Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
So in other words, if the runner did not break any rules, you'd call him out in order to get home earlier?
Instead of awarding benefit of the doubt, I'd rather know the rules and have no doubt. Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I (a scheduler as well as umpire) stopped scheduling 1 person last year specifically because of this mentality. I want my umpires there for the girls, and with the intention of calling the game, not influencing it. If they need to get home sooner, I will allow them to simply not leave their homes at all.
If that makes me an @$$, so be it.
|
READ WHAT I SAID. PROBABLY A PLAY THAT ONE WOULD HAVE TO WITNESS TO PROPERLY RULE ON. THAT BEING SAID IF JUDGEMENT HAS TO BE APPLIED GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE DEFENSE. HOW DO YOU KNOW WITHOUT SEEING THIS PLAY THAT THE RUNNER DID NOT DELIBERATELY AND WITH MALICE AND FORETHOUGHT INTENTIONALLY CAUSE THE DEFENSE TO HESITATE. SINCE I CAN'T READ THAT RUNNERS MIND I'M GOING TO USE COMMON SENSE.
1. WHY IS HE RUNNING ON A POP UP. STUPID PLAY
2. IF IT'S A STUPID PLAY WHY SHOULD I BAIL HIM OUT.
3. MAYBE HE'S A SMART PLAYER THAT THOUGHT THERE WERE TWO OUTS AND IS TRYING TO SAVE HIS A**
ERGO I GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE DEFENSE.
BY THE WAY IF YOU WERE AN UMPIRE YOU'D RECOGNIZE AN OBVIOUS JOKE THAT WE ARE GREEDY B*****DS AND THAT WE WANT OUTS AND STRIKES.