Well,
 

Pete:

I am just disappointed that you have joined the "announcer" mentality.

Dave Yeast has made it VERY clear that he wants things called as they ARE -- not how some people think they "should be" --

Again, I am disapointed, but not angry.

<font color=blue>"Contrary to what some announcers and others may think I don't believe there is a time to pass on a rule enforcement because we are late in a big game in a big situation. It is precisely at these times that coaches and players may try to break the rules to try to get an advantage. This is great call in a big game."</font>

Sound like something Yeast may have said while defending the umpire's call in the CSF/ASU game the other night? Well, think again, folks. That's a Dave Yeast quote, all right, but it is from the last NCAA video-bulletin this year, in which a no-stop balk was called and Yeast made these editorial comments about it.

Apparently the CSF/ASU umpire saw that bulletin, and took it to heart. Bully for him.

Sounds to me like Mr. Yeast probably to this umpire out for a beer afterward to give him a public ataboy for calling it the way it was supposed to be called. To bad for the losing team, I bet their pitchers come to a descernable stop from now on.

Re: Well,
 

<i>Originally posted by Tim C </i>

<b> Pete:

I am just disappointed that you have joined the "announcer" mentality.

Dave Yeast has made it VERY clear that he wants things called as they ARE -- not how some people think they "should be" --

Again, I am disapointed, but not angry. </b>


Tee I do not think that I have joined the "announcer" mentality.

As I mentioned in my original thread, Papa C talks about a similar play meaning if an umpire were to call a balk in that situation he is ruining the game.

In Papa C's book he referenced F1 in the wind-up, coach yelling from dugout "Hey Buba go to the set". Runners going no-where and F1 disengages illegally.

If the NCAA wanted this called all year how come it wasn't. What, wait until game 900th and then start calling it.

If you could get "into the minds of the offensive team" I bet the coach was just as surprised as anybody.

Also, if it was indeed an NCAA Pre-requisite how come all the blues at approx the same time were not calling a balk. The PU has perhaps the best view.

It was a simple intentional walk.

To be frank I am disappointed in the so called "experts" who agreed with this call.

As I mentioned, in the "other" sports "more lee-way" is given towards the end of the game, but baseball umpires are different.

Bottom line I personnally would not have called a balk.

Pete Booth

It is not wrong to make that balk call. But considering that there was no advantage lost or gained by the pitcher maybe not completely stopping on an intentional walk, the more right thing to do is to let the players decide the game. IMHO

How do you know there was no advantage gained? Maybe that pitcher has a real problem throwing wild pitches unless he's allowed to blow through the stop requirement.

The point is, the pitching rules are to be followed on every pitch. Would you have NOT called a balk had the pitcher dropped the ball while on the rubber? After all, there's no advantage gained in that balk.

It was the pitcher, not the umpire, who screwed up. Not calling the balk creates a disadvantage "not intended by the rules" for the opposing team.

The players did decide the game.

If the pitcher decides to violate the pitching regulations he is subject to the penalties.

The pitcher made a mistake and the run scored. It is no different than if he threw the pitch over the catcher's head and R3 came home.

If you don't make that call the players are not deciding the game, you are.

Re: Re: Well,
 

I am disappointed that you put more credence in Carl's book than in people who actually called NCAA games this season.

It is my opinion that unless it's so obvious that you can't help but call it, in that situation, with the pitcher issuing an intentional walk, you don't pick boogers.

The person who started the thread didn't see it and couldn't tell what it was after a multitude of replays. Apparently only one umpire saw it. If it was that obvious, I would think more than one guy would have called it.

Like I said, it's not wrong to call it, but in my opinion, and only my opinion, if it's not obvious, in a situation where no one expects that kind of call, with the game on the line, I don't think you make that call. IMHO, your mileage may vary...

And,
 

I do not care what w_sohl says . . . I do, however, care what Pete says.

I am still disappointed.

As Evans says, "if you don't want to call by the rules then you should be a coach."

Tee

Re: And,
 

Curious where this came from Tee? I thought I was agreeing with you.

Well,
 

It wasn't about your post . . . it was my disappointment with Pete (which continues).

Sorry I took you into this.

Re: Well,
 

No worries, just caught me off guard.

Re: Re: Well,
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeteBooth <b>

If the NCAA wanted this called all year how come it wasn't. What, wait until game 900th and then start calling it.</b>

This was covered in bulletins sent to NCAA umpires during the season. It did NOT come our "until the 900th game."

<b>Also, if it was indeed an NCAA Pre-requisite how come all the blues at approx the same time were not calling a balk. The PU has perhaps the best view.</b>

Let's see. A balk for not stopping on RHP in set position. Nope, third base ump has the best look at that one.

<b>It was a simple intentional walk.</b>

And?

<b>To be frank I am disappointed in the so called "experts" who agreed with this call.</b>

You are more disappointed with those who understand that we are subject to the directive of superiors and the rules of the game. Unfortunate.

<b>Bottom line I personnally would not have called a balk.</b>

At what point are you willing to work as instructed? At what point are you authorized to ignore your superiors? At what point are you above the rules?

Ignoring this rule puts penalizes the team who did not violate the rules. How can that be appropriate?