Missed calls in Baseball

[Texlonghorn75]

Why call it a 'tight" plate? That implies some umps call a lose plate. The pitch is either a STRIKE, a BALL, a FOUL, or a HIT and there should not be an ounce of doubt as to the result of every pitch. I am not even sure if the last pitch was a strike

Did you ever play baseball growing up? Your posts indicate you don't have a clue about the sport other than watching the tube.

 

[dammitbobby]

I like having the human element of umpires/referees in all sports. You won't find a sport without certain judgement calls that can be made by the refs/umps that can dramatically change the outcome of the game, but it's been that way since the inception of those sports and I don't want to see it changed now. I've had my teams lose because of the refs/umps and I've seen my teams win with a little bit of their help. It goes both ways but it's part of the game. Just like foul calls in basketball, and pass interference in football, balls and strikes are a judgement call made by the umpire. Most of the time they'll be right, but they'll get some wrong. The thing is, they'll get some wrong for every team. My biggest issue is umpires who don't have a consistent strike zone for both pitchers. When the ump's strike zone is at least consistent, even from game to game, the pitchers and batters can figure it out and it's no big deal for either team.

All that said, I would like to see them give each team X number of challenges that can be used to challenge the ball/strike call, similar to tennis where they use the computer to challenge whether a ball was in or out. With all the technology and all the cameras on the fields, everything should be challengeable, in all sports. I hate it when I hear the announcers say "that's not challengeable". Well why not? That's just pure silliness.

This, I disagree with... in football, many calls are entirely subjective, based on many factors. Holding, for example. A strict interpretation of the rule means that most games would be 6+ hours long and probably called on every play. Officials have to see it, then decide if it impacts the play... was an advantage gained? A hold on the backside of a sweep play isn't going to be called, because it is immaterial to the play (regardless of how much the coaches see it and scream 'THAT'S HOLDING!'. At the point of attack, and the defense is restricted from potentially making a play? That's getting called, because it could have made a difference. I don't mind indisputable infractions being reviewable, within reason - college does have some fouls reviewable (such as targeting) but no judgement-based fouls are, and it's for good reason: its's a judgement call, based on circumstances and perspective, and someone sitting in a replay both won't have either of those.

 

[Redraider092]

I love reading these types of comments. It's easy to point out those who have never umpired a baseball game or ever officiated a sport. If/when the MLB does go to an electronic strike zone I will guarantee you there will be just as many individuals complaining now about the human strike zone as the new electronic strike zone. I read above where the author of this thread stated they are not sure the final strike called was even a strike. It certainly appeared to be up and in but according to everyone's little television box, it was a strike.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

Obviously, those Texas Ranger pitchers threw them like the ump liked them! And those Texas Rangers batters were fairly dangerous with a baseball bat. I would have liked Garcia to have gotten a few more at bats to see if he continued his hot streak. Guess we are stuck with the new World Series Champs.

 

[Klaaxctuu]

I like having the human element of umpires/referees in all sports. You won't find a sport without certain judgement calls that can be made by the refs/umps that can dramatically change the outcome of the game, but it's been that way since the inception of those sports and I don't want to see it changed now. I've had my teams lose because of the refs/umps and I've seen my teams win with a little bit of their help. It goes both ways but it's part of the game. Just like foul calls in basketball, and pass interference in football, balls and strikes are a judgement call made by the umpire. Most of the time they'll be right, but they'll get some wrong. The thing is, they'll get some wrong for every team. My biggest issue is umpires who don't have a consistent strike zone for both pitchers. When the ump's strike zone is at least consistent, even from game to game, the pitchers and batters can figure it out and it's no big deal for either team.

All that said, I would like to see them give each team X number of challenges that can be used to challenge the ball/strike call, similar to tennis where they use the computer to challenge whether a ball was in or out. With all the technology and all the cameras on the fields, everything should be challengeable, in all sports. I hate it when I hear the announcers say "that's not challengeable". Well why not? That's just pure sillines.

I've never seen a football official upset over a call being overturned. Many of these football calls in the NFL make a huge difference in the outcome of the game. It's almost like MLB officials can't take the heat when they miss calls over, and over and over. They would do well to take that box away that shows everyone just how inept they are. Have you ever seen the tools used to operate on patients from 100 year ago? Thank goodness some professions strive to improve and look to the future and not the past.

 

[JasonTX]

I like having the human element of umpires/referees in all sports. You won't find a sport without certain judgement calls that can be made by the refs/umps that can dramatically change the outcome of the game, but it's been that way since the inception of those sports and I don't want to see it changed now. I've had my teams lose because of the refs/umps and I've seen my teams win with a little bit of their help. It goes both ways but it's part of the game. Just like foul calls in basketball, and pass interference in football, balls and strikes are a judgement call made by the umpire. Most of the time they'll be right, but they'll get some wrong. The thing is, they'll get some wrong for every team. My biggest issue is umpires who don't have a consistent strike zone for both pitchers. When the ump's strike zone is at least consistent, even from game to game, the pitchers and batters can figure it out and it's no big deal for either team.

All that said, I would like to see them give each team X number of challenges that can be used to challenge the ball/strike call, similar to tennis where they use the computer to challenge whether a ball was in or out. With all the technology and all the cameras on the fields, everything should be challengeable, in all sports. I hate it when I hear the announcers say "that's not challengeable". Well why not? That's just pure silliness.

I'm very consistent. It's a strike as soon as it leaves the pitchers hand. Better come out swinging.

 

[JasonTX]

I've never seen a football official upset over a call being overturned. Many of these football calls in the NFL make a huge difference in the outcome of the game. It's almost like MLB officials can't take the heat when they miss calls over, and over and over. They would do well to take that box away that shows everyone just how inept they are. Have you ever seen the tools used to operate on patients from 100 year ago? Thank goodness some professions strive to improve and look to the future and not the past.

The box you see on TV is made by the broadcasters but it's not what the umpires are graded by. I've seen pitches not be in that box but the computer grades it a strike. I'm not sure why MLB won't share their real box with the broadcasters.