|
In a court of law, there are varying levels of burden of proof. In civil cases, it's "preponderance of evidence." In criminal cases, the standard is the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."
What level of proof do you seek when awarding bases? Do you have to know with absolute certainty they would have reached a base to award it? Do you have to be pretty sure? What if you feel they almost without a doubt would have made a base, however a perfect throw and a perfect relay might possibly have cut down a runner trying to advance had their been no obstruction?
I'm curious what burden of proof other umpires use when determining awards. For me, I'm giving any benefit of the doubt to the offense since the defense is in the wrong.
|