View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 29, 2015, 08:35am
CecilOne CecilOne is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
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.
I have had many cases over the years of saying I wasn't sure enough of a call by a partner to say he/she should change it. This week, runner returning to 3rd on pickoff attempt. The BU called safe, then asked me when requested. I thought out based on a stutter step, but in a straight line behind the runner could not be sure if her foot was touching before the stutter. So, he stayed with safe.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote