|
Sure, all calls are judgement calls. Heck, almost any call is a judgement call, or at least involves some judgement. We see something happen, apply a rule, and make a decision based on that ruling.
Ground ball, throw to 1B beats BR. Rule 6.05(j) -- IN MY JUDGEMENT the bag was tagged by a player in control of the ball before the BR touched the base -- OUT!
Seems simple, so let's take our good friend, Mr. 8.05 the balk rule:
Pitcher from stretch, "bounces" and delivers. Rule 8.05(m) -- IN MY JUDGEMENT the pitcher did not come set before delivering a pitch -- BALK!
Pretty basic, so let's see the difference between judgement and interpretation:
Pitcher on the rubber drops the ball. Rule 8.05(k) -- a couple of possible calls:
1.) IN MY JUDGEMENT the pitcher was not on the rubber (or the ball did not hit the ground) -- NO BALK and not protestable, but obviously a bad call.
2.) IN MY JUDGEMENT the pitcher showed no intent to drop the ball -- NO BALK but grounds for protest.
(BTW, the "dropped ball" call did happen to me last year. My partner in the field saw it but didn't call it because he thought it was an accident; I never saw it because I looked away briefly to gawk at some cute mothers J/K! After the inning, the coach asked what happened. I told the coach that had he come out when it happened, we would have gotten it right, based on what my partner saw (a ball dropped while on the rubber) and what I knew the rule to be (intent need not be judged.))
So what's my point? Just because a call is a judgement call doesn't mean that it can't be protested. Even though call #2 was made based on a judgement of intent, the call was based on a misapplication of the rules.
Just to take an extreme example -- Ol' Smitty's working out of "B". R1, ground ball to F6. Flips to 2B for one, the throw to 1B beats the BR easily. Yet Smitty's waving his arms around yelling "Safe! Safe!" Manager is a little perplexed, so he goes and talks to Smitty. Smitty won't have any of it, and ejects the manager eventually for arguing a judgement call. Well, turns out Ol' Smitty had a brain fart and thought that the BR had to be tagged for some reason.
I'm just thinking it may be bad advice to make the blanket statement that "a balk is a judgement call," because the younger umpires will take that to mean that such a call can't be argued. The balk rule does involve judgement, some infractions more than others. As others have advised, when a manager comes out to argue, whether it be a judgement call or a ruling, take the following steps:
-- Ask him what he saw;
-- Tell him what you saw and why you called it that way;
-- If he feels a rule has been misapplied, get it right -- he's protesting a call; otherwise, send him back to the dugout -- he's arguing a call.
And this is where I think the "no-call balk" controversy causes problems. Carl says it's a balk but doesn't call it based on common sense, Warren judges the pitcher had no intent to pitch, therefore it can't fall under 8.05(a), and Rich and I use NAPBL 6.4(h) as an extention to 8.05(a), and only judge which foot he disengaged with.
Just a disclaimer -- I'm not implying that Carl's and Warren's calls may be wrong, but maybe bad advice for the younger umpire who is still learning the "science" and not yet the "art."
|