[PeteBooth]

Ok I think it's time to get off the LLWS for a minute. I know Danny's fate is still not decided, but here in NY I'm sick and tired of seeing Danny's picture in the local papers on a daily bases. Leave the poor kid alone and if someone is at fault here - look to the kids parents.

Now Child Services is getting involved, so something that originally seemed to be strictly an age issue is becoming more social in nature.

Now to my thread. In my early days of umpiring I strictly called what I saw - Period. As I moved on to upper ball I found that philosophy not to be sound.

I have finished Papa C's 51 ways to ruin a baseball game and the aforementioned was a topic in the book. Should we call that which is expected?

What does this mean? I'm not talking about plays which are close or bang bang in nature, but plays in which the runner appears to be out/safe by a mile and an umpire rules opposite.

Let's take a simple example; r1 stealing; F2 throws a bullet to say F6 who puts tag down where it is supposed to be, R1 is going to be out by a mile but the tag isn't actually made - it's in the vicinity. In other words to everyone in the park (including the offense) the runner looks out. Now are you going to make the out call or actually look for the tag? This could also go under the caption "phantom tag".

The "neighborhood play", "phantom tag", etc, have been passed down through time and have been accepted. Do you accept those traditions? or simply call it the way you see it?

Have you tried both approaches so that you can see for yourself? I have tried both and at least in upper ball, calling that which is expected works best.

Comments!

Pete Booth