Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I don't know any umpires, in real life or on the Internet, who have a problem with the "biases" inherent in the rules. Each team gets the same number of turns on offense and defense. If the rules are "biased" towards the offense or defense, the fact that each team gets the same number of turns makes it "fair." Your Don Quixotes are made of straw.
|
Really? Then why is it, do you suppose, that a number of posters have wanted to declare, in this very thread, that "
ties go to the runner"? Many simply can't accept that little Johnny isn't "entitled" to be called safe when it was a "dead heat"! We both know that "high level" clinicians and "real world" umpires, especially professional umpires, tend to ignore the literal reading of OBR 6.05(j) in favor of a more pragmatic understanding that OBR 7.01 applies at all bases, including 1st.
Please don't take my previous reply to your post as some sort of personal rebuff. I was actually
agreeing with your initial assessment and simply wanted to add a 3rd, clearly-defined group; clearly-defined to me, at least.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I think you understand the Childressian concept somewhat incorrectly
...[snip]...
As I said previously, the Benefit of the Doubt principle I've described - which explicitly includes evaluating which sided "earned" the call by superior play - is a concept that is taught by "high-level" clinicians. It is a concept I personally have had good success with, and the feedback I get from the "real-world" umpires I have helped train is virtually 100% positive.
|
Well maybe you and I will have to A2D on what Carl really meant. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. I just don't see Childress deciding close calls on any reward/punishment basis. Calls can't be "earned" by superior play any more than they can be "lost" by poor play - that's undue bias - but superior play or poor play can help the umpire decide what actually happened, on the balance of probability.
The clue, for me, was in Carl's use of "
which team executes better on any given play". I don't read that as being a "reward" for making a great grab at shortstop and turning an easy single into a razor's edge play. His example that you cited made it even clearer for me. The lazy tag high on the body near the base is "Safe" because the runner's foot
probably made the bag ahead of the high tag DESPITE the ball beating the runner to the play. That's the same as the fielder who lays down the early tag ahead of a sliding runner. A cloud of dust may have prevented the umpire from physically seeing any tag, but the glove went down well before the runner reached the base so on the balance of probability the runner was likely out. That's not a "reward". Instead it's the most likely result of what actually happened.
I view both examples as the pragmatic recognition of the facts, not a romantic "punishment" for the defensive player failing to bend over early and make the tag at the ankle, or a "reward" for the defense getting the ball to the base early.
I'm sure that we are probably thinking about the same concept but may be getting caught up in the language difference. I just don't believe that terms like "deserved" and "earned" have any part in umpires deciding calls. If a player executes a tag well then certainly the benefit of any doubt should go to that player. That's not the same as "rewarding" the defense for making a great play, in the broader sense. You may see my distinction as a case of hair-splitting, but I see it as a fundamental difference in umpire attitude.
Cheers