[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Bfair
[B]So here we are in the NFL with 2 seconds left in the game and the offense trailing by 5 with the ball at the 15 yard line. Wideout is split wide left with the defender ready to block his release off the line.
etc. etc. etc.*
I agree with Dave, analogies from other sports don't fly. Try this site:
http://www.officialforum.com/forum/4
While Yeast may have emphasized the need for officials to assure pitchers come to a complete stop, I doubt if he wanted his directive to mean situations where no advantage could be gained (such as perhaps a pitcher throwing from the set position with no runners on base). But will Yeast support this call? Of course he will. The official was carrying out HIS emphasis---despite applying it poorly for the situation at hand. Still, I'd strongly suspect that Yeast cringed when he saw the call.............as likely did most veteran officials.
Have you been working for Yeast lately? Have you kept up with his video bulletins?
There are exceptions to the rules---unwritten exceptions that we at times apply. Better officials know WHEN to apply those exceptions, know how to take the heat if necessary, and know how to explain their way out of 'em. Those exceptions typically apply toward technical infractions where neither advantage was gained nor attempted to be gained. The other factor includes how obvious the infraction is. Does this fit the category?
While I did not see this play to be able to comment on how OBVIOUS the infraction was (the problem faced with the dropped ball from the rubber), this is still an infraction of judgement. It should not have been called unless the official felt that R3 might have been contemplating a steal of home. It's likely no advantage was gained or attemted to be gained.
The official let the technicality of the rules become greater than the game itself.
How about the example I stole from Hensely? Bottom of the ninth score tied, R3. Pitcher in contact with the runner drops the ball. Do you ignore that?
AS umpires we need to consider spirit and intent of the rules---especially when we can use "judgment" as an easy explanation vs. enforcing a technical rule (something McClelland would have had difficulty doing).
Following that logic there would be no balks except deceptive balks; no mechanical balks, no penal balks. Despite the announcer/coach mentality that seem to sweeping the boards, deception is not the only reason balks are called, and impact on a game appears no where in the NCAA rulebook. I thought we were supposed to let the players decide the game. What you are suggesting is to allow the umpire decide the game by ignoring the balk. Judicial activism at its best. I submit that by enforcing the rule the umpire kept himself from deciding the game.
I'm amazed at some of the veteran officials who have been criticizing Pete.
I'd speculate that none of these officials (whose posts I've read in the past) would have supported this same call 2 years ago when I was last on the boards. Not due to lack of gonads, but moreso due to being better umpires. So, would the Yeast edict of emphasis be the difference today? While it may be for those veterans posting here, I suspect it was for only 25% of the umpiring crew of the game being discussed. Still, I suspect some of those posting in support of the call made would still not make that call today.
Maybe, maybe not. The game of baseball and rules interps are not static. You were one arguing that point with Carl years ago. As an example, according to Jim Evans the running lane interp has changed at least three times.
I look forward to you coming back in another two years.
[Edited by GarthB on Jun 13th, 2005 at 01:57 PM]