I'm afraid that Steve Freix doesn't follow me yet. I understand why, of course. It's always difficult for relative beginners, average umpires, and umpires who want to impose
their "morality" on the game to sort their way through complex situations, such as "two umpires making opposite calls on the same play" or "don't call a highly technical balk."
Steve is forever hung up on the fact that very good umpires don't have to follow the rules and yet what they do is still accepted by coaches, players, fans, and most other officials. Umpires who don't yet understand why that happens haven't come to grips with what the umpire's chief duty is. I'd recommend that anyone similarly confused read Warren Willson's magnificient series on Umpire Ethics at eumpire.com.
Steve, you continue attempting to resurrect that dead horse of the Texas Play by claiming inconsistent rulings on my part. I don't think anyone who has followed this debate even cursorily will buy that. From the first post to the last I have argued the Texas play is
different from the Moose play: Texas was one of concurrent jurisdiction; Moose, one umpire responsible; Texas, not a force play; Moose, force play; Texas, not a dropped ball; Moose, a dropped ball after a throw; Texas, umpires conferred properly under 9.04(c); Moose, improper involvement of an umpire far from the play and one never a part of any decision. I could go on.
I think the responses from everyone in that discussion show pretty well the raison d'être behind anyone's bringing it up again.
I understand well your point about consistency. I rail against an umpire who doesn't enforce the FED (don't-move-the-shoulder-to-check-a-runner) rule and then urge other umpires not to call a balk when the pitcher steps off with the wrong foot. "Inconsistent!" is the charge. "Wrong!" is the answer. Ignoring the FED rule occurs because the umpires doesn't like it. Not calling the technical balk occurs because the umpire knows baseball.
BTW: I am fond of saying about a FED game: "If you take their money, the FED deserves your allegiance." For some reason umpires who don't like the position that represents
always remind me they work for schools, not the FED. Let me one final time explain that my comment is indeed meant metaphorically: If you accept a game played under FED rules, you should enforce FED rules. That is the meaning -- and always has been -- of my comment about accepting "FED pay." But, back to the point:
Steve, what happens, though, is you expect
your version of consistency. Let me quote something I've written in nearly every book, something I've said in nearly every clinic for thirty years:
Learn all the rules. Until you do, you cannot choose which ones you will enforce and which ones you will ignore.
I'll give you two examples, both dealing with the pitcher in an OBR Youth game (but the players shave).
Play 1: F1 in the set position, stretches, comes down for the pause, and then delivers. In my judgment it was very close as to whether he actually stopped or not. "Coulda been a stop, coulda been a bounce."
Play 2: F1 in the windup position notices there's a runner on second, so he slowly slides forward into the set position and leans forward to take his sign.
The decisions I make on those two plays, I believe, demonstrate my philosophy, which is: I'm going to make the calls that make my job easier.
In Play 1, I call "That's a balk!" in a heartbeat. In Play 2, I'll say: "Oh, sorry, Skip. I didn't see it. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I'll watch if from on, though."
If I don't enforce the stop, pitchers will continue to have an advantage not intended by the rules.
The purpose of forcing the pitcher to step off the rubber before changing from the wind-up to the set position is two-fold: (1) It prevents the quick pitch; and (2) It prevents the pitcher from "running" into the pitch. In my Play 2, the pitcher does neither. "Sorry, Coach, just wadn't payin' no attention. I'll get him next time, you bet."
If I balk the kids EARLY for not stopping, they will begin to stop, and we can play ball in silence.
If I balk a kid because he's not yet proficient in the pitching technique, I simply show I know the rule but I don't know baseball.
After I learned how and why to make those calls, the attitude behind those decisions worked well for the rest of my career.
It's what I've been teaching ever since I became a clinician, it's what I wrote about in my third article ever for a national audience, it's what I continue to believe, right on through
51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game.
[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 07:25 PM]