Wed Jun 24, 2015, 09:34am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 776
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Some time ago, I posted my opinion regarding where you draw the line in "never guessing an out". There are any number of times that we just have to make a call, because everything tells us it was an out, but we don't have the perfect angle to see it. I compared it then to court cases; civil cases decided by "a preponderance of evidence", and criminal cases by "beyond a reasonable doubt".
My point here is that we make our own judgment calls based on a preponderance of evidence, but to advise your partner to change a call, you need to be sure; sure enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Honestly, I've never heard anyone use this explanation, so maybe I'm off base compared to what others believe. But it has stood me well over the years. Hope it helps you with your quandary.
|
This makes more sense than anything else I have ever read about the philosophy/psychology of officiating. I love it; thanks, Steve.
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
"I'm gonna call it ASA for the foreseeable future. You all know what I mean."
|