Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carbide Keyman
David,
I don't need anyone to validate my worth as an umpire. If you umpire to appeal to the participants, you are never going to succeed, because half of them are going to hate your every call.
If you want anyone to think your a good umpire, do a good job.
Many of the people you are concerned about impressing don't have a clue about the way an umpire does his job. They only care about how it affects them.
Be fair, firm, knowledgable, and call 'em as you see 'em !!!!
Doug
|
This isn't about trying to please an individual coach.
This isn't about being afraid to make a particular call because you (as the umpire) is concerned that some coach, player, or fan may not like it.
In a microcosm, I think you (and Rut) are absolutely correct with this philosophy. It's a sound one.
I'm painting this with a much broader brush, however. This isn't about the isolated issues that you keep focusing on. This is more of a cultural thing that transcends what happens in one game, with one coach, in one instance.
This has been going on for so long in this area that the genie is already out of the bottle. There's no fixing this other than by a unanimous consensus by the members of the umpire's association. And there is no will to do that - I can assure you. I'd be a salmon swimming upstream ... and to what end?
It has worked
both ways. The players and coaches have been conditioned not to be too concerned about keeping one foot in the batter's box. And, conversely, the umpires have been conditioned to be equally unconcerned. The games move along fine and nobody seems to care. The coaches don't care, the umpires don't care, and the fans don't care.
I don't need to hear this righteous stuff about how the FED has mandated that umpires not choose to ignore rules that are not of their liking. I'm aware of this.
Yet, I can guarantee you I could come up with a list of situations, that would require you to rule in a particular way (in accordance with FED rules), that you would
never do. That goes for Rut, too.
Rut says that he would just tell the delaying batter to get back in the box. Fine! But is that what the rule says to do? No! It says that the umpire
shall call a strike.
So which is worse, ignoring the rule that the batter keep one foot in the box, or ignore the PENALTY for the rule?
Even casebook play 7.3.1A has the umpire giving the batter verbal warnings about being out of the box. I.E. "10 seconds" ... "5 seconds". Apparently, the batter
can delay out of the box.
Substantively, what's the difference between saying "nothing" to a batter who is out of the box (for less than 20-seconds) or badgering him with a countdown as if a Saturn V rocket is going to be launched?
It's just an opinion of mine. I happen to believe it's needless badgering on an relatively unimportant matter.
If you examine all the casebook plays that have to do with this rule, it is somewhat inconsistent and it appears that there is room for the umpire
not to call the penalty if he feels there was no delay. That being the case, why even bother mentioning it to the batter
unless there is a delay?
Remember, I *do* tell the batter, "Let's go!" when I determine he is wasting time. But, as the videoclips convincingly indicate, most of the time the batter is NOT delaying the game by being out of the batter's box. I don't see how you can look at those videoclips and draw any other conclusion.
If it works for you ... and you are convinced it speeds the game up ... fine. I can't fault you for that.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN