[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Well the proof is in the pudding, folks. When you make the call first, then reverse it, there are problems. Saying that you "did things as taught" doesn't make it right because it doesn't make the teaching right.

Have never had a problem, whether on the local field or ASA HOF Stadium or Plant City Stadium when the need arised to ask for help and possibly correct a call. Never anything other than a note of appreciation for checking even from the folks who didn't get what they want. Don't know why you seem to have a problem.

How can anyone logically argue that it is wiser to guess a call, hope it isn't argued, but if it is, go for help then? How can anyone further argue that doing that is better than simply doing something to get the call right in the first place?

You may guess, a good umpire will make a decision based on all the information available to them at the time.

Everything we do on the field is in an effort to get calls right. Why in this case do we change that?

You may change it, I don't. I strive to get the call right every time.

"Well, you called what you saw so great job buckaroo!" BS - Not knowing what you saw is not calling what you saw. It's calling what you didn't see. In this case, an out is called despite not seeing the foot on the base.

Speaking of bullshit. So, you are telling me that if you hear F3 slap a BR on the back, you know, the side you cannot see from your position, you are not going to make a call because you did not SEE the tag?

I would implore people to forgot what they were taught initially. Just envision the play. Envision how it would LOGICALLY, not historically, best be handled. Come to a conclusion that creates the least controversy, doesn't look as if a coach is influencing an umpire, keeps the coaches in the dugout, gets the call right from the start and doesn't put players in jeopardy.

So you officiate a game in a manner to placate the coaches and avoid controversy?

In what walk of life does it not make sense to use a source of information to check or confirm something, rather than screwing it up and trying to rectify it?

Ever have a gun pointed at you in an attempted armed robbery? Do you wait to hear the round leave the barrel to confirm the shot before you react? I've known people who have hesitated on the job or didn't get the chance. They are in the ground.

If you're not sure whether you have your house keys on you, do you conclude, "Yeah, I must have them," then lock the door behind you saying, "Well, if I don't, I can always call a lock smith?" Or is it more logical to just check from the start?

Wow, you are really stretching, but let's play the game. Here's a thought, don't lock the door. If someone wants to get in, the lock isn't going to stop them and the attempt to deter them will only instigate the cause of damage to the house that can be expensive, but not enough to make it worth filing a claim.