- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
I think he needed to explain why the call was changed. I also think that when the stakes are as high and as much money is involved in these MLB games the umps need to be able to articulate what just happened to the manager so when the manager is asked by reporters from around the world what happened he can relate what he was told. MLB is more then just a series of baseball games, its commerce. And like it or not the Umps are part of that product. On top of that these umps have to work with this same static group of managers, a little respect will be returned in the future.
Don't think there was really a need to explain the call, it was quite obvious. But you are correct, the umpire making the call should explain it to the manager, and only the manager, once. After that, if the manager wants to keep talking, I'll give him the courtesy of hearing his concerns, once. And then we are going to move on with the game. There is no need to continue a conversation or play a part in the manager's dog and pony show.
Granted MLB umpires need to play a political game, but IMO that is part of what has caused many of the ridiculous delays in their games and ejections for instances that probably shouldn't get that far.