Theoretical question about balls and strikes...

[Soup]

The first umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as they are."

Not proper grammer, but a good statement. Its not if the umpire does not call it.

The second umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them."

A true statement. However, the umpire might have a little problem with this statment if he didn't "see them"

The third says that "they aren't anything until I call them."

Kind of old school, but again very true.

So I agree with all of them -

Thanks

Originally posted by David B
JJ has a point. What does intelligence have to do with this equation?
David [/B]

Yes, I agree with you. Intelligence doesn't really have anything to do with this. I was posing the question as it was posed to me. I would rather here from y'all Which one is the better umpire, according to what you personally think makes a good umpire.

Can they really all be correct?

For instance, isn't umpire #1 implying that he has the ability to determine with 100% accuracy the ballness or strikeness (I know, that sounds retarded, but you know what i mean) of every single pitch according to some agreed upon standard strike zone? This is not possible, humans aren't perfect - I'm sure even the best umpires are unsure of a call every once in a while. Isn't he really calling them as he sees them??

Now Umpire #2 - he at least concedes that the most he can do is make a judgment, according to what he See's, to the best of his ability.

I don't know?? comments??