mental mistakes by umpires = ejections

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Atl Blue
HHH:

I assume all of these bangers were shot using video cameras. Unless you are using some VERY sophisticated professional equipment, video shoots at 30 frames per second. 30 frames per second means one frame every .033 seconds. I accept your theory that the human eye and brain cannot discern the timing of events that are .04 seconds apart. It sounds reasonable, and I have no evidence to think otherwise. I do think, however, that human reactions being variable, the number varies for each person, and therefore could be .05 for some people (or more) and .03 for others (or less).

I asked the person that taped this, the exact same question that you did. He told me that his equipment shot at 60 frames per second. (He worked in nature film productions.)That is one every .016 seconds. This means to me that his equipment was three times as reliable as the human brain.

It also means that there should have been one third of the calls that were undeterminable and he only found 20% in that department. He admitted that he had made some extrapolations.

In other words, one frame might show the ball 5 inches from the glove and the foot 5 inches from the bag. The next frame shows the ball in the glove and the foot on the bag. Since we know that the ball travels faster than the runner, he extrapolated that the runner was out.

You are right about the numbers being variable for each person. In my piece, the 0.04 seconds came from a military study on 18-25 year old soldiers who had trained and practiced. I would guess that the rest of us are not as good.

Peter

[Tim C]

In two other independant studies, one by the National Transportation & Safety Board and the other by the National Basketball Association, also determined the .04 determining factor.

Actually in a funny moment a couple of years ago a poster argued that the .04 was silly because he could "see" what happened at all speeds.

As Peter has commented it is not the "seeing" but the brain's ability to determine the order of happenings when we hit the .04 area.

KindaSorta reminds me of the MLB "checked and unchecked swing" study.

Tee

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I'd like to enter a little mathematics into this conversation about timing - a little reality if you will.

Pitchers throw in the 90 MPH range. Infielders probably not quite so fast but let's just assume 75 MPH. Runners move their bodies at less than 20 MPH. Obviously you can see the ball is moving 4 times as fast as the runner. So what happens to the positions of the ball and of the runner in this magical number of 0.04 seconds?

In the duration of 0.04 seconds:
A 75 MPH ball will move 52.8 inches (over 4 feet!)
A 20 MPH runner will move 14.1 inches.
This is the purported ability of the human eye to differentiate one time from another - our level of discernment.

So as AtlBlue pointed out with the timing of a regular video camera at one still picture/frame every 0.033 seconds, what happens?

In the duration of 0.033 seconds:
A 75 MPH ball will move 44 inches
A 20 MPH runner will move 11.7 inches

So in one frame the ball is some unknown distance away from the mitt and in the next frame the ball is 44 inches closer or possibly caught... When did the catch and the out occur? Is the out when the ball reaches the front of the mitt or when it reaches the back of the mitt (the pocket)?

Oooh let's assume that the distance between the front to the back of a mitt is 4 inches... at 75 MPH that distance is covered in 0.003 seconds, 3 thousandths of a second! And that 0.003 seconds also assumes the mitt is not moving toward the ball. So really, with a mitt moving toward the ball, the actual amount of time required to discern the moment of the catch/out is even less than the 0.003 seconds.

Got the call right or wrong based upon a camera that can't discern the location of a thrown ball with more accuracy than 44 inches!

In my opinion, there is one thing that gets a call right and it's called an umpire. It's not lasers and questek cameras; it's an umpire and his perception. What makes the call seem correct to the observers is how well that umpire perceives and presents that perception to the observers. And after a little umpiring work (experience),it is mostly the presentation - selling the call.

Until this game gets played by robots with electronic sensors in the balls and in the mitts and on bases and shoes, lasers, etc. IT IS ME THAT DETERMINES WHETHER A CALL IS CORRECT OR NOT.

I realize that a quicker camera could be used and perhaps these statements of right or wrong call could be determined with a more sophisticated video system... but as of yet, in the act of officiating a game, it is still me that makes the call... and I'm being a little bold here, but by damn, when I make the call it's RIGHT because I present it and sell it to be right.

Okay maybe not fully 100% but a damn sight better than 35 or 60 or whatever he said. I would guess that I make more than 100 judgements/calls before I get one questioned, therefore my percentage correct is greater than 99%.

In summary, I think "correct" means good salesmanship.

Ooh and Werner Heisenberg is on my side too.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I see a couple of other post have entered the fray since I posted my long winded tome!

I still stand by salesmanship as determining correctness.

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by His High Holiness

Cowboyfan;

You wrote;

"I have earned respect from coaches, players and my fellow umpires."

Ok, I can understand how you might know if you have respect from your fellow umpires, but how in the world can you know if the coaches and players respect you. Do you (snip) 3. Regularly get calls from your assignor telling you that he got postive feedback on your game from coaches and players?

Peter

Peter: Umpires in Texas actually know whether coaches respect them. In the playoffs leading to the high school state championship, the two coaches select their umpires -- and must agree. Example: Joe Jara, a 10-year veteran in my assocation, has been picked for multiple play-off assignments each of the last eight years. That might not be evidence of respect, but it's evidence the coaches think Joe can call ball. To me, that passes for respect; and I don't think Texas is the only state where coaches choose their umpires.

Of course, there's that nonsense that "the losing coach came up to me after the game and said I did a great job" so I know I did well. As I once wrote: "Don't fall for that unless you're retiring and will never call another game for him." Otherwise, there's always another game this season or next year or the year after.

On the other hand, I don't think that just because the coach is soaping your saddle he is, a priori, a rat. Maybe just a teensy leetle mouse.

[gordon30307]

Game management from the first pitch will prevent most problems. I do mainly JUCO, High School Varsity down to park district. Regardless of the level always look the part.
Shoes polished clean uniform etc. The lower the level the more firmer I am. If I get chirping from coaches speak to them privately don't be a hard a$$ and show them up. Do this as soon as it occurs don't wait until the last inning. Hustle and work hard on every play and be strong with your calls. The sharper your mechanics the more believable you will be. I do over 100 games a season while I don't keep track of the number of ejections I would guess a couple of players for smart mouths 5 or 6 for rules infractions that waarant ejections and 5 or 6 coaches. My attitude is that I never eject. The actions of the individuals cause them to eject themselves.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Atl Blue
HHH:

I assume all of these bangers were shot using video cameras. Unless you are using some VERY sophisticated professional equipment, video shoots at 30 frames per second. 30 frames per second means one frame every .033 seconds. I accept your theory that the human eye and brain cannot discern the timing of events that are .04 seconds apart. It sounds reasonable, and I have no evidence to think otherwise. I do think, however, that human reactions being variable, the number varies for each person, and therefore could be .05 for some people (or more) and .03 for others (or less).

But if all of these numbers hold, it also means that the video camera cannot discern the difference with much more accuracy than can the human eye and brain. To use video "evidence" means the call was actually not as close as .04 seconds, or you just got "lucky" catching the "actual" moment on video.

I don't dispute that on a banger, it basically comes down to not much more than a guess, and we aren't even getting into the issues of the difference in the rates of sound and light travelling, meaning the ump that relies on the "sight (light)" of the foot hitting the bag versus the "sound" of the glove hitting the mitt has just given an advantage to the runner as well.

In reality, a banger is just that. Like it or not, even the best umps are making a guess sometimes. Sometimes we guess "right", sometimes we guess "wrong". But I do not think our "guesses" are any more right or wrong than on calls that were decided by more than .033 seconds, which are the only ones that video could conclusively verify as "right" or "wrong", than they are on calls that were more distinct. In other words, every ump misses the not so close ones occassionally. One would hope that missing these decreases with experience, but I know that is not always true.

Sometimes we miss them. But there is an old saying that I was taught in one of my very first clinics MANY years ago:

Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong, I'm right.

Atl Blue;

I learned something valuable from you today. Thank you. After I wrote my first response to you, I went back and reviewed my four part series written two years ago about the 0.04 second time frame of uncertainty. You can read it if you are a subscriber at:

http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/2662

Anyway, in my series I discuss that I had someone tape me making wacker calls in real games. I write that I was unable to determine if I was right or wrong in most of the plays. Now I know why. I had a regular VCR with 30 frames per second.

Peter

[David B]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Atl Blue;

I learned something valuable from you today. Thank you. After I wrote my first response to you, I went back and reviewed my four part series written two years ago about the 0.04 second time frame of uncertainty. You can read it if you are a subscriber at:

http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/2662

Anyway, in my series I discuss that I had someone tape me making wacker calls in real games. I write that I was unable to determine if I was right or wrong in most of the plays. Now I know why. I had a regular VCR with 30 frames per second.

Peter

BRings up some interesting comments. I have a digital editing machine that we use and this spring I'm going to video our training.

Now my machine is set for 20 frames per second, but I can advance it frame by frame.

That should be interesting to see how our umpires are doing just as a %.

Nothing serious, but just for fun.

I still think the veteran umpires know an out and a safe and don't get too much grief for it.

The same call made by a young or rookie umpires (less than 3 years in Garth's state) will catch lots of grief.

Thanks
David

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

I still think the veteran umpires know an out and a safe and don't get too much grief for it.

The same call made by a young or rookie umpires (less than 3 years in Garth's state) will catch lots of grief.

Thanks
David

David: I'm surprised that someone hasn't already posted the answer to all this "is he safe or is it memorex?"

It's memorex. Certainly some will attack what I'm going to say. (But Peter's probably right; they will be attacking me, not the idea. Envy is horrible, isn't it? grin)

Here's what I do, and here's what I teach: The instant the play is over, if I'm not sure what I saw, I yell and signal "Out." It's not the same thing as "when in doubt, call an out." It's my attempt in ensure consistency based on the closeness of plays at first.

The ball runs a lot faster than any player. I figure the odds are in my favor. Sometimes at the pre-game when I'm on the bases, and both coaches know me -- I probaobly called them in Mustang -- I'll hear: "Oh, you're on the bases? Nobody's safe at first today."

I don't mind that remark.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Peter: Umpires in Texas actually know whether coaches respect them. In the playoffs leading to the high school state championship, the two coaches select their umpires -- and must agree. Example: Joe Jara, a 10-year veteran in my assocation, has been picked for multiple play-off assignments each of the last eight years. That might not be evidence of respect, but it's evidence the coaches think Joe can call ball. To me, that passes for respect; and I don't think Texas is the only state where coaches choose their umpires.

Carl;

As an assignor, I almost included something along the lines of your answer in my initial response.

Yes, Joe Jara knows from coaches that he is a good umpire. Likewise, we have a dozen or so umpires out of 300 in our association that know that they are good umpires because they make coaches' lists. I show up on some lists as well.

However, this does no good for the 288 umpires out of 300 that never show up on any lists. They have no reliable feedback from coaches. The dozen or so big dogs that make the lists like to delude themselves that they are the only good umpires.

As an assignor, I know they they are only half right. They are good umpires who know how to kiss a$$. There are plenty of other great umpires among the 288 that don't make the lists.

Finally, every now and then we have an umpire show up on the list who is questionable at best. Maybe he gives great blow jobs, I don't know.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 2nd, 2004 at 11:36 AM]

[jicecone]

Originally posted by gordon30307
Game management from the first pitch will prevent most problems. I do mainly JUCO, High School Varsity down to park district. Regardless of the level always look the part.
Shoes polished clean uniform etc. The lower the level the more firmer I am. If I get chirping from coaches speak to them privately don't be a hard a$$ and show them up. Do this as soon as it occurs don't wait until the last inning. Hustle and work hard on every play and be strong with your calls. The sharper your mechanics the more believable you will be. I do over 100 games a season while I don't keep track of the number of ejections I would guess a couple of players for smart mouths 5 or 6 for rules infractions that waarant ejections and 5 or 6 coaches. My attitude is that I never eject. The actions of the individuals cause them to eject themselves.

Lets see that about 12 people for 100+ games. Wow that would have taken me about 5 years to get those numbers. ??????????????????

Maybe you should re-examine what your doing out there and try to improve it.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by jicecone

Lets see that about 12 people for 100+ games. Wow that would have taken me about 5 years to get those numbers. ??????????????????

Maybe you should re-examine what your doing out there and try to improve it.

Jicecone;

Actually, this is an indication that Gordon is doing his job. I have an average of one ejection every 8-10 games going back many years. Like Tee, I keep a log of my games. Especially if one does a lot of rec ball, the ejection count is going to be high unless one puts up with a lot of crap or works in a league where the President rules with an iron fist and severely punishes ne'er do wells.

I have umpires tell me all the time that their ejection count is low because they do preventative officiating. That works to a certain extent. However, when I review their games or work with them, the truth is that they ignore a lot of stuff that they should be dealing with. Eventually, another umpire (me) or an assignor gets to deal with it.

Peter

[GarthB]

Originally posted by jicecone


Lets see that about 12 people for 100+ games. Wow that would have taken me about 5 years to get those numbers. ??????????????????

Maybe you should re-examine what your doing out there and try to improve it.

Five years to get 100 games? No wonder your ejection numbers are low.

[LMan]

Originally posted by Sal Giaco
However, it takes an experienced umpire to know how to keep players and coaches in the game, i.e. preventitive officiating, defusing situations, nipping things in the bud, etc. [/B]

This seems off to me...are we to work "above and beyond the call" to *keep* players and coaches from ejection? I thought they all earned it themselves..... heh

How does this foster 'respect', and avoid being called a 'pushover'? *puzzled*

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by His High Holiness

Yes, Joe Jara knows from coaches that he is a good umpire. Likewise, we have a dozen or so umpires out of 300 in our association that know that they are good umpires because they make coaches' lists. I show up on some lists as well.

However, this does no good for the 288 umpires out of 300 that never show up on any lists. They have no reliable feedback from coaches. The dozen or so big dogs that make the lists like to delude themselves that they are the only good umpires.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 2nd, 2004 at 11:36 AM]

Uh, we do have lists all right. The high school association (about 100) uses a computer program (designed by yours truly) that assigns via preference lists turned in by the coaches. We assign for about 50 schools.

Each coach hands in a list of 75 (about 3/4ths) of the association umpires RANKED from "most-like-to-see" to "least-like-to-see." On the day of assignment (the assignor does two weeks at time), he selects the date and ranks the games in order of importance (his opinion alone). The computer, on command, assigns the umpires. We average about 22 games a date.

It works this way: School A plays School B. The computer looks at the preferences and assigns the highest ranked available umpire on the School A list as the plate umpire -- IF he is on School B's list. It then moves to School B's list and picks the highest ranked available umpire for the bases -- IF he is on School A's list.

An example: I was number two on the McAllen Bulldog's list. They picked me for their bi-district 3-game playoff. I was number 38 (he only listed 38 umpires!) on the Weslaco East list: I once ejected the head coach when he played in Pony. When I retired in the mid 90s, I was ranked first on the lists of 14 schools and I was in the top 10 in all but three. I was picked for the play-offs for 18 consecutive seasons. (This may not mean I'm a good umpire though. All things are relative.)

In Texas generally and in the Rio Grande Valley specifically we know what the coaches think of us.

In order. (grin)