Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chess Ref
Fed rules. Working solo on a JV game. Runner on 2B. Hit to RF. After F9 gets done bobbling,dropping and kicking the ball we have a Play at the plate.
F2 is standing on the 1B side of homeplate. Throw comes in. F2 catches it , lunges towards runner who didn't slide. Think Jeremy Giambi kinda deal. SO the only contact I have is pretty much F2 applying the tag. I have safe. I am being evaluated and after the game I was told I should have called for runner out for not sliding. "Because it's a safety issue," So I nod my head and Thought thats wrong. Don't I have to actually have malicious contact to call the runner out and eject at that point.
I agree the runner should have slid-she didn't -but I still had no malicious contact and ended up with minimal contact....
What say you ?
|
I am willing to bet that your evaluator is one of those guys who "
has been calling games for years" and has a 5 foot long chain around his ankle that keeps him from leaving the plate area.
You need to have a good heart to heart with your board members and NICELY ask why this is being added to your evaluation when it is incorrect.
I am an evaluator for my association, (but of course, I never make mistakes
) and I listen to the opposing opinions of those I have evaluated. Sometimes I learn something too.
An evaluator must listen in the debrief as much or more than talk.
I try, note the try part, to ask questions about the item I notice.
If an umpire can adequately explain themselves more often than not they will correct their mistake without much input by me.
An evaluator must also, be ready to refer to the rulebook and casebook (or local association adaptions) to point the person evaluated to the correct information. Sounds like your guy did neither.
Remember, make it a NICE talk. Ask questions. Don't point fingers.
I suggest that you not even name the evaluator, just ask about an evaluation you received and then go into the point you need to cover.