In case you missed it the other day, umpire Paul Schrieber issued an apology yesterday for pushing Magglio Ordonez gently out of the way after he turned to question a call of balls and strikes. You can see the video courtesy of ESPN here. That got Jim Leyland out in a tizzy and he got ejected arguing what I feel is a very valid point.
Schrieber’s Apology from ESPN.com
“In yesterday’s game, after I called Magglio Ordonez out on strikes, I inadvertently placed my hand on his back and ushered him away from home plate so I did not have to eject him for arguing balls and strikes,” Schrieber said in a statement issued before the Tigers-Minnesota Twins series finale on Thursday. “I should not have placed my hands on him, period. For doing so, I apologize to both Magglio Ordonez and the Detroit Tigers.”
My question is this: Why is it that umpires are allowed to simply apologize for a mistaken contact, but Milton Bradley gets a 1 game suspension only after a lengthy appeal for simply having the bill of his cap come in contact with the ump. It seems like profiling a person simply do to a past history, which is garbage. If nothing else, umpires should be held to the same standard as the players.
I completely agree with you on this.
If there is a zero tolerance policy for players making contact with the umps, there needs to be the exact same zero tolerance policy if umps make contact with a player.
Schrieber should be suspended, just as Bradley was.
Now… to be fair, I don’t believe that we know whether or not Schrieber will be suspended, right? I don’t recall seeing MLB make a statement on it yet.
I’ve never understood any of the leagues protection of umps, refs, etc. They’re human, and they make mistakes too. But to protect them and hold them to an entirely different set of rules is ridiculous.
We should also be watching to find out how long Jermaine Dye will get for his suspension. While also unintentional, when he slammed his helmet to the ground the other day he was ejected when the helmet hit the umpire. This was clearly more significant contact and should get MORE than Bradley’s two days. He should get at least three and serve at least two after the usual appeal and the usual reduction. Does a ‘good guy’ like Dye get a walk here?
I also absolutely question the timing of the decision. Three in the afternoon? In no way is this fair, ever. Such decisions should be announced at a routine time, such as 10:00 AM when NO ONE is playing. And why the lengthy time? Teams used to wait until they arrived in New York for an appeal at the league office. In the 21st Century, appeals are done electronically. So why did it wait for so long before the appeal?
All appeals should be the next morning or on Monday for a weekend event. And the result should be the next morning. These delays are not acceptable.
Bradley, whether it is “fair” or not, will always have to pay the price for his past antics — at least in his dealings with the umpires and the league. I agree with Rick B — the timing, and length of time, are unacceptable and ridiculous.
I think this outcome was the best he could have hoped for — they were not going to dismiss this case. Period. That said, all other things aside, he should have served the two days when he was injured a few weeks ago. That would have been in the best interest of the team — which ought to be more important than his personal feeling of needing to be right.
Maybe it’s time rotting by brain, but it seems interactions between players and umps were different 20-40 yrs ago. There were loud and animated arguments that amused the crowds, then the parties calmed down or were dragged off and nobody got ejected, fined or suspended. The system seemed to work well.
In the last decade or so, the umps have gotten very thin skinned. the mere questioning of balls and strikes gets you tossed. I say that is bull crap. If you have so little confidence in your ball or strike call as it was made, get out of the game.
My thoughts about the reason that umps are so quick to pull the trigger center around technology. K zone and the like have shown umps to be wrong a lot more than previously thought on balls and strikes (though they are pretty good at safe and out). They only way to not be consistently embarrassed by replay is to have it not become an issue very often. How do you do that? By intimidating the players, coaches, etc into not questioning their authority (try to read that in the voice of cartman for added effect). So the no tolerance rule, in my humble opinion, is due to the umps being shown to be as fallible as the players, but with out the balls to own up to their own errors.
I would just once like to see an official scorer give an error to an ump on a blown call. Say a bobble on a grounder to short that results in a close play at first where the call is safe, but the replay says out. the SS now gets the error unfairly. place a big “E -U” on the board, come on, just once.
From the video I saw, there was no push or shove, but a gentle guiding of Mags.
A suspension of the ump would trigger quicker ejections of players from the game. The ump was trying to keep Mags in the game by trying to get him out of the box.
Thats not the point. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Players are not allowed to make ANY contact with the umpires. The rule should be the same the other way around.
If player can’t touch the ump, then the same rules apply the other way around Tommy. Regardless of Schrieber’s intention.
I think it comes down to demeanor…usually players or managers are irate and threatening during arguments, and this umpire did seem to be doing nothing more than trying to diffuse. Agree with Seymour Rav…30 years ago, one of Earl Weaver or Billy Martin’s Three Mile Island jobs would result in a 2 week suspension nowadays. I’ve never been a big fan of K-zone technology however. And the E-U thing is obviously tongue-in-cheek, before anyone chimes in. As a player, you go in knowing that every ump has a slightly different zone, and you realize its part of the game. Always has been, and I hope it always will be.
The problem with a “zero tolerance” policy with umpires touching players is that umpires will need to have authority to pull players apart during brawls.
Tim Kurkjian discussed this on Mike & Mike yesterday (I think). At what point will grabbing a player to prevent a fight or escalation to a fight be allowed?
Now, in a one on one confrontation as with Magglio and Shrieber, there is no reason he should have touched Magglio in a manner that very well could have escalated.
In an attempt to be a good guy by not running Magglio, Shrieber actually made it worse through his actions. Players should take note because umps will have a quicker hook now as an umpire is not going to sit and be bitched at by a player without any means of ending the argument.
Very well put, perhaps even better than the way I said it.
I agree with Joe, the ump should have served a one day suspension. Players shouldn’t be touching umpires and vice versa. It really isn’t necessary and it could cause an incident to escalate.