Quote:
Originally posted by Tim C
Matt you still don't "get it" . . . there is NO PROOF what you saw is accurate.
|
Actually, there is something fairly close to proof that Matthew was right and his partner who made the call was wrong and I'm not talking about videotape either.
In my very first umpire article which I believe was about 10,000 words and still over on umpire.org, I put forward the proposition that the goal of an umpire should be changed from getting more calls right to avoiding getting calls wrong in such a way that everyone knew they were wrong. In other words, the umpire that misses 20 pitches a game by one or two inches is better than the umpire who misses three pitches a game - but those misses are by 6 inches so everyone knows that they are misses. I called this concept the "gross miss." Carl has since called it my most important contribution to the advancement of umpire knowledge.
Given that
perception is reality, where does this leave Matthew. Simply this. In the same article, I made the observation that the best way to identify a gross miss is to look in the dugout of the team that the call went in favor of. If they are smiling or have a look of disbelief on their faces, you have a gross miss. So Matthew does have a way of knowing that his partner was wrong. If he had glanced in the dugout of the batting team, their faces would have told him that he was right and his partner had a gross miss. If the team that the call went in favor of perceives that you are wrong, THEN YOU ARE WRONG 100%. You have your proof.
Gross misses are caused by being close to plays. We get close to plays to see the little things, but in the process the play sometimes explodes or we fail to see the whole picture. People 45 feet or more from a play, almost never make a gross miss. Gross errors in judgment are the exclusive territory of the calling umpire, the batter on balls and strikes, the runner being tagged out, or the fielder making the play. The other umpires, the personnel in the dugout, and the fielders not involved in the play, do not have gross misses. That is fairly solid information that Matthew was probably correct in his judgment.
Peter