Talk:Bill Miller (umpire)

Incident should be considered notable

If someone provides a reliable source for the Bill Miller-Brett Lawrie incident from yesterday, I strongly say that it should be considered notable. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Video of the Bill Miller-Brett Lawrie incident, including various angles showing pitch locations demonstrating the questionable calls. http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=21468797&c_id=mlb&partnerId=aw-5372115144945470841-996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.105.12 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I just removed it as non notable trivia. Has more come of it? --Mollskman (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Lawrie was suspended for four games. Also, I'd say it is certainly notable when an umpire is hit by a piece of thrown equipment. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can it be written in a NPOV tone?--Mollskman (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I will look into that. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Frankly, I don't think it is all that bad. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried some more. It seems that original research is creeping in. Mollskman (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment not the first time a player has been thrown out for arguing balls and strikes. Can't really see the relevance of the "incident" as you call it.JOJ ^Hutton 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

When was the last time a player threw his helmet and it deflected off of the umpire? If this was a typical ejection, why did Lawrie get a four-game suspension? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the throwing of the helmet and its contact with Miller makes this incident unusual and notable. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

whatever the case, the material needs to be presented in a NPOV way without original research, thats all. --Mollskman (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited the text to improve the conciseness, but it was reverted. I propose that the passage in question be modified to the following:

On May 15, 2012, Miller was involved in an altercation with Toronto Blue Jays third baseman Brett Lawrie when Miller appeared to miss two consecutive calls at the end of a close game. With a 3–1 count, Lawrie headed towards first after each of the next two pitches, but Miller called them both strikes. When Lawrie protested his strikeout, Miller ejected him. Lawrie responded by throwing his helmet at the ground, which bounced up and hit Miller.

isaacl (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean, but you may want to re-word the last part as it currently indicates that the ground bounced up and hit Miller. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing—otherwise, any objections to replacing the text with the proposed passage?

On May 15, 2012, Miller was involved in an altercation with Toronto Blue Jays third baseman Brett Lawrie when Miller appeared to miss two consecutive calls at the end of a close game. With a 3–1 count, Lawrie headed towards first after each of the next two pitches, but Miller called them both strikes. When Lawrie protested his strikeout, Miller ejected him, and Lawrie threw his helmet, which bounced off the ground and hit Miller.

isaacl (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What citation will you use?--Mollskman (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The current video citation. Other citations such as [1] can also be used. isaacl (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be carefull with using "video citations" as this might be considered original research. The citation above might be better. I guess your wording is ok, especially since I seem to be the only one sort of contesting how this should be written. Good luck and thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. The video shows the events occurring and the commentators describe it, so readers can verify the text both by observing the sequence of events and listening to the commentators. I believe the proposed text is factual without interpretation (I suppose some could challenge if Lawrie was protesting, but I don't think any reasonable person would believe he was not), and so in my opinion no original research is being done. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting a few more days for comments, but I guess given the ongoing edits, I will put my proposal in place. isaacl (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that unfortunately umpires getting beer thrown at them is not an uncommon occurrence, and so I have omitted this from the article. isaacl (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose reverting these edits which introduce an error in a footnote, and are unnecessarily verbose. isaacl (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You probably should revert them. Anyone wishing to edit the part about the Lawrie incident needs to first see the talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As you did not, I thought perhaps you might have some reason for it. For an immediate revert, I would prefer that someone else do it in order to demonstrate there is more than one person who agrees with the previous text. Otherwise, I will give some time for the editor who made the change to respond. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I think I have it changed back. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)