Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dave Hensley
That is simply your way of reconciling the inability to distinguish which came first, an arbitrary decision that "same time = out."
The "benefit of the doubt" concept that I and some others advocate is simply an alternative manner of making the decision on the coin-flip call. It's a concept I endorse because it is not arbitrary and it has a logical and understandable rationale behind it. It is a concept that finds the umpire more often making "the expected call" and therefore has implications for smoother game management and the development of the perception among other game participants that you're a consistent and competent umpire.
It is a bit more nuanced than "call what you see, and if it's a tie then call "out," so I do have to give your system credit for perfectly adhering to the KISS principle, no doubt about that.
|
What are you talking about? You lost me, pal.
A way of reconciling the inability to distinguish which came first? No,
by rule, the runner has to beat the play. Ties
do not go to the runner. Same time = out has nothing to do with guesswork, or keeping things simple. The runner didn't beat the ball, so he is out. That is the way it's supposed to be called.
I think the "expected call" concept is full of hooey. Smoother game management? I get the calls right, and game participants know this, and I rarely have to explain my calls. I am known as a very consistent and competent umpire by the vast majority of area HS coaches.
I also never said that I "call what I see, and if it's a tie then call out." I call them
the way they are, either safe or out.