mistakes, but the embarrassing and self-serving attempts to project an air of infallibility. Contrast the comments of Meals and Joyce with the cover-your-ass routine some other officials have chosen in the past and you'll know the difference.

Jim Joyce was one of the top 5 most respected umpires amongst the players and coaches for his honesty before the Galarraga incident and Jimmy's reaction only ENHANCED his stature for the open manner in which he handled it. Whatever the consensus was on Jerry Meals before last night, I'm guessing he too will get an extra measure of respect moving forward.

Let these episodes be a lesson for all arbiters: Simply own up to the possibility that you might've made a mistake and the controversy fades. There are actually umpires who do this; I was occasionally asked by a few if I'd seen the replay yet and whether they blew the call. Those guys ALWAYS got the benefit of the doubt due to their humility and lack of insecurity.

As for the call last night, it DID look like McKenry made an "ole" tag on the live play. While the replays suggest Lugo could've been out, there simply isn't the necessary three-dimensional depth to say with certainty. Meals handled it correctly in the moment and--more importantly--after having a chance to review.

Great thoughts, guys. Thanks for sharing.

I also had a couple friends on a discussion board suggest that since the Posey injury, catchers have been encouraged to use more swipe tags on plays at the plate. That's an interesting facet of this that I had not considered.

Didn't see it live. Looks like the wrist angle might shift slightly in the frames when the tag would have been applied, indicating there was some contact. Conclusive, no.

In answer to question #3, if a video replay system is enacted, I believe all direct and indirect evidence should be admissable for review. Whatever it takes to get the right call. But players don't always make the right conclusions, either. In fact they're more likely to make the wrong one than the umpire.

4. Yes

If anything Meals should be commended for his judgment and positioning on the home plate call.

Now, about his strike zone...

1. No--but I understand why such calls are made. They happen at 2B all the time, when a runner goes in spikes-first.

2. Absolutely not.

3. Lugo indicates that he is out. But his reaction should have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the call or the replay. Otherwise we're reducing close calls to acting jobs. I can't convey this strongly enough.

4. Yes--though only because I believe Lugo felt it.

5. Leave the grades private. There's enough pressure on umps as it is. Also, Meals should be commended for having superior positioning.

6. Leave everything as it. It adds flavor to the game.

I wouldn't be a major league umpire for all the tea in China. Maybe all the MONEY in China. But not the tea.

My gut reaction was that he missed him too. And then I felt ill. Which means I wanted Lugo called out because the catcher messed it up so badly. But McKenry's glove never deforms in any way and that is pretty damning.

1. Timing of throw is irrelevant

2. Video evidence was clearly NOT incontrovertible

3. Lugo's reaction suggests that he thought he would be called out -- not that he WAS, but that he assumed he would be called out.

4. I think the tag probably grazed him.

5. How many questions can you fit in one question?! It seems he was in the correct position, that's just a tough call to make due to the type of tag & slide. I would not publish internal umpire ratings.

6. Better training system? Probably not. Better rules? Maybe.

The whole situation could have been avoided if the Pirates catcher hadn't set up inside the baseline and tried a swipe tag. Either set up more squarely or make an effort to apply a tag that doesn't assume the runner will slide in to your hand.

Lugo also made contact with the catcher. So he may just assume he's out, even if untagged. If you run into someone and beaut that bad, what would you expect.

I think he was safe. Bad play by the catcher, he could put two hands in Lugos chest.

Could you not get much closer to a definitive answer if you looked at the pictures in pairs taken at the same instant. For example, the third last photo from the high third base view looks like there is some contact. If there isn't, it would be because of the way in which the glove and Lugo's leg are aligned with the camera. Should it not be possible to check that by looking at the corresponding picture from central field, given the different angles involved. (assuming that the central field view isn't blocked).

IMO, Meals made the right call, from the best position that he could have been in.

Just wondering - If catchers are being instructed to position differently than they have been trained to, it is reasonable to assume that some of them are faster - or slower - in learning the adjustment in real game action. Will we be seeing more plays like this at the plate until the "new thinking" takes hold?

"Incontrovertible evidence" is a terrible standard. It is what makes the NFL review system untenable, officials standing around looking for 100% certainty when the correct call is right in front of their face.

What is incontrovertible? 100%? 99%? 99.9%? 98 1/4%? Less? How about if close calls are reviewed by video and you let the officials make the best possible ruling based on 1) what they saw on the field and 2) what the video replay shows, and just leave it at that? Far better than posing a ridiculously high standard that is in place more to allow officials to save face than to actually allow the best possible chance at a correct ruling.

Put in practice, don't you think Meals would have changed his mind given a second look? And how exactly would that be bad for the game?