Question to Warren on His Ethics VI

[Phil Vivenzio]

Warren:
After reading your article on ethics, particularly to tag no tag, I had an interesting play during a senior little league tournament game. It is a 4 person crew and I was the base umpire at 2b. Situation: Offensive team has 1b and 3b and they are up by 1 run with 2 outs. The runner on 1st attempts to steal, I'm on the inside of the diamond at a good angle to maker the call. The runner gets a bad jump, but the catcher's throw gets there in plenty of time, but is very high. The runner legally slides curving his body away from the fielder as the fielder is coming down to make tag. I was shielded from the tag, but because I didn't hear or see tag and since the defense didn't make a good throw, I called the runner safe. My partner at third base saw the good slide and told me I made the right call. I did get a small argument from the fielder which I expected, but nothing out of line. I was stopped by the head of the losing team and asked how could I call the runner safe, and I explained it exactly as above. Was my thought process correct in making this call?

Regards
Phil Vivenzio

[Bfair]

Phil, it's always difficult to make a call you didn't see. You are only one on this board that saw the play.

Assuming play is relatively close, and the throw was high, that would mean fielder is likely chasing runner if play is close.

Don't know what Warren says, but my mind tells me on play like this that defense did not have throw on target, they likely will not get benefit of any doubt as result of that, therefore, they need to prove to me they get the tag down in time.

Just my opinion, but sounds like it might agree with Warren's philosophy

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Phil Vivenzio
Situation: Offensive team has 1b and 3b and they are up by 1 run with 2 outs. The runner on 1st attempts to steal, I'm on the inside of the diamond at a good angle to maker the call. The runner gets a bad jump, but the catcher's throw gets there in plenty of time, but is very high. The runner legally slides curving his body away from the fielder as the fielder is coming down to make tag. I was shielded from the tag, but because I didn't hear or see tag and since the defense didn't make a good throw, I called the runner safe.

--[snip]--

Was my thought process correct in making this call?

Phil,

Once you are blocked from physically seeing the tag/no tag, you are forced to resort to the use of available clues. Was it a quality throw, did it beat the runner to the point of play, did it look like an out from the stands, how did each player react, etc?

If you made your decision simply based on the fact that you "didn't see or hear the tag" then I'd say No, your process was flawed. That's the same as saying "I'd have to physically see an out before calling it". That tips the balance to the offense, because there will be a greater number of plays where there was either no clear tag, or you simply didn't see a tag. It creates a mindset in which all the doubtful decisions are going to the offense. They already get the benefit of the doubt, by interpretation, on any perceived tie at the base.

OTOH, if you made your decision based on the remaining clues surrounding the doubtful tag then I'd say Yes, your thought process was correct. It sounds to me, from your description, that the high, non-quality throw made it a very close play that could have gone either way, and that's an important clue toward a safe call - but it is not the ONLY clue. Did the swipe of the tag still beat the runner's hand touching the base? Did the base runner look like he was pleading for a call his way? Did the fielder show the normal reaction for a successful tag (as opposed to some charade clearly designed to sway your judgement)? Was there any deviation from the arc as the tag passed by the runner's body? Despite the bad throw and great slide, did it still look like an out to everyone else in the park? If the answer is "Yes" to one or more of these questions, then you probably still had an out. Otherwise "Safe" was definitely the way to go.

Remember that you have time, especially in 4-man system, to delay your call until all the clues are available to you. Thank you for supporting eUmpire.com and for your excellent question.

Cheers,

Warren Willson
Freelance Staff Writer, eUmpire.com

---

NOTICE

For the benefit of the regular posters to this discussion board, I intend to honor my earlier declaration not to post to this or any other Internet discussion board for the foreseeable future. Since my resignation from eUmpire.com was not accepted, and was later withdrawn after protracted negotiations with the owners, I will however answer any direct questions about my articles such as the one posted here by Phil. Alternatively, you may email me at [email protected] and I will reply, as a service to the customers of eUmpire.com Internet magazine. Please be aware that, since I am not posting regularly, there may be a delay in your questions on this board being brought to my attention (my thanks to R. Jordan McDowell for advising me via email that Phil's question had been posted).

I will only consider returning to normal discussions on this board when there is at least a clear understanding, or preferably some board guideline posted, as to how ALL of the staff writers are to be properly treated when posting here. This is YOUR discussion board, certainly, but its very nature places restrictions on the way eUmpire.com staff may post that should require concomitant consideration in the way posters reply to the staff. That is my own personal view, and not necessarily the current view of either the board's proprietors or the other staff writers at this time, although I would hope that both they and the posters here will see its plain common sense.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jan 12th, 2001 at 08:09 PM]

[BJ Moose]

Finally.. some HUMOR!! That's good.. har har har.

It's a free country, I guess. I think WW should be posting on the BOARD.

But this stuff below is hooieee. Discussions can get heated and ACTIVE, and it is anyone's right to disagree, or heck, say the poster is a nimrod. Oooo, nimrod.. it hurts so bad.... pulleeeeze....

WW should be posting because he falls into the special category of posters whose opinions we WANT to read. (regardless if the opinion is "mistaken")

Originally posted by Warren Willson

I will only consider returning to normal discussions on this board when there is at least a clear understanding, or preferably some board guideline posted, as to how ALL of the staff writers are to be properly treated when posting here.
[/B]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by BJMoose:

"Discussions can get heated and ACTIVE, and it is anyone's right to disagree, or heck, say the poster is a nimrod."

I think we all agree with part one. However many of us take exception to part two. It is NOT "anyone's" right to make personal attacks or call names on this board.

Fortunately, management has made it clear that such posts violate their policies by removing offending posts.

[Dave Hensley]

GarthB said:

> Originally posted by BJMoose:
>
> "Discussions can get heated and ACTIVE, and it is anyone's right to
> disagree, or heck, say the poster is a nimrod."
>
> I think we all agree with part one. However many of us take exception
> to part two. It is NOT "anyone's" right to make personal attacks or
> call names on this board.
>
> Fortunately, management has made it clear that such posts violate
> their policies by removing offending posts.

They may have made it clear to you, me, and others, but apparently not to Warren, based on his statement:

> I will only consider returning to normal discussions on this board
> when there is at least a clear understanding, or preferably some board
> guideline posted, as to how ALL of the staff writers are to be
> properly treated when posting here.

Here's a radical suggestion for anyone who feels they've been unjustly attacked, called a name, or whatever. Just "killfile" the offender - stop corresponding with them. To drop out of all discussions everywhere with everybody is overkill.

When a game participant crosses the line, you eject him. You don't forfeit the game, then run home and cancel all your remaining game assignments.

[GarthB]

Dave replied:

"Here's a radical suggestion for anyone who feels they've been unjustly attacked, called a name, or whatever. Just "killfile" the offender - stop corresponding with them."
--------

What a coincidence. I believe you will find some posters here have already adopted just that as a personal policy.


"To drop out of all discussions everywhere with everybody is overkill"
---------

The problem here is you have to be aware of who is included in your first statement so that you do not confuse one's action with your second statement.

Many of those attempting to coax Warren back either have included an insulting comment in their plea or belong to the group you referred to in your first comment.

GB


[Edited by GarthB on Jan 16th, 2001 at 05:16 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
Finally.. some HUMOR!! That's good.. har har har.

It's a free country, I guess. I think WW should be posting on the BOARD.

But this stuff below is hooieee. Discussions can get heated and ACTIVE, and it is anyone's right to disagree, or heck, say the poster is a nimrod. Oooo, nimrod.. it hurts so bad.... pulleeeeze....

WW should be posting because he falls into the special category of posters whose opinions we WANT to read. (regardless if the opinion is "mistaken")

So, Moose, is it your opinion that ALL "humor" is good? Does that apply even when that alledged "humor" is at someone else's expense? Does that apply even when the person at whose expense the "humor" is made is offended by it? So what if YOU aren't offended. What matters is whether the SUBJECT is offended. It is basic consideration for one's fellow man to avoid knowingly giving offense.

You are correct that it is everyone's right to disagree. You are not correct that it is everyone's right to say "the poster is a nimrod", at least not on this board. Furthermore, even if the board owner/moderator doesn't feel the poster has been personally maligned, there are levels of behaviour that are attainable by ordinary posters that are clearly NOT open to the staff writers here. That's not censorship, it's just a statement of the facts.

The staff writers have to guage every comment, measure every adjective and noun, in order to make their points without offending our employer's customers - YOU. That places constraints on us that you don't share. All I am asking is that the ordinary posters here RESPECT that difference, and cut us some slack in the way they respond. Inflamatory statements cannot be freely dealt with, however innocuous. Is it too much to ask to have the posters dispense with inflammatory statements when dealing with the staff writers? After all, we have to do that when dealing with them! What's good for the goose....

Warren Willson
Freelance Staff Writer, eUmpire.com

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
Here's a radical suggestion for anyone who feels they've been unjustly attacked, called a name, or whatever. Just "killfile" the offender - stop corresponding with them. To drop out of all discussions everywhere with everybody is overkill.

When a game participant crosses the line, you eject him. You don't forfeit the game, then run home and cancel all your remaining game assignments.

You should know, Dave, that I am breaking my personal killfile policy in order to respond to you here.

You imply that we are the umpire or arbiter in such matters. We are not. We are participants, almost the same as you. We don't have the power to "eject" an offender on this board any more than you do. I know you mean that we should simply ignore that particular poster, but it is disadvantageous and offensive to me to expect me to continue participating in any thread where I am unable to respond to inflammatory statements made about me or my ideas. It is unfair to expect me to participate in any board where such threads are commonplace. The disadvantage is magnified on this board, but exists on ALL boards.

We have only one real alternative; post or don't post. I have elected the latter course as a direct result of offensive statements made by YOU, among others. Unable to "eject" YOU, I have refused to participate with you instead. That is MY inalienable right. I cannot address those statements of yours directly on this board. Since I am disadvantaged in any debate with you by my status as a staff writer, ALL I have asked for is the same consideration from you that I and the other staff writers must give you when we post; NO inflammatory statements. Surely even you can see the fairness in that?

BTW, I have my reasons for withdrawing from all boards. It is most interesting to me, Dave, that you have unilaterally concluded my decision is "overkill" without even enquiring as to those reasons. Of course, I'm sure you thought you already knew what they were.

Warren Willson
Freelance Staff Writer, eUmpire.com

[Rich]

I am an independent contractor.

I will not measure my words ANY MORE CAREFULLY than I do anywhere else (for example UmpiresTalk), just because I am a freelance writer for eUmpire.

If the "bosses" communicate that I must watch my words, then I will no longer contribute to the site. Here or the eUmpire site.

I don't think they would want me to do that, anyway.

The free expression of ideas and opinions should be of the utmost importance. Carefully watching our words would dilute our contribution and open ourselves to shots by people who I don't need to mention (nor deserve mention).

Shoot at me, and I will shoot right back.

Rich

[Dave Hensley]

It appears that I have been Osborned.

I'm so honored.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
It appears that I have been Osborned.

I'm so honored.

If you have, indeed, been "Osborned" then perhaps your last sentence ought to read:

"I'm so ashamed."

Comparisons with people whose posts have frequently been deleted for the unacceptable nature of their content should not be perceived as a badge of honor, unless your aim is to occupy a position at the bottom of the pond.

[Admin]

We are getting way off-topic here...

Thread closed.