Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
It's EXTREMELY similar.
It's an example of the umpire changing the way he calls his play because of subsequent action. It's an example of an umpire saying or doing things he shouldn't be saying or doing that could have an effect on action, when he should NOT be affecting action.
This is a GREAT example.
99% of you out there would NEVER yell "Ball Four, Ball Four!!!" if you saw a catcher trying to throw R1 out when stealing on a base on balls. (Those that would can remain at their respective levels, and hope they never do such a thing in front of an evaluator or assignor).
Yet many of you who see why you should not make THAT call are proponents of "Batter's Out!! Batter's Out!!" as "preventative umpiring".
It's the SAME - and you should not do anything different on this play than you would normally.
If you disagree --- tell me WHY "Ball Four!! Ball Four!!" is the wrong thing to do, but "Batter's Out!! Batter's Out!!" is the right thing to do. I sit prepared to be dazzled by your logic.
|
I hever say Ball Four. All balls are called "BALL". What if BR was called out at 1B on a close play but made a sharp turn and started for 2B? Would you call him out again forcefully or stand there amused that he would attempt to do something he is not entitled to do?
Why should logic play into this? Why would we make a safe call on a BR at first when we know he missed the bag only to call him out when an appeal is made, but yet when same play happens at home we don't make a call until something else happens? It's because both are accepted mechanics. I was taught to forcefully call out a BR who can not advance to 1B on a dropped third strike, and it has never caused me a problem, so I keep doing it this way. You may have been trained differently. Don't expect a logical explanation for everything.
[Edited by DG on May 4th, 2005 at 11:00 PM]