Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
This is always an amusing debate between the literalists, who strike me as just a tad anal-retentive (the rules are the rules!) and simplistic (if he's out he's out and if he's safe he's safe!) about it, and the pragmatists, who see value in developing a set of guidelines to help them be more consistent and more in tune with the spirit of the game as well as the perceptions and expectations of the game participants, in deciding those razor-thin, too-close-to-call, coin-flip plays.
|
I would add a 3rd group to the debate, Dave; namely the romantics. They tend to view themselves as a great force for Truth, Justice and the Fair Baseball way on the diamond. They want to "reward" great game play and "punish" poor game play because that's what is Fair and Just in their eyes. They can never accept that the game is deliberately biased at times, usually to make it a more interesting contest. They are also committed to their belief that the umpire is really some kind of superhero on-field dispenser of Justice and Fairness, instead of simply being an impartial arbiter of what actually happened.
Maybe someone should write a book on what cues umpires may reasonably use when giving the "benefit of the doubt" on close plays. As I understand it "making the expected call", an acknowledged Childressian concept, is about calling pragmatically based on facts. It is not about romantically "rewarding" or "punishing" what either team "deserved" to have happen based on any perceived great or poor gameplay.
Cheers