Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UMP25
Your citation above contradicts what you had said earlier, which doesn't help your case. I have always looked at a batter-runner's intent, which is why I've never called him out when he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction when it was clear he had no intent to go.
|
It doesn't contradict anything I said, it clarifies what I said, or what I intended to mean. How can you say you wouldn't call the runner out if "he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction?" That little impulsive step toward second is what defines an attempt. A runner can't take an "impulsive" step toward second, how can you tell he had no intent to go? Are you the Amazing Kreskin? Carnac the Magnificent? No, you judge intent by the runner's actions, which if he takes an "impulsive" (just to use your term) step in the direction of second, most certainly indicates intent as far as I'm concerned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UMP25
As far as "immediately" goes, yes, its very meaning is arbitrary, for just what does it mean? Do you give him one second? Two? Ten? One tenth of a second? Using your logic, a batter-runner who overruns first base, slows down some 20 feet beyond it, turns, stops for a second or two--perhaps to catch his breath--then proceeds back to first base can be out if tagged.
|
Wow, how anal. When did I say he couldn't stop for a second or two? As a matter of fact, I said I have no problem with a runner stopping to adjust his helmet or his wrist bands, and that courtesy would extend to "catching his breath" as well. I don't have a timetable, that would just be asinine. But if a player waits a considerable length of time just contemplating whether or not to go to second base, then I might consider that an attempt to advance. It's strictly a judgment call, which Meals made and West made the day before. Two days in a row, same call in two different games, by two different umpires. MLB umpires. Umpires who judged an intent to go to second base and that the runners waited too long to "immediately" return to first.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UMP25
No frickin' way am I going to call that guy out if he's tagged. Did he "immediately" return? No. Did he make an attempt to advance? No. So which part of the rule does one follow? Answer: the advance part.
|
Didn't he make an attempt to advance? The umpire said he did. I'm going with that explanation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UMP25
As was explained to me at umpire school (Jaksa and Roder happened to be the classroom instructors), the "immediately" part of the rule is considered to be analogous to abandoning his base (before reaching first it's called desertion). One should not call out a B-R just because he's slowly returning to first base, or even if he stops or pauses before returning. That interpretation is way too literal. To take a specific amount of time into consideration incorrectly changes the intent of the rule itself. Moreover, it should be noted that it was suggested by them that the entire phrase dealing with "immediately" ought to be stricken from the rule book precisely because it was misleading and extremely vague.
|
I would never call a runner out for slowly returning to first, or for pausing before returning. I never said there was a specific amount of time to return. Any undue delay, as well as an attempt to advance, should be obvious to even a rookie umpire. It is a judgment call, as as such, is subject to individual interpretation.
And maybe "immediately" should be stricken from the rule book. Perhaps you can start a grassroots movement to do so. Until then, just use your own judgment on how to interpret the word.