Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Emerling
In my opinion, the flaw with his logic is that he doesn't seem to understand that the umpire can continually reevaluate his initial impression as the play unfolds. He does not necessarily have to make his final decision on which base to award the instant the obstruction occurs. In other words, I believe the umpire can adopt a wait-and-see attitude about his final ruling.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
Speaking ASA
That is not totally correct. The umpire is to assess the runner, affect of the obstruction and make a determination during the initial play. Any subsequent actions are irrelevant to the award. If the umpire thinks the runner should have scored, yes, that is the award regardless of whether the runner attempts to score or not.
Remember, the coaches should coach the runner, not the call. If the game situation dictates the runner pull up at 3rd base because the ball getting to the infield, then that is what the runner should be doing. The coaches and players cannot read our minds, so they must trust the umpires to make the appropriate ruling and not feel they must place themselves in jeopardy to force the umpire to make the call.
The flaw in your buddy's theory is that umpires are there for the purpose of making such judgments and if he doesn't want to be put in that position, sports officiating probably isn't the right avocation for him.
We rarely know what is going to occur "FOR SURE". Do we know a SS is going to cleanly field a ball and make an out when we call INT on the runner who just ran into her? Of course, not, but we make the call. Do we know for sure ....well, this could go on forever.
Point is making those decisions is part of the job. You do the best you can within the parameters of the rules and mechanics and move on with the game. If we only made rulings based on what we know "for sure", there would be some real goofy games out there.