Not sure about this

[sfgdood]

It looks like Bochy is going to straight platoon at 2B and CF. I like Tomlinson but I'm not sure this is the right time for his first postseason start. I don't care very much for Hernandez. I mean I guess he's fast and can steal on Lester but he can't steal first base. I'd rather have him on the bench to pinch run.

[Rog]

Span has a decent sample size against Lester, going 8 for 28 with 6 walks. I too would start him, unless he's gimpy in some way. Not sure about sitting Panik either. Lefties hit only .200 against Lester this year, but righties hit only .214 themselves.

It may be tough to keep the line moving tonight.

[klaiggeb]

And it was.

Once upon a time, Gorkys was a huge prospect... but he is OVER MATCHED much of the time with mid to upper 90's fastballs.

Thus, and this was ANOTHER HORSE CRAP CALL by an umpire in the post season, he had ZERO chance vs Chapman.

I am sick and tired of umpires making calls that change the game when they aren't 100% sure of something.

And the replay SHOWED that Gorkys DIDN'T break his wrists or make a swing.

Horse crap!

And that is another example of what I hate umpires.

Call what you see, not what you think you see!

boly

[sfgdood]

Guess what, Boly...if balls and strikes were called electronically, the HP ump can concentrate on swing/no swing

[klaiggeb]

I'm in.

I've made my position loudly and clearly.

I don't like, and don't trust umpires.

They DON'T call what they see, they all too often call what they THINK they see.

boly

[Rog]

Call what you see, not what you think you see!


Rog -- Let's think about that one a minute. What someone thinks he sees is what he DOES see. It may not be what happened, but it is what he SEES. If he saw something other than what he THOUGHT he saw, he would have called it a check swing. The camera wasn't quite where the first base umpire would have been, but from what I saw, while it was close, I wouldn't have called it if I had been the first base umpire.

At the root of this problem may be the rule, which I have heard asks if the batter "intended" to swing. Well, he certainly intended to swing when he began the swing, but by the time he began checking the swing, he certainly wasn't intending to swing. That said, I made the call by the batter's wrists and where the bat went at its furthest point. It was kind of a gut or common sense thing, and I can't remember getting much if any flack.

Again though, in the major leagues the bat moves a lot faster than in the games I umpired. I saw guys who threw 90, but rarely if at all guys who threw in the high 90's. And usually I wasn't seeing guys who threw in the 90's.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3528/#ixzz4MdSlwsBg

[Rog]

By the way, check swings could be called electronically, as could almost every play. I believe the technology is there. As an umpire, I did everything I could to get the call right. I have no problem with electronic umpires.

By the way, if I had been Bruce Bochy, I would have asked why Span was called out by the replay crew. It wouldn't have changed anything, but inquisitive minds like to know.

[klaiggeb]

Rog-Rog -- Let's think about that one a minute. What someone thinks he sees is what he DOES see.

***boly says***

That's not quite what I meant, Rog.

It's like in football, a ref "thinks" he saw a hold because a player swiveled/spun... but DID he actually SEE the hold?

No.

Same here.

IF he was unsure he shouldn't have called it.

And at THAT moment in the game? For either team? It's too close to call!

boly

[Rog]

It's like in football, a ref "thinks" he saw a hold because a player swiveled/spun... but DID he actually SEE the hold?

No.

Same here.

IF he was unsure he shouldn't have called it.

And at THAT moment in the game? For either team? It's too close to call!


Rog -- I understand your point, Boly, but the hold that wasn't seen but was inferred is far different from the play on which Gorkys either swung or didn't. I saw the replay and felt he didn't swing. The umpire saw the play live, and he did judge that Gorkys had gone around. On the football play you described, the official was blocked and thus had to call the hold on what he COULD see. On the check swing, the first base umpire was looking right at it (no obstructions), but he judged it differently than you and I did.

Those plays happen very quickly. The umpire doesn't have time for instant replay.

As for the call being different because of the time of the game, wouldn't that be a big mistake? It's either a swing or not, whether it's the first inning or the ninth inning. Intentionally calling it differently because of the time in the game would be wrong, even if the call were right.

Going back to the hold or non-hold, how many holds are missed because the referee's angle doesn't allow him to see it? TONS. Players know they are able to get away with a lot when bodies shield the ref's eyes.

Here is a question I would ask: Since the job of the ref or ump is to get the call right, is it better if he calls something he doesn't directly see but which the subsequent reaction makes it more likely than not the play was a penalty, or if he ignores it?

In the one case, he doesn't call it unless he clearly sees it -- but misses the call more often than he gets it right. In the other case, he gets the call right more often, but sometimes completely blows it because he inferred rather than actually saw.

My personal feeling is that because the official's job is to get the call right, he should play the odds. Is getting two calls right but missing one badly worse than getting the one call right but missing the two others? In my opinion, it isn't.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3528/#ixzz4MnkorPJV

[sfgdood]

Last night the umpires--especially Vanover behind home plate--sure THOUGHT they saw what was proven to be not the case. The argument for electronic balls and strikes being called is being strengthened with every game.

I'm still disgusted by the replay officials. There are some times they get it right and have the stones to overturn calls on the field, but then sometimes they act like they don't see what is clear to everyone watching on tv. How could they NOT see Rizzo's foot off the base on that play? I don't have a huge 60 inch tv but I could still quite easily tell Gillaspie was safe. Don't get me started on Vanover...he was just plain pathetic all night.

[Rog]

That one angle in particular certainly seemed to show Rizzo's foot was off the base. In addition, he appeared to reach back right after the fact to try to touch first base.

It also seemed that almost every close check swing call went against the Giants.

The only thing I can think of on the Rizzo replay call was that they felt they couldn't be sure that Rizzo's SPIKES weren't touching the base.

One thing we seldom consider with replay though is that it is possible WE are wrong. Looking at it objectively, is it more likely that trained umpires in a replay room will miss the call or that we as a biased fan will do so?

What I wish were the case is that there were an explanation by the replay officials as to what they saw -- correctly or incorrectly - that we might not have.

[klaiggeb]

Excuse me, Rog, but spikes? Touching the base?

Horse crap on those replay officials.

That wasn't even close to being an out.

Rizzo was off, and it was abundantly clear from the camera angle from RF

They blew it.

They were backing the umpire, period!

They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

boly

[sfgdood]

If he was on the base, he wouldnt have reached his foot back belatedly

[Rog]

They blew it.

They were backing the umpire, period!


Rog -- Think about that one, Boly. If the replay officials were simply backing up the umpires, a couple of things wouldn't have happened that did.

First of all, the decision wouldn't have taken an inordinate amount of time. Instead, it was as very long replay.

Secondly, if the replay guys were simply backing up the umpires, they wouldn't have reversed any calls in the series, which they did.

Did I agree with them on the Rizzo play? Heck no. And in fact, that probably means that NEITHER of Baez's two great plays should have resulted in an out.

But to say that the replay guys were simply backing up the umpires' calls is spurious at best, wouldn't we say?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3528/#ixzz4Mtp6o6kK

[klaiggeb]

I'm simply saying what it looked like, Rog.

There is NO OTHER explanation.

It's human nature to watch your friend's back.

I contend that's what happen

boly

[Rog]

There is NO OTHER explanation.

Rog -- One might be that they saw it differently than we did. Although I didn't like their non-reversal, that seems like the most likely explanation to me. Why all the conspiracy theory?

[klaiggeb]

I can't agree with you, Rog.

I thought it was THAT obvious.

Why the conspiracy theory?

Mostly because I'm paranoid.

I am.

boly

[Rog]

Mostly because I'm paranoid.


Rog - The world needs more noids. So I guess a pair o' noids is twice as good as one.

Two pears are a pair o' pears, but what are two nannies? A pair o' au pairs, of course.

Ever seen a man who was literally beside himself? Only time I can think of was when the Van Arsdales stood next to each other on the basketball court. I guess if they stood side-by-side on a sunny day, we might see a man who was a shadow of himself. And we've all been caught on days like that where we couldn't get out of the way of our own shadow. Not even Usain Bolt.

Would a team that used a pitcher who wasn't himself that day need a 26-man roster?