Supplying information

[PeteBooth]

The thread on a dropped third strike is what prompted me for this thread and No it's not a thread directed at Garth's and TEE's response but a general comment.

The one thing I like about watching Pro football/basketball is the way the calls are explained. Remember the infamous "tuck rule" in the PATS/Raiders Championship game.
Even though the participants should KNOW the rules, the fact of the matter is they don't.

Especially in Football, the referee Explains the call so one has a better understanding of what's going on.

In baseball it seems as though there are varied opinions on verbalizing/explaining calls.

There's the camp that says - Everyone should know the rules so why verbalize or inform

There's the mid-range camp - verbalize some and not others.

There doesn't seem to be one clear cut way of explaining calls. I for one especially when watching a baseball game would like to know what is going on. Plenty of times you see the umpires hudle, make a decision and say to yourself, "what's he doing on second base".

There's no PA announcement - No nothing as with the other sports. I know our main duty is to the players and coaches, but IMO maybe people meaning the fans would get a better appreciation if they KNEW what was going on.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

F2's interference (Obstruction in FED), followed by a play - Some say Why give the coach the option. If he doesn't know the rule - too bad.

Some say Give the coach the option

There's no clear cut reference, hence the BIG debates begin whenever this subject comes up. In football it's a NO Brainer. Hey Coach do want the 5 Yard penalty for offsides or the results of the play. It's done in other sports yet baseball IMO is in the "dark ages"

There are plenty of other examples.

What do you think and perhaps this would make for a good series of articles on the paid site.

Pete Booth

[Tim C]

Pete, we've both been on the major umpire boards for about the same length of time.

I always appreciate your thoughts, questions and explanations. Those thoughts always add to the believability of umpires working non-professional games.

This post is important in that it asks a key question:

What makes umpiring so different than other sports officiating?

We see it in the discussions about the difference between "Rule Book Umpires/Letter of the Law Guys" and umpires that believe in calling by "common sense" or "fair play".

He11, we even argue about the differences of SOX worn under certain shoes!

Basketball officials point out often on this site that the umpire threads are the most interesting (funny) to read since we appear, to them, to argue the darndest things.

We do!

Maybe a series of articles or maybe a column could help discuss these type items -- I just wonder if anyone is savy enough to help both (all three?) types of umpires you list?

Very interesting thoughts, Pete.

[thumpferee]

I think it would be a good read, Pete.

But like Tim said, "I just wonder if anyone is savy enough to help both (all three?) types of umpires you list?"

Baseball officials are usually split on issues like this. Like fans, you're usually 50% right, or 50% wrong.

On the thread you speak of Pete, I think we were split down the middle, right?

I find it funny that we can say "that's obstruction/interference" and allow the players to have knowledge of that, but to call a batter out who IS out is giving an advantage. Anyway, that's another post.

I personally look forward to reading the article/s.

[mcrowder]

To call a batter out who IS out is not what I was saying gave an advantage. To do so in some different manner than you would have normally called him out IS giving someone an advantage. I was mostly responding to those who would do their normal thing, and then if they saw the batter and runners running, throw in an additional, more emphatic, "Batter's OUT!!!! Batter's OUT!!!" There's where that official crossed the line. Like I said then... might as well just say, "Catcher, throw it to third!!!"

[Carbide Keyman]

I would have to agree with mcrowder. It seems to provide the defensive club with a distinct advantage.

[DG]

Originally posted by Carbide Keyman
I would have to agree with mcrowder. It seems to provide the defensive club with a distinct advantage.

This appears to be case where 50% of the umpires would do one thing and 50% the other. Calling balls and strikes, safes and outs, fair and foul and anything else that comes up is the JOB of the umpire. If they did not hear me the first time I called him out on a dropped 3rd strike (when he can't run) they will surely hear me the second time. That's my job, to call an out when I see it. It seems some want to give an advantage to the offense, by not making sure the defense knows the batter is out. By calling it more than once some say we give advantage to the defense. I don't consider it giving advantage to either. It is simply making the call so "everybody" knows the batter is out.