[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

It should NEVER be a factor in an official's decision-making. If a play is so close that you have doubt, then the facts say the runner did NOT beat the play. That is the criterion the pro's use. That is what the rules require.

Warren I have to disagree with you on this. IMO and watching baseball for a long time, the merits of the play do matter.

If you have a chance check out ESPN's classics when they show some of the greatest plays ever made. There was Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, Willie Mays and many many more.

Just like basketball where the "benefit of doubt" goes to the established player (ie; Michael Jordan) in drawing a foul call so does it hold true in baseball, especially when a "KNOWN" player is involved.

If a play is that close and F6 went deep in the hole made a back hand play, IMO reward the defense.

Remember we are talking about CLOSE plays not those in which we are "SURE" about.

Also, watch a game in which F1 has a no hitter in the late innings, most PRO umpires will give benefit of doubt to F1 on the REALLY close ones.

I realize the PRO umpire will probably not admit it, but indeed uses the "benefit of doubt" theory in actual practice. I know I do and I think it is in a way "an expected call", meaning the players, fans etc want you to reward GREAT PLAYS again when it is too close to call or to use a Horse Race Term - Photo Finish.

Therefore, in order to truly answer the question we have to define close calls from CLOSE CALLS if you know what I mean. There are plenty of close calls that in our minds we know if the runer was safe or out, but there are those "coin flip" type calls in which IMO the "benefit of doubt" theory is a good tool to use.

Pete Booth