|
You changed the questions to look intelligent, but wait...
"If a pitch enters the strike zone, will you "probably" call a strike?
Yes, I will call it a strike unless the batter hits it. I will not call it a strike if a high school pitcher has just balked. I did not think I had to explain such rudimentary things to such a well published umpire. Lah me!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the throw beats the runner at first and the first baseman in control of the ball tags the base and throws to the second baseman, will you "probably" call an out?
Are you asking me if the runner at first is out or the runner at second? If the runner was obstructed by the catcher, I will not call him out. Again, these are those 'absolute' things I tried to explain before. You unwillingness to accept reality is troubling.
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the pitcher does not come to a complete and discernible stop in the set position, will you "probably" call a balk?
Provided that we don't have a verbal obstruction call on the offense for yelling 'Time', I would call that a balk. I would also not call it a balk if the ball was not declared live, as in a quick pitch situation. I've seen both and haven't been at it over 30 years. It seems like we keep encountering challenges to things you feel are absolute.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't "things" on the baseball diamond certain? We're not talking whether the defendant in a civil suit is 40% liable for his injuries, so he collects 60%. We're talking ball or strike, safe or out, balk or not.
Wow, apparently they are not! In thirty years, I would have thought you would have witnessed hundreds of occassions that were 'firsts' for you. I've seen routine plays become monstrous affairs and things that weren't supposed to happen show themselves before my eyes. Those six calls are never absoulte, most umpire schools teach that - mine did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I didn't answer your questions. I don't need to since my views are known all around the world."
Yes, we know them and I can't believe that no one has pointed out that the King has no clothes. Your vanity has prevented you acknowledging the most basic tenet of life - few things are absolute, life is always in a state of flux.
You failed to answer the questions for the same reason you failed to acknowledge my claim that "expected calls" cheapen the game and embarass our trade. You are more worried about what people think about you than making the proper call. I can only imagine that a career at Gallup would have better suited you. Your condescension may work with someone else, but the real umpires here have long known that you change subjects when you are baffled and blunder along. Why don't you come up with new quizzes? At least one of us can answer them and post his opinions. The other will ramble about how he has published more 1,800 word articles than I have seen games. More puffery...
The fact remains, I've provided my opinion and you can't counter it. You've resorted to low brow tactics again. You are lucky that I don't umpire your games. I would have to enforce the rule book.
|