|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 03:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Once more, Bob will be addressed first-
Abigail Van Buren is dead and using "Dear Abby" seemed a little silly. I tried to make light of what was becoming a disheartening conversation. As for your dismissal of condescension on the Carl's part, what do "fag" "Bubba" and "romantic" mean to you? In the context used, they were trite attempts to lord his wordsmithing over the masses. It didn't work here; I actually smiled when I read them. I'm not here to argue with him, just add a counterpoint. Umpiring is not a perfect science. It is an art and each of us interprets this skill differently. I actually like what Carl does with this site. I just don't agree and am smart enough to be able to parry well. I would think that your skin would be thicker after all of those years on the field. Lighten up compadre, officiating is about constant adjustment and communication. Our passion is shared; I enjoy discussing baseball with capable officials. Carl is one of the most zealous I have encountered. He is also smart enough to recognize sarcasm as a tool of engagement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl, I will attempt to keep this from becoming more personal thatn you have made it. In my first post to you, I stated my opinion and then agreed with your posit, A2D. I have never claimed to be the almighty baseball reference, I simply run contrary to you on this matter. You have accused me of ignoring some of your points and I asked about the lodged ball scenario. You have repeatedly sidestepped it. I truly believe that you have a gift for helping umpires understand the game and have enough war stories to fill a library. I challenged your abilities when you mocked mine. (free hot dogs, anyone?) Your rules knowledge is exceptional and this forum provides a much needed resource for veteran and rookie alike. Your cavalier attitude is not becoming however. I know, some of your supporters are gnashing their teeth and claiming that my replies are tantamount to heresy. Why is that? We've seen movements to change umpiring styles. Professional, collegiate and high school baseball have all taken steps to promote proper officiating. In your fifty years behind the mask, you've seen changes that shook your core. These recent occurences are just another evolution in umpire behavior. At our level, it is simply unacceptable to knowingly ignore the proper call. We umpire to the talent, true enough. But, not allowing for a terrific play or a poor decision on a player's part is not acceptable behavior on most levels above coach pitch. When the ball beats a runner by five steps, but the fielder lazily puts a tag down on top of the helmet, why would you not reward the adjustment and slide of a runner who fooled the fielder? You dismissed Ventura's homerun as well. He was mobbed by his teammates and prevented from scoring. He did not complete the requirement for being credited with a homerun. In your missed plate scenario, the umpire saw the mistake and ignored it for appearance sake. You ask, what harm can come from it? How about teaching players how to play the game properly? If that's not good enough, then I suggest that it will serve as a wake up call to aspiring umpires. The rules matter - this is not a judgement call. You said that he missed the bag, that is a rule violation. It is not a home run if he misses first, is it? Whether you want to believe it or not, I respect what you do and how you've celebrated this amazing game all of these years. I just find it funny that articulate people can demean and harangue with impunity. Your ability with our language affords you some leverage over those less skilled. Why is it that when we disagree you feel compelled to mock and trivialize with flowery prose? I can appreciate some of the humor but I don't understand why a General would cuss like a Private, albeit with more style. The umpiring world is changing radically. I suggest that some of the accepted calls of the past are archaic. Indeed, you may have an assignor, evaluator or league that tolerates or expects such behavior. If that is what you need to do to survive, then I support your calls. Enough name calling though, we both know it will serve little purpose other than the titillation of our egos. Lord knows neither of us need that. A2D? By the way, edit your last post. 
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 08:06am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hmmmmm.....
Quote:
Whatever!!!!!
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 10:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's a slippery slope. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the expected call is the right call to make... but still you have to wonder where that line gets drawn between being close enough.... and not close enough. kcs
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 10:49am
|
|||
|
|||
Here's the problem with your reasoning on that specific play. Let's say Albert didn't miss the plate by merely an inch. Let's say that he missed it by a foot. Would you still deny the appeal? How about if he stopped halfway between 3rd and home? Of course you wouldn't know if he did being in the tunnel and all... well obviously that's ridiculous since Albert clearly knows better. But wait, wasn't there a world series game a long time ago decided on a similar call, something about hitting a run scoring single and not touching first base?? I appreciate your digging deeply into the problem, for it specifically points up what I've been saying for 30 years on the national stage, longer in my local associations. 1. The purpose of the baserunning rules is to ensure the baserunner does not gain an advantage. 2. Realists always choose an "inch" on that play. It's called reductio ad absurdum, reducing an issue to the absurd. We argue it is absurd to call out a runner who misses a plate by an inch when there is NO question he is not gaining an advantage. The play forces those who cannot compromise into a ridiculous position. 3. Now, what if he misses by a foot? By three feet? I would argue we should use the current interpretation for errors. A runner leaves first early, gets to third, and realize he must return to first. He cuts across the mound and makes it back. After touchinjg first, he sees that the ball got away from the first baseman so he heads for second (the base he missed on his return) and is safe. Some, working on the principle of "last time by," argue that the umpire should not uphold the appeal. But that's wrong since the runner made no attempt to comply with the rules. Appeal at second; he's out. 4. That is the difference between the runner who stopped at second and the runner who missed the plate by an inch. One simply quit running, announcing he was happy at second. No big deal. The other knew he had a home run and just celebrated an inch too much. 5. If, in the umpire's judgment, the runner made no attempt to comply with the rules, the umpire can - and should - uphold an appeal. There's nothing unusual about that. The "distance" is not as important as the "intent." 6. Finally: I have been castigated because I don't reward good play. Whatshisname should return to my original, 1800-word message and re-read it to see how silly his riposte was. Now, I know that has nothing to do with you, but I've promised not to respond "directly" to his posts. (grin) BTW: I also believe he's windycityblue. Like so many criminals, he tried to keep his initials. He was Windy; now, he's "whats." Lah, me. [Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 22nd, 2005 at 07:43 PM]
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 04:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a question for those that do not like Rollie's articles?
Why are you guys still reading the posts and paying for the site? Is someone holding a gun to your head to make you read these articles? If you do not like what is being said, stop paying money to something that you do not believe in. I have never subscribed to this site for a reason. I also do not worry about what advice other individuals say. If you are not smart enough to know what to take in and what to throw out when someone talks to you about a subject, I am not sure how many of you can umpire or officiate. I go to many camps in different sports and you have to know when to tune out those that do not fit your philosophy. It is really easy guys. If you do not like the articles either do not read the articles, do not pay money to the site or take what you like and throw out what you do not like. It is really that simple.
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 06:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Windy City:
I accept that you will try to respond with passion and integrity, but leave the name calling for the "other's" on this site. And yes, my skin is thick. However, I don't understand how other officials can call each other insulting names, and this is not directed at you personally. Like you, I take great pleasure in insulting someone who has a lesser command of our fine language, but I will save this for someone I don't respect as near as much as I respect Carl Childress. BTW, I have scoured Carl's posts on this thread and find no sarcasm directed toward you or anyone else. Maybe I missed it? Bob P.
__________________
Bob P. ----------------------- We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself.
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 07:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I have a question for those that do not like Rollie's articles?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rollie's articles are beyond terrible. I don't understand why I can't complain about how bad he is. Other writers generate discussion from their articles, so why can Rollie's not generate discussion also?
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 07:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob,
JJ deleted the post after some of our forum contributors became caustic. Carl did throw those barbs and I did not respond with name calling. I actually encouraged him to pursue the high road. JJ can verify the exchange, his integrity is rarely challenged here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was disappointed to see it take so long. When I first entered "the fray", I was forced to choose a new name. I did not try to use WCB, I actually selected my nom de net from a frequent jibe at umpires. I figured that my writing style, decision to address yet another "Get it Right" piece, and direct mention to Carl that I was back where I belong would be enough clues. As many have noticed, I have adapted my style in order to opine on this forum. While it is regrettably easy to taunt those with weaker writing skills, I will try to remain above the mudslinging. I did notice that only one other member has taken the time to address my concerns. Where do you draw the line in when making subjective calls? I asked if the umpire would allow the home run hitter to miss first and that was ignored. Why? If home is more important in the Robin Ventura example, I would like to see why it is less so in yours. I'm not sure why you won't respond directly, if you've read my pieces and were honest with yourself, you'd know there is validity in my cause. I was castigated three years ago when I first proposed that umpiring was changing and conferencing would replace replay as the modus. I said that it would sneak into collegiate baseball and it did. Our world is changing and we are more accountable, even on the LL fields. Video cameras have changed the way we behaved thirty years ago. We are paid to do a job and I believe that means hustling, being in the best position to make the call, communicating and relying on your crew for help. Maybe this isn't the way it is done in your neighborhood. If that is the case then you have a much more difficult job than I. Agreeing to disagree was first put forth by Carl in the now deleted thread. I agreed with his diplomacy and have tried to promote this concept. My job is not to enlighten or convince you anymore than Carl, JJ, Sal or any other reasoned umpire. Providing a valid counterpoint when appropriate is. You say safe and I say out. Each of us believes we are correct. We should be used to that after all of these years.
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 07:42pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Re: I have a question for those that do not like Rollie's articles?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Sat Oct 22, 2005, 10:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Windy, thanks for the thoughtful response.
It is unfortunate that I missed some deleted threads, it really prevented me from getting the complete picture of what happened between Carl and yourself. I'm going to drop this right here, and attempt to do as you say, and get into the meat of your argument and see if we agree or A2D. I suspect that we agree more then disagree, much like with Carl and myself. About Mr. W. I read Roland with a salt shaker in hand. No, not for the tequila (I haven't tried that yet), but for the grain of salt that one needs with Roland. And yes, sometimes I shake my head at some of his ideas, but it takes all kinds to make this world go. Its like after I started using the GD System. It was very new, no one really knew how to teach it, so what did the instructors do at every clinic I attended? Well Bob, that looks OK, but you really need to get closer to the catcher, pull you head down a bit, get heal-toe. You know how it goes. You just smile and say thanks, and promptly ignore what they say. We all know what is best for ourselves, so give Roland a chance. He does have some good things to say. No one has to go out and do everything he suggests. What works for me, may not be for you. If a runner misses a base, and no one sees it but you, did it really happen? There is no "automatic" call anymore, since FED rules were changed. Ever make the "right" call at the "WRONG" time? What happened? Wasn't pretty I bet. I had one of those. It was a championship game, winning run on 3b. Defensive coach wants to intentionally walk the batter to set up a double play, however, they had never practiced the intentional walk. Offensive coach yells out to remind me, "Bob, that catcher can't jump out of that box too soon, you know". Great, thanks coach. I'm thinking, hoping, praying; please make this work. Of course, on the first pitch, the catcher bounces about 10 feet out of the catchers box. I call the balk, send the runner home and end the game. Lah me....what to do? Bob P.
__________________
Bob P. ----------------------- We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself.
|
|
Sun Oct 23, 2005, 03:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is an exact play from a Super Sectional (Final 16 teams) in Illinois a few years ago. The batter for the better seeded team hits a bomb, clearng the fence by more than a high school kid should. His team is celebrating, but we have a policy that keeps the teammates off the dirt until he touches home. He is beaming as he sees what awaits him and misses the dish by half of a foot - that's all, but enough that people could see it. At Nortwestern University's field (the game site), the fans are right on top of the action. Predictably, the umpire, fans and defensive team see him miss. They wait for him to enter the dugout amidst the revelry. Then...yep, they appeal and the home plate umpire (three man crew) calls him out. The run comes off the board and the place is up for grabs. You better believe that he took the heat for making the proper call on an unusual play. He wound up working the State Final that year and went back for his second trip this year. So much for stunting your advancement. He is consistently ranked as one of the top officials in this state and works multiple high school sports at the championship level.
My question - again not answered by anyone here - what do you do on the fence clearer and the batter/runner misses first base by a few inches/half a foot/full step? It is no less trivial to the outcome of the play, much less the game. While I can appreciate your contention that certain coaches demand the expected call, they only do this when it is their favor. These same men jump up and down about missed bags, tags and dropped baseballs. They want the 12-6 strike in the dirt when their ace is on the mound. They scream bloody murder about it when it is called on their .106 hitting batter. I submit that no matter which tact you choose, you ultimately have to sleep knowing that you called it fairly. That doesn't mean both ways, it suggests objectivity and respect for the game. I was glad to see that my words have not lost their command. I appreciate your honesty and look forward to more exchanges. Who knows, maybe we'll agree completely some day.
|
|
Sun Oct 23, 2005, 09:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why is that a counterexample? You said yourself that everyone in the place saw the miss. Everyone expected him to be called out on appeal, and PU made the expected call. That half the people didn't like it is business as usual when we call an out.
But regarding your more general point: you keep harping on "where do you draw the line." I take it that Carl and others have been suggesting that the art of making these calls requires developing the judgment to know when to call the out. This is not an algorithmically determined science: to answer your question there would have to be a strict rule of the form: "Always call an out when (and only when) A, B, C, ... or Z." There is no such finite rule: any you might try to state would have exceptions, given the infinite permutations of the game. When no exceptionless rule exists, some say, "well, I guess anything goes!" Not so: the easy outs are still easy. The only points of disagreement lie with the hard cases. And experience and good training are needed to inculcate good judgment and enable one to make those calls consistently. That's not a matter of learning a rule better. So there's a satisfactory explanation of why nobody has answered your question. The explanation is that it has no answer since it's the wrong question. Hm, I feel another article coming on...
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hmmmmm.....
Linear Mode
