Fri Oct 21, 2005, 01:21pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Dear Blabby,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Carl Childress
"It's impossible to keep our personal philosophy out of the game. The romantic says: "Get every call right, regardless." The realist says: "My job is to see that the game is played as my League wants." The romantic says: "You must be fair." The realist says: "I must ensure that one team doesn't gain an advantage not intended by the rules."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a much nicer way of putting it - inaccurate and no less inflammatory than "ingratiate", but I'll let it slide.
How would a realist answer the following query?
Doesn't one team gain an advantage when an umpire ignores the proper call for appearance sake? As an example, he sees a player miss a base and ignores it because it would require an unusual call on a routine play. Which rule intends to permit this?
Signed,
Hopelessly Romantic
|
Against my better judgment, but....
Let's talk specifically about my sample play. The batter crushes one over the fence in flight, like Albert did against the Astros. Instead of Minute Maid Park, though, the game is at Busch, and it is a walk-off. Around he comes and amid all the bench players he jumps into the air and comes down an inch from the white. Clearly he missed it. Clearly you saw it. Now, you intimate you would uphold an appeal on that play. Gosh! Talk about threats made by St. Louis fans against Don Denkinger....
The rules INTEND that a baserunner NOT gain an advantage by missing a base. You tell me: Would Pujols gain an advantage, missing the plate by an inch? A realist says "no"; consequently, a realist denies an appeal. (Myself? I would be halfway toward the tunnel by the time he reached the plate and wouldn't see the miss.)
But let's say I'm the third-base umpire in a four-man crew. I've been there many times since we use those almost exclusively in Texas' high school playoffs. Consider: R2. B1 singles to short right, and R2 tries to score. As he rounds third, he plants his spikes several inches from the bag and continues his mad dash home. He is safe on a close play. The defense appeals he missed third.
I can't wait to call out that sucker! Why? He gained an advantage not intended by the rules. Now you (the romantic) would call him out also, which means: You're always ready to make the easy call, which this one is, but the tough ones may give you pause.
You never answered Tee's question; namely, do you call strikes on pitches in the dirt? (Isn't not making such a foolish call the purpose of "timing, timing, timing"?)
Your previous writing said you do, so I believe you even though I don't believe you're "real."
That said, there's nothing to be gained from continuing a discussion with you. You are not hopelessly romantic, merely....
|
Before I begin, I'll address Bob Patrino. You know not of what you speak. If you believe that was a rude rebuttal, you missed the Editor's prior comments. One can only imagine what you construe as offensive on the field. I would say any of those things to his face. A simple question posed in an eloquent manner...how uncouth?!?
Papa C., I asked you to behave as a gentleman. You failed that litmus test. If you disagree with my position, express it without the cloaked denegration. I would be happy to debate this issue in a forum of officials. Your fifty years and gift of gab would be more than met. I chose the high road earlier and found that no matter what I did, you continued to mock and abuse the privilege you've been given. What happened to A2D?
You assume that my experience is negligible and any "real world" umpire would know better than to utilize my theory of umpiring. I suggest you contact, Hopkins and Yeast to discuss your thesis. In Detroit, Yeast said that he accepts nothing less than our best effort out there. He demanded that we hustle, get into position and conference if necessary to make the correct call. Expected calls have gone the way of the umpire's black suit. Hopkins is on record with a similar desire. We don't cheat the game. It has nothing to do with being a "romantic" any more than it deals with you being a "coward". In the NCAA, we keep players off the field even on homeruns - this was put in place because of missed bases! Can't you sell a missed base? Yes, it has a bearing and MLB players are paid an awful lot of money to play correctly. A missed plate on a walk off homerun is a big deal! Remember Robin Ventura's grand slam a few years ago? He stopped at second and they credited him with a double. According to your logic, he should be given the grandslam because it was expected. There, I believe that qualifies as a valid counterpoint to your direct question. He didn't touch home, no home run.
I also addressed the strike zone and balls in the dirt - you seem to forget my comment about the 12-6 deuce. Consistency and communication - these have helped me avoid being stuck with "free hot dogs and soda".
You like to sling mud and think that if you cover it in enough fluff, no one will notice. It may look like chocolate, but it smells a whole lot like manure. You put words in my mouth about the missed third base. Why is that any easier than the play at the dish? I think I know why you were working third base instead of home. The high road be damned, you don't seem to know what it means.
|
First, there's no comparison between a man who ran all the bases - and missed home by an inch - and a man who hit a ball over the fence - and stopped at second. You know that.
Second, I went six years where I didn't call the bases once in a 100-plus game season except for double-headers and tournaments. I was at third after calling the plate in the first game.
You dont' have to worry about my combative style anymore, at least as it pertains to you.
The last message was against my better judgment. This one is simply the last once.
|